6 Matching Annotations
  1. Sep 2020
    1. hey would not be capable of being "internal borders" (internalized borders, borders for interiority) were they not ideal-ized.

      This gets to the heart of patriotism. Where does the love for one's country come from? I think about how K-12 I had to stand to pledge my allegiance to the flag. To me this is part of the indoctrination done in the US. I also think about how during WWI/WWII propaganda was used persuade people to support the war but also to get people to work for their country/the greater good. Nationalism, patriotism, etc. is instilled then performed, thus leading to internal idealization

    2. state borders, understood equally as the borders of a culture and an at-least-fictive identity, have always been immediately en-dowed with a global signification.

      I am not understanding this fully, but I believe the author is stating that state borders don't literally mean state, but are used as a term meaning one's culture or how one personally identifies. If I am interpreting this correctly, then I understand the reason why it is mentioned. Everyone has their own sense of identity beyond the physical land they reside in. It seems that in many ways humans are taught how to categorize, which is just another word for separate. We categorize fruits, animals, colors, and eventually people; grouping together like things and excluding everything that doesn't match. It comes as no surprise that as we try to find where we fit in this world we create categories that separate us like borders from others that don't match us.

    1. To what extent are borderexperiences determined by national and/or racial predicates?

      Taking this in another direction... To what extent are border experiences determined by ones socioeconomic status? I think about how nationality and race play a huge role in one's experience at the border, but then I throw one's economic status into the pot and the playing field is shifts. Then again, maybe not, but in the snippet from "In July" even after being given the ability to cross the border because of marriage he still has to provide some monetary pay off. In many situations I believe the wealthy are able to pay their way regardless of race or nationality. They are playing their own game in a separate arena from everyone else. Conversely, the additional struggles that poor people face when crossing the border is another topic to be discussed... at another time.

    2. This is the epistemo-logical seduction of the idea of a border: a craving for the distinctions ofborders, for the sense of certainty, comfort and security that they offer.

      Why would borders be considered seductive(safe)? It is like having a lock on your front door. This border should provide some sense of security and thus comfort that not just anyone can walk inside. By stating that we need to be protected from whatever is on the opposite side of that border we are implying that there is a probability that whoever is on the other side could hurt us. We get locks(borders) not because we think it looks decorative, but because to some degree, we believe that whatever is on the other side has the potential to harm us. That uncertainty, which is not without its own justification, is enough to pull us in; essentially seducing us into thinking “what could be”. This seduction is captivating and relevant because even today in the United States we hear statements about people on the other side of our borders trying to get in: illegal immigrants. Without knowledge on the topic, statements such as this next one can make borders seem necessary to stay alive, “Illegal immigration affects the lives of all Americans. Illegal immigration hurts American workers; burdens American taxpayers; and undermines public safety; and places enormous strain on local schools, hospitals, and communities in general, taking precious resources away from the poorest Americans who need them most. Illegal immigration costs our country billions and billions of dollars each year,” This statement from the man leading the US, President Trump, creates a fear around the lack of borders, thus making the idea of borders more seductive.

    1. On board such a ship, everyone begins putting together a brief autobiography, as though he might other-wise forget who he is.

      Move 4: Look for patterns. This is the second time the narrator have brought forth the concept that one can forget their past(and who they are) if they do not have physical or oral document to remind them. It is as if the author is implying that being too far from home will lead one to forget about it. And its not just the idea of being to far, but also having water create the barrier. I believe this to be significant because borders are the perimeters that establish where ones home ends and begins. With water these lines are blurred. The two previous excerpts also mention water and this notion that water blurs border lines. By blurring border lines the lines that establish ones home are also blurred.

    2. How can one say where the place of foreign water begins when the border itself is water?

      Just like in the clip from Distant Lights, the narrator mentions a geographical border made of water. At what point does Poland end and Germany begin. At what point of this story does it become "foreign dangerous undrinkable water" and what portion of that water is ours? Since water mixes what part of our water is also dirty and dangerous?