Us & Them: A Student Music Video Project

Going to be posting more from my students in the next month or so. Here's a music video that was part of a final project by a Ingo Hutzenlaub and Devon Sprague. Enjoy!

Another Course Blog: sf@SF

My science fiction course begins in less than an hour, so I'm officially launching the course web site and course blog right...about...now! Since it focuses on post-W.W.II U.S. writers, it will actually be very much about American Identities!

Who Am I?

Here's the second student paper, this one from someone who wishes to remain anonymous. In the course of my career, I've given out fewer than a dozen A+s on student papers. This was one of them. [Update 4/9/08: Apparently other people on my campus think so--a version of this just won a campus-wide writing award!]

***

Who am I? Who do I want to be? Why am I here? What is my identity? Why are we all different? Though these questions may seem straight out of a cheesy self-help book on “discovering who you are” or “finding yourself” that most people would be embarrassed if caught looking at in a bookstore, they are fundamental questions that most of us don’t spend enough time pursuing. We’re too busy, we say, have too much that needs to get done. Like most people, I often rush around doing things, half the time not thinking about why I am doing them, much less who the “I” is that does them.

Identity is multi-layered, multi-faceted, and nuanced, a mosaic that changes elements as the contexts of our lives change. It affects how we portray ourselves, how we read other’s behavior, and how we categorize ourselves and others into groups. Who am I? It’s a seemingly simple question. I am a student. I am a Sociology and a Women’s Studies major. I am sister, a daughter, a cousin, a friend. I am a member of several organizations. I am a Capricorn. I am a person who likes to travel. I am a middle child. I am a former mental patient. I am both a cat and a dog person. I am an American. I am white. I am a woman. The list could go on and on. We do not normally think about these things unless some crisis prompts a screeching “Who Am I?” to circle around our heads, and even then, it is more commonly a “What am I going to do?” especially during life transitions.

When asked, most of us respond to the question of identity with something related to what we do, or our relation to someone important in our lives; we respond with the more contextual/changeable aspects of our lives rather than the more obvious fundamental qualities that become taken for granted and as such, there is no need to ponder them. Or is there? And are these qualities really fundamental? Do some of the problems with conflicts among people with differing identities stem from our lack of taking the time to explore these issues? For example, I am female and identify as a woman. For some people, gender identifications are not constants and/or they are grounds for much consideration. For me, though I think about sex/gender in a theoretical way through classes, and though I do not see myself as a typically feminine woman, I identify as a woman nonetheless and it does not rouse much thought on a day-to-day basis. It is plainly there. It is what I am. But were it not for my explorations of being a woman through some of the experiences I have had and for theoretical explorations as a student, I would probably seldom/never really have thought about what it means to be a woman in our society, or how being a woman in a society in which women continue to be oppressed has shaped my life. Nor would I probably have begun to actively participate in organizations working for change.

That being said, my gender is much more salient to me than some other characteristics for the most part, due solely to the fact that being a woman in a society in which women continue to be oppressed has negative personal consequences. How many of you or your female friends been felt up in a public place? How many are survivors of sexual or domestic violence? are afraid to walk home at night? spend hours on making themselves look “pretty”? have eating disorders? are torn between being a prude or a whore? dumb themselves down in middle/high school because smart girls aren’t liked? get paid less than their male colleagues? The list could go on infinitely. I could answer “yes” to all of these at varying points in my life, a fact that both enrages me and makes me sad. And I know I am not the only one.

Race and Ethnicity have had comparatively little impact on most of my life, because I am white in a society in which white is privileged. I don’t have to worry that anything I say will be taken as representative of all “white” people. In stores, I never have to worry about being followed by managers due to an expectation that I am shoplifting. When I speak, people will listen and not pass off what I say solely on the basis of who I am. Of course, with the intersection of white female, at times what I say may be passed off as feminist rants; even then, being shut out would not be on the basis of my race. People don’t reach out to touch my hair without permission. If I turn on the television, open a magazine, or read a book, I will see people who look like me. In school, I will learn about the great things people like me--white people--did. The list could continue ad infinitum. Being white where white is privileged and is considered normative leads to much less obvious social effects than being non-white, in which otherness becomes a part of one’s daily experience.

