Two Points that I Neglected to Mention Re: Art Critique

Hello, all. I hope that we enjoyed moving and shaking today as we reflected upon the borders of our critical and evaluative practices. A couple points that I wanted to bring up:

1. We did not discuss paradigm shifts in art practice. This is an aspect of social and institutional critique: sometimes, formerly-effective art practices no longer 'work' for audiences in the same ways. Ideas and methods of presentation become dated, and new methods are developed. At other moments, 'old' ideas and methods are reintroduced to 'new' publics. Why? I think that these trends are important to observe as keys to the large-scale issues and concerns affecting populations at a certain time and place.

2. In addition to Sara's excellent point about geographic and temporal changes in conceptions of what constitutes 'art,' we should acknowledge that our own tastes are frequently changing, that we like things that we formerly did not, and that we 'outgrow' other ideas and texts that formerly engaged us. This is a crucial part of why hard-and-fast borders of aesthetic appreciation are often counterproductive.

NPR piece on Narcocorridos

For my cultural outing, I attended the on-campus presentation "Indigenismo, Order and the Nation- The Transnational Circulation of Mexican Independence During the 1910 Centennial" given by Raul Ramos, Associate Professor at the University of Houston. Throughout his 90 minute presentation, he explored the role of celebrating the Mexican Independence in the United States and the effects of transnationality, specifically focusing on the 1910 Mexican centennial parade and the process of organizing it on the US side of the border.

Prof. Ramos displayed an array of archived photos from the 19th century and from the 1910 Mexico City celebration. His contextualization of the region made it apparent that the borderlands during that period were divisive; Mexican identity as well as American identity were difficult to articulate given that the Mexican Revolution was brewing in 1910 and the Texas revolution of 1835 was still fresh on the minds of many borderland Americans. This was an area whose peoples were not complacent to be sedentary.

The presentation made me think back to our lecture focusing on how to represent chicanismo and exploring how memory operates in terms of place and people. Surely it was strange for some living north of the Rio Grande to one day celebrate Mexican Independence and later fight against Mexico in the Mexican American War. Even more curios is how the 1910 Mexico centennial celebration was largely a commemoration of the indigenous as a strong and successful people, yet within Mexico at that period- and sadly, continuing today- any full blooded Aztec or Mayan was more than likely extremely impoverished. The cultural image perpetuated at that time clashed with the reality of the situation. Why?

Prof. Ramos notes that the celebration had a principal aim of attracting foreign investment by presenting to the world a united Mexico that was politically stable; electricity, for example, immediately became available in Mexico City specifically for the foreign dignitaries visiting the parade. However, "juntas patrioticas" were springing up frequently throughout the countryside as discontent swirled amongst the common people. Clearly this was attempt to distract the naysayers with the recent jewel of technology- electricity- from the campesinos organizing in arms outside of Mexico City.

This discordant atmosphere has many implications today in the chicanismo movement. Language, for example, is no longer the dividing line between American and Mexican. The modern day "mestizo" is perhaps most visible in language; Tex-Mex and Spanglish are examples of the ever evolving borderlands identities. Indeed, as in the 1910 centennial parade demonstrated, the cultural images and icons used to allude to a once powerful people indirectly highlights the great chasm from what they were remembered for compared to what they are today. What will the use of proper Spanish allude to in the future in light of the evolving combination of Spanish and English frequently used in the borderlands? What memories does Nahautl, the language of the Aztecs, conjure?

Week 8: Music

After discussing drug cartels at length, watching Sin nombre, reading the first few pages of "Narcocorridos and the Cultural Persona of the Narcotrafficker," and reading the below comparisons to US rap and hip hop, I felt fairly prepared for the audio clips we listened to, and fairly sure of my preconception of what they would sound like. I was so wrong!

The way the Narcocorrido/Hip Hop Parallel appears to me is that both musical forms arose out of a subculture with a need to augment an establishing image. (Maybe this is not far off from what Edberg, and Christine below, discusses about creating what they sell.) For the American urban poor, and particularly a subculture within that centers around gangs and drug culture, the establishing image was one of informal, but very real power over and in opposition to legitimate authorities. Rap and hip hop developed along with a need to justify (we grew up poor and society treated us badly) and exert (we have guns and we've never been afraid to use them) this authority. Not only do the lyrics explain this perspective, but the sound of the music is usually aggressive and tough.

So how, when it seems that the narcotraficante culture has such a similar image to augment, does their music come out so radically differently?

Narcocorridos v. American Hip-Hop?

While reading the article about Narcocorridos and their social stratification in (particularly northern) Mexico, I was immediately reminded of the stories of American hip-hop artists and the place they have within lower-class, urban society. While in Mexico, the narcocorridos are revered by "the rural, regional, and subaltern identity" aka "people with less education, rural people, and migrants," in the U.S. we see the hip-hop artists representing the collective consciousness of the lower-class, urban youth living in the projects or other rough neighborhoods. In both cases, the "heroes" in question are often connected to the drug trade or a gang system of some sort. As Edberg states representative of a "symbolic faddism of rebelliousness, edginess, and danger." Both groups use their music to challenge the "system" and blatantly celebrate their illegal activities of drugs, gang violence, and other politically sensitive topics. They are both clearly defined within their roles and have a sort of power about them because of their ability to so easily disregard the political powers. They say what they want (or rather sing/rap what they want) and are seen as heroes in societies that rarely get their voices heard. My question becomes is this a good thing? Are these groups helping those that look up to them by challenging the powers? Or are their incentives selfish ones? Ones of power and greed and aggression?

