Vicious Cycle

I was very interested in the Charles Bowden interview about the cyclical aspect of the drug killing epidemic/ immigration issue. Is immigration into the U.S. causing perpetuating the drug trafficking that is leading to all these deaths, or are we (the United States government) causing more deaths by preventing Mexicans from escape the drug death culture? Is the United States causing this economic dependence on drug trade in the Mexican economy? How can the deaths due to drug trade be limited when the Mexican economy is so dependent on it? It seems like if one fixes one factor in this crisis (in both Juarez and Mexico in general), another element of the crisis will become worse. Any thoughts?

Use of death/corpse material in art?

I'm probably going to post further thoughts, but I was just curious what people thought of the use of corpses or water to clean of corpses as elements of art? Is this too extreme, or necessary to get the point across. Is the use of graffic material effective in this context?

One particular quote that Charles Bowden said regarding the war on drugs that stuck out to me was: "This is a war that benefits prison guards, federal agents, and drug cartels." He paints a grim picture; the war has turned Mexico into a modern day Vietnam with an economy that depends on drugs. He shares that despite the frequent killing of Mexican journalists, their media projects a more honest representation of the reality of the situation as opposed to the American media's portrayal of events. His interview is sadly a testament to the seemingly unfathomable dream of a peaceful Mexico without drugs. When viewed in conjunction with works such as "De camino al ahorita", it's difficult to not view illegal immigrants from Mexico as refugees. Regardless, what art forms are capable of surviving such blatant censorship within Mexico? Will more emphasis be placed on online anonymous cyber communication/representation out of fear of persecution? Are works such as "De camino al ahorita" going to be nearly impossible to portray live in Mexico due to the dangerous climate?

Week 4 Discussion: Ethics and Aesthetics

Near the beginning of Caroll's essay on Margolles's work, Margolles is cited saying "'Mi ética es mi estética' (my ethic is my aesthetic)." It seems like many of us are having fairly deep problems with both her ethics (As Carl quotes below - ""Does a remembrance and deployment of dead bodies whose owners were victims of violence give a voice to the anonymous dead of further victimize them?") and her aesthetic (As Sam says "Do such (visceral) images serve the art or distract the mind?").

This binding of ethics to aesthetics is a theme, and a problem, that appears in a lot of the work we're examining in this class. It seems like we often examine works that take their ethical/ideological perspective so far that we ask ourselves "Can this even be considered art?" (a la Anna, below). How far can an artist take their ethical/ideological perspective before that perspective degrades the artistic integrity of the work? And when does a focus on artistic integrity prohibit an artist from adequately expressing that perspective?

Is the binding of ethics to aesthetics inherently problematic? Do we feel like it's something to pursue? To avoid?

Can we find examples of art that is both bound to its ethical/ideological perspective AND artistically successful?

Week 4 Questions

1. The reading about Margolles' work made me start to wonder about the fundamental threshold of pain and tolerance that we have when we're taking in art. Perhaps it is different from person to person, but is there not a point at which one cannot consider/ask questions about/engage in art because they cannot get over the crude visceral nature of it? It is going to be hard for me as a viewer to take in a picture of corpses and think about the gendered nature of a culture or watch someone spreading human fat over another human and ask questions about performing the self and inter-subjectivity. Do such (visceral) images serve the art or distract the mind?

2. The interview with Charles Bowden made me reconsider the drug war and the connotations it has in our country. Yet, it is such a major source of income for Mexico. What role can/should artists play in this issue? If that level of violence/hardship is occurring in Mexico, can art exist that does not address it? Is it irresponsible not to let violence enter the dialogue?

Without a Name and Identity

Watching Sin Nombre and subsequently reading De Camino al Ahorita, connections between the two stories were inevitable. Both concern border crossing, being nameless is inherent to both stories and the emotions and reasons for crossing make the stories more personal that one would have imagined. When creating these stories, I wonder if the writers took from personal experience or did laborious amounts of research. Adding a personal touch to a work of art, makes it more than a work of creativity. It makes it an expression of one's experience.

In regards to Dorantes piece, the idea of performance came into my mind. By creating 6 characters and having the Hombres and officer be the alter ego or expression of the voices, creates an eerie self-reflexive tone about the piece. More importantly the idea of performance is obvious in regards to the officer who tries to project himself as something other than an "illegal" as hombre A calls him incessantly. Creating new identities for one self is what this play plays on and not giving the characters' names, allows for their identities to be stripped of them and to create new ones for themselves.

Was the issue of identity as overt in Sin Nombre and why did Fukunaga entitle Sin Nombre, as such? Additionally, was the issue of identity in Sin Nombre a result of the border, or just Willy's conflicting feelings?

Week 4 discussion

1. I am left puzzled by Margolles' work and so I pose the question: how does this spark understanding of a conflict of borders or immigration? Can this even be considered art? It is so deeply disgusting, alienating, and base, that I find it does not provoke thoughts of conflicts past, but rather the conflicts of my eyes not wanting to look at such violent, graphic images. Sure, it is performative and is, by definition, art, but what beauty (be it implicit or explicit) is there in Margolles' work? Her scientific background makes me question the art even further. How much of this work is merely for shock value rather than actual substance?

2. After watching Charles Bowden's interview and hearing about the real brutalities going on at the border, are Margolles' art/performance pieces justified? If it truly is as violent and murder-ridden (towards innocent civilians) as Bowden would lead me to believe, I am able to better understand Margolles' work. Bowden also suggests that a lot of what we are hearing about the drug war from our side of the border is fabricated. And so I ask, how different are Mexican artists' interpretations of the situation than American artists', based on perspective and available information alone?

Week 4 Questions

1. After viewing the interview with Charles Bowden I also had the same question about whether or not illegal immigrants from Mexico could be considered refugees in the US. The 1981 Refugee Act states that one may attain refugee status if "unable or unwilling to return because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion". Unfortunately, severe economic hardship is not on this list but to be considered could be persecution based on membership in a particular social group - drug cartels. How far can these limitations of refugee status be stretched? Are Mexicans aware of this possibility and have any lobbied and applied to be refugees? This didn't come up as a way to help Mexico in Bowden's interview. Is there a way that NAFTA could be reformed in order to better accomodate for economies like that in Mexico and could this happen anytime soon? Knowledge and the spread of true information seems to be a possible way to lobby for helping the Mexican population - how do you think the spread of more accurate information would affect the American people from San Diego all the way to Maine?
2. Is art an effective means of spreading more accurate information in America regarding the truths about the hardships of living in Mexico today? Are some artforms more or less effective than others? I found the movie Sin Nombre to be affective in showing the hardship both of crossing and the life that each character was trying to escape, yet I was not as affected by my reading of De Camino al Ahorita. Is theatre an effective way to educate and promote the aid of Mexico by international forces? Perhaps film is a better means because of the better reality that can be portrayed. What other roles can artistic pieces play in educating Americans and finding help for the Mexican people?

