Well, XX century saw the fall of Russian literature, German faced the post war havoc, spanish and portuguese moving to south america, and english taking over french in west. I still think America great representative is Poe, a writer to be considered influential (more) must be compared to him in the XIX century. He already turned the table, english writers were already copying him.Originally Posted by mortalterror
I agree with St. Luke. American patriotism isn't really very different than other country's patriotism at sporting events. Just for some reason most other countries like to pretend it is.I think you missed the point, none of that has to do with expression of nationalism at sporting events. There is certainly a distinctive way of expressing patriotism in the USA.
Besides, riots are a sporting event within and of themselves in Montreal.
If you don't feel hooliganism and post-game riots is representative of other countries nationalism during sporting events it isn't difficult to find other expressions:
Canada Versus Russia
Canada street chanting.
"You understand well enough what slavery is, but freedom you have never experienced, so you do not know if it tastes sweet or bitter. If you ever did come to experience it, you would advise us to fight for it not with spears only, but with axes too." - Herodotus
https://consolationofreading.wordpress.com/ - my book blog!
Feed the Hungry!
People are people everywhere, the difference is of course the context of America and how sport is used for political propaganda. Which is of course only different because America is a top power. The day Tibet became a world wide empire, they will do the same.
From the OP:Further off-topic posts will be removed without further notice.
Those who insist on indulging in immature country bashing will receive infraction points.
~
~
"It is not that I am mad; it is only that my head is different from yours.”
~
Indeed, America is a big place. Some would say it encompasses practically an entire hemisphere. That is to say, America is not just the United States, but rather the entirety of North America, Central America, and South America. One sure-fire way to piss off Latin Americans is to exclude their particular land mass when referring to ‘America.’
That reminds me of something that has become somewhat concerning to me. Something I was trying to sort out in mind the other day. I’m not sure when ‘Latino’ became a racial identity in the United States, but it is now, and it’s gaining momentum. It’s concerning to me because the last thing we need in the States is more racial tension – another category, an excuse for people to throw up a new us-versus-them barrier.
The idea of ‘race’ already lacks scientific rigor and assigning Latinos a unique race, it seems to me, makes the science even softer. The Americas are generally the meeting of, or collision of, three different peoples: Native Americans, who got here first (probably by way of Asia); Europeans, by way of exploration and colonization; and Africans, by way of the slave trade. Now, we’re all mixed up over here – a glorious trifecta of race – a genetic hat trick.
Yours truly, El Sancho, has a little of all three in him, but mostly Sancho’s genes came to America by way of a backward little island in the British Isles, an island that was suffering a potato blight at the time. Incidentally, potatoes found their way to Ireland from South America. So how is ‘Latino’ a race and what defines it? The word Latino refers to a language so perhaps the defining characteristic of the Latino race is the Spanish Language. But then there’s the problem of Portuguese-speaking Brazil. Well, okay, maybe Latino can be defined as those people living in the Americas who speak a Romance language as their native tongue. Then, I suppose, we’d have to put French-speaking Quebec under the Latino umbrella and I’m pretty sure French-Canadians don’t think of themselves as Latinos, but the thought is giving me a pretty funny picture in head…
Anyway, the whole thing is highly confusing to me. In Latin American Spanish, they have words to describe the mixing of peoples: A Mestizo is a person of Native American and European ancestry; A Mulatto is a person of African and European ancestry; and a Zambo is a person of African and Native American ancestry. Zambo is probably the origin of Sambo as a racial epithet in North America.
Speaking of racial slurs and racial tension, it seems to me that of all the countries in the Americas, the one that got the race question right was Brazil. Here in the USA, we just completed a census and on the census form I filled out, I had to decide on a race: Black, White, Asian, Pacific Islander, or Latino. I couldn’t bubble-in more than one. In Brazil they’ve always acknowledged the mixing of peoples, and consequently, I think, Brazilians identify themselves more strongly as Brazilians than as Black, White, or Native. Perhaps Latino is the USA’s acknowledgement of racial mixing. I don’t know.
Alright then, I’ve wandered way off topic in this extraordinarily long post, but my whole point is to argue that all the people living in the Americas are Americans. Therefore, a list of American writers would include: Pablo Neruda, Gabriel García Márquez, Laura Esquivel, Mickey Spillane, and Alice Munro.
