The Struggle to be Wholly American

Is it possible to be wholly American? This is a topic that seems to have come up time and again in late night conversations with friends at a bar or over a cup of tea. One of the most fascinating things about America is that no one wholly claims to be "American". We always refer our identity back to some ancestral home. Everything from how well we can drink, to the color of hair, to perhaps an argumentative nature is often attributed to the country/culture of our families supposed origin. Or rather, as far back as most of us can trace. It is rare, that any of us claim to be completely American.
The big joke of course at least in my circle of friends is, "well who would want to be?". I am of course partially guilty of this. I have aspirations of living for lengthy periods of time in my life abroad. I have a strong affinity to most things European. And while I would definitely not categorize myself as being what one would think of as a "typical American", it cannot be denied that no matter how much I would like to contribute myself to my European ancestors, the reality is...I'm just an American. not Scottish-German, not French-English...I am American.

Having unfortunately come to that conclusion, the question arises of what exactly that entails. Strangely, being an American is extremely hard to define or even generalize into a stupid-cliche because of the fact that so many of us still do identify with our cultural heritage that goes beyond the states.
There are obviously other reasons for this. (We are big country and Americans vary vastly depending what part of the states you are in, etc.) Nevertheless, it seems to mainly because of our big, ole "melting pot" mentality that causes it to be so difficult to completely identify or correctly describe what it exactly means to be American. (sounds like some essay question for junior high students to win some money and trip to D.C. or something right?)
Many may immediately interject at my utilization of describing America as having a "melting pot mentality". And they would be correct to say that there definitely has been numerous incidents of intolerance, skepticism and downright violent acts against other cultures in our nation's history. Recent events haven't proven otherwise in lieu of the building of a wall on our Mexican border and a general sentiment from conservatives that Mexicans are stealing our jobs and social welfare. However, an irony exists in all of that which is apparent to most of us and defends my usage of "melting pot mentality"; those people may not want them to be in our country but damned if we are gonna stop eating their food, watching their sports players, listening to their music, reading their translated books, etc etc.
The truth is that in America, we are constantly effected by other cultures. This is becoming a symptom of the entire world with the onslaught of a globalization. However, in America we have the privilege to experience many different cultures on various different levels. We are a nation built off of immigration, its in our backyard. How can we not be constantly affected by other cultures?

Unfortunately, our tendency to co-opt these other cultures and integrate them into our american society can sometimes have negative affects on that specific culture. We seem to have a skill at turning them often times into some sort of bastardized, westernized version of what it was originally. This causes misinterpretations and often lessens it into nothing more but consumerist trends. Essentially, this can often take away from that culture. Our co-opt of that culture can over time (usually from well-intentioned but overly liberal tendencies) can blend the differences between us and the culture. Overtime, this in turn seems develops a negative stigma when our differences are openly identified. ( i.e. describing a white kid who "dresses black" isn't me perpetuating a generalization about black people but accurately identifying that gee whiz...maybe there is a large contingency of black people in this country who have a very distinct fashion sense that is different from the way the average white suburbanite dresses. Who are you to take that away from them? Why is that negative again? How did everyone forget where rock n roll came from? No one seems to freak out when an asshole wearing a beret is described as looking 'french') Basically, there is nothing wrong with identifying differences. In fact, they are good to identify as long as they are respected. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be often realized or thought that white kids sporting dreads and listening to bob marley may be a subversive way of contributing to the transformation of jamaican rastafarian culture from something spiritual and sincere to a trendy american fad.

I hypothesize that much of this may have to do with the problem that exist within the original question of this blog, what does it mean to be American? It seems as though we are constantly in a state of identity crisis and thus are constantly searching for any connection we have to other cultures, countries, etc. While strange to say, it seems that the one defining characteristic of our country is to take other cultures, integrate it and have it become apart of us. Or maybe... like us until we can say they are 'us'? (Foucault and the body? Maybe...have to ask Grant about that one.)

This can also of course be applied to our current war in Iraq carried out under the guise of "bringing democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people". What makes us think that our western ideas of democracy and freedom are the perfect solution for everyone else. Is democracy and freedom the ONLY way to solidly identify ourselves as Americans?
I like to think not. In fact, I know from having the fortunate experience of growing up in a very culturally-mixed area of the country that there are a lot of good/interesting and unique things that are wholly and only american. Its just a bit more convoluted and confusing and not always entirely identifiable.