Week 4

1. In response to one of the other questions on this blog about whether or not Margolle's work is at all engendering or performative...I think the question is even deeper than that: IS IT ART AT ALL? Carroll brings up a good point when she asks, "Does a remembrance and deployment of dead bodies whose owners were victims of violence give a voice to the anonymous dead of further victimize them?" I would say that this is not art at all, but some pet project done by a forensic scientist-turned "artist" in order for her to get attention. This is using the dead to get front-page headlines and attention for the artist. Agree or disagree.

2. After watching the interview with Bowen about Ciudad Juarez, I want to bring up Amanda's point of the deliniation between refugee and illegal alien. Not only this quote, but also one of the articles from the first week (I can't find which one) says something to the effect that these people are leaving a country that cannot clothe, educate, feed, care for, or better them. They are fleeing for their lives and sending 25-30 billion dollars back in remitances, boosting the Mexican economy. But how should the US treat these people? Can they be considered refugees? If so, should they receive welfare or other assistance when there are already millions in poverty in America already?

Weel 4 Questions

After watching the video link as well as Sin Nombre, my perception of border crossers became warped. Growing up in Dallas, Texas, a certain image of what it means to be a illegal immigranted is imprinted in my mind. Especially when as a young white suburban girl went into the so called "bad parts of town" when I would get inappropriately whistled, winked, and yelled out. After watching Sin Nombre, it gave an absolutely different image to these men and women that trek dangerously north. I found these two different images within the music video we watched week one and the film/video links we watched this week. That original music portrayed these men as tough rough burly bad-ass men versus this movie portrayed the gang members as such. Which image is correct or at least a more accurate portrayal of these men and women border crossers.

The image and treatment of the illegal immigrants on the trains reminded me of the Jews fleeing Germany and Poland during World War II when England, United States, Sweden, and Israel, and other countries started closing their borders as well as capping the number of refugees they would take into their country. So that got me thinking with the amount of violence being portrayed in these movies and articles, what differentiates these illegal immigrants from refugees? Especially when their quality of living is so dismal and most have no other options to give themselves a better life that come north as Bowdin talks about. Should the United States begin treat these men and women differently and different laws be created and enacted?

Week 4: Cultural Event

This Thursday, I attended the presentation given by Puerto Rican-American hip-hop artist Lah Tere of the group Rebel Diaz. In her talk for the Introduction to Latino Studies class and the various visitors who joined the lecture, she told her story of growing up in Chicago’s Humboldt Park neighborhood, which she frequently referred to as “her hood” or “her barrio.” She called the telling of this story a healing experience, saying her passion came from the pain and the hurt she had experienced. As a child, she was lucky enough to grow up in a household with two parents who were active in the community, and their involvement in the ASPIRA program allowed her to stay off the streets through cultural activities and sports like swimming. However, the majority of other children were raised by single mothers who didn’t have the time or the resources to keep them off the streets. Fifteen of Lah Tere’s high school friends were killed in gang warfare; countless others were jailed, working in prostitution, or dealing drugs. Her own father dealt drugs to earn extra money while teaching and using the family house as a community center to support the Humboldt Park youth. His choices eventually caught up with him and his heroin addiction spiraled out of control. The family lost everything, and Lah Tere went to college homeless, with no other place to live.
All the while, music played a significant role in her life, with songs like Queen Latifah’s "U.N.I.T.Y." serving as her inspiration. Around the age of fourteen, she began singing with a youth salsa band. As their music grew in popularity, the group realized they had a voice that they could use to combat the racism, violence, and hatred happening within and directed toward Humboldt Park. When she moved to the South Bronx at the urging of a rapper she sang with, she discovered a barrio even tougher than the one where she grew up. Lah Tere continued to take an activist stance with her music with the hip-hop group Rebel Diaz. She spoke of the power of music, discussing the strong hip-hop culture and saying that hip-hop saved her life. She believes hip-hop has the power to create change because the beats draw people in, and people then start listening to the lyrics and the message. The overall themes of music and the importance of telling one’s story served as a unifying thread throughout her narrative.
Overall, I found this to be a gripping story, though at times difficult to listen to, and as someone who enjoys listening to and making music, I could identify with her attraction to music and her message about its power to enact social change. I occasionally felt as though she spoke rather harshly and critically about people born into privilege or those who didn’t speak Spanish, though I suppose her stance makes sense considering her background. However, her story was still an eye-opener and a good reminder that there are people all around who don’t necessarily have parents sending them money or a home to return to over school breaks.
Though Lah Tere’s story focused more on the experience of immigrants within the United States than the actual process of immigration (her parents came from Puerto Rico, and she is a first-generation American), she still discussed concepts applicable to class discussion. The main commonality that stood out to me was the difference between the American dream that immigrants envisioned and the difficult reality of living in the barrio. For example, before Lah Tere’s mother met her father, she married a blond Norwegian man because that was how she envisioned the American dream – marrying a “Ken,” someone who looked like Barbie’s boyfriend. However, the marriage failed, and she married Lah Tere’s father, a black Puerto Rican who often got stopped by police when out walking with the light-skinned daughters of his wife’s first marriage. Even though Lah Tere’s parents were working and involved in education reform, they still fell prey to the traps of the barrio. Her father, for example, became addicted to heroin while trying to deal with the shock of seeing a young boy shot and the realization that despite all the work he did for reform, the streets were still more powerful. When asked if she would advise other Puerto Ricans to immigrate to the U.S., Lah Tere answered that she would not, because despite the poverty and social difficulties in Puerto Rico, at least the Puerto Ricans had their roots and their families all around them. Even though her parents entered the U.S. legally, they and their children were still treated as inferiors. I found this discussion of the difference between the American dream and the realities of being an immigrant to be very relevant to why people cross the border and the realities they face if they make the crossing.

Lah Tere integrated spoken word poetry and videos of her music and the music that inspired her throughout her presentation. Here are two of the videos she showed:
Rebel Diaz's "Otro Guerrillero" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKO16GFwBOg
Queen Latifah's "U.N.I.T.Y." - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8cHxydDb7o

so much violence!

I'm with Adrienne on not fully understanding the argument of engendering in Margolles's works. Amy Sara Carroll had me sighing and rolling my eyes multiple times throughout my reading of her article. I do have a question, though, about Margolles's pieces: If we are considering her work to be performative, is it more effective with the element of site-specificity, as in "Bathing the Baby" and "Self-Portraits in the Morgue," or with the implied existence of dead bodies, as in "Vaporization"and "Operativo: Part 2"?