Unlike many people, I have had the opportunities to live overseas, which has led to a comparatively early recognition of race/ethnicity as a “thing” to be explored. Being overseas was what sparked by interest in learning about the social world, and perhaps even set me on the course towards pursuing sociology academically. Race and ethnicity became a more conscious aspect of my identity during the time I have spent overseas. In sixth grade, my family lived in India for a year, and then in eleventh grade I was an exchange student in Japan. In addition, I have also traveled to Germany, Austria, Nepal and Poland.

In the European countries I visited, my race/ethnicity did not become much of an issue, as I am of European descent. However, my real “race awakening,” so to speak, occurred when I was ten and living in India. For the first time in my life, I stuck out like a sore thumb solely because of the way I looked, and it was obvious that I was an outsider. I was conspicuously “different” and at times looked on with suspicion as a foreigner. This was especially true because the area in which we were living, foreigners were seldom found. It was not an area anyone would ever visit to sight-see. To get to the university housing where we were living, we had to pass through the Navy Nagar. Getting through and into our building required identification cards, all thoroughly inspected, especially before the guards came to know us. Being so obviously different was rather unsettling, as was having people stare often and take every little thing I did as representative of the way Americans do things. It made me much more observant of how I presented myself, even at that young age.

In addition to obviously being an outsider and all of the ramifications that brings, there were times in India during which our obvious whiteness provided a possible threat. Within the first few weeks of our arrival, my mother had an interview for a teaching position at the American International School of Bombay (where we kids ended up going to school). She brought me along with her to the interview. On our taxi ride there, we suddenly found ourselves stuck in traffic that had been stopped by protestors filling the streets shouting angrily. My mother and I were alone. Not knowing the language, we could not understand what the crowd was shouting and had no way of knowing whether or not it was an anti-American demonstration. With the exponentially globalizing world of the early to mid 1990s, and India’s historic relationship with the west as a colonized country, tensions constantly simmered beneath the surface. Lingering in our memories were stories of the previous years’ infamous bloody “Bombay Riots.” While not against foreigners, these riots were recent enough to remain in collective consciousness. Our school even had “riot days” on which they closed for the anniversaries of particularly violent incidents. The protesters began walking, weaving between the stopped cars, and mom tried hurriedly to at least roll up the windows of the taxi, but they were broken. My mother yelled at me to crouch down on the floor of the taxi; she covered my blonde hair, thinking that at least with her dark hair she was less visible. The crowd eventually let us through as traffic began to flow again. We later found out it had been a demonstration against foreign, especially American, involvement in India’s university system. I think that is the only time I have actually felt that I would possibly be targeted solely for a simple fact about myself that I have no control over.

In India, though different, we were also part of a higher socioeconomic class than we were accustomed to in the United States, due to the strength of the dollar against the rupee. And although there was potential for being targeted as foreigners, the British had exported western hierarchies of race into India during its time as a colony. While different, we were not suddenly part of an oppressed group in the way that Africans who are among the elite in their home countries become when they immigrate to the United States due to the importance race plays. In other words, what I am trying to say is not that I have had experience with oppression due to my race, because that is not the case, but that living overseas did bring race awareness and the experience of being “different” than the norm with respect to race.

However, despite being fortunate enough to spend time overseas when relatively young, I think my race awareness only came early in comparison to other white people. I think of my cousin who is the product of a biracial marriage; my aunt is white and my uncle is black. As the flower girl for a wedding on her mother’s side of the family when she was about five years old, she had worn a hairpiece with fake flowers and ribbons, which were woven into a circle pinned in her hair. At the back, the multicolored ribbons came together and flowed down from the crown. For several weeks after the wedding, she wore the hairpiece, refusing to take it off even when going to bed, telling everyone it was her “hair.” She told her mother that she wanted long pretty hair like her cousins. Even at about five years old, though she did not have any theoretical understanding of race relations, nor did she know the history of her father’s family from Jamaica, she did have concrete knowledge of what was beautiful in American society, and she knew her dark, short, curly hair was not. She did eventually stop wearing the hairpiece, and I hope that as she grows up, she develops a positive self-image, but regardless, it illustrates the kinds of “race awakenings” that non-white people have from early childhood. They may not know history or theory as children, but societal messages that “white” is better than “non-white” become ingrained very early on. Not having to ever have to think about my “racial” features is part of my white privilege; white is not racialized, but rather only usually seen as the absence of non-white.