And yes, according to Sancho’s theory of the Americas, that makes JBI an American too.
Uhhhh...
Hmmm, ony recently brazilians have been correctly identifying themselves as black. The amount of africans here is much bigger than what america received, the mixing much bigger, yet, it was not commun the linking. But then, helps when you are victim of eugenics and the "slum" of europe, Portugal, to not think as white either.
There is clear distinctions (Latino is not just for americans), Argies do not put them together with others, there is more native mixed people, and brazilians. In Brazil, the states play as identification... plus footballing culture.
Interesting, J. I’ve only been a visitor to Brazil, so my perceptions are probably superficial. You, clearly, will have a much more nuanced understanding of the place. And, of course, Brazil is a huge country. The cities I’ve been lucky enough to visit so far are: Sao Paulo, Rio, Recife, Fortaleza, and Brasilia. Each place had a distinct flavor (Brasilia was sort of weird) but they all gave me a sense for the warmth of the people. I’d like to see Manaus, but it’ll be a while.
Also, I agree with you about Argentina. Going to Buenos Aires seemed like going to Europe. Boca Juniors are exciting, though.
Uhhhh...
Even the literature or music is different. Refice and Fortaleza belongs to the north literature, usually focused on great empty spaces, hunger, dryness, political conflicts. São Paulo is a big city, you have the pauliceia of Mario de Andrade, urban poets and the big farms of campside. Rio is the metropolis, culture mix, Machado de Assis. Brasilia is a board, all cultures building a city from nothing...
I agree with St. Luke. American patriotism isn't really very different than other country's patriotism at sporting events. Just for some reason most other countries like to pretend it is.
Building upon this in a manner dealing with the discussion at hand, I will also say that I don't buy the notion that American literature has this distinctly American nature where other literary traditions do not
(If we're talking about British Literature, we talk about writers who have written great works and luckily for us are British. If we talk about American Literature, the nationality of the writer is prominent. American Literature has an identity, common themes. British Literature doesn't have this nationalism...)
I think the inability to see just as much of a common national character to British literature or French literature or German literature is simply a sort of blindness as a result of being too close. I can listen to someone from London or Ireland of New York or Texas speak and I am struck by their accent... but I assume that I have no accent... because I am not listening to my voice from another perspective... as an outsider. By the same token I imagine that a Brit or a Frenchman might look at American writing and immediately think, "How typically American!" without recognizing that the writing of the British or the French are just as typically British or French viewed from an outsiders point of view.
This question has been provocative... but one just as well have asked "What does the rest of the world think of ______________ literature? And we might add the word French or Russian or British or Spanish or Latin-American and in every instance I imagine that the given national/linguistic tradition would not be as important/understood/appreciated as one moved beyond the native-speaking population. I make a concerted effort to read foreign-language literature... but I'll admit that I have but a passing grasp of most non-English-language literary traditions. In spite of the strengths of such literary traditions as that of France I admittedly have at least 10 times the books by English language writers. By the same token, I would almost guess that I have a greater collection of Spanish-language literature than most Canadians, British, Germans, Russians, Italians... and maybe even French for the simple reason that Spanish has played such an important role in American culture due to our history with Spanish settlers, our border with Mexico, our large number of Latin-American immigrants, etc... A good deal of Spanish-language literature is available in translation in the US... perhaps even more so than German or Russian or other languages with at least an equal literary tradition.
Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
"Infraction points for denigrating nation states..." added to notes"Pulling Sche's leg..." noted as mild risk taking...
There’s no doubt about it – Brasilia is a beautiful city. It’s well laid out, has a splendid climate, has a wonderfully modern feel to it, and tries hard to represent the whole of Brazil, but it lacks the grittiness of a regular city. That’s what I meant by ‘weird.’
East L.A. has its barrios, East St. Louis has its ghettos, Southside Chicago has a skid-row, Sao Paulo has its favelas, and Atlanta has the area South-O-Ponce, but Brasilia is still too new to have developed a vibrant, down-and-out subculture. But they’re working on it.