2- I read an interesting article about the life of Thomas Bernhard in a recent issue of The Believer. (yes, I am bring up Bernhard again). It basically described how Bernhard had a clear distaste for the customs of his country-Austria. However, on the other hand, he refused to ever learn another language because he wanted his novels to be wholly Austrian and unaffected by other cultures. Obviously, this is partially impossible. And yes, it sounds slightly nationalistic. However, anyone who has read Bernhard knows that this isn't the case. He merely wanted to be as in touch with where he came from as possible. This in turn, Bernhard hoped, would be revealed within his writings.
Reading this, once again lead me to the question of how could I write and be wholly, truely American in style. Thinking of American literature, who comes to mind? Hemingway? Funny how all his novels take place in Europe and that he spent most of his time NOT in America. Carl Sandberg poetry? -Staunch Socialist. Faulkner? Perhaps. Even then, Faulkner is such a perfect representation of American literature from a certain, specific area in America. One which I cannot identify with at all. It is almost like I am reading a foreign novel. Nevertheless, it brought up an interesting point of discussion which I feel like can be expanded and stretched in a variety of different ways.
In conclusion, being American to me still kind of is annoying and gross. The eagle and the red, white and blue, and cowboy hats and all that. It makes me want to barf. But then look at what it is to be American through who you are, and who your friends are, and it suddenly becomes a bit easier to swallow. I don't think I realized this until I traveled abroad. It didn't really make me 'home sick' but it made me realize that it isn't all that bad back home.
nevertheless, i still want to live in europe.
i'll catch my baseball games via internet...hahahaha...
(p.s. this post was inspired mostly by some recent posts from a couple of my friends...sorry if i stole)

Festen

film review (Taken and adjusted from an essay I am writing for my European Comedy and Satire course):

The Celebration is a disturbing film that successfully draws on its dark aspects to create a story around the taboo subject of incest and the comedy within. Through utilizing the simplified filming techniques of Dogme 95 and by candidly embracing its themes, the film creates an unsettling intimate atmosphere to satirically examine and display the dysfunctions of an upper-class family. The outcome is a film that ultimately proves to be successful at becoming darkly comedic through a conscious and well-created balance between style and narrative.
What proves to be the most important element of The Celebration is the interaction of the characters. In a certain sense, the film is about oppressed individuals attempting to overcome their problems. However, it is through the interactions of all the characters involved that proves to be the key element in helping the story take shape and become entirely horrific and yet wholly absurd and comedic.
This effect is heightened by the film's technical aspects. The unsteady camera work makes the viewer feel directly involved within the film and the characters. However, Vinterberg never lets you feel at ease within the group. Rather, he places you intimately at a seat amongst the rest of the guest and makes you feel awkwardly apart of the scene. Through the shaky camera and close up shots at face-level, the viewer is forced to almost be apart of something that they should not be while simultaneously feeling the same discomfort as some of the characters.
This is also emphasized by the lack of soundtrack throughout its entirety. A musical accompaniment in a film is often utilizes as an indicator or to emphasis a specific emotion being played out upon the screen. The Celebration’s lack thereof proves to only naturally heighten such emotional sentiments. Vinterberg allows the low murmur of conversation and the awkward clinking of dinnerware to be the only indication of the looming emotional reactions of the dinner guest. The lack of musical score in such scenes adds additional elements of realism that Vinterberg is quick to utilize in obtaining an amplified sense of shock, anxiety and embarrassment. Such reactions leak out of the screen and seem to infect the viewer, which further heightens the strange comedy of the tragic situation.
At moments, Vinterberg also allows the viewer to be a voyeur rather than closely involved. It is at these scenes that the film sprinkles comedic elements to make the tragic and vulgar subject matter slightly endurable. These brief interludes often act as a comedic relief. When compared to the greater context of the film, they prove to only further reveal the genius of The Celebration’s ability to find humor within that which is entirely tragic. This causes the film to be all that more disquieting and yet entirely brilliant.
Suggested for fans of Lars von Trier and those wishing Todd Solondz films were a little bit more raw.

Get active(tense)

Second installment of Curmudgeon Corner coming out in a week or two...getting sorta serious and political in this one. And dare I say...hopeful too...