After watching the interview with Charles Bowden, I began to wonder about the people from Ciudad Juarez who flee north to the United States... How is it possible that any or many of them will ever become legal citizens of the United States? If you're a refugee (fleeing your country because of persecution or fear of persecution from the government or a group the government is unable or unwilling to control, as seems to be the case in Juarez), your main goal is to enter the country and apply for asylum. But the laws of asylum as they currently stand are such that, if the condition you fear is a condition everybody in your country reasonably fears, you won't be granted asylum. If there's nothing particular about you (race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion) that causes a social body to persecute you, you have no shot. With uniformly bad country conditions and thus without many hopes for asylum (unless, of course, they lie about other types of persecution), where can these refugees turn? I guess this is more of a technical question than a theoretical one. I just am really curious about it.

In "The World's Most Dangerous Gang," it's said that the United States, in attempting to rid itself of gang problems, deported gang members and thus facilitated the spread of gang violence into Latin America, thus creating a stronger, more viral problem. Is there a case imaginable in which it would seem a good idea, ethically and/or tactically, for the U.S. to funnel its problems into third world countries and hope for a solution?

Week 4 - January 31

I was confused in the first article about why the art pieces of Margolle's were so engendered. I understand that the use of dead bodies is seen as more of a masculine art form, but I found the displays so morbid and twisted that the gender of the artist didn't really matter.

I found the interview with Bowden very interesting, and it was a perspective that I've never heard before. I knew that there were record high murder rates this past year and that they were related to the drug cartel, but I had never heard an argument for letting the drug trade continue. How, with the drug trade being the largest economy in Mexico, and the obvious negative effects on the United States, has NAFTA not been revisited? It seems like the primary culprit in the destruction of Mexico's infrastructure and economy, so if it would keep more people from crossing illegally, decrease the drug trade and death rate, and decrease the number of homeless children, has this not been a greater topic of discussion?

Death of Susana Chávez, Activist on Behalf of Murdered Women in Ciudad Juarez

La Plaza

News from Latin America and the Caribbean

« Previous | La Plaza Home | Next »

Death of Susana Chavez, female activist in Ciudad Juarez, not tied to organized crime, state says

January 14, 2011 |  9:25 am

She coined the phrase "Ni una muerta mas," or "Not one more dead," a clamor of protest against the tide of violent and unsolved deaths of women in Ciudad Juarez in Mexico, the "dying city."
Last week, Susana Chavez became a victim, too. The 36-year-old poet and activist was found dead on Jan. 6, strangled and with her left hand cut off.
Her death marks the latest addition to a grim figure. By Christmas Eve of last year, 978 women had died violently in the Juarez area since the state began recording the figure separately in 1993, reported El Diario de Juarez in late December (link in Spanish). Significantly, at least 300 of those deaths, or just under a third, occurred in 2010 amid skyrocketing bloodshed due to a war between drug cartels.
Others have been kidnapped, "disappeared," or raped in the violence, which often extends outside Juarez to the rest of Chihuahua state, news reports show. Some of the victims have been policewomen, lawyers, or prominent human rights activists. Many received threats.
But this week, after Chavez's remains were identified, a state prosecutor told reporters the woman was not killed in an organized crime hit, but rather died at the hands of three teenage boys after a night of partying. The teens, each 17 years old, have been arrested and questioned, officials said.
"They said they did not know her. They suddenly ran into her, she wanted to keep drinking, so did they, and well it was an unfortunate encounter," said state prosecutor Carlos Manuel Salas (link in Spanish).
When pressed on the question of whether Chavez might have been killed for her past work and poetry bringing attention to violence against women in Juarez, the prosecutor said: "Absolutely not."
In fresh statements on the case on Wednesday, authorities said that Chavez's mother confirmed that her daughter had been drinking the evening before her death. The teens killed her after Chavez told them she was a police officer, authorities said (link in Spanish).
Juarez became internationally known after a yet-unsolved wave of "femicides" or "feminicides" (as the deaths of women are known) peaked in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
Last month, a Juarez mother was shot and killed while keeping a lone vigil outside the Chihuahua statehouse over the death of her daughter at the hands of a man freed by judges. In the small town of Guadalupe, the only remaining police officer was kidnapped from her home and has not been heard from since.
Ciudad Juarez is by far the most violent city in Mexico, and by some estimates the most violent in the world, with 3,111 dead in 2010, local reports say, citing government figures. The rival Sinaloa and Juarez cartels are battling over control for the lucrative Juarez drug-trafficking route across the border into El Paso, Texas.
Susana Chavez kept a blog  on which she published poems. One of them, "Sangre," or "Blood," is written from the perspective of a victim.
At her funeral, friend Armine Arjona told El Diario: "She was a great, excellent poet, at a national level among women. She had stopped writing but she had lot of unpublished work, which we will find some way to publish."
-- Daniel Hernandez in Mexico City
Photo: Pink crosses with the phrase "Not one more," symbolizing women killed violently in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. Credit: Griterio.org

Several sources discuss how the association and stereotype of Mexicans as illegal and criminal can act as a debilitating factor in the fight towards border stability. Leo Chavez, in his article titled, “The Latino Threat,” declares that though they have inhabited what is now the United States since before the original colonies were established, Latinos, particularly Mexicans, are “plagued by the mark of illegality.”[1] He points out that the association with Mexican immigrants as criminals creates a mentality within the public discourse that Mexican immigrants are unable to contribute to society and unworthy of social benefits, including citizenship.[2] In addition, he also suggests the media’s objectification of immigrants and its portrayal of Mexican immigrants as a chaotic mass rather than as people struggling to be recognized as contributing members of U.S. society may have led to a lack of empathy among a good portion of the American public.[3] In addition to the aforementioned stereotype possibly creating a degree of apathy north of the border, it may also contribute to a lack of self-confidence and sense of powerlessness south of the border. As Marguerite Waller discusses in her article, “Border Boda or Divorce Fronterizo”, “The ‘illegal alien’ image is precisely the image of themselves that some Comadres must confront everyday—in school, in the media, on the street, in the workplace. Worse, it can become an internalized self-image of powerlessness…”[4] In turn, this construct of Mexican as the ‘illegal’ people makes resolving border issues that much more of a challenge. Specifically, the “Border Boda” article concurs that perhaps this fear of embodying the stereotype may be creating reluctance among Chicanas to air their differences in front of “Anglo” women.[5] Most importantly, the image of Mexicans as chaotic, helpless, downtrodden, criminal, and illegal can prevent the inter-cultural interaction necessary to fuel crucial discussions about immigration policy. Only with cross-cultural understanding can border stability be achieved.