Regardless of the very real effects race/ethnicity has on people’s lives, I do not think that it is actually “real” in a biological sense. Genetic testing may be able to give us an idea of the historic migrations among people and tell us when certain groups broke off from others, forming their own sub-group that developed its own distinctive physical and cultural features throughout centuries. However, it does not tell us anything about race itself. It only tells us about the genetic variation among humans, and how that variation developed due to when certain ancestors went in certain directions or formed their own groups. It does not tell us what groups should be considered races, or provide genetic evidence supporting the ideas of race, as it is often used by those who believe race is real. They conveniently forget that it is people who decide which groups are considered “races”; these groups do not coincide well with the scientific data. For example, the most variation as far as genetics is concerned is among Africans; however, despite being the most genetically dissimilar, they are considered part of the same “race.” Just as people used science in previous generations to pick out physical features to categorize races, people today pick and choose which branches of the human family tree to use; the branches they pick just happen (by some mysterious coincidence) to fit exactly with historic notions of race that have been constructed by racist societies. Some people admit that humans decide which branches to use, but say that it does not matte--genetics still proves that race is biologically real--and it just proves that we were wrong about exactly which groups were “races.” But who decides? Where do we draw the line? Do we end up with 1,000 races? Would that be enough? NO. Because it does not matter what we know about the genetic heritage of groups of people. It is the social constructions of race that are driving its continued use and its continued effects, not the biological variation. A decision made by academics or politicians to suddenly create several racial definitions for Africans will not suddenly change the way society constructs black-ness or effects that being black has on people. It is already true that there are some Africans who are not physically black, but they are still regarded as belonging to the “Black” race, even if they can “pass” as being white. And regardless, the genetic testing from which people can find out their ancestral origin does not test their whole ancestry. It can only test one (for females) or two (for males) genetic lines--either the direct maternal or the direct paternal--ignoring all the other individuals over thousands of centuries that contributed to their genetic makeup. For example, if someone’s direct paternal line is European, but the whole rest of their ancestors are Asian, when tested through their y-chromosome, they would show up only as European.

That being said, while I definitely see race as socially constructed in nature, I sometimes am wary of simply saying that everything is socially constructed and leaving it at that, as there is a fine line between saying that something is socially constructed and invalidating the experiences of those who live with the palpable effects of such constructions in their everyday lives. It is true that something has real consequences regardless of whether or not it is real, so long as it is believed to be real. It is still a fundamental way in which we organize ourselves, and as such, it is important to not only look at the theoretical implications of race, but also at the practical implications these conceptions bring.

I tend to be someone who, despite knowing that the idea of ethnicity has a variety of problems, many of them similar to those of the conception of race, would like to hold onto it much more than I tend to feel the draw to hold onto race. I think it is perhaps that the distinction made between ethnicity and race is that of culture versus biology, respectively. The biological basis of race has been challenged, but ethnicity still seems to be cultural, whether or not the distinct and mutually exclusive categories set up under the current system of ethnicity hold up. I am not suggesting that ethnicity is actually cultural fact, but only that I find it harder to let go of notions of concrete ethnicity than those of race. Further, I am not suggesting that we simply need more categories, because that would not do much to fix anything. People, myself included, need to get away from the “add more categories and let people choose more than one category so everyone fits” fix to the problems of classifying people by race/ethnicity. And thus far, I have only figured out what I would not do about race and/or ethnicity, rather than anything about what I would do, and what they are not more so than what they actually are.

