Talk:ENGL 350: Naturalization

From Keywords

Posts/Updates

oh, it's called search/rescue... it's the guitar player from my old band, acceptance, and the two guitar players from a band called gatsby's american dream. they wrote all the songs, i am just playing shows with them. speaking of which, if anyone is interested, we are playing on the 31st with a band called, the starting line, at el corazon... it's going to be a lot of fun. (ryan) www.myspace.com/acceptance www.myspace.com/searchrescue

I know this probably isn't the place for it, but Ryan, what's the name of your new band? I was gonna check it out but I couldn't remember the name... (Paul)

I totally agree. Printing out the wiki page and editing it that way really works for me too. I would also like to meet sometime soon, considering we only have a few more class periods left before the end of the quarter. Steven said that we don't need a finished product, but it should look better than what we have so far. Word. (Paul)

Paul- I couldn't agree more, and I wasn't planning on leaving that outline up there, just got busy and forgot about it. In fact, at this point, on both our sites (especially border) we really, really need to organize and categorize what we are doing. I met with Mr Tobias a bit after class and he said at this point he "is looking for some organization." And I agree, things are totally out of hand and it's time we zone in on organizing and making our pages cohesive and precise. This is going to take a lot of work from everyone. At this point, people shouldn't hope to be getting by on the work of other people and just because there is a bunch of theoretical bullshit (I front nearly all of the blame on this) on the site, it doesn't mean it is good. I think the best course of action, as it has proven thus far, is to continue these meetings... I think we all need to meet next weekend after having, say, each of us (I know this works really well for me, at least) has printed out the content on the page and basically edited it and chopped it up and come up with a good functional/precise direction. This, technically, should mean that everyone brings something substantial to the table when we meet. Our group has been doing really well (as Mr Tobias mentioned to me) throughout the quarter, and it would be a shame if our final project grade suffered because we were not organized and did not take the time to do something that will be pretty easy to do (we certainly have enough content to work with). Alright, I'm done with the wiki nazi routine. (ryan)

Hey all, so I updated the intro to our page a little to try to incorporate some of the word I did for our last presentation, but it still needs some revision. Can we try to clean up the page a little bit? I know we were brainstorming a lot on there, but as we only have a few weeks left, we should really get going on editing. Lucy, can you condense your outline at all and make it fit within the page? It's good stuff, but it should not be in outline form. Same for Ryan...do you guys just want to edit it yourself or do you mind if I mess around with it a little? I probably don't have the same level of expertise on the subjects as you guys because that's what you presented on, but just curious to see what you wanted to do. (Paul)

so i am the proud owner of skype, but it seems like it costs money? if not, i am game to use it... if it does, we can do a chat thing with yahoo messenger, aim, or msn... sorry for being so incredibly digital... i really do feel like a schmuck. (ryan)

5pm kids my house, ryan will be there via conference call -lucy

Stew, so i take it you are doing the nature side of things assupposed to ou national/political approach?

Yea sure, I can do that. And when we get together soon, I can do whatever else we have left over. Last presentation we all had our separate topics but we still added stuff in about other people's things, and apparently it worked out well, so I'm down for whateva. (/stew)

i have finished my outline regarding naturalization and border... check it out and if you see anything i should fix/change/add, let me know. (ryan)

so, i am thinking that if i go at the end of the presentation, i can tie what everyone says about Jefferson, Wheatley, whoever, in relation to the relationship between border and naturalization. what do yo guys think? (ryan)

i have been working on the naturalization/border section and will continue to do so for the rest of the day; this aims to be a good synopsis of my presentation for monday. (ryan)

groovio (as in rufio) i reckon this presentation will be good. (fingers crossed)

Discussion

Hey guys, when/where are we meeting? Lucy's again? I'm free after 3pm. I will check the page to see responses, or email to everyone would make sense if someone wants to set a concrete time. And nice work ryan(Stew)

of course ryan do you have skype?

