Different Perspective

Our reading about museums and the topic being brought about only a "certain class" of people actually going to museums made me think about the museums near my house and what they might have to offer.  There are three museums in Riverside: Riverside Metropolitan Museum, Riverside Art Museum, and The UCR/ California Museum of Photography.  I've contemplated checking them out but never have.  After looking over their respective websites, I've discovered several different exhibits that actually end either this weekend or fairly soon.  The best thing is that they are either free of cheap to get into.  For anyone interested, this weekend is the last for "California Trees, The 1932 Exhibit Revisited" at the CA Museum of Photography. http://www.cmp.ucr.edu/   This weekend, I'll take advantage of what the city has to offer for a little mental stimulation.  It'll be a nice break away from scholarly reading for all my classes.  Though it more than likely won't be a controversial exhibit like "The West as America", seeing what the Riverside museums have to offer might open my world to the local history of where I reside.

Will Museum Attendees Become Part of the 1%?

Reading the articles about the National Museum of the American Indian and “The West as America” made me wonder, who goes to museums and why?

I, a white middle-class female, have often felt that there is a specific message to art works in museums that only a select few understand due to their social standing and education. This only represents a smidgen of the exclusion that minority populations might experience in these spaces. The articles we read for class today and an online paper from the American Association of Museums entitled Demographic Transformation and the Future of Museums (http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/publications/Demographic-Transformation.pdf) shows that the limited demographic of museum audiences is an issue merging to the forefront of discussion. The paper is a review of current studies of museum populations and notes possible causes for the low rates of African American and Latino attendees. Possible reasons are: the lack of representation in subject-matter, a lack of “specialized knowledge and a cultivated aesthetic taste...to understand and appreciate what are perceived by many as elite art forms”, and economic disparities among races (13). The AAM acknowledges the importance of broadening its audience, not only to celebrate diversity, but to remain in business. The case studies serve as good examples of their efforts to do so.

A call for change is not only heard through those in the Museum business, but also in the voices of the Occupy Movement. Though their strategy is debatable (http://www.artfagcity.com/2011/10/24/the-deal-with-occupy-museums/) after reading the statistics from the AAM paper, the actions of the “Occupy Museum” actors are not too surprising. (http://paddyjohnson.tumblr.com/post/11652516894/occupy-museums-speaking-out-in-front-of-the-cannons) The group calls for an end to cultural elitism and the elevation of one’s individual genius over another’s.

-Catherine

P.S. Sorry I had some trouble with the hyperlinks. You'll just have to copy and paste a couple of them!

HB 56

            All the readings from class have proved that America has a rich history of discrimination and disdain for those who are “different”. Unfortunately, this prejudice is not behind us. Anti-immigrant sentiment is very prevalent in the United States. This intolerance can be seen through the anti-immigrant laws being proposed around the country, the most recent being Alabama’s HB 56.

            This law, HB 56, is the most oppressive anti-immigrant law to date in the United States. This goal of this law is to make every aspect of undocumented immigrants lives difficult. Provisions of this law force police to check the immigration status of any person pulled over for a routine traffic stop if the officer has any suspicion that the person may be undocumented, essentially forcing the officers to racially profile. Undocumented immigrants are also forbidden to get driver’s licenses, pay utility bills, rent an apartment or enter in any deal with the state. In some cases this means that they can’t pay their electricity or water bills because it would require them to show their papers. If arrested they are to be held without bail. Many parents are worried that they might randomly disappear and have made other arrangements for their children in the event of their disappearance. Thankfully, many provisions of this law are being held up in court. Regardless, the law has been successful in inspiring fear in undocumented immigrants across the state.

            Not only is discrimination engrained in this countries history, but so is the question of who has the right to be here. It is important to learn about the history of settlers/indigenous interactions because, like most of history, it has relevance in contemporary times. Just like the colonists, immigrants to the United States are looking for more opportunities and ultimately a better future. 