I also question how much what people view as their “ethnic” heritage is really “ethnic” and how much has more do to with specific family traditions. One could say perhaps, that ethnic traditions are those shared among groups of families who either live in or share ancestors from particular locations. But I think that sometimes ignores all the heterogeneity within groups. While in Japan, I remember taking many things my first host family did as the “Japanese” way of doing things. As I lived with subsequent host families (4 in total), I learned very quickly that many of the things I had thought were Japanese—a reflection of cultural differences--were actually specific to that particular family. This was probably especially true, as my first host father was a Shinto priest, so much of their day-today life revolved around the large shrine adjacent to their house.

However, even in my own life, I have come to learn that many of the things I have grown up with, things I believed to be part of our ethnic traditions, were actually much more recently begun, and specific to particular families. I already have a mélange of European “ethnicities” from which to take traditions--German, Polish, Alsatian, Czech, English, Irish--but many things are more closely tied to family than ethnicity. For example, the anise cookie recipe we use comes from my great-grandmother. In addition, through family members having explored genealogy, we have come to learn that in several cases, what we thought we knew about our ethnic heritage was simply wrong. On more than one occasion, someone hid what their “true” background was, probably for better marriage and job prospects. My great-grandfather hid the fact that his mother was a Jew from Buffalo, NY. My great-great grandfather on another side converted in secret from being Lutheran to Catholic on the night before his wedding, though the way my grandparents talk, one would think their family was Catholic since the dawn of time. My great-grandmother on another side told everyone that her family was French Canadian, and wove tales such as her father being the middle-heavyweight boxing champion of Quebec, when in reality her grandparents had emigrated from the Palatinate. The Jewish and French-Canadian examples probably have a lot to do with the social and political climate of the time, as my great-grandfather who hid his being Jewish, probably did so because he wanted good prospects for his daughter. I have heard that he had is heart set on her being a debutante as well, which she would not have been able to do if it was known that she had any Jewish blood. The great-grandmother who hid the German connection probably did so because she was coming of age, and looking for both a job and a husband during World War I.

How much of what anyone knows about their “ethnicity” is true? How do we measure the “truth” of ethnicity? Especially in a world that is become more and more globalized, in which identity seems to be a thing we pick and choose from among many possible elements found worldwide--something we consume, rather than something we are--how do we define our ethnic background? How much relevance does it have to our lives? I don’t necessarily have answers to any of the questions I keep asking, but it is important for all of us to start asking these questions and to continue to ask them. There will probably never be a neat synthesis, a one-size-fits-all solution, but I don’t think that is necessary, nor something we really should be seeking. Nothing in the social world is static, so any nice solution we come up with would be obsolete very quickly. Granted, on a practical level, we need to come up with something we can generally agree upon, because without that, we would never get anything done, and bureaucratic institutions need to have an agreed-upon way to categorize people. On a more personal and interpersonal level however, I think we need to cultivate the idea of identity almost as a dialectic relationship with ourselves, the elements of who we are and who we want to be constantly shifting. We need to simply learn to be okay with multiplicity and tension and messiness, and get away from thinking about identity as fitting in a particular category, or choosing from several distinct categories. We need to learn to embrace the variety and amorphous elements and get away from dualistic thinking and rigidly-bounded categories.

Another Example of Race Manipulation

Another European example would be when Adolph Hitler introduced his interpreted concept of the Aryan Race. His characteristics of having a tall stature, blond hair, and blue eyes were a more accurate depiction of peoples of Scandinavian descent. And never mind that he himself was a not so tall, brown haired, and brown eyed Austrian. And the word Aryan actually derives from a different concept than it was portrayed. Aryan actually refers to, in European culture, to the original speakers of the Indo-European languages and their descendants. It can also refer to Indo-Iranian peoples and also has other meanings in the Sanskrit and Avestan languages, usually positive and in a spiritual context. But in Adolph Hitler’s case, the concept of race was manipulated and wielded into a hammer used to smash opposition. In order for Hitler to gain broader power, he had to gain more control of the financial establishment. Given that the Jewish population was the current financial incumbent, these were the people that he had to attack. And under the guise of an ethnic cleansing, of sorts, as well as other false pretenses, he ruthlessly and swiftly removed them.