all, do you think it possible if i meet with you all remotely? the commute sucks so much time out of my day, and quite frankly, i really can't afford to spend hours in commute right now. but if you do meet, would someone be willing to keep a digital conversation going of what is happening at the meeting (either through here on the wiki page, or through an instant messenger of sorts)? that way, i can chime in, see where everyone is going, and adjust my presentation as needed... let me know what you think! (ryan)

Everyone, what time are we meeting on Sunday? (Paul)

i can either go last or next to last and talk about the connection between naturalization and border, as this is what i am working on. (ryan)

Miss Lucy, how about I introduce it and you explain? I have done some research on the history of the word and its use in the government, but as Steven said, I don't want to focus entirely on the history. Suggestions?

Mr Paul Ill tell you what, im going to brainstorm it tonight, then write some stuff up, then when we meet up on sunday we can pool everything. it will work, i promise xx

paul, i just had the same idea...would you willing to come to a compromise regarding what you want to do? as i have already done some work on it...? if not dont worry could we split the american argument? ill just see what i can come up with...

Also, I would like to introduce the term for the presentation if I could and talk about naturalization as a noun (what the process of becoming a country's citizen) and a verb (the ideological side of things) and introduce the argument of what makes someone an American through the texts we've read. Let me know! (Paul)

Hey all, I added some new sections, Naturalization as a Noun and as a Verb. Any time after 1pm works for me on Sunday. Also, I have a template for a PowerPoint we could use if we want. Anyone want it, or should we just collaborate on Sunday? (Paul)

i will definitely go back and look at that essay. i am in the process of reading the naturalization essay right now and trying to formulate what i would like to talk about.

meeting sunday at my house? what time suits everyone?

RYAN- are you going to look at that essay by glori anzaldua? there is some really good stuff in there on naturalisation and border...the borderlands. etcetera.

I am currently working on a paper in suzallo, when i get home im going to look through and think..i reckon im going to focus on the keywords carefully....perhaps take it further???...with examples of course.

Presentation/Outline

Paul's Outline (Intro)

Paul Swanson ENGL 350 "Naturalization" Presentation

1. As a noun A. Definition: (OED) The action of admitting a foreigner or immigrant to the position and rights of citizenship, or of investing with the privileges of a native-born subject; the fact of being so admitted or invested. B. While this definition has stayed constant, the definition of what makes someone eligible for naturalization has changed over time. C. Quote (Keywords, 171): "In its original usage - as the conferral of political belonging - naturalization is not an occult process, is not meant to seem natural." - Link to discussion of "nature?" D. Brief history of "Naturalization" in America: - 1776: Constitution defined citizens as those born in America (expand, look at wiki, read actual constitution) - 1792: Naturalization Act (first of 3) that set eligibility rules for citizenship, stating that they must be "free White persons" and live in America for more than two years - 1795: N.A. changed length to five years. - 1798: N.A. changed length to fourteen years. (Repealed in 1802) - 1952: New N.A. that changed wording to include people of any race or ethnic background, but keeps length requirement the same. E. “Denaturalization”: Losing one’s citizenship, either voluntarily or as a consequence for a crime offensive to the nation (i.e. treason, serving in a foreign army).

2. As a verb A. Definition: (OED) "The admission, assimilation, or adoption of foreign words, beliefs, arts, practices, etc. into general use or favour." B. Again, definition remains constant, but uses and ways have changed over time. C. Brief introduction of other's presentations:

3. Native A. Definition: (OED) A person born in a specified place, region, or country, whether subsequently resident there or not; A member of an indigenous ethnic group. Freq. with a suggestion of inferior status, culture, etc., and hence (esp. in modern usage) considered offensive; A member of the indigenous ethnic group of a country or region, as distinguished from foreigners, esp. European colonists. - Contradictory use of word: meant as born in a certain location but not given rights of a citizen. Quote (Keywords, 172): "A member of an indigenous tribe in the United States, for example, was a native, but not of a nation." (Can I use this, Lucy?) B. Introduce Hobomok (Lucy) and Notes (Stewart/Ryan)

