Nation vs. Race

Apess's "An Indian's Looking-Glass for the White Man" is a religious essay about what Apess called color prejudice and what we call racism today. This may just be a matter of semantics, but I noticed that Apess never uses the word "race" in this essay. I don't know very much about the origins of the word "race," but according to this website, the word originated around 1500. Therefore, the word "race" was used in American writings in the 19th century, but it does not appear once in this essay.

Instead, Apess uses the word "nation" quite a bit, especially in the final paragraph on page 1054. He indirectly says that whites, not Indians, can be charged with "robbing a nation almost of their whole continent, and murder their women and children" and with robbing "another nation to till their grounds and welter out their days under the lash with hunger and fatigue under the scorching rays of a burning sun" (1055). The footnote makes clear that the second quote references "the 'nation' of Africa, many of whose people were brought to the United States as slaves."

Why does Apess refer to Indians and Africans as nations instead of as races? How does this relate back to Benedict Anderson's "Imagined Communities," and the idea that nations are socially constructed? Sociologists also argue that race is a social construct. Do you agree? Also, when I first read this essay, I thought that Apess's main argument is that people of color are equal to whites and should be regarded as such. However, in this paragraph, he says "Assemble all nations together in your imagination ... Now suppose these skins were put together, and each skin had its national crimes written upon it—which skin do you think would have the greatest?" (1054). Here, and in the quotations above, it seems to me that Apess is implying that other races are morally superior to whites. What do you make of this?

Sororities: What Would Benedict Anderson Say?

When Benedict Anderson wrote about communities he was basing his ideas around nationalism and how it makes large groups of people imagine connections between themselves and those they will never meet. But that hasn't stopped me from trying to think of ways in which this idea of imagined communities could be brought down to a much smaller scale. I find the idea of communities being all in our heads oddly fascinating because it's one of those instances where I understand that it's a tad ridiculous to feel connected to people I will never truly know and yet I still have those sentiments. It's an odd phenomenon.

My most recent community of interest has been that of greek life organizations. I don't know if it's because rush and recruitment are in the air but it seems like I can't escape all of the brotherly and sisterly love! I wonder how the idea of a community is changed when you get to pick the people who are included in it. Are the connections more intense? It would seem as though a community such as a sorority should be more real (less imagined) than an entire nation . . . but is that really so? When I think of the "families" that are created it all just seems pretty inauthentic to me, pretty imagined. Especially the way that as soon as someone new is initiated the sisters claim to love that girl as if they've known her all their lives. It's all a bit over the top if you ask me. I'm not trying to offend people who are involved in greek life by any means! I just think it's interesting that small communities of people imagine bonds similar to those an entire nation creates, that on some level all communities (even close-knit ones) are imagined.