Manipulation of Race

Sometimes the social construction of race can flat out contradict historical and genetic reality. Eastern Europe, past and more recent, will be used as an example. In high school I was always taught that two of the major causes of the First World War were nationalism and alliances. This is also true, to a certain extent, of the Second World War. Nationalism was simply described to me as extreme pride in ones country and a belief that ones country was superior to another. But the notion of being from the superior country, and having that make one superior than someone else from a less superior country also ties into nationalism. But this notion manifested itself into racial superiorities and inferiorities with nationalistic and linguistic overtones. The Russians saw themselves as racially superior to the Hungarians, who saw themselves as racially superior to Serbs, who saw themselves as racially superior to the Bulgarians, who saw themselves as racially superior to the Albanians, who saw themselves as racially superior to the Romanians etc. The fact of the matter is that these people who live in Eastern Europe are all Slavic.

Slavic people are speakers of the Slavic language family, which is branch of the Indo-European peoples living mainly in Europe. And the Slavic homeland is Eastern Europe. In the sixth century some migrated to Northern Asia (Russia, etc.) and into the Balkan region. And there are some subdivisions within the Slavic people. Western Slavic refers to Czechs, Poles, and Slovaks. Eastern Slavic refers to Belarusians, Russians, and Ukrainians. And Southern Slavic refers to Bosnians, Bulgarians, Croats, Macedonians, Montenegrins, Serbs and Slovenians. This shows that the social construction of race can be inaccurate when measured against historical and genetic evidence.

The Croats and Serbs have committed genocides and ethnic cleansings for decades. There have been such atrocities even before most of the countries declared their sovereignty from the former Yugoslavia. The violence witnessed between the two during World War II did not occur because genocide is a "natural" product of Serbo-Croatian relations, but rather because of the desire of the fascist Ustase to create an ethnically pure Croat state, which in turn called for the elimination of Serbian and Muslim minorities in Croatia.

Radovan Karadzic was in fact a family doctor who practiced on people regardless of ethnicity until he became the infamous president of the Republika Srpska. What occurred then was a result of manipulative leaders like Ante Pavlic, Slobodan Milosevic, and Franjo Tudjman who exploited and manipulated people's nationalist leanings to gain power and prominence. While it is true that the people must go along with them for their agendas to be successful, it is also true that without such personalities, the potential for violence in the Balkans is significantly diminished.

The American Identity

Today, America is well known as the biggest, multicultural nation in the world. This character has been formed by a massive immigration which comes from all over the world every single year. Even since America was found and built as a country in 1783, its population is mostly constructed with the immigration, mainly from Northern and Western Europe at that time; then the area was broaden to other parts of Europe, Latin America, and Asia as widely as we now can see all ethnic groups only in this country. According to such history, it could be said that America is created nation; and this is the most different point I feel from my home country, Japan. Japan is a nation which had been formed with only one race, Japanese, and banned immigration at all. Though we now realize an importance of our nationality as the globalization has been developed, almost all Japanese, including me, have undoubtedly identified ourselves as Japanese, or even have not been seriously aware of doing so, since our families and neighbors are all Japanese. In contrast to such our situation, however, what does “Americans” mean for people who live in America, where various races are mixed and has been made for 224 years? Where do their nationalities belong to?