4. Nature A. Definition: (OED) The inherent dominating power or impulse in a person by which character or action is determined, directed, or controlled. B. Definition: (Keywords, 171) "the compelling force and the properties or features of the self and of the material world, that which precedes, exceeds, and informs culture. 'Nature' operates according to its own laws, and the project of science, art, and philosophy is to discover, engage, and sometimes - at great risk - defy them." - straddles boundary between what is innate and what is learned - definitions can be contradictory C. Quote: Nature is "perhaps the most complex word in the language." (Raymond Williams, from Keywords, 171) D. Introduce Wheatley (Tony)

Lucy Outline

sources used: Terms of Assimilation: Legislating Subjectivity in the Emerging Nation, by Priscilla Wald boundary 2 © 1992 Duke University Press

Lydia Maria Francis Child's Hobomok

Let’s start with the quote from Keywords- p.172 ‘a member of an indigenous tribe in the united states for example was a native, but not of a nation, as the Cherokee learned when they sought political representation through the U.S supreme court’ At this time your groundings, roots, origins within America did not equal American rights , Nation rights. So Natural rights are rights that inhere in a certain conception of personhood. But that conception and those rights extend only to certain persons. Personhood is essentially conceptually constructed by convention. (Ward 96)

This is still a main idea today…what is ‘natural?’ what is normal? This is a hard question to answer. Stew and Ryan are going to go into this later.

Frantz Fanon description of the ‘real other’ whom the white man perceives on the level of the body image, absolutely as the not self- that is the unidentifiable, the un-assimable. The unnatural. We get this in Hobomok. To be natural- is to be white. To be natural is to be puritan, to be natural is to be compliant, passive under the white man.

Hobomok seldom spoke in Mr. Conant's presence, save in reply to his questions. He understood little of the dark divinity which he attempted to teach, and could not comprehend wherein the traditions of his fathers were heathenish and sinful; but with Mary and her mother, he felt no such restraint, and there he was all eloquence.

Interesting that within marriage he becomes natural. Naturalization/Marriage (cluster) we could argue that Mary’s marriage to Hobomok is in fact to accomplish her Americanization. We will see this later with Pricilla wards ideas on ‘the seasoning of Indian blood’. Good commentary to keep in mind.

Mary Conant automatic forfeiture when she consents to join Hobomok’s worlds should be noted though. Hobomok is the ‘Noble Savage’. He leaves when Charles returns. When he leaves, he Americanizes those who he leaves behind. His removal from the picture helps build a more natural picture. Hobomok’s erasure is signaled rhetorically through his son’s assimilation.

But the question is where does this leave Mary? She says that she can no longer return to England as “my boy would disgrace me… and I will never leave him: for love to him is the only way that I can repay my debt of gratitude’ so she remains in the New World to reconstruct the American family both by reconciling with her puritan father and by reconstituting Charles Hobomok. Interesting she is now AMERICAN. Is it her Indian association that disgraces her, or is it because she is now Americanized? Look at Keywords- p.173 'no american he asserted ,could ever become a "european". such a being only ceases being American, and becomes nothing" (Roosevelt 1894,22)

CLUSTER UPDATE SO FAR. NATURALISATION-AMERICANIZATION-FAMILY (VALUES)-RELIGION, NATIONALITY-HOMELAND

Charles ‘Jnr’ ceases to have the Indian appellation. Let’s look at the quote ‘He departed to finish his studies in England. His father was seldom spoke of, and by degrees his Indian appellation was silently omitted’ Mary’s son attests to a faith in consensus and in the communities abilities to absorb a dash of Indian blood. Ward writes ‘In fact that blood seems to be just the seasoning necessary to de-anglicize or nativize the fledgling national culture but ‘Charles Jnr’ Indian descent can metaphorically occasion his families Americanization only if his father departs.’ (WARD 87)

In terms of cultural theory naturalization in this text- we should focus on this theory of America as a ‘fledgling national culture’. So naturalization and what it is to be an American is predominant.

NATURALISATION AS AN IDEALISING PROCESS?