The last time I was in Brasilia, I was talking about this to a lady in a shoe store. (By the way folks, if you like shoes – Brazil is the place to be) She was from Rio and she said she missed it. She said she missed the ocean. I said, “Yeah, but there’s sharks in the ocean. You’ve got all these beautiful lakes around here to swim in.” She said, “There’re sharks in the ocean, but there’re crocodiles in these lakes.” I said, “Hmmm, that’s worse.”
One thing I love about Brazil is Brazilian Portuguese. I don’t know how to speak it, but I love the way it sounds. Italian may require hand gestures to be spoken correctly, but Brazilian Portuguese is a language that requires full-face involvement to be properly expressed.
So anyway, J. Thanks for the rundown on the regional literary traditions of Brazil. I’m afraid most North Americans have probably only ever read Paulo Coelho. And even though The Alchemist has been the object of ridicule on this website, I enjoyed it. (BTW, I had to add this paragraph to my post so that Scher wouldn’t edit me for straying off-topic)
Uhhhh...
Well, either we are the rest of the world or we are american literature, so we are on topic
I think the lady must be joking with you, I mean, not only she never saw a shark attack on her life as she probally know our alligators are too small and shy for it...
Anyways, depends also where are you. Portuguese in litoral (Salvador, Recife) is more close to regular portuguese, south has strong spanish influence, Minas Gerais is the more unique, mixing all, bringing it close to orality, eating vowels and, believe of not, killing the second person of verbs and pronoums.
Absolutely, and all pedantic snobbery aside, language is a living, breathing thing. I suppose it would stand to reason that the Portuguese spoken in Recife is closer to that of Portugal because Recife is geographically closer to Lisbon that is, say, Rio de Janeiro. Recife is also closer to Senegal, which would explain the higher percentage of people there of African descent.
My hometown, Atlanta, certainly has its linguistic quirks. One word in particular is much maligned by the rest of the English-speaking world. I’m talking about the word, y’all, which is a contraction of you and all. It’s a versatile word and can be used as a singular or plural pronoun, although strictly speaking, the plural of y’all is: all y’all. I also believe that here in Atlanta, we rival Recife in swarthiness of skin tone. Inside of loop I-285 anyway.
Uhhhh...
The closeness explains a bit, Recife and Salvador were the first "colonies". The african descent less. (I am not sure if they have more). But they also received the early settlements of slaves, but unlike, Minas-Rio-São Paulo, less settlements of portuguese, spanish and latter waves of europeans (Italians, germans).
Minas is more "Lively" because it is a road in them middle of brazil, having contact and dynamics of all country (but extreme south and north).
No longer in Beijing, I am on a 2 month long odyssey backpacking around China, and as of now am at 张家界，Zhangjiajie, the famed national park that is tragically becoming associated too much with the movie Avatar, from which the floating mountains seem to have been taken.
As for American literature, and American culture in general, I would put it into three categories, more or less dismissing the early runners, who, though influential, did not solidify as well as their 19th century counterparts.
1) the innocent coming of age narrative, where the US is this "new" idea (a literary construct surely) and is earning its place as "the shot heard around the world." I would put that up until the first world war, but it seems to die out before that. I think Longfellow, Emerson, Thoreau, and Whitman, as well as early novelists like Poe and Hawthorne.
2) the modern engine - American ideas and identity in a sort of crisis and limbo, as it has joined the rest of the world - this seems to be the attitude between and after the wars, which ended up solidifying rather in a sort of narcissist obsession with itself after the war, when the cold war broke out, and then carried over until the 80s, when it exploded. This generally was one of the most creative segments of world literature as I see it, as it took the fire of the 19th century forerunners, but brought it more into an international, explosive perspective. I think of the great Modernist poets, Faulkner, and beyond, basically everything people really thinks of with the exception of Whitman and Melville. I would put an early figure of this as Poe, though he is quite idiosyncratic.
And then finally stage 3) the nation caught between revulsion, obsession and guilt, love, hate, and still devout patriotism. I think here of the last modern authors, and the preoccupation with politics in literature and film. I think of all those mediocre poems that have been making textbooks recently, and those protest like writings that seem to only matter if you hate the US, or are American.
As a general tradition, it has faired quite well, though there are noticeable complaints - first of all, it is self-obsessed, which is not restricted to the US mind you, and can be leveled as a complaint on other traditions, like the modern Chinese tradition.