As a basis of this examination, I want to refer to the historical beginning of immigration and nativism more specifically, especially in the age of Modernism. Including the settlers or natives of America, early immigrants were mostly from Western and Northern Europe, such as Britain and Germany. However, since the end of nineteenth century, so many people immigrated also from Southern and Middle-East Europe and Asia that the population had been diversified. People, who already moved and were constructing their own country of America, were embarrassed with such rapid change occurred in their situation and tried to restore it by discriminating new immigrants. In 1882, the first official discrimination was made towards Chinese immigrants, since they were a threat to natives as cheap labors; and also, KKK revived in 1920 and attacked blacks, Jews, Catholic and others. In addition, the idea of Nativism was brought from people’s anxiety for political and economic structures and safety in America, at this time. Then later, since natives’ worry was deepened as WWI took a place, the law of assigning immigrants to some European countries was signed in 1924. While removing most new comers except whites of Anglo-Saxon, there was another movement of Americanization towards remained immigrants. Unlike the idea of discrimination, this action is based of treating all people in America equally then constructing the country as united. After about 40 years, in 1965, the law of assigning immigrants was abolished; therefore, the population in America was rapidly diversified again. As it was, a positive thought about variety of race and ethnic group in America, called pluralism or multiculturalism, has appeared in a society since 1980s. Though there are also opponents, who see the thought as may bring a collapse of American tradition, as well, any legal oppression of immigrants is gone today under a policy of abolition of racial discrimination and equality. (Natsuki Ariga, The twentieth century of America)

Now, focus on the present America again. Comparing to the Modern era, it seems that people’s views of nationality does not change that much. To prove this, for example, political scientist and historian Samuel P. Huntington shows his thoughts on the side of discriminating immigration in his writing, called Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity. In the book, Huntington defines America in term of Anglo-Protestant culture and “seems to show far greater concern for the preservation of the culture than for racial equality and the citizenship rights of non-whites.” (Wikipedia) However, not only putting forward American, say “traditional” culture little emotionally, he refers to that in the multicultural society, the loyalty of the immigrants to the United States and its core culture is fragile.” (The New Yorker: critics)

On the other hand, as the thought of assimilating immigrants, Israel Zangwill and Michef-Guillaume-Jean de Crevecoeur show their views of American. Zangwill says that “American ideals are not transmitted by descent but have to be embraced afresh.” Unlike the view of immigrants as a threat to America, which infiltrated first thorough the natives, and also unlike Huntington, his immigrants are “redemptive” and portrayed as “cultural newlyweds, more enthusiastically and loyally love with the country of their choice than citizens-by-descent.” Besides, Crevecoeur describes his American as whom “leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced…” According to his rhetoric, “America’s mission is to continue the trans-ethic demands.” In both Zangwill’s and Crevecoeur’s thoughts, there is an image of “melting pot” as a key. (Werner Sollors, Beyond Ethnicity: Consent and Descent in American Culture)

However, it seems that multiculturalism, the idea of encouraging immigration, is more generally accepted than those kinds of views above. Especially politicians nowadays, such as the President Bush, regularly support massive third world immigration. They push for immigration reform, allowing only immigrants with the education, skills, and wealth into the country. Different from other two types of views, this thought is based on much political and economic strategies of America. Yet, it is still debatable with some problems, such as illegal immigration.

Not only in a field of politics but also in general public, multiculturalism seems to be widely spread today. Moreover, I feel that people think “American” as their characteristics, not as their races. For example, one of my friends was born and lives in America but her parents are Japanese, herself as well. She looks Japanese, she talks Japanese, and she is familiar with Japan; but if I look just at her without such background and knowledge she has, I can say she is American because her sense of value and pattern of manner are so. At least, it is clear that there is something different from Japanese about her; thus I describe her as so American, but Japanese as well. Besides, even I was called as American or being Americanized by my friends, also. According to my friends, I am more self-assertive and active than other Japanese they know and think as who are more shy and quiet. In my experiences, “American” is like a symbol of who is frank and not imbued with a variety of people.

In conclusion, as far as I concerned, “Americans” of today are people who know who they are not only as racial and are able to claim their individuality aloud. Moreover, “Americans” mean multiculturalists. If I take a radical illustration, they are who step into the house with their shoes on, who love fried rice and spring rolls, and listen to R&B. One’s descent is less accounted; then people nowadays choose and define who they are on their own.

Today, the nationality belongs to individual sense. Therefore, people have to claim that they are Americans as they want. Each of those consciousnesses of being Americans and each of people’s love for country which hey believe as theirs are composing and maintaining the present America as it is.