Some of the tension surrounding border and immigration issues could certainly stem from the noticeable hypocrisy among opposition towards Mexican immigration in the United States. In the aforementioned “Border Boda” article, Marguerite Waller how the demonstrators and organizers or the right wing, populist campaign, “Light Up the Border”, despite its vehement opposition to Mexican immigration, in fact, knew nothing of Indio, Spanish, and Mexican history of the region. Not only that, they seemed unaware of the “complex, self-serving, and immensely profitable games U.S. business, manufacturing, agriculture, and government have been playing with Mexican labor for generations.”[6] Not only is it inherently hypocritical to stage an oppositional movement against a group with whom you’re unfamiliar; in this case, the organizers of “Light Up the Border” seemed unaware of the hypocrisy in turning away immigrants whom U.S. business both used and exploited regularly. Other pundits also addressed contradictions within the anti-immigration agenda. Right after mentioning an incident when a tejano rancher’s wife was raped and murdered by an Anglo landgrabber, the latter article references a woman named Mrs. Vásquez, who after being seized and beaten at the border, denounces the hypocrisy of Americans who strongly oppose Mexicans entering their country while they invade Mexico and brutalize Mexicans.[7] Clearly, not all of the opposition to immigration has committed such heinous acts, but various examples of the opposition’s rhetoric and actions reveal a type of hypocrisy that only hampers the effort to stabilize the border situation.

---

[1] Leo Chavez, “The Latino Threat”, 3.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid, 5.

[4] Marguerite Waller, “Border Boda or Divorce Fronterizo” (from Negotiating Performance, ed. Diana Taylor and Juan Villegas), 67.

[5] Ibid, 84.

[6] Ibid, 72.

[7] Ibid, 79.

The paradigm performance that Teddy Cruz champions emphasizes the result stemming from the audience rather than how that result was achieved; the end justifies the means. Within the context of the evolving California culture, his architecture is almost a contradictory performance space. I love it- I found myself rooting for Teddy as I was reading the article. His work catalyzes a greater appreciation for what a multitude of people from different backgrounds consider "trash" yet uses all materials for the benefit of everyone. This begs the question, however, of how important is the spacial element in the effectiveness of his work? Does working farther away from the border make his work less convincing? Do "legal" citizens have a inherently different view of his work than "illegal" citizens due to their government status?

Week 3

For some reason, I felt a bit perturbed by Solnit's article on Teddy Cruz and his architecture. My main concern was with the value judgments that seemed to be being placed on the perceived "openness" of residential space in particular and the idea that such an openness is superior. I wonder where such a judgment has sprung from. The phrase "good fences make good neighbors" comes to mind (and have fun applying that one to the U.S./Mexico border)- certainly not an idiom Cruz would agree with. So- now that we, as a culture, have moved to more separate residential existences as a whole, what makes the possibility of greater connection between neighbors appealing? Is it some sort of valorous fight against the compartmentalization of our social lives a la Facebook? Or is it some philosophical idealism attaching a value judgment to a practice that really doesn't have much positive effect on the lives of those affected?

(Personally, having dealt with rabid, shrieking football fans on all sides of my residence today, I'd like to be as far from my neighbors as possible. But I guess that's neither here nor there.)

Week Three Readings

1. In Border Boda, Waller writes, "For the audience, here and throughout, there is, then, no unequivocal place to stand, and that is the point." From her description of the production, does this sound like an accurate statement? Did they use ambiguity effectively or further confuse us in an issue with too many questions and not enough solutions?
2. I found Teddy Cruz's work to be especially inspiring. He is definitely onto something when he talks about just how dated and ineffective so many of our structural spaces are for modern life. I wonder what could happen if there were revolutionary thinkers like him in every field? If politicians, businessmen, city planners, educational administrators and artists alike reexamined the way things have always worked in their field in light of recent societal shifts, what might start to change? In what ways does theatre still cater to an older version of our country and how can we use our art to both create beauty and respond to a need?

Week 3- Teddy Cruz and Non-Conformity

I was really interested to read about Teddy Cruz's work in both the San Diego and Tijuana areas. I really enjoyed reading the piece by Solnit and getting to see Cruz's work from his own perspective on either side of the border. I was especially intruiged by his ideas of non-conformity especially those in relation to zoning regulations and building laws in the U.S. It is a tricky issue to approach, the idea that our government (in trying to protect it's citizens), are in actuality, limiting their successes. People living near the border or in multi-family/extended-family homes are often hindered by laws that keep them from expanding or adapting their property to certain specifications that would greatly improve their lives. At what point do we allow our government's arbitrary rules to keep people from living their best life possible and in this case, living comfortably under extenuating circumstances. Why should the government care about additions on someone's own property or an extra room or a certain breaking up of space? I really liked Cruz's non-conformist approach to the project Living Rooms at the Border which would break up a "church" space allowed 3 allocations into 12 different spaces and create a much better situation for the community surrounding that property. Visionaries like Cruz are the ones who make a difference in the world. Not by fighting with weapons but instead fighting with ideas, and good ones at that. They take the initiative to implement their ideas and prove to those who have doubts that they are, in fact, making a life/a community/the world a better place.

Week 3!

I really enjoyed reading about inSITE this week. What a strange and cool event! The layout particularly fascinated me; that the visitors were drawn in and advertised to and then upon arrival, they had to fight to find their way through the thing. It draws such a parallel to the actual act of border crossing--people talk and talk about it, and then when it's time to actually go for it, it's a seemingly impossible task. I wonder what it would be like to be a Mexican immigrant attending these art exhibitions? Would they recognize the parallels as well, if not more so? What would their experiences be like at the exhibitions themselves? Emotionally charged or reserved and removed? On a simpler note, though it is a strong and meaningful choice to have exhibitions taking place on both sides of the border, it is a little limiting for those illegal immigrants who may want to get the full experience of the event, seeing as they would not be able to cross the border into Mexico and back.

I was fascinated by Brinco shoes. I don't really have any questions about them, per se, but I thought that was such a creative idea. It reminded me of the poetry-ridden cell phones, only in a less forced and alienating way. Very clever.

Teddy Cruz and the future of Architecture (Week 3 Question)

Reading about Teddy Cruz and his crusade to change the face of architecture for the better, makes him a sort of modern day Robin Hood; he takes what those in power have put in place to limit space and he aims to break down those institutions and make them more functional and available for those of lower classes.

With Latin American as the heart of his inspiration, it is inspiring and quite unsettling to see what is done with American garbage once it leaves the sidewalk. The innovation of Latin Americans to build where they need to and building additions to homes, exemplifies ingenuity in the face of hardships.

Yet, seeing how Americans just discard things that could be useful can make on rethink how we manage waste. While these structures may look structural cautious to us, but they serve a good purpose and as mentioned in the article, are quite structurally sound. With that said, the question of the border is brought up one again.

These inanimate materials cross borders, as do the people that live in border towns. How can people on both sides of the border work together to achieve what is best for each in regards to deposited waste? Also, do you think that Teddy Cruz's revolutionary, but simple idea about the future of architecture will gain wider acceptance? Are their any pitfalls to his ideology?