A Historical Paradox

The excerpt we read from Tiya Miles’ Ties That Bind struck me as intriguing and somewhat puzzling. The fact that Native Americans owned slaves was a facet of American history that I had never come across before, and I was definitely surprised to learn that it happened. Furthermore, the Indian elder’s fearful reaction upon learning that Miles was writing on the subject, and the internal struggle Miles faced about the impact of her book, was especially noteworthy. The strength of the Indians’ desire to disremember this part of their past, to erase it from the history books, was disconcerting. However, as we discussed in class, the topics that society keeps quiet are often the ones that need to be examined the most. While this chapter in history may have been left untold for years, that does not mean that it doesn’t hold significance today. The paradoxical nature of this connection between African Americans and Native Americans is worth examining today because these two groups are so intertwined.

It was for this reason that I found African American actor Don Cheadle’s reaction in an interview with “African American Lives 2” so interesting. When the interviewer reveals the information that Cheadle’s ancestors were enslaved by Native Americans of the Chickasaw nation, Cheadle seems extremely surprised and is not immediately sure how to react. In addition, the interviewer mentioned that after the Civil War ended, the five tribes who held slaves actually refused to liberate them and the Chickasaw tribe continued the practice until 1866. Cheadle expresses his feelings through this quote: “The two biggest blights of the way this country started, slavery and the genocide of the Native Americans and the Trail of Tears and all those horrible stories of what happened to the native people here… and then our family was owned by people who had suffered- it’s just mind-blowing.” I feel that his words perfectly capture why I felt so conflicted in reading Miles’ work. At first glance, it just seems contradictory that the Indians, who had suffered terrible treatment at the hands of the white settlers, participated in slavery.

However, the reality is that the relationship was far more complex than that for both sides of the story, and it is a history that deserves to be told. The whole concept of ‘disremembering’, forgetting or denying the past because we are ashamed or embarrassed or fearful of what the reaction might be, degrades the present. Miles mentions the “power of the unspoken,” how “the very stories that pain us so are the maps to our inner worlds, and to the better worlds that we envision for our children.” Even if the concept of Native Americans owning slaves seems like a historical paradox, learning about the intricacies and inner-workings of that narrative helps to break the historical silence that surrounds the events some would rather disremember.

Link to the Don Cheadle interview: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/aalives/profiles/cheadle.html