Our Idle Crime

A popular sticker ambiguously stating the date 1/20/2009, implying Bush's last day in office, has been a common sight in Portland for the last several years. I eagerly wait that day along with many of us. However the sticker instigates more than just feelings of hopeful anticipation, but also reveals a much bigger predicament that much damage can still be down from now until that date.
The easiest thing to do in America right now in regards to issues of politics and the state of our civic environment is to point the finger at Bush. And while Bush and co. are the primary individuals for the mess that we and a new cabinet come 2009 will have to face, it is no longer enough to simply sit and discuss it. Does anyone actually believe that getting Bush out of office will suddenly change everything? Continuing to put our faith (and vote) into those opposing him and his policies is proving to do very little. More must be done.
Unfortunately the American people are looking passive and easily controllable. Comparative to our history, the drive of the American people to organize and instigate social and political change is at a low point. The lack of organized protest against the policies of our government is a clear indication of our disillusionment. Yet the absence our dedication is the greatest crime that any anti-war, anti-Bush or anti-conservative American can do right now. Stickers and conversations are not enough. Scrawling “fu*k Cheney” on a bathroom stall in thick, black pen is a mute point.
Is this passiveness the fate of our future? Or can we once again become a country that doesn’t so easily draw their opinion according to party lines but whether or not the social welfare and interest of the greater population is being addressed and met? United we are not, but divided does not need to imply idleness and inactivity.
The issues at hand are not one’s that many of us would disagree over. One would be hard-pressed to find a strong contingent of people in this country who openly supports the justification of torture, the deterioration of privacy or the growing dictatorial inflation executive powers.
The war in Iraq, the failing infrastructure of our nation, our growing national debt, the destruction of our education system, and the increasingly important issue of climate change are all enough to make you mad. But how much of is a priority to you? How much do you really do? What does it take to cause mass strikes and protests in America today?
The answer has yet to be determined. However the likelihood is seemingly bleak. Why? Well, consider your life:
Can you still go to the movies? Can you still play your Nintendo Wii? Can you still check Myspace? Can you still spend an evening in a bar with your opinions and friends? Yes, you can. And as long as a majority of us are still can participate in these activities then major social or political change seems doomed to fail.
In the most recent issue of Harpers, author Garret Keizer wrote an article determining that the greatest depredation Bush’s presidency has caused is the pillaging of hope in the American people. Keizer goes on to call for a general strike by all Americans that would entail a major curtail of consumption, work and activities involving communication such as watching TV or utilizing a cell phone. Despite its passion and logical points of contention against American idleness, the article reads like an unlikely pipe-dream. However, Keizer is quick to attack such disbelief:
“…how readily and with what well-practiced assurance would your find yourself producing the words “It won’t do any good”? Plausible and even courageous in the mouth of a patient who knows he’s going to die, the sentiment fits equally well in the heart of a citizenry that believes it is already dead.”
Over the last seven years America has proven to be almost unwilling to habitually participate in such movements. On Sunday we are protesting, but by Monday we are back at school and our jobs. It is as if we have forgotten how to properly and effectively demonstrate. And that should bother you.
Right now, closing the growing disparity between us and the bureaucrats that run this country is an essential action that must be taken. We must show not only our current administration but those that will come after it as well that the future of our fate will be determined by us.
Can we be assured that a new president will be enough to steer us back into the right direction? The state our current situation should be enough to not allow one to feel safely guaranteed.
Consider: How many soldiers and civilians will die while we wait for the next president, or congressional discussion to arrive? How many prisoners at Abu Ghraib will get tortured? Or as Keizer presented in his article through the eloquent words of the Chilean poet César Vallejo:

“A man shivers with cold, coughs spits
up blood.
Will it ever be fitting to allude to my inner soul?...
A cripple sleeps with one foot on his
shoulder.
Shall I later on talk about Picasso, of
all people?...
Someone is cleaning a rifle in his kitchen,
What’s the worth of talking about the Beyond?”


A bomb explodes in Iraq killing civilians and soldiers?
Shall I play videogames?

a humanist poem.

The poem below I feel like almost reads my thoughts. It is also how i feel sometimes about academics, philosophy, etc...
However, the real reason for me putting this poem up will make more sense with my next blog; which will be an article I recently wrote.
for now enjoy...


A man walks by with a stick of bread on his shoulder.
Am I going to write, after that, about my double?

Another sits, scratches, extracts a louse from his armpit, kills it.
How dare one speak about psychoanalysis?

Another has entered my chest with a stick in hand.
To talk then about Socrates with the doctor?

A lame man passes by holding a child's hand.
After that am I going to read Andre Breton?

Another trembles from cold, coughs, spits blood.
Will it ever be possible to allude to the profound I?

Another searches in the mud for bones, rinds.
How write, after that, about the infiinte?

A bricklayer falls from a roof, dies and no longer eats lunch.
To innovate, then, the trope, the metaphor?

A merchant cheats a customer out of a gram.
To speak, after that, about the fourth dimension?

A banker falsifies his balance sheet.
With what face to cry in the theater?

An outcast sleeps with his foot on his back.
To speak, after that, to anyone about Picasso?

Someone going to a burial sobbing.
How then become a member of the Academy?

Somone cleans a rifle in his kitchen.
How dare one speak about the beyond?

Someone passes by counting with his fingers.
How speak of the not-i without screaming?

-Cesar Vallejo