RP3: Explore Borders/Boundaries With Me (rhyme totally intended)

After reading Mignolo, I was really hung up on the idea of borders and boundaries. I mean, who makes them? Who has the authority to create a defined border that separates one thing from another? It's just such a strange concept in itself.

And then I really got thinking about areas that don't have truly defined borders. There are many spaces that are recognized, but are not actually agreed upon. In that sense, they exist, but also do not in that they are undefined.

This is especially true when it comes to my “home”. What is “the South”? Everyone you ask is going to have a different answer.

“It's everything below Michigan.”

“It's everything below the Mason-Dixon line. Well, except for Virginia, they're too liberal.”

“Does Missouri count? They had slaves.”

“It's where the republicans control the government, get elected and f*ck with our national politics.” “It's where the people are uneducated and where racism continues to control everything.”

“It is home, where the food is better and the people are friendlier.”

That was my thought process. At first, I started thinking only about physical spaces. The border defined by the Confederacy in the Civil War was a stark one. The Mason-Dixon line cut through the south-east, dividing not only the country, but also families and people. The line was not just dividing two warring states, but setting a boundary between citizens that believed in the economic benefits of slavery, and those that recognized the immorality of the practice itself. But even within those borders there were people who did not agree with the majority. There were southerners that opposed slavery on moral grounds, just as there were, undoubtedly, northerners who approved of it for economic reasons. There are countless stories about families in Missouri being torn apart as brothers went off to fight for opposing armies. Although it was a slave state, a citizen of Missouri could just as easily have ancestors that fought for the union. And, beyond that, a current citizen of Missouri may not even have ancestors that lived in “the South” during the war. They might also be a new immigrant, with no old ties to the country, let alone the state. But, if they live in Missouri, which used to be a slave state, does that not make them a southerner? I don't know. Does it? What even is “the South”, anyways?

Even today, everyone's perception of where “the South” begins and ends depends on where they grew up, how they were raised, and what they were taught to believe, morally and politically. From this, I quickly noted that it was greater than that. I realized that borders do not have to be physical. They do not have to outline actual spaces. They can outline peoples' view points and opinions. They can separate one group from another. These borders can be referring to peoples' Elsewheres. They do not have to be recognized by all people, or even by anyone person. They are created, sometimes intentionally, and sometimes unintentionally, to distinguish certain groups from one another. They define who is same and other, though not necessarily on a binary, as was described by Rabassa.

Essentially, I just got really excited with the idea that borders and boundaries are not always simply physical ones. In fact, none are truly physical. They are all ideologically created through some form of colonization, whether in a literal sense, or a metaphorical one. I thought it was cool, and wanted to share.