Friend: You should get rid of the fandom merchandise you have lying around. It’s taking up too much space.

Me:

Don’t you think Italy should be a cockier character?

He is, it’s just more implicit. Hima’s hinted a few times before at the possibility of him hiding and containing a whole other side of himself.

Could you do a character analysis of Hungary or Romano?

Sure! I’ll save Hungary, my idol, for another time.

Let’s go over some misconceptions about Romano, shall we? Post coming up tonight!

I’ve briefly talked about America’s naivety before, but
given how prevalent it is throughout the series, it deserves its own post.

For one thing, it’s important to define what I mean by
naivety. It’s not so much that America is gullible, as he’s more than capable
of reading the atmosphere, especially if it means getting what he wants.
Instead, this naivety has more to do with how inexperienced and childish
America can be, often without realizing it.

Likewise, I’ve also explained the role that America’s
isolation has played in this childishness. As a result of a lack of interaction
with other nations, America unintentionally comes off as egotistical. He grew
accustomed to only looking after himself, and this way of interacting with the
world stuck with him.

It’s hard for him to think about and put others first. Even
when he calls himself a hero and ‘saves’ others, it’s self-validating. Of
course, this doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have good intentions, because he
does. He’s a giant sweetheart, don’t get me wrong.

On the other hand, like an inexperienced child, America
lacks a balanced understanding between ability and expectancy. He often has
grand, unrealistic plans that involve him taking the lead in saving something
or someone.

That’s what this post will focus on; how, despite possessing
the ability to make calculated decisions, America still holds some pretty naïve
and unpragmatic beliefs on how life works.

All of this equates to the fact that he’s still relatively
childish.

For one thing, in WW2, he thought that a map of his country was a world map. This is possibly a play on the fact that children often think that the world revolves around them.

This childlike imagery appears again as America proposes
unrealistic world defense plans.

On another note, we also see that he’s not great at planning
for the future. Mass production led to inflation and plummets in stocks,
which ultimately resulted in the Great Depression.

However, during WW2, this mass production starts up again.
What’s interesting is that England remarks to himself that America might have
been traumatized during his childhood due to a lack of belongings and experienced poverty whilst
expanding settlements in his nation– it’s hinted that America overcompensates
for this by producing things in bulk.

Regardless of these economic downturns, America is revealed
to have never had a cold before WW2. Remember that nations acquire colds during
recessions. If this is the case, and it’s not just a consistency error, then
being spared from illness up to this point in time would have also influenced
his naive perception of the world.

Lastly, although possessing benign intentions to give
financial aid to smaller developing nations, America doesn’t seem to grasp at
the fact that loans are more economically harmful than good. Once again, this reveals how unrealistic he
is in being able to match his expectations with a likely outcome.

That said, it’s important to realize that America’s childish
naivety and unintentional egocentrism is only one side of his person. He’s
extremely intelligent and is crafty in getting what he wants.

Most of the time, however, he doesn’t have to use wit and instead
resorts to the easier route of relying on physical force. It’s for the latter
reason that I believe his character is often misinterpreted.

America: I’m going to make a historical documentary about my independence!

Also America: ↑

Never forget that America’s dub actor once sounded like this.

Talk to me more about America please! Anything you want to discuss I’d love to hear.

Sure! Hmmm. I’ve touched on his naivety before, but I think it deserves a spotlight of its own. Post coming up tonight!

Anon 1: I’m doing an Honours Bachelor in Criminology. Thank you, I’m glad! Criminology includes a lot of disciplines in it, and Psychology is one of them.

For example, in my Individual Criminal Intervention courses, I learn how to apply psychotherapy to inmates, domestic violence survivors, crime victims, or basically anyone who’s been put through the criminal justice system. I also learn other branches of therapy, but I’ve always found psychotherapy (especially newer versions like attachment theory) to be interesting. Not to mention that I take a ton of other Psychology courses as electives.

Haha, I think it’s obvious that I’ve been a bit off this week. I just wrapped up a long week of midterms and papers, and will be getting more sleep now. Your concern’s really appreciated 🙂

Anon 2: Aw, that makes me so happy. Oh, why thank you. It’s nice to know that my memes are still on point 😉

First, let’s just establish the fact that for the most part,
the nations are bound by their bosses’ orders.