Week 3 Questions

1. Waller's piece on Border Feminism acknowledges many of the border abstractions that are not so evident in the media surrounding the politicized issue of illegal immigration into the United States. Of most interest was the language border that seems to no longer be a clear distinction between the American and Mexican cultures. This barrier has become so muddled that Americans oftentimes know more Spanish than young Chicanas. Could this, perhaps, be a move away from the extreme border conflict in the the Southern United States or simply a product of the conflict that will continue to confuse the identity of Mexicans in the US? Also of interest in this piece was the analysis of the niece character and what her role meant to the other performers. What is her role meant to provoke emotionally from the audience and should it be made more clear or kept in the abstract that seems to characterize the current-day Mexico-US border?
2. Architect, Teddy Cruz, has dedicated his work to bringing together the living conditions and real estate of suburban and urban communities. In doing so, has he successfully blurred the line between Tijuana and San Diego? Can this kind of work endure in such politically contested contexts? It seems that Cruz has found a different kind of a border than the simple line between the first and third world that has been drawn but rather two different urban cultures, one of color and one moving towards suburban culture. As Cruz attempts to bring this work to San Francisco, further from the actual border, will it be as accepted and make the same statement as it does in San Diego?

1. "Border Boda" talks a lot about the concept of racism and sexism being linked. Waller writes, "there might be a quasi-sexual pleasure involved for some Anglo-identified spectators of images of Mexicans as abject." Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Is racism and racist images or thoughts in any way related to a fetish of power and control over abjected peoples?

2. Both "Border Boda" and inSITE are art/performance events meant to bridge the gap between the border through thoughtful art and bilingual/binational debate. However, it seems that it solely represents a liberal political view. Can an art or performance event such as these really be called binational when they exclude the views of many "conservatives"? Couldn't one argue that these events just further propogate the idea of "us vs. them" by essentially doing the same thing to conservatives as these "bigots" "racists" and "Anglo-identified" peoples do to them?

Week 3

1. In Border Boda or Divorce Fronterizo, Marguerite Waller says, “I still feel that Spanish is central to my understanding of the place and the time that I am living, but I do not think that it will allow me to represent anyone or anything more authentically.” She also describes the different scenarios that lead to people becoming bilingual or monolingual, saying that a well-educated white person might know more Spanish than a Hispanic one who has grown up in the U.S. Considering these circumstances, what role should Spanish play in negotiating the border? Should debates, performances, and interactions be done in one particular language, or is this question more context-dependent? If it should depend on context, when should Spanish be used and when English?
2. Reading about Teddy Cruz, I wondered how architecture and design fits into the body of art tackling issues regarding the border. How should we look at this work? Fine art? A more practical sort of art? The quote of Tania Bruguera’s in Teddy Cruz’s Mapping Non-Conformity, “It is time to restore Duchamp’s urinal back to the bathroom!” especially stood out to me. Duchamp’s urinal, or “Fountain,” as he called it, is only considered art by some because he signed it and hung it up as such. If it returned to the bathroom, it would be not art, but a piece of plumbing. Can we then look at architecture as art, or is it something more functional? How does it relate to the performance art we have been reading about, either in its goals or the way it tries to achieve them?

Week 3 readings

An image that jumped out at me a good bit as I perused the inSITE file was the "Good Neighbor" installment. "Good Neighbor" was a large table bisected by a saw. The table was covered in ground chili peppers and had, at either end, a large metal chair. The initial image of the saw and the silver area immediately to either side of the division it created was pretty startling. It was suddenly not a difficult task to picture the actual border fence as a cerated, vicious piece of metal threatening to destroy those who came into contact with it. But once I sat back and took in the scene of the installment in its entirety, I noticed the saw seemed ominously positioned to thrash through the metal chairs (which were meant to signify the powers that be), too. It made me think...we have been studying how the border manifests itself in the culture on and around it. But how does the border affect those in power, those that (however unknowingly) create the culture we study? By creating a monster of the border, are they (namely the U.S. government) creating a monster that could pose a threat to their own infrastructure?

Something else that stood out to me, this time in the Teddy Cruz reading, was the frequent mention of the "hardening of the post 9-11 border wall." It surprised me to some degree that the terrorism our country faced on that day effected such change on the U.S.-Mexico border. I realize that, after 9/11, the U.S. strengthened security measures in most respects, but I wonder whether the collective "we" became more wary of the collective "other," which expanded to include anyone who was not in the "we"? Did the events of 9/11 create a new rhetoric Americans would end up using against any foreign body?

One more thing that sort of struck me pretty hard... Teddy Cruz says: "I believe the future is small, and this implies the dismantling of the LARGE by pixelating it with the micro: an urbanism of retrofit." Cruz, I believe, means this most directly in terms of architecture. I do wonder, though, whether this type of claim (that the future is small) would be acceptable in a global sense. Is it possible the technological train that is currently steam-powering its way to virtual domination can be stopped in favor of the old-time, home-based human interactions? I suppose perhaps a better question to entertain is: Will the increasing emphasis on virtual interaction make our future world bigger? Or smaller? Does the Internet mean globalization on a scale larger than ever before? Or does that accompany a privatization more intricate and pixelated than could otherwise be imagined?

Week 3 - Jan. 24

My first question is about the art group in "Border Boda or Divorce Fronterizo" and our representation of art as an expression of community. They were expressing a community that extended across the border, but are there equally well thought out and active groups that try to separate the border communities? When I hear about groups that are anti-immigrant they're portrayed as racist, xenophobic, ultra-conservative, and often ignorant. Are there groups such as this one that are well spoken and not overly radical? If not, how do people who may lean towards a more border stringent view express their feelings without being grouped in with radical self proclaimed militia men?

I found it interesting in Teddy Cruz's manifesto the responsibility he puts on the "people's participation in urban development, enhancing the role of communities in producing housing." Is it his claim that the people should be more active in creating the housing code, the boards that have created the code need to revamp it, or that it should be disbanded so that land use can develop on its own? Furthermore, does he advocate the abolition of laws requiring set backs and the like or does he just want the rules to be more flexible so that communities can develop spaces that fit their needs the best?

Week Three Questions

So I finished the readings last weekend, so this is my attempt to revisit this material and develop some questions.



First of all, one of my favorite photos was from one of the InSite photos done by Acconci Studio, "Island on the Fence." Also "Toy an Horse." How can a natural landmark be so ugly defaced by wooden fencing. It almost seems laughable to divide an unstoppable force of nature by such a hideous decaying man-made divide. How does this picture of a physical landmark reflect the relationships of the countries it divides.

From the very first article about the Brinco sneakers, they in ways reminded me of the cell phone with the GPS navigation system given away for free to border crossers from last week. I found it so entertaining that a high end sneaker was given away so that consumers still paid the high end amount for sneakers that had such a functional value for illegal border crossers. In what other ways can high end industrys make a statement about exposing the contradictions in consumer culture, especially when it comes to the US Mexican border?

Internet protest (week 2)

So I know this is late, but I just wanted to return to the point I made about internet protest and sit-ins, as we were talking about the Online Zapatistas and such. I think, while online protest is a great means of keeping up with the continuing advance in technology as well as a means of connecting activists on a global level, it devalues, or rather diminishes, the power of protest as people can merely push a button to support a cause. The ability to appear good-natured and philanthropic online is enough for many people, and I too can't deny being a guilty of this a time or two. The fact is, the physical act of protesting in the streets or attending a rally or meeting is when one truly becomes invested. Even with the article on the simulated night-walk border crossing experience, it is clear the author was affected on a much more visceral level when experiencing the issue in person.