Searching for the Elusive American Identity

These are turbulent times in America. On the global level, the United States continues to advocate Democracy in foreign nations, such as in the recently “liberated” Middle East. On a national level, the United States government is attempting to put new laws into effect, which are meant to limit support for illegal immigrants. On a local level, there is discussion of raising taxes for those who trade with reservations, in effect raising prices on the reservation, thus removing the incentive for citizens to do business on them. These three issues are related in that they all focus upon “others” and “non-Americans”; the foreigner in a foreign land, the foreigner illegally in American lands, and the indigenous non-American, surrounded by American land.

These issues, when simplified, can be seen as imposing the American identity upon others. The Middle East, for instance, is expected to become like America through democracy. Conversely, the illegal immigrant has been labeled as different and incompatible with the American identity, and is therefore being rooted out. The economic attack upon the reservations is an attempt to hurt business, which may one day lead to a collapse of the reservations, along with the Native American identities that go along with them. These issues are based upon the understanding of the American Identity, and how this understanding is applied to others.

This conclusion leads to an important question: what is the American Identity? If global, national, and local politics are to be based upon the understanding of the American Identity, it is of great importance to know what the American Identity is. What is American? To be American, does an individual have to be born in America’s borders, or is it a state of mind? These are the questions about this elusive American Identity that have led me to begin the following discussion.

If policy is often based upon the understanding of what it is to be American, it stands to reason that policy makers would be able to present a definition of the American Identity. With this in mind, I consulted the official government website (www.whitehouse.gov). Much to my disappointment, there was no clean-cut answer presented. The best description I could find was that Americans believe in Democracy, rights, equality, and prosperity. As an American myself, I agree that I do, as a matter of fact, like democracy, rights, equality, and prosperity. Yet, most individuals believe in rights, equality and prosperity. Also, unless I have been misled, the United States is not the only democracy in existence, but rather one of sixty-five democracies (http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/democrat.html). Unless I have been extremely misled, sixty-four of those nations are not the United States. Therefore, the official government definition of an American is not useful for our current task of defining the American Identity.

If the values of America, such as liberty and free trade, are shared with other nations, such as Canada and Britain, perhaps geography is to be considered. Are Americans a part of the American Identity because they were born in the United States? My Uncle would say no, as he was born in an American army base in Germany, yet is still an American by birth. Also, those who were not born in the United States have added to the American Identity. Albert Einstein was not born in the United States, and was not American, yet nuclear energy is seen as American. Currently, the United States wishes to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear power, and justifies its ability to interfere because it was the first to have nuclear power. Yet, as American as nuclear energy is, the majority of scientists working on the Manhattan Project had European accents. This shows that those born outside of America still affect the American Identity, whether they are foreign scientists, or my American Uncle, who happened to be born in Germany.

If geography can’t be used to explain the American Identity, perhaps culture can. American popular culture is, after all, totally unique. Then again, Canada enjoys the same music, television, movies, food, and clothing that Americans do. In fact, many famous American cultural icons are Canadian, including Dan Aykroyd, John Candy, Jim Carrey, Michael J. Fox, Brendan Fraser, Michael Ironside, Rick Moranis, and William Shatner, to name but a few. British culture is also a major part of American pop culture, which is clearly seen by the popularity of bands such as the Beatles and Franz Ferdinand, and the record-breaking sales of Harry Potter books and films. Not only is American culture found throughout the world, but it is also influenced by foreign nations. Therefore, it cannot be used to describe the elusive American Identity.

Perhaps I have gone about my task incorrectly. It might be that the American Identity exists because of the mixing of foreign cultures. America is, after all, the great melting pot. Throughout its existence, America has been the destination of immigrants from all over the world. Yet, this understanding has problems too. The United States received the bulk of its early immigrants from Europe, and therefore much of the “melting of cultures” was, originally, European cultures being mixed together. Does not the European Union propose to do something similar? If the mixing of European culture was an important aspect of the American Identity, does that mean the EU also shares this American identity?