Race, Ethnicity, and Identity

The question of race in America - or anywhere, really - seems to me to be a double-edged sword. There are some that would have us be "colorblind", which sounds like it might solve a lot of problems until you realize it definitionally annuls the concept of racial diversity (effectively minimizing the importance of diversity and difference on the whole - shades of The Giver, anyone?), fails to account for centuries of culturally significant racial and ethnic histories, almost always devolves into a thinly-veiled apologetic indifference with regard to the "experiences of others" (http://www.tolerance.org/magazine/number-36-fall-2009/colorblindness-new-racism), and presents a biologically inviable objective for anyone who isn't actually colorblind (apologies for my blatant ableism). At the other end of the spectrum (or, perhaps more fittingly, on the other side of the same coin), we sometimes encounter nationalism (not so much the Jingoist kind, I'm talking more in the give-us-[or give-us-back]a-sovereign-homeland vein [ignoring the inextricable link between the two for the sake of space]) to an extreme degree, and along with it the desire to define, isolate, and exclude those who don't look or talk or walk like "us", which leads to warfare, genocide, and, generally speaking, hurt feelings all round. The elite "politically correct" of present-day America make a point of trying to include and accommodate everybody, but that presents another veritable feelings minefield right there, because you just know that somebody's going to feel left out. Remember that lovely welcome wall at the NMAI Cobb praised so highly for its inclusiveness and representation? That was '04, a full six years before the US Government would decide to formally recognize my beloved Shinnecocks (#Hamptonslife) as an actual tribe, but I'm sure they would have loved to have been included, seeing as they've thought of themselves as just as legit as any of the other guys for hundreds of years (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/shinnecock_indian_nation/index.html). And then, sometimes, you have to take a census.
This is the article I read (those other links are red herrings!): http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/14/us/for-many-latinos-race-is-more-culture-than-color.html?pagewanted=1&sq=native%20americans&st=cse&scp=8
Basically, the way it shakes down is this: "Hispanic/Latino" is an ethnicity, not a race. That is, according to the US Census Bureau (and the College Board, and the Educational Records Bureau, etc., etc....). And that, in turn, is all very well and good, until you consider the disjuncture between the CB's definitions (and prioritization) of "ethnicity" & "race" and the definitions (and respective significances) of those who are actually ethnic and racial (read: everyone). The fact of the matter, many Latinos see their "shared cultural traits" as more important than what the government calls their "race", and (perhaps more indicative of the crux of the problem), many (just don't feel comfortable identifying as "black" or "white". The census accounts for people of "two or more races", but how are you supposed to even know how many to list when there's a good chance you might be a little bit Afro-European-[fill in indigenous Meso-/South American people here] - and you probably don't even know it, because a lot of that "mixing" happened a long time ago and the records are poor and the fact of the matter is, most people in the world (and certainly the Americas) are a lot more racially "impure" than they would even suspect? I'm thinking of that infographic we saw in class about the way that race really works (the snowflake-lookin' one). It's beautiful (and not just because it looks like a snowflake), but it is confusing, and the guys down at the Census Bureau need an answer quick, so a lot of the time it's easier for Latinos to just check "other"?
This encompasses a lot, and also makes you look really cool and outside of the box, but (and here comes that double-edged sword again) it's kind of important for the government to get as much of that niggling highly specific information re: race/ethnicity/all that good stuff as possible - as this article states, "the census data on race serves many purposes, including determining the makeup of voting districts, and monitoring discriminatory practices in hiring and racial disparities in education and health", and that stuff kind of matters (whether it should or not just brings us back to the D-E S; point is, it does). Some officials say that there's a problem in the question, but how can we effectively "solve" that? Some Latinos do identify as white, or black, or white AND Latino - having both the race and ethnicity categories works nicely for this last group. And what about these people: http://video.nytimes.com/video/2012/01/13/us/100000001285066/being-garifuna.html ? Looks to me to be a totally legitimate racial and ethnic group, and I'd never even heard of them until today. How many more like them are there in America, "passing" in my woefully ignorant eyes as simply black or white? The Navarro article compares those label-dropping "Latinos"-turned-"whites"to the Irish gone past - heck, maybe I'm deluding myself into thinking I'm just "white"! Am I fundamentally different? Are the Italians? Or the Russians (whoa, I just dragged Eurasia into this)?
Like I said, this article reminded me a lot of the class discussions we had about race - how any given individual's bloodline is infinitely complicated (maybe enough to earn that person a distinction all his own), and about how "race" is something we "do" (and how that implies agency, and the right to check other, a right just as important as the right to good, solid, anti-discriminatory hiring practices [although when it comes to the outcome of the census, those rights can end up in opposition, so what do we do? I don't know... figure it out, American Studies scholars!). It also made me think about conflicting histories and vantage points, and the unheard voices that get caught in the middle. When we talk about the Shoeboots family, we can look at it from the "Cherokee" perspective, or the "white" perspective, or the "black" perspective. But what about the mixed-race children of Doll? With which narrative do they identify more? And - good heavens, here's an idea - what would Doll herself have to say? Nothing, because she's a woman (but don't get me started, it's late and I have to go to bed)!
Anyway, in this case, the dominant narrative (written by the US Government [isn't it always?]) is putting people in certain boxes, and people who see themselves, their cultures, and their histories as very different from what's dominant have a serious beef with that, and they're clamoring for alternatives, which is great (minimizing that voicelessness is always a plus), but also seriously complicated, not only because the dominant narrative is so gosh-darn steadfast in its domination, but also because the alternatives are often in conflict. But (once you take away the real world, census-outcome disadvantages, psychological suffering, etc.) isn't that kind of cool?  Like somebody said in class, America is founded on and chock full today of paradoxes, but that doesn't mean we can just leave them alone. They're just begging to be addressed. The whole kit and caboodle is like one great big snowflake-shaped Gordian knot!
But for now, I am really tired. I'll get started untangling in the morning.
-- Lexie Kelly!