Also, as I mentioned in class, the internet can provide a cloak of anonymity for people to voice strong, antagonizing opinions that they would never express in real life. While there is nothing wrong with the desire to be anonymous, protest simply doesn't carry the same weight in power when it is done in an online commentary setting. The fact that people can rally around a cause together from across the world is, in theory, very innovative and exciting.I think as time goes on, the entire world could adapt towards a place where anything but online protest and activism is irrelevant. Until then, it seems much of the online protest appears to be an effort to raise awareness of a cause, at best, or flaunt a type of faux-altruism, at worst.

"Taking Action"

Here's the link I mentioned in class...

http://www.newsreel.org/guides/Maquilapolis/MAQ_DiscussionGuide_English.pdf

The "Taking Action" section is on page 14.

Reenacting a passage

As I was reading the Magelssen article, a thought hit me, illegal immigrants can be likened to fugitive slaves of the Antebellum south. The similarities are numerous. Both were targeted and by conservative forces. The prefixes "illegal" and "fugitive" highlighting the illegality of their journey from one place to another. Both are (or were) racial minorities, specifically regarding Latin American immigrants. With that stated, the issue of racism behind immigration cannot be ignored.

Made most explicitly in the article was the fact that people take part in reenactment of slaves and immigrants arduous journey to freedom, whether physical or economic. Attending a reenactment first seemed to me to be an appropriation of someone's plight, taking a harrowing journey and making it enjoyable. After reading about the Caminata Noctura and how it attempts to keep true to the journey to "El Norte" I understand the intention of its creators, to deter immigration and filter finances back into the struggling economy.

For those that do decide to leave, the livelihoods for themselves and their families are first and foremost on their minds. But as they cross, the ultimately compromise the borders of their home countries and the emigrating country. Yet most boundaries are a social constructions, manmade structures, a wall to separate you from me, native from foreigner, good vs bad and so on and so forth. This only adds to my newfound ambiguity on the subject of illegal immigration.

While I understand the need to protect the borders of the USA from the forces of violence and things that threaten "American Integrity" (an issue that I will discuss at a later date), these borders were once nonexistent and strengthening them will not stop immigration and the real problems that face many Latin American countries. Herein lies my question: The US is no stranger to the creation of borders, real or imagined. Could strengthening the border strengthen a sense of "American identity/citizenship" or could we see a mass movement of liberal thought arising, fighting for the civil liberties of illegal immigrants?

Additionally, is it possible to view illegal immigration without resorting to xenophobic and inflammatory language?

Regarding the Caminata Nocturna experience, who should or should not take part in a border crossing simulation? The article profiled various types of participants such as tourists walking in immigrants’ shoes or Mexicans learning about what crossing the border would actually entail. With each audience comes a set of moral and ethical questions. For example, is it disrespectful for American tourists to pretend to be tourists crossing the border, or is it a necessary cultural eye-opener? This was an issue I personally felt some ambiguity over as I debated in my own mind whether this sort of tourism served to clarify and educate or to commercialize and trivialize. I also thought the Mexican market for the simulations added an interesting layer to the discussion of the value of this tourist attraction? Does the experience better serve Mexicans whom it deters from making the difficult, dangerous, and illegal crossing, or is it more valuable as a window into another world for tourists in different situations?
The Caminata Nocturna article made me think more about the boundaries of theatre and what can be called theatre. Though my inclination would be to say that this is not theatre but rather has theatrical and performance components, I would be interested in hearing if anyone would consider this experience to be theatre. The main thing that keeps this from being theatre in my mind is the lack of a traditional audience watching the performance. For example, I wouldn’t consider children playing role-play games with each other to be theatre since although they are performing and playing roles, this experience would lack the sort of (to some extent) detached witnesses that make up an audience. However, perhaps I am defining theatre and the concept of the audience too narrowly. I would be interested in hearing the thoughts of someone who might consider this theatre or who would be willing to play devil’s advocate as, though I do not necessarily consider this to be theatre, it could still be interesting to see what we learn when taking a look at it from that lens.

Week 2 Discussion: Immersive Tourism and Creative Drama

In reading Magelssen's acount of "Caminata Noctura," the underground railroad simulation, and other immersive tourism projects, my mind was immediately drawn to the work being done with elementary and middle school students in the creative drama classroom. To quickly summarize, creative drama is a non-performative, process-based way of teaching and learning drama, and is basically a smaller-scale, educationally-focused version of the tourist attractions Magelssen describes.

For example, I observed a 4th grade class last year that was playing out a drama of immigration to the United States in the 19th century, and the students all got down on their bellies and sneaked under fences and into corners, and huddled up in hiding spaces on an imaginary boat, holding hands and shivering for fear of the guard (played by their drama teacher), who was on the lookout for fugitives. While all this plays out in a standard classroom, with mostly imaginary props etc., the reality of it for students can be as intense as the reality Magelssen describes in his first experience with the underground railroad simulation.

In a speech he gave at the 2009 Conference of the American Alliance for Theatre and Education, Harvard Professor Howard Gardner pointed to research that showed that middle school students who took drama classes improved on tests of empathy between 6th and 8th grade, while students' scores during these years, on average, decreased. I think this research can, in a sense, be considered in terms of the immersion tourism industry, and that we can assume that simulations of poverty and hardship also do good for a person's sense of empathy.

But I also think that many of us (especially those of us that were weirded out by the idea of the Caminata Nocturna) would instinctively feel that there's a difference between simulating hardship with a group of fourth graders as an educational exercise and doing the same thing with a group of paying adult vacationers as a tourist attraction.

So my questions, then, are:

1. How do the demographics (race, age, class, nationality, etc.) of the participatory audience of an immersive performance piece like the Caminata Nocturna affect the meaning and effect of the piece?

2. Do the intention and purpose of this kind of work change its meaning and effect?

3. Do we feel like the potential for projects like the Caminata Nocturna to raise empathy for oppressed people is enough to override the uneasiness some of us feel (see Tracey and Amanda's posts, especially) about the authenticity (or lack of authenticity) of the experience of the participatory audience?

Week Two discussion

The Caminata Nocturna article reminded me of the old adage, "before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes." Well, the tourists who frequent the attraction get to walk five miles in the shoes of an illegal immigrant crossing into the United States. However, like several of you have pointed out, this form of entertainment has elicited less than enthusiastic reactions. Taken straight from the article: "It has been interpreted badly by some," says Mr. Martin. "It is misunderstood. This is so my neighbors prosper, so that no one else is forced to go."

