Response #3

In response to this.

Although it is true that a majority of the nation has lived in America for at least two generations (arbitrary amount of time, but I am not sure how many generations defines an immigrant family versus a native one), I think that Americans still view the immigrant story as one that is truly American. I do not consider myself an immigrant, but I still feel as though America is always being changed by immigrants, and because I am an American, this immigration becomes a small part of me. This small part is something that all american have in common. 
With regards to your comments on an American culture, I would say that I do not dispute the presence of an American culture, but that I believe this culture is constantly changing, and therefore hard to pin point. Yes, TV is different in other nations, but in the matter of 5 years TV has changed in the US alone. When you watch a show that aired a while back, it has a whole different feel from a show today. Both feelings conjured by these shows are steeped in American culture, but because our culture has evolved over time, the feelings are different.

USA is number one

Is the United States of America a nation?  It’s true that there is no real tangible border between it and Canada.  There is no mountain range, no lakeshore, nor a huge crater.  It’s true that American culture is hard to define as one thing, considering the diversity of people in its borders.  It’s also true that not everyone agrees with everyone else, and there is not necessarily a common heritage, seeing as how many people descended from immigrants who came from different countries.  But, does America need a definable border with Canada?  No, because as a people we have not deemed it necessary.  If no one finds fault with the line that exists, then the line doesn’t need a physical backing to be legitimate.  Does America need a definable culture?  No, it doesn’t because Americans enjoy the freedom that an ever-changing culture allows.  To be in one neighborhood with a certain characteristic, only to move onto another neighborhood with a completely different characteristic, is embraced by the American people.  If the people enjoy it, it does not require uniformity, and essentially acts as a culture anyway.  Does everyone need to share a heritage?  In America the shared heritage is the immigrant story.  People may not have the same birthplace, but the fact that they all immigrate to America serves to bind these people together in a common feeling.  America may not have what many people consider necessary for a nation, but it doesn’t matter because the American people embrace this notion.  If Americans embrace it, it becomes truth.  

Nationalism

Nationalism, although divisive, was a powerful tool in bringing people together for a common cause.  This cause was of course focused around the creation of a nation, or a state that embodied a group of people’s ethnicity, history, and culture.  Common language was not a prerequisite for nation building, as could be seen in Italy where people spoke entirely different languages and lived near each other.  Class was not a prerequisite, for all classes had their share in nationalistic fervor, whether it meant through organic societal traits or a geo-political necessity.  Because certain aspects to populations were not required to create a nation, many diverse places became enchanted with the idea of creating a state.  But, there were two things that kept these places from ever reaching their goal.  The first was the oppression of hopeful states by larger already established states that had their hand in the spheres of many populations.  Poland, for example, was stuck, and had been stuck for a long time, under Russia’s influence.  Russia’s control meant that a huge army crushed nationalistic ideals whenever they arose.  The same occurrence could be seen in Northern Italy, where the Austria-Hungary Empire crushed the Italian army once the French stopped supporting Italy for fear of angering French Catholics through an attack on the pope.  The other reason why nationalism failed was the inherent problem in nationalism.  People began to break themselves down into smaller and more specific groups, which kept populations that might have had a chance at nationalism from ever truly coming together.  This could be seen with Slav’s, who, once decidedly put into a Slav category, divided into smaller and more specific Slavic cultures, which meant that each group got weaker.   Nationalism is a double edged sword, a destructive and constructive force.  

Response #2

In response to this.

I would disagree with your argument that human beings are naturally inclined towards freedom. It is not part of the human instinct to live in a world where anything is possible. I agree with Hobbes when is comes to a subject such as this. Hobbes argues that in a state of nature (a state of freedom), people are inevitably going to go for the throats of others. In order to protect ourselves, or as you mention the human instinct for self-preservation, we form a social contract that limits what is possible. Maybe through rhetoric we are consciously inclined towards the ideal of absolute freedom, but I believe the instinctually human beings do not gravitate towards freedom, but instead create limits. I would also disagree with the idea that individual interest is generated by the instinctual self. I believe that individual interest is generated not by instinct, but instead by conscious thinking. Instinct generates the universal interests because instinctually all humans are the same. Every human searches for food when they are hungry, an action that is instinctual and universal.

Response #1

In response to  this post.

I agree with you Charlie, and I would also like to add some more reasons why I do not think there will be a worker revolution in America anytime soon. I believe that the idea of private property is an implicit and explicit quality to American culture, and has always been since the founding fathers preached life, liberty, and property. Marx claims that the property of the working class has all but been abolished, and I would disagree. There are still many workers who own their own property, something they will not give up for an idea with a mysterious and unreliable future. Were workers to have absolutely nothing to lose, they would entertain the thought of revolution. But, many workers still posses a sense of ownership with where they live, and therefore would not be willing to dissolve all private property into communal property. 
Secondly, I believe that there is no way American workers will ever agree to move as one body. As this past election clearly shows, the country is still divided when it comes to national decisions. Getting every worker in America on the same page would require the most dire of times and a hopelessness that would be impossible to achieve. It's part of American history and culture to disagree, and I see no future where every American sees eye to eye with his neighbor.

Marx Reading combined with Romanticism Reading 725-732

Marx’s brand of socialism is flawed.  He decrees that overtime, capitalism will fall by the wayside through its inability to be sustained without constantly discovering new markets, inventing new technologies, or cannibalizing old firms.  The working class will rise upon its dissatisfaction and take control, eliminating the inequality of classes and establishing a communist nation.  But, Marx sees this as a worldwide occurrence where every nation seemingly does this at the same time and suddenly the world in transformed.  As Romantics clearly show, national pride was on the rise through the work of artists from nations like Germany or England.  It would seem strange that every worker would throw to the side their national pride for the greater good of the world, a world full of citizens that have always been in contest with those same workers.  In Communism, Marx assumes that the working class won’t have power struggles within itself after it has taken control.  This is an impossible reality because workers will naturally be inclined to try to put themselves and their natural culture above those from other nations.  Just because another man also helps to build the same machine does not mean that they will automatically be friends, especially when long rivalries, like those between France and England, have existed.   

MEH Reading 709-717

The destruction and violence that occurred during the French Revolution had a huge impact on the thinkers of the early nineteenth century.  Men had died in huge numbers for ideals that had never truly come into existence, and Europe had been thrust into turmoil over the passion of one country’s people.  Leaders, such as Metternich, became concerned with making sure nothing of that sort could ever happen again.  They saw revolution as a guaranteed predecessor to war, something they wall wanted to avoid considering the negative economic effects and all the violence that had occurred during the eighteenth century.  Thus, the name of the game for the Congress in Vienna was to establish strong national powers that were not in conflict with each other and had the ability to put down revolution where it arose.  Through this action though, the main European powers sowed the seeds for more resistance.  By attempting to restore strict control over their individual kingdoms, national leaders came into conflict with people who wanted to move forward with political thought.  Through the industrial revolution people had become more in tune with the political scene around them, and had decided to take more of an active role.  The Decembrists in Russia were young military leaders who had helped in the Napoleonic wars and saw themselves as enlightened individuals who could liberate Europe.  Their ideals conflicted with those of the Tsar Nicholas, and their revolution was brutally crushed.  Although European leaders attempted to restore the conservative and dominating presence of government that had once existed in Europe, they also laid the foundations for building revolutionary thought that was helped along by the industrial revolution.