Now to Stew and Ryan, who are going to throw us into some debate and show the reflexivity of our keyword ‘naturalization’.

[edit]

Stew's outline for his part of the presentation: So here it is, guys. Ryan, this is pretty much in order what I plan to talk about. if you want me to change anything or emphasize or de-emphasize anything, write it up at the top and I'll do my best to work it in. Hope your stuff is going well!

Main theme: (Mother) Nature vs. Politics—politics wins

Main Question: How historical thought about political naturalization resulted in the faster, more efficient State reproduction that has characterized the last two hundred years (how naturalization helped our country to grow)

Define these two at the start: (Mother) Nature: --non-political individual identity/nature; basic identity; universal human rights --The land itself; living on the land of a state (birthright) --existing without state or external laws (only moral ones)

Political Nature --one within a community; community takes precedence --the Citizen as the elevated nature of man --the ability of the state to give or withhold the elevated nature; its literal transformative agency

Jefferson: --Naturalization as purely political; citizenship as the binding socio-political contract --Natural Human Rights enables this responsibility because Jefferson insists that basic human morality ultimately uplifts/protects the citizenship contract; fusion of natural identity and political identity --the belief in moral human nature enables a political nature/identity because of this trust (responsibility) and serves as the means to the political end

--Roosevelt: there is a political identity in everyone, if not consented, then by birthright; thus, in this historical context, the basic human nature has evolved into political nature as “natural”

Transition to: Why (now using both Jefferson and Keywords) Politics wins or is more important than Mother nature in naturalization--answer: State Reproduction

Also, point out how mine and Ryan's differ when seeking to analyze "descent" and political relations.

State reproduction (evolving from Mother Nature to political identity) --Ultimately the political nature wins because it propagates the state, serves many instead of one, creates structure and order (maybe “natural” as one, “political” as many)

--Political identity bears the responsibility of social/national productivity because as it confers more privilege on citizens, the responsibility increases (raise children with national ideology in mind, follow laws, work within the sociopolitical system)

--Bring in Jefferson’s discussion of population maintainment and how the citizen’s contract with the state confers responsibility and thus the State benefits

--“descent” from an “other” political identity helps to construct the image of an American citizen and serves as the vehicle for nation-building; this transformation of identity/ideology in a person changes them from “natural” to “political”

--Ultimately the natural world is absorbed/transformed into the State --it is no longer just a bunch of meadows and mountains—it is the site of political identity and the home of people who identify themselves with the State rather than nature due to the State’s evolved status

--a “descent” from Mother Nature as the “other” to the political realm, where one finds identity and serves/reproduces the State as a citizen Done--now to ryan

i think we should all just come up with a few directions we, personally, would like to address in our part of the presentation. if we all do that and gather up some things we would like to tlk about regarding our choices, then when we meet on sunday we will all have a good idea of where the presentation is going. (ryan)

I agree ryan, that way we could also think up a structure to the presentation...maybe everyone could get someideas down soonish?

I texted Lucy, but I'm having some car issues and I can't make it down to UW today for the meeting. Sorry guys! I'll do some more work here at home for the page and try my best to get something started for the presentation. Sorry! (Paul)

for the presentation, i would like to talk either about wheatley, the general usage and definitions, or how naturalization is related to border. just throwing this out there if you guys do chance to meet today! oh, and i am going to be away from my computer for a bit so if you need to, you guys can call me at 360-440-2956. also: i did some editing on the page, reworked the "what is naturalization" section, added a "naturalization and borders" section and one for "wheatley and naturalization" as well, moving things from the first section to their new homes. fix it if needed. (ryan)

well... there's no way i can make that meeting, sorry. i can meet tomorrow and sunday. (ryan)

meeting feb 22nd meet at Oddegard main entrance, at noon. Lucy

Hey guys I really think that we should meet sometime soon. We only have two classes until our presentation because we have Monday off, so we need to get on it. Can we take advantage of the extended weekend? Even if just 2 or 3 of us met it would be beneficial. Plus, what does everyone think of doing a PowerPoint presentation? Everyone's been doing oral reports, so I think it'd set us apart for the last presentation if we did PowerPoint. Thoughts? (Paul, 2/13 <<---The American (Correct) Way to Date Things)

13/02---humph. yes powerpoint would probably get people more involved, and help our presentation...