“They accept their fate as it is and let their bosses order
them around.”

All right, good. Now that that’s out of the way, it’s
important to differentiate between what the nations represent and what they do.
The nations represent their people – they’re cultural personifications.

However, what’s ironic is that because the nations are
subordinated to their leaders, they often act in ways that goes against the best
interests of their people.

Basically, while the nations are personifications that
represent their people, they may not represent them well politically. There’s
an inherent tension between the reason why the nations exist (their people),
and whose interests they serve (their leaders/politicians).

Of course, this doesn’t mean to say that a government can’t
act in the best interest of their people, nor am I trying to justify or
minimize any wrong action taken by a nation as a result of an order given to
them. The point here is that there is an evident power imbalance between a
nation and their boss.

More often than not, the nations don’t have any other choice
but to listen to their boss, aside from the fact of whether the latter’s
intentions are good or bad.

Nonetheless, what I also intend to reveal is how the nations
are still able to exercise a sense of agency and resist their bosses to some
degree. Not only that, but there are times when the nations form a strong and
positive relationship with their boss.

Dictative Relationships:

Russia:

Russia is the epitome of a nation who is forced to comply
with their boss’ orders.

His bosses are “notorious” for making unreasonable demands. It’s
even alluded that they’ve tortured Russia before out of mere boredom.

He was once asked to stop a tank with his own body.

He was also ordered to build a canal in frigid weather
without any food.

Germany:

He’s forced to annex Austria, despite voicing his
unwillingness to do so.

During WW2, Finland talks to Germany about his boss troubles.
He jokes with Germany and says that countries can be imprisoned by their boss
if they complain too much.

This joke takes a dark turn when Finland suggests that
Germany’s boss would actually be capable of doing this.

Private Life:

Now that these more drastic orders have been covered, let’s go
over some of the more trivial aspects of a nation’s life that is controlled by
their boss. Like I said before, the relationship between the two isn’t always oppressive,
but there still remains a clear hierarchy.

England:

England’s banned from alcohol and sweets by his boss, and is
threatened with higher duties and taxes should he consume either of them.

The boss enforces this ban to keep England’s health in check.
Either way, this demonstrates how pervasive and extensive their control is.

Lies + Blind-sidedness:

Sometimes, the nations are kept in the dark about things
too.

America:

After the Roswell New Mexico incident, America is told that
the UFO he saw was nothing more than a weather balloon and that he should
forget that it ever happened.

Likewise, it seems that America is a bit disconnected and naïve
about how his own political system works. The fact that he has to “surmise”
what everyone wants is troubling. The naivety comes with the fact that he
thinks he can find a satisfactory political candidate that pleases everyone.

On the other hand, to surmise means to guess, estimate, or
speculate without having any evidence to confirm the assumption. If anything,
this might mean that he’s not directly involved in gathering public opinion,
but rather that he’s adopted a passive role when elections come around.

It makes me wonder how much he’s permitted to get involved
in the process.

Resistance:

While bound by their bosses’ orders through customary
tradition, there are times when the nations go against them.

Japan:

During the formation of the Anglo-Japanese alliance, Japan apologizes
to England when his boss “went on his own accord.”

Italy:

Italy maintains a boundary with his boss by asserting his right
to keep some of his life private. Admittedly, he does offer to reveal these
stories should his boss treat him to lunch.

Notice the title of this strip too. This confirms the power
differential between boss and nation.

Idolizing Relationships:

Prussia:

Lastly, there are times where the nation forms a lasting
bond with their boss.

Prussia and his relationship with Frederick II “Fritz” is
the best example of this.

Prussia idolized, or rather still idolizes, Fritz to the
point that he still keeps a picture of him on his nightside table.

You’ll also find that when he feels anxious or lonely,
Prussia evokes the memory of Fritz to comfort him. This is seen
in Buon San Valentino.

Bonus: In his character song “Mein Gott!”, Prussia also asks Fritz to watch over him.

In sum…

The nations are often forced to comply with their bosses’
orders, despite being representations of their people. None of this negates or
justifies the fact that they’ve likely been commanded to do unspeakable things.

The bosses’ orders are not always negative in nature, but
they’re still authoritative.

The nations have been shown to exercise discretion and
agency by resisting their bosses.

It’s possible for a nation to form an affectionate
relationship with their boss.