Reimagined Communities

What surprised me the most in these two chapters is the nearly-conscious selectivity in choosing what is mainstream, or in what is important to America. In “King Tut, Commodity Nationalism,” McAlister goes into great detail about the ways that Americans tried to make Tut and his relics more like white America. Whites insisted on his decent from Eurasian peoples at the same time that blacks were insisting on his African-ness. Both groups saw features in his face the proved his inclusion in only one group: either white or black. Neither group even entertained the much more plausible thought that Tut was both white and black, as mixing of the races was very common in that area of the world. I believe this was a result of each group wanting to identify Tut’s and Egypt’s wealth, sophistication, history, and mystique with themselves, to the exclusion of the other.
Additionally, the status of the items found in Tut’s tomb was questioned. While the Egyptians rightly argued that the items were artifacts of Egyptian history, owned by the Egyptian people, white Americans and Europeans argued that the items were works of art that should be openly available to the whole world, meaning themselves. I have never heard of any state challenging Greece’s possession of their historical works of art, nor have I heard of any state challenging any other African nation’s possession of their works of art.
What differentiates Tut’s items from items from Greece, or from Mali? Two differences come to mind. First, just as Europe and American did when they were colonial powers, they maintained the mindset that they can lay claim to whatever land, people, or art they want simply because they are technologically superior. Why do they want it? Because they can take it. Also, they high value of the items led to pure greed. Every culture creates its own beautiful art; however, not every culture creates them in solid gold. This differentiates the Egyptian artifacts from wooden or ceramic pieces of art found elsewhere in Africa and around the world.
In “The Good Fight” McAlister shows the lengths to which evangelical Christians went to identify with the Jewish state of Israel. Though Jews had previously been systematically discriminated against, evangelicals came to see identification with the Israelis as a sure method of obtaining their attributes. First, Jews were known as God’s chosen people, while Americans were coming under ideological attack from within and without the nation. Second, Israel maintained a strong, effective fighting force in a time when Americans doubted their own military strength.
Believing that the Jews were God’s chosen people on Earth, the evangelicals saw themselves as God’s “spiritual people” (175). They hoped that their support for the Jews would reflect favorably upon them in the afterlife. Supporting Israel also provided an ideological battle they could win. After all, in their doomsday prophecies, which they believed had been set in motion with the founding of the Jewish state after WWII, God returns to Earth to fight on the side of the Jews. What better odds could you want?!
Occurring during the same time period as the Vietnam Conflict and its ensuing controversy, Israel’s war with the surrounding Arab states, their attack on the Palestinians following the assault on Israeli Olympians, and the Entebbe operation were demonstrative acts of military force and strength of will. Because the nation was so divided over the Vietnam Conflict, among many other issues of the 1960’s and 70’s, the nation needed something with which they could identify and on which they could agree as a nation.
Coming from a nation that survived a civil war over issues of race and ideology, the adaptation of Egyptian artifacts and ethnicity and Jewish nationalism as American ideals was very surprising. Especially surprising was the involvement of a highly conservative Christian group in the support of a radical Jewish state. However, given the centrifugal force of conservative Western culture, if they could not create the art or magnificence of ancient Egypt or the self-determination of Israel, the idea that they would usurp these manifestations of greatness from others is not that surprising after all.

Borderlessness When Convenient

I too often grapple with the concept of multiculturalism in “post-nationalist” America. Often we create definitions and communities embedding ourselves in them. While language creates reality, it questionable whether it has the power to control whole societies, unless we allow it to. My focus is not so much on the term’s (globalization, multiculturalism, post-modernism, and post-nationalism) content, but when each term becomes fundamental in ascertaining a particular goal. In other words, people do not strive for these terms, but instead have these terms work for them. A prime example is the word “multicultural.” It never ceases to amaze how American culture employs such words. When it comes to free trade as opposed to fair trade, “multiculturalism” and “globalization” are also almost socio-economic necessities. All of the sudden there are no borders and the world becomes a stage for equal opportunity and/or exploitation. However, when it comes to issues of U.S. immigration, we want to build a huge wall, which if anything, is an overstatement of the word “border.” If the same persons who are subjected to “equal exploitation” were given some sort of superior military through the free trade of arms globalization would become quite problematic for many U.S. citizens. This is what I would like to refer to as Borderlessness when Convenient. We as an industrialized nation will only pursue diversity and multiculturalism when it is convenient or in our best interests. On the other hand, multiculturalism in the U.S. is a factor that cannot be ignored. While some accept multiculturalism with open arms aspiring one day to have a harmonious subsistence under diversity, others simply “tolerate” diversity only because it exist in their environment. David Rieff could not have been more precise about such terms when he mentions, “multiculturalism is cosily the handmaiden of globalizing capitalism: it provides a new market for both consumer and academic diversification, as ethnicity, non-Western culture, and the study of it are all commodified” (Buell 39). Even if diversity is not popular, we will find away to increase capital from it, be it so in the form of eroticized “Eastern foods” down to the Brazilian Bikini Wax and the list continues. Buell continuously grapples with defining contemporary nationalism. I would like to suggest that Borderlessness when Convenient is the new nationalism that has been formed through the ashes of old nationalism and in light of altering U.S. demographics. Maybe we are endorsing “American ideal of internationalism” by choosing when globalization and anti-immigration are applicable or perhaps it is better to wait and see (Curiel 4).