I think maybe "nature" itself should be getting a lot of attention from us, as opposed to just naturalization. Not only do the authors we've been studying use that word a lot more than "naturalization," but "nature" tends to break away from the political/national meaning that we've already written a lot about. If we want to make our study of "naturalization" comprehensive, it's gonna take something more than just that national/political thing, especially interacting with the literature since most authors don't use it. (Stew)

12/02 Hi guys, i have been thinking about naturalization and how it might change meaning because of the different fields of intellectual study. For example what does Naturalization mean in feminist theory, or post colonial theory? Does it change? are there similairities or differences? (Lucy)

Word, Paul. As I said I would do, I've put some text up about Jefferson and naturalization, since I wrote about that for the paper recently. It is the "solid block of text" that Tobias warned about, so you guys should let me know if you want to break it up/simplify it or something. I do think that we are a little starved for literary examples of naturalization, and this stuff on Jefferson might get us closer to our goal of finding examples in the books we read. Anyway, let me know what you want to do with it. (Stew)

Also, there's a lot we could do with how Jefferson deals with "nature" (as opposed to naturalization). He talks about human nature a ton obviously, as well as Mother nature. There's some connection between human nature and the level of trust that he puts into the citizenship/naturalization contract between person and government. He must have some interesting insight on nature and how that works into the political view of naturalization. We could do more on it, but it might not be necessary with the stuff that's already up about the book. (Stew)

Alright, I also reworked the article, but didn't do as much to the organization of things. I feel dividing our work into sections is probably the easiest way to keep things in order (see other wikipedia pages), so maybe we should really think of some solid topics and just focus on those? We can always add more as we go. This article hasn't gotten as much attention because of our recent border presentation, but we should probably start to do some work on it. We've brainstormed a few things these past few days that could potentially link this with our border page, so let's try to connect it with some of the topics we brainstormed on the other article and discussion pages. Word? (Paul)

This is Stewart, I've just edited the Naturalization page with a few sentences on the different general meanings involved in the word. His guidelines thing said he wanted us to start with general definitions and maybe different parts of the word or related words, so I thought I'd start with that. I don't really know if this is a good way to start, but neither "border" nor "naturalization" seem to be a big part of Franklin's (or Wheatley's) work so I didn't say anything about that. Maybe we're supposed to really stretch to include the readings in our definitions, because right now the readings don't seem to offer much input on our words. Of course, feel free to delete/add or whatever.

Well, I think that Wheatley's poems definitely open up a channel for making connections with her work and the the processes of "border" and "naturalization" and "ideology". Maybe I am stretching it, but how do we account for Wheatley being the posterchild for the white man's burden? At play in her conversion/assimilation is border, and thus with it, a new sense of "nature". Both these ideals seem to stem from the function of ideology present in different societies. To naturalize something, such as, say, a person from Africa, entails qualitative assessments of "nature"; i.e. Wheatley's "nature" was evil, uncivilized, uncouth, impoverished, etc, etc... So her process of "naturalization" entailed an assimilation to a Western, "right" nature that comes along with "borders" and subsequently, "ideology". What do you guys think? (ryan)

How contingent is nature/naturalization upon borders? Take for instance Christianity, in its Western-Eurocentric conception. Something "natural" in light of this interpretation of Christianity is not necessarily attached to borders in every case, certainly there are instances of religious practices (which all must hold some ideal of what "nature" is), like religions/worldviews found in African, Indian as found in early America, that are entirely contingent upon their "borders" But what about something like language? The English language, for instance? For one coming from the U.S. to live in England will undoubtedly find "unnatural" examples in the different dialects of the "same" language. Here, again, something "natural" that finds itself contingent upon "borders". Thoughts? (ryan)