Second of all, it loves the sound of its own voice. The whole tradition as founded on the "shot that was heard around the world." is a bit egocentric, and has been so since the beginning. The tradition has liked to think of itself as the new, better, and higher tradition since its foundations, and has tried to separate itself. It is isolationist, and ironically, dependent on other traditions at the same time, and, a great developer in translation and in cultural appropriation.
The third complaint, it promotes itself too much internationally. As an English speaker, I am fed the American cultural doctrine daily - Americans have also, since NAFTA taken over various segments of Canadian media, and restricted the possibility of artistic development outside of the American sphere. Basically, American presses print in China and in huge factories, and dump their books, and their advertisements in our markets. In literature Canada has recently been able to push out, but in other markets, it is short of impossible unless the content is being played on Canadian only stations - of which, Americans will never buy into anyway, which gives them another advantage over us, they ignore us, yet dump onto us. IT ignores the world, but wishes the world to know it - it's that aspect which bothers me most - its self obsessed self promotion self love that ignores all other traditions, and insists it aught to be heard.
The same way, my fifth complaint is regarded in its cross between its own repression, guilt, and pride. It's the idea that because the US finally elected an African American, it has accomplished something great, and the world should marvel. In reality, culturally it should be ashamed that it took so long to elect someone who didn't fit into a cultural mold - the same way it praises authors who detail its previously unspoken hatred - hatred is praised, in that it is "overcome" whereas the rest of the world is ashamed of their past, that the US has overcome it (much later than lets say Canada, who, though not perfect, is still not even close in comparison) and therefore the rest of the world should marvel at it. This is more in keeping with the third movement I perceive in American literature, and is in many ways rather repulsive.
Instead of a literature of scarring and healing, rather it ignores its past in favor of "praising its overcoming". It is much easier to celebrate Martin Luther King JR then to face the fact of racism - if that is not enough though, it wants the rest of the world to celebrate it too. To use a very vulgar metaphor, it is like a child jumping for joy and showing its mother than it can wipe its own bum. Unfortunately, flushing is another matter.
Overall the tradition has produced many great authors, though as for the amount promoted in the English world as classics - not quite all of them make the cut. Perhaps 1/5 of the now promoted books, as is the case with other traditions.
I still think it takes itself seriously - there are a great many excellent authors, but there are also a great many excellent authors from elsewhere in the world. It is amazing to see people who read in only one language, or even people who just read narrowly, or read in a few trying to say that on a "per capita" basis, the US has faired better. Perhaps, perhaps not, the fact that one can make a claim is rather ridiculous in itself.
Note: not all these complaints are restricted to the American tradition itself, but in my experience are apparent to the tradition at hand.
Note: I am an avid reader of American texts, but that does not put me above being able to criticize them, or see through them. I like the tradition, but also try to compare it, rather than just absorb it.
Note: one should still read American literature, it has many excellent authors, and many examples also that are excellent, while including elements mentioned, or while excluding - this is just a general sketch of personal understanding.
Still, I'll say flatly, the tradition in question is like a spoiled little kid that needs to be smacked hard on the bum. Much of the posting here seems to confirm that. IT would be better though if some of these great lovers and ridiculous posters posted something perhaps a little bit more personal in what they think, or perhaps started other threads on other traditions, or even on their favorite books.
Likewise, for those who agree the American tradition is a bit obnoxious, it works better to give concrete examples, though I fear, as I know Americans, only a slim fraction will take constructive criticism on anything, whereas the rest will adhere to the tradition "us-versus-them" or "you-are-just-jealous" doctrines promoted by the keepers of American identity, the American media (unlike the pre and post war Japan relationship where the US sought to understand and comprehend Japanese culture and identity, the modern experience has merely sought to "nape" it, to avoid politics and side step them, how much does the average person really know about Afghan, or Iraqi (let alone Middle Eastern identity). Let us bring that by extension, how much about Vietnamese culture? Or even Central American, or South American culture? It would be nice to see some promotion of its understanding, as the US, as a body, has in the past had a great capacity for translating other traditions and beginning to understand them, if only to reject them, or absorb their histories and appropriate them.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