This is a familiar argument to me. I live in New Mexico, so Native American gaming rights, for example, is often debated and defended in a similar fashion (not to mention immigration is a hot-button issue in itself there). After all, it's supposed to be entertainment, right? Paying customers willingly choose to go to these events, and many kindle their social consciences; entertainment and cultural insights aren't mutually exclusive.

In terms of performative space, Caminata Nocturna offers a unique experience. There are actors who portray characters (border agents, the 'pollero'), yet the audience is actively involved; nobody is sitting comfortably in a theater passively watching the show. Such direct involvement demands attention and discourse that will ultimately contribute to a growing body of knowledge on what illegal immigration means to the participants. By literally immersing the audience in the spectacle, entertainment such as this raises several issues: Given that the owner admitted that his desire is to discourage others from illegally immigrating, can a production such as this be unbiased? Does active audience participation catalyze stronger reactions than passive audience participation?

Discussion Questions (week 2)

I was taken aback by the Christian Science monitor. Throughout the piece, I had to pause and take a second to reflect on what I was reading, simply because I genuinely could not believe this. I was initially shocked to know that this type of tourism exists--that people would voluntarily participate in this type of event. Then I stopped to think, how is this any different than the strange tourist events that Americans choose to participate in? Further reflecting, I realized I couldn't think of a single tourist attraction off the top of my head that I found as strange, jarring, and real as the Caminata. The hike truly takes it one step further (at least in my realm of knowledge). And so I pose the question, is this something that anyone in this class would choose to participate in, if given the chance?

Right now, I feel as though I can confidently say that I would not want to pay to take part in such an event. I think the hike could even be deemed hazardous, as it probably has the ability to trigger feelings of trauma in people that they are not used to feeling. All in all, I came away with a sour taste in my mouth. Though I understand that the people who began the Caminata believe it to be a historical and informative experience--noble motivations--I do not think the average American would react enthusiastically to the hike. Perhaps I'm just not a risk-taker, but I know that I am not the type of person who would enjoy such an experience, and I'm excited to hear if others would choose to pay for this "tourist attraction."

Magelssen + Created Realities

Discussion Question: The pieces that were most intriguing to me this week were the Magelssen essay and the Christian Science Monitor article both describing the experience of Caminata park in Mexico. The question that arose for me was after reading the following excerpt from Magelssen's piece describing the act of this new kind of adventure tourism- How is this different, after all, from the entitled Western demand...for a "glocal" sensory experience that offers escape from "mediocrity and kitsch of mass tourism?" As a student who just traveled for the past 3 and a half months I saw many attempts to discover the "real" experience of a place. But in some instances attempting to "discover" the reality of a place just cheapens the experience. Instead of enjoying the culture and accepting the circumstances you are placed in, people are obsessed with going beyond "tourism" in some elitist attempt to rise above the stereotypes of ignorant tourism. While the aims of such travel are obviously admirable, in my experience, sometimes its more stereotypical to attempt to create a "reality" of a certain place. As with these people impersonating runaway slaves or attempted immigrants- they are attempting to create a real situation but this is impossible. They are not these people. They are not facing these hardships. They are just acting and pretending. Does this not demean the actually experience had by these peoples by making it all into some sort of bizarre game? Some attempt to recreate a reality that is impossible to replicate?

Week 2 Questions

The Caminata article raised some very important issues for me in light of performance and social issues. There is definitely a distinction to be made between these kinds of simulations that deal with historical events such as the slavery experience and the Holocaust museum and those that seek to recreate current affairs like the border crossing. As the former type of attraction is constructed by those who do not have first-hand experience, it would seem to be less authentic. After all, the Caminata is orchestrated by people who have crossed the border several times themselves. Yet, perhaps there is more room for comparisons to be made and those critiques are likely to be more heated when dealing with such a relevant hot-button topic.  I think the most difficult thing to gauge is the intangible reactions and processing that inevitably occurs within the individuals who undergo the experience at Caminata. What does their experience teach them about the preconceived ideas they may have had? What do they learn about themselves and what they were brought up to believe? How can such ethereal responses be measured and ought they be given consideration as we judge the worth or "success" of this type of tourist attraction?

Week 2 Discussion

At the risk of focusing on a current event that may be only tangentially related to the issues at hand, I could think of almost nothing but the WikiLeaks scandal while reading the Digital Zapatistas article. Julian Assange and EDT seem remarkably in line with each other as far as their political philosophy goes. Lane says, "The transparency of [Floodnet's] action, then, aims to reveal the "mask" that hides the workings of power and virtual capital." And Assange wrote in a blog post something startingly similar: "The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie." Both seem poised to expose the proverbial man behind the curtain in hope that greater transparency will result in fairer government processes.


So: how has our concept of cyberspace and its perception as a "public space" evolved since the EDT's demonstrations in the late 90s? (The article argues that no private boundaries were crossed, and the effects on the websites were perhaps no different from a large street demonstration as far as congestion, slowing of traffic are concerned, etc.) Is there a reason activists like Assange are using wildly different techniques than EDT to acheive perhaps similar political goals?




And a bit of musing on the role of risk to the tourists in Caminata Nocturna. Magelssen's account makes it seem that he was legitimately worried for his safety during the six-hour period: he worried about being separated from the group, being near precipitous ledges, etc. I was personally a bit horrified by the account of one of the managers of the park confirming that "twisted ankles" and "broken bones" have occurred during the simulation. That sort of real risk associated with the performance seems to have multiple purposes: providing a somewhat authentic experience, scaring the participants into not attempting the border crossing, and, perhaps, a sheer "adrenaline factor" associated with the danger. It doesn't seem that the simulation would be as widely discussed if it didn't have the "can you handle it?" factor. To bring another current event to the conversation, the current Broadway disaster (?) that is Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark seems to have a similar vein of interest going for it, in that audiences attend out of simultaneous fascination and horror that there might be an accident during the performance (which very well could include the audience, seeing as the performers are sometimes above their seats). Can these situations really be compared, or is it an entirely different kind of risk? How does the presence of possible bodily harm validate the arguments that Caminata Nocturna is trying to make to its participants?

January 10th Questions

Last week, we discussed the idea that all intentional behavior can be considered performance because it is an intentional representation of an idea or person. What then, qualifies Dominguez's work as theatre? It does purposefully represent an idea, but is the use of code and electronic means theatre? Who is the performer? Is it the person writing the code, the person who's idea it is, or is the performer the group being marginalized?

In contrast to last week's photo article where all the participants were waiting, the simulated trip across the border is only 6 hours. How does this difference color the feelings about immigration in its participants? Both articles included parts about the experience discouraging illegal crossing, but for non-Mexican tourists who view it as an adventure, does it make them more or less sympathetic to the real life border crosser? Overall, does this performed experience make the real experience of others more or less poignant?

