Reimagined Communities

American society seems all too taken by materiality, jumping quickly to conclusions based upon the aesthetic look of objects and even human beings. One example is the obsession over ancient Egypt in late twentieth century America. In fact, throughout the King Tut exhibition in the United States, the curator made a point to show only the most beautiful pieces regardless of their historical significance or insignificance. This inattention to historicity in America is a dangerous trend that not only permeates our cultural constructs inside and outside the museum but also our idea of race stratifications in America and amongst people on the international front.
As seen specifically amongst African Americans claiming direct blood relation to people of the Middle East, Americans from the past and present will ascribe historicity to objects and people as a result of their appearance. These historical and even biological inferences drawn from the material look of an object or human being demonstrate a backward way of thinking that forge or damage relations amongst with people both domestically and abroad. And this backward thought process in America consequently plays a critical role in the creation of various moral geographies based upon appearances.
For instance, African Americans in the late 1960s found themselves intimately drawn to the plight of Middle Easterners struggling to liberate themselves from colonial and hegemonic imperialistic rule. But the similarities did not end there. “The Arabs, as a colored people,” according to Malcolm X, “should and must make more effort to reach the millions of colored people in America who are related to the Arabs by blood,” (99). Since their dilemma looked the same, as did the color of their skin, then African Americans figured that they must be blood-related kin to the people of the Middle East. In other words, American society reared its citizens to believe that if their physicalities match up then biologically they must be of the same background.
This tendency to judge and categorize according to appearances is clear in the development of the King Tut exhibition. The director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Thomas Hoving, went to Cairo and picked out objects not necessarily of historical importance but those that “looked great” (130). According to McAllister, “The history was the frame for the art, rather than the art serving as illustration or evidence for the history,” (130). Once again we see the American inclination to first group together objects and then, in retrospect, assign historical context that fits most conveniently for American foreign and domestic policy.
Not surprisingly, Americans historically partake in panethnicism – the grouping together of massive groups of people based upon the color of their skin and completely disregarding specific cultural or ethnic backgrounds. It is the grand result of this habit described above, a habit set in place by our white founding fathers to help make sense of the different masses of people settling together in this relatively new nation. In regards to re-imagined communities, American society seems to incorporate those objects and people that most resemble our skin color and our present struggle. If only we could spend a split second to look where our history is leading us.

What struck me most about these two chapters was how they were mainly about groups of people in the United States searching for national identification outside of the United States. Chapter 2 focused a lot more on this idea, but even Chapter 3 showed how the entire country became enveloped by the Egyptian craze and wanted to find some way to be a part of it. This would seem to contradict the idea that the United States is a melting pot, at least in terms of blending cultures rather than having a universal one. I think this has pretty serious implications for the ideals and reputation of the United States.
One of the big examples in the book was the Six-Day War. “The impact of the war on Jewish identity in the United States was striking. Jewishness became more important and identification with Israel became a more important aspect of Jewishness” (111). I found this change in attitude remarkable, especially in light of the way Jewish immigrants had been treated earlier in the century. It seems like suddenly it was ‘cool’ to be Jewish. Seeing Jews gaining their own independence only made the African-Americans want theirs more. During the 1960s, more African-Americans turned to Islam as a way to gain that independence. Ironically, they called the religion the NATION of Islam, as if it made them separate from the United States.
I’m really curious as to what could have caused these gigantic shifts in viewpoint. A few things jump to mind immediately. Given the foreign policies of the United States at this time, and its focus on the Middle East, it may have brought Israel and Judaism into a positive light. Since the US was so interested in that part of the world, people who were once hesitant to claim their Jewishness (as a result of anti-Semitic feelings all over the world) may have felt more okay with it. Foreign policy may have also pushed African-Americans away from identifying with the United States because of the hypocrisy between domestic and foreign affairs. Having read Borstelmann just before McAlister, this theory really stuck out to me. The McAlister book also makes the point that African-Americans were interested in gaining their own Israel.
Both shifts also mark a turn away from the WASP lifestyle of the 1950s. This made me think of the Lears reading about hegemonies and counterhegemonies. Both groups, the Jews and African-Americans, were emphasizing the very things that made them different than the majority of the United States. This is the point that really undercuts the idea of America as a melting pot the most for me. While the presidential administrations are trying to present a united front to the rest of the world, there are important minority groups essentially saying they don’t want to be part of the American culture. The US has this big claim of being welcoming to all types of people, so why are these searches for another nation even going on?
Another thing I thought was interesting about these chapters (mostly Chapter 2) was the focus on religion as an alternative identity. I focused on religion as a nation in my paper, and I feel this chapter really supports the idea of religions being nations. Both groups looked towards faith as a way to reclaim their own sense of identity. Anderson claimed that religion’s decline in popularity led to the rise of nations, but this desire for a religious community seems to disprove that again.

African American Nationalism
Throughout the chapter about African American Politics, the African American “nation” is constantly looking for a separate identity from white America. Through the struggle with religion and foreign relations, the blacks constantly look for a separate stance then that of the American nation. Through relations with the Middle East the blacks find a way to make their own nation through an imagined community of opposition to white supremacy.
Muhammad Ali said, “I’m not an American; I’m a black man”. The black population is so fed up with their treatment in the United States that they do not want anything to do with whites. They want their separate nation. They even request for four southern states to make their own nation. However, they do not need this geographical mark to form their own imagined community. This community is built as the opposite of the white community. The black leaders do everything possible to take the opposite stance from whites.
The black imagined community is constantly trying to build up their reputation. They try to live through others in comparing themselves to the Jews, “God’s people”, in the Exodus. The formation of Israel is considered a success for black people because they see themselves as the same. A success and yet they immediately turn on Israel for the Nation of Islam.
After the comparison with Jews, the black population turns to the Nation of Islam. As Ameer Baraka said, “Islam offered what the Black man needs… a reconstruction… a total way of life that he can involve himself with that is post-American, in a sense”. Post American is exactly what the black people were looking for. They saw Islam as the answer to anti-America. It is even stated that for some, “the appeal of Islam lay precisely in its challenge to Christianity’s Eurocentric heritage and links with imperialism.
Through Islam, blacks created their dominance over whites. White supremacy was completely flipped around in the black imagination. The central myth in the Nation of Islam was the invention of white people by Yacub. They tied themselves in with the Arab peoples who were the first inhabitants of the earth. They backed Egypt, a nation that showed the power of a black leader, in a battle against the “white people’s” Israel.
Black performances also showed this hatred of whites. The Black Mass told how white people came to live in a black world. Whiteness is displayed as evil. They create an animal like creature that is the white man who is barbaric and disgusting. They attempt to show the white man in the same way they have been represented in minstrel shows throughout American history.
Throughout this chapter we see that it is not necessary for a nation to have a specific geographical area. The black imagined community was far spread and well led. It shows that they are completely fed up with the abuse and torture coming from whites and are forced to start their own nation. The only problem with this nation is that after years of persecution it is built on hostility towards the white man. That seems to be this imagined community’s only fundamental principal: A place where black is best. Did they really create their own nation, or a “symbolic countercitizenship”, a counterhegemony.