homeland according to transfronterizos

The day before our first day of class, there was an article by Patricia Leigh Brown on the front page of the New York Times entitled, “Young U.S. Citizens in Mexico Brave Risks for American Schools” (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/us/young-us-citizens-in-mexico-up-early-to-learn-in-the-us.html?pagewanted=3&sq=mexico&st=cse&scp=6). I found this article to be particularly arresting, and when we had our discussion on homeland, I couldn’t help but think what that word must mean for the students Brown discusses. These students are American citizens whose families have moved back to Mexico for the cheaper cost of living, but who cross the border daily to attend American schools. Referred to as “transfronterizos,” they rent apartments, use fake addresses, or have a relative appointed their legal guardian (among other things) so as to sneak their way into school. If they are caught, they are kicked out.

In “Violent Belongings,” Amy Kaplan’s first definition of homeland, the one she provides before she delves into the tensions that evolve from the fluidity of the word in today’s lexicon, is homeland as a place of origin, as a birthright. She then asks us to think of those who consider America their home, but not their homeland. Applied to Brown’s article, it would seem that for some students, Mexico is their home, but America is their homeland. By this I mean that students, and this is an oversimplification and a person interpretation, see an education in America as their birthright. Conservatives point out that these families aren’t paying taxes and therefore should be excluded from the American school system. I’m not convinced by this argument; however, I have difficulty articulating my views on this issue. My feelings lie somewhere between the idea that America should see education as an obligation to its citizens and the idea that discrimination against students crossing the border is just as wrong as racism and classism in general, both in the classroom and out.

Juvies

For another American Studies class, I watched the documentary call Juvies. It discussed the rising number of children being tried as adults and how this not only affects their lives but also the system. Many of the kids in the video were 14-15 years only and being given sentences of 35 years to life. Many had had no priors and were not directly involved with the crime or the gang violence (ie driving the car). 

This relates to the Occupy movement and the problems of redistribution of wealth in many ways. For one, when the kids are sent to adult prisons, their future ceases to be something we as a society invest in. We invest in their punishment. In Juvenile, there are rehabilitation services and a chance to be educated. In adult prisons, these programs rarely exist. So when these kids get out of prison (if they do) they are released without an education and with few options. Recidivism is much higher to those kids sent to adult prison then those sent to Juvie (many never come back). Also, the clause for "gang affiliation" clause, is adding more time in efforts to prevent the individual from committing potential crimes in the future. However, it is so wide, the system can unjustly sweep up friends and family, not in any gangs. This clause can more easily target individuals from lower income communities, for who minimal” gang affiliation” can come from just residing there and interacting with the people around them.

And finally, prison is expensive. And with the pressure to expand facilities, many other programs are being cut. Much of the funding that was for the education system is being sent to invest in prisons. Private corporations are making money off prisons, while a child in public school may not longer have access to an arts program.  

The Stiglitz article about the one percent argues, “We are not using some of our most valuable assets – our people- in the most productive way possible”. Sending a kid to adult prison saps out their opportunity to be reformed and give back to the society that paid for the reform.  They instead become a permanent criminal, picking up undesirable traits and drug habits they hadn’t had before adult prison.

Finally, in line with the Occupy movement, random people on the street were asked what these kids’ sentences should be considering the circumstances. The numbers that were generated this way were dramatically smaller than the actual sentences given. The government needs to do a better job listening to what the people want and giving them the resources to be properly informed.

Here is a link to the official documentary site to learn more.

http://www.juvies.net/index.php