Week Two Discussion Questions

1. Digital Zapistas- So today's article was about how the NYU community was making an international statement within their own community. But how can the internet blur borders between international communities? It seems that cyberspace hazes the definition of physical space, so if users have access to "physical space" on cyberspace belonging to and affecting communities across borders, how does can one community affect others across the border. Could NYU student shut down other University websites temporarily to make a statement? Across state lines, and further country lines, and continental lines? Not having this prior knowledge, how much freedom is there on the internet to cross borders people are unable to cross in reality?

2. Tourist Performance in the 21st Century- When I first read about this amusement part, it initially confused and sickened me. But as I plowed my way through the article and I realized how much this park is an adaptation that incorporates Mexican patriotism and symbolism that attempts to open eyes, redress wounds, and honor the past. One thing that struck me in the article was the recreation of the underground railroad and the author's disgust with its diminishment of authenticity from the first time the author attended the park to the second time he went with his students. At what point does diminishing the past disrespect the memories and lives of those that once underwent that specific event. There is absolutely a fine line between simulating the past verbatim and creating an adaptation that becomes meaningful to the present audience and participants. I walked away from this article feeling as though, at least through the author's eyes, Caminata Nocturna, does just that. So if this is a respectable honorable artform that can honor and pay tribute to the past, at what point does that line get crossed to becoming tasteless, disrepectful, and irreverent; especially when physical liability of the participants comes into play? How can diminishing the past misrepresent it as well?

Questions for Jan 10

The readings this week on the Camina Nocturna demonstrate the commonalities between the Mexican and US government objectives in the use of this immigration theme park attraction yet the very different meanings that tourists may take away. This has always been a risk in theatre productions but how dangerous of a risk is it in such an attraction? Most of the comparisons of the Camina Nocturna to other simulations are not solid because most other simulations do not display a current tangible reality. Civil War simulations demonstrate history and Space simulations demonstrate experiences that are quite difficult to attain otherwise. What dangers could come from simulations that demonstrate such a contested reality? Do these risks need to be examined further or should they be left as an performative ambiguity enhancing the experience within the simulation? Additionally, how effective are these simulations in deterring illegal immigration when the roots are arguably from the success of attractions in Las Vegas, where many of the staff has come from? Are the simulations effective enough in creating jobs that immigration will lessen? What are the benefits and costs of the simulations and how should they be handled as the attractions grow and continue?

Actual Questions for this week

1. As we are a theatre class and are attempting to define this hot political and trans-national issue in terms of theatre, I found it fascinating that there is an acutal theme park in Mexico dedicated to reenacting and simulating the border crossing. Does that count as "participant" or "invisible" theatre? Taking into account the concept of the border as theatre and the differences and similarities between theatre, spectacle, and politics, does a theme park count as a theatrical experience?

2. In what way is the concept of "citizen" theatrical? Chavez cites Bosniak in explaining four different concepts of citizen: citizen as legal status, as rights, as political activity, and collective identity. How do these concepts require us to play a role or be a member of a specific cast, so to speak? How does this contribute to ideas of "other" and "us vs. them" mentality?

Media Influence & Digital Zapatista Reach

A couple of questions I had while reading this week's pieces...

1. Media Influence: Through reading Leo Chavez's excerpts on the Minuteman Project and the role media spectacle plays in society, I began to wonder whether people's stances on immigration largely come organically (through self reflection and examination of the issues at hand) or from the media's poking and prodding, seeming to insist every person have a strong view, one way or the other. I think perhaps groups and people like the Minuteman Project activists and supporters probably develop their beliefs, feed them to the media (the stage for performance), then sit back and watch as the rest of society joins the spectacle as a player on either side, provoked by activists' strong urgings (however diluted by the mode of communication). The video "Frijolero" we watched prior to last week's class is one such example of media spectacle creating heightened drama around the border.

2. Digital Zapatista Reach: I wondered, toward the end of reading Jill Lane's "Digital Zapatistas," about the performative reach of such electronic disturbances software like FloodNet creates. I understand that in the NYU example, the disturbance would have caused NYU's entire website to go down. But what about when FloodNet requested nonexistent pages from the Mexican government's website and got back "404 error-reply" time and time again, saying things like "justice not found on this site"? Perhaps I don't fully understand what function this performs in terms of website function, etc., but I wonder who exactly is their audience for this? Just the site's digital memory? If the only audience is a website's memory, is it performance for the sake of the performers? Or is there another audience I don't understand is there?

Another thing I noted that isn't really a question is that in the Caminata Nocturna tourist border-crossing adventure, the "border" performs for tourists in the way Dana suggested last class it performs for immigrants (rather than immigrants necessarily performing, as Nield suggests). The crossers are the audience, and the border and its inhabitants are the players, creating a new experience for each audience.

One more thing...I wonder when the term "illegal" began to carry such a negative connotation. In terms of definition, it is the opposite of being legal. But the same word can describe running through a stop sign AND smuggling drugs into a foreign country. I just wonder when the word sort of tip-toed over to the negative end of the spectrum and became a noun used to describe a group widely despised by those who use the word "illegal" in such a way.

Re: Shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and Current Events

Dear all,

Thanks to Carl and Christine for bringing current events into our discussion. I would posit that Giffords's stance on partisan issues, including immigration policy, has much to do with this tragic attack. Here is more information on the shooting, including statements by the Tea Party and Sarah Palin's famous map of Democrats to be 'taken out:' http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/08/live-blog-representative-giffords-shot/?hp#tea-party-group-calls-shooting-a-terrorist-act

Clearly this course is not an excuse to use education as an 'escape' from the events of daily life, but rather a chance for us to process and analyze the meanings of real events transpiring around us. Apropos of this point, I propose the following EXTRA CREDIT-earning optional assignment: At the beginning of each class, we will be talking briefly about current news stories that are relevant to the course. If you bring up a news story and synopsize it for the class, explaining its relevance, you will have the opportunity to gain extra credit points. **No repeats allowed, unfortunately**

Shooting of Gabrielle Giffords

Well, this is breaking news, and nothing is clear yet as to the motive behind it. But I thought it extrmely ironic that as I was sitting down to watch the movie for this week's discussion, my roommate told me to come in and watch the coverage in Tuscon, AZ, regarding the shooting of Congresswoman Gabbrielle Giffords. I did a little research, and I know this doesn't necessarily have to deal with the readings that we're doing this week, but she is a moderate in a district VERY close to the Mexican border and initial thoughts are that the shooter was a right-wing extremist. Just goes to say that these issues that we're talking about safely in our classroom in Evanston are the same issues that people are dying over in Arizona in broad daylight.

Week 2 Discussion Question Instructions

Hello all. Here is our forum for posting weekly discussion questions. If you do not know how to post, you can go to www.blogger.com, and you should be able to access this blog by registering/signing in with your email address and password. Then you can post, and at the bottom-right corner, opposite "post options," is a box that says "Labels." You can write in a label for your post: i would suggest either "Week X" (depending on which week's question this is) or "cultural outing," if this week's post is about your cultural outing.

If you have more questions, read the 'help' section of blogger.com or ask me. Good luck!
Best, Katie