Ryan, I think this is a really good point since it introduces the much more broad aspect of "nature." Its interactions with ideology (which invariably deal with culture--aka language, values, etc.) are probably the most important, since one's own "nature" doesn't immediately refer to one's ideology. What I'm trying to say is that ideology is something you adopt (thus owing more to "naturalization" than "nature) while nature is something innate, something born with. Further, I agree that we must consider what is "unnatural." Is it merely the opposite of natural or is there something else at play here? If we were playing word-association I would actually think of Freud if someone said the word "unnatural" to me. (stewart)

I just put some stuff down about how "foreign" plays into the identity mismatch when naturalization occurs. I think it's pretty important to consider words like "foreign" or "alien" when considering our word because its so dear to the process of naturalization itself. Also, I put some of the keywords in bold, just like Steve said. It now seems to be littered with boldface, and if that seems to be too much then we can adjust how often we do that. Also, I think if we boldface something then we don't have to put quotes around it--that seems to just muddle the appearance even more and makes it clunky. Let me know your input if anyone has any on that, though its obviously of secondary importance. (stewart) Stewart, i can add something to that, there is an article on jstor that talks about Americans abroad, and americans perceptions of this. ill post more later. Sorry guys my ideas are disjointed right now, i just need to write them down...then think...for a REALLY long time.

bold, lose the quotations. i like it, it looks like we know what we are doing. aesthetics is 90% of the battle. i was hoping someone would call me out on my take on "nature", as it is pretty extreme. i think the only way of avoiding a fucking undecipherable blur of nature/cultural impact would be to have only one being in complete isolation, in a perfect state of nature. i would argue that one's own nature does and can immediately refer to one's ideology. how do i know what my "nature" is when it is immediately in process of construction and extraction from cultural influence starting the moment i am born? even rousseau, in his political writings has to "assume" what human nature is, and it must be all completely hypothetical. actually, i think where we are diverging is here... i guess what i am arguing is one group's arguing and indoctrinating what their definition of "nature" is, actually, much like we are doing now. for instance, a Christian will have a much different conception of what nature is from what a Darwinist would hold. So, further, in a country or political state, it seems that their specific definition of nature is an extension of an ideological process. don't be upset with me, haha, i don't mean to be "that guy", this is just a great way to talk about this stuff. (ryan)

Skin color... is this what you mean by nature, Stewart? eye color, bone structuring, blood type... these natural occurrences not directly reflected by ideology? thus the divergence of "nature". (ryan)

I'm pretty excited about our boards, they have really taken off and opened up some fantastic channels for consideration. nice work guys. (ryan)

Id like to think about naturalization and border as hindrance to Wheatley, creatively and personally. any ideas? (Lucy)

What we considered in our meetings...reminder. Flip sides of coin border/naturalisation last presentation leap off point.....

After reading an article on JSTOR, 'Jefferson on Liberty', i started thinking about what authorities 'naturalise' people. Jefferson wrote the following;

'regretably not all men possesed a 'moral sense' but society could secure conformity to its standards from the recalcitrant individual through education' . Jefferson also argues that the law of majority is the natural law of every society of men.

In our modern culture do we have new authorities that 'naturalise' us? i.e Fashion magazines...advertisements. Any Thoughts?

DID YOU KNOW???

The subject of naturalization of Aliens has attracted and held the American Government from the beginning. The Federal Constitution grants to congress 'the power' to establish a 'uniform rule of naturalization'. This power was first excersised by the first congress act of 1790. (JSTOR, 'America on International Law' Jens I Westerngard page 5)

So is the act of naturalization especially en grained in the American psyche? perhaps in a different way to europe. If so why? could it be because of borders? I think i know where i'm going with this one...give me some time to mull it over, but any contributions and thoughts would be great! ta lads. (Lucy)

You say that "naturalisation" is a product of "border" and "ideology". so could we then call The Autobiography a 'naturalization' narrative. was this its soul purpose? (moved from article, should be up for discussion)