The argument against this would be “no,” because the United States also mixed with Asian, African and Latino cultures. Yet, Europe had contact with Asian and African cultures before North America was even discovered. The English are known for their love of tea, which they obtained from Asia. As for Latino influences, the current laws targeting illegal immigrants affect most Latino Americans. It is this aspect of the American identity that policy makers are trying to remove. With the Latino culture being targeted and “unmixed,” and the EU sharing many of the “mixing” found in America, the melting pot understanding of America is no longer useful.

Perhaps the mixing of cultures in America is too specific an aspect of American history. America’s history is defined by revolution, civil war, industry, expansion, world trade, and being a superpower. Yet none of these aspects are unique. The English had a civil war hundreds of years prior to the American civil war. Mexico and France also had revolutions of their own. British achieved industrialization a century and a half before the United States. The United States was not the only nation to embrace expansion and claim it to be their destiny. Germany used the same argument prior to both world wars. The United States was not the first world power to embrace free trade; it merely took Britain’s place at the end of the First World War. As far as being a superpower, the United States shared this status with the Soviet Union, and today finds a rival in China.

All the more problematic is the nature of identifying with historical events. I am an American, as were my parents and grandparents, yet none of my ancestors fought in the Revolutionary War. Yet, the revolution is the symbolic representation of the American Identity. To make matters all the more confusing, I have ancestors who fought on both sides of the American Civil War. Does that mean that I am both a traitor and an American? I do not believe so, particularly because I do not support the notions of the Confederacy. Therefore, I am American because I pick which aspects of the past I link myself to. I link the winning of World War 2 to myself, particularly because my grandfather fought in it for the United States. Yet, I choose not to link myself to the poor treatment of Japanese Americans during the war. Events in the past don’t give individuals their American Identity, but rather it is the American Identity that allows them to feel linked to past events they choose to associate with, such as the Revolutionary War.

Having run out of options, I am forced to consider my own experiences to find the American Identity. I do this not because I feel I am the quintessential America. I do this because I know I am American, thus I must have the American Identity somewhere within. I am American in that I am a fourth generation American, and that I have had family fight in the Civil War, Spanish-American War, the First and Second World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Storm. I was raised by a family of optimistic, “hard work pays off” Americans. Yet it wasn’t until I lived in England for four months that I became aware of my one American Identity.

In September of 2005, I attended Oxford University, and lived in England until the end of December. Prior to leaving the United States, I had never thought of myself as American. I had considered myself a New Yorker, a Western New Yorker more specifically. Living in a country of foreigners, however, I became an “American.” When I travelled into the southern United States, the distinction of North and South existed. When I lived in Oxford, however, I did not see myself as a New Yorker and a Texan as a Texan, but rather, I saw us both as Americans.

It was in this foreign atmosphere that I realized the American Identity is abstract, and cannot be defined, but it can be felt through an “American kinship” of sorts. This became most apparent after spending a week in Italy. Knowing only the Italian phrases which I learned as a child from my grandmother, I had no means of communicating with the Italians, with the exception of “yes,” “no,” and pointing. When in Italy, my friend and I ran into two American girls, whom we became friends with. The girls were from Florida, whereas we were from New York. We were from State Schools, and they were from a private university. They were conservative and we were liberal. The girls were vegetarians, and we felt that the more adorable the animal, the tastier it would be grilled. Needless to say, there were clear differences.

Yet, we all got along wonderfully, because the fact we were all American made up for the differences. In America, surrounded by Americans, such a link would have seemed trivial. Yet, surrounded by Italians, the link of being American was important enough to overlook our differences. I believe this is the main aspect of the American Identity.

At first glace, it may be thought that the American Identity exists as an “Us vs. Them” style of thought. But this wasn’t so. We connected because it was understood that we were all American. The first Americans were not Americans because they were not British. They were all American because they were all facing the same problems: a new nation, in an unexplored part of the world. The American Identity cannot be described, because it is always changing. It is not based upon what makes Americans different from the rest of the world. The American Identity is based upon the understanding that all Americans have to face their problems together. This is why the American identity is strongest in times of need, such as war or depression. The American Identity is, on its most fundamental and unchanging level, the understanding that all Americans are equally American.