Week 8 - February 28th

In the text, the drug traffickers are thought of as heroes because they start from humble beginnings and become wealthy. How is this different than the American Dream? Yes, it manifests itself in negative addition to a community, but the idea of being just as likely as anyone else to become wealthy is essentially the same. Is this want an indication of a new movement for better living and equality in the Mexican population?

I was also confused if the text was saying that the narcocorridos are so popular because they so closely resemble regular corridos which are popular, or if they are popular because of their "street" origins which makes them edgier and more appealing?

Cultural Outing- Dr. Marquez

I too had the privilege to attend Dr. Marquez’ talk, “Latinos as the Living Dead: The Necropolitics of Immigration.” He began by raising awareness of just how many people have been seeping through our borders in the last few decades, with the economic crisis of 2008 being the only factor that has really halted immigration, and even that only briefly.  He discussed the simultaneous opening of the border for trade and commerce (NAFTA) with the closing of the border to people. But I was most intrigued by his ideas on the role of mythology in transforming Latinos into serious threats in the minds of Americans.

He broke down these myths into three meta-rules, as he called them. First, was the idea that the US manifests crises of sovereignty in order to establish authority. This is an accusation that has been made over and over. Marquez suggests that American people have bought into these created “catastrophes” and fallen right into our government’s trap as we rely on them to save us. His second rule was that US nationalism is being regenerated through state-sanctioned violence, such as what we’re seeing along the US-Mexico border with the guards essentially authorized to kill anyone who pisses them off.  The use of force is completely disproportionate to the threat. Finally, Marquez points to the testimonies of victims who clearly recognize what is happening to them. They are not stupid. The Latinos understand what’s going on and have created their own subjectivity/consciousness in response.

I was really fascinated by the role of myth in this whole controversy. We perpetuate clever nomenclatures, such as the “war on crime” or the “war on gangs” or the “war on drugs” to justify doing unthinkable violence towards anyone who might somehow fall under those categories. The government makes the border about hot-button issues like the environment rather than the lives that are being lost. Marquez hit it straight on the head when he said, “We care more about protecting rare species than human lives”.

This lecture had a great deal to do with the many intricate and complex layers surrounding this whole issue that we’ve been unpacking in class. Marquez referred to the borderlands as “Deathworld”; an appropriate nickname that I think a lot of our Chicano artists (Margolles, Moraga) would also adopt.  At the end, Marquez brought sexuality into the conversation. He mentioned that it has been the mothers that are pushed to the forefront of these issues. The phrase he’s heard over and over again: “I want to know the name of the guy who shot my son.” The namelessness of the perpetrators is difficult to combat; these guards are merely acting on behalf of our country. This sense of anonymity has often been addressed or challenged in the artistic works we’ve examined. Margolles expresses the anonymity in death, the bodies on top of bodies, completely separate from their identities other than that which makes them the enemy. I think of Asco’s work, tagging their names on the museum; fighting this spirit of exclusion, desperate to be heard. Marquez brought many of these seemingly disparate pieces together in a very compelling, unified way that helped me to understand how all of these emotions, reactions, and lies are tied up in the same issue.

Week 8

The readings this week talked a lot about the narkotrafficker persona. In some ways, these performas remind me of mafias here in the United States. They also remind me of the Mexican folk hero, Zorro. In what ways do these personas exist in other areas of the United States? How has the border persona also exist within our own culture? Who is the American Zorro? Within music as well. The article briefly mentioned how narcocorridos are similar to our hip-hop rap culture. Ever since rap developed in the 1980s, there has been an edge as well as a freedom to this art form. This is a medium where controversial and dangerous topics can be brought to light and into discussion. So while this narcocorridos may be seen as threatening to the upper class, how can they also be educational, inspiring, and enlightening? In what ways could they be a positive influence, especially when acting as a powerful voice for the poor and disenfranchised?

Week 8

1. Music is an enduring art form that has transcended centuries in cultures around the globe. Every country has traditional music that is based in that country's specific history. How do the clips to which we listened fit specifically to the culture and history of Mexico? For example, how do Mexican myths affect the musical art form? How was Mexican music avoided Americanization and how has the border affected the culturally rooted music heard throughout the country of Mexico? While Edberg and Cameron compare the Narcocorridos with urban hip hop and rap music in the United States, the sounds and musical styles are extremely different. I think it would be important to discuss what the similarities are and this could give light to musical and thus cultural differences across the border.

2. What role does music play in Mexican nationalism? Do the messages in the Narcocorridos encourage the drug trade that is destroying Mexico's economy and forcing illegal immigration into the United States? What is the political role of the musical art form in a world where Mexico must struggle to survive?

Cultural Outing Post

On Wednesday, I attended the seminar titled, “Latinos as the Living Dead: The Necropolitics of U.S. Immigration Policy,” led by Doctor John Márquez. He offered some personal information including the fact that his mother spent the first 25 years of her life as an undocumented immigrant, which already made his story relevant to what we’ve been discussing in class. Much of the lecture surrounded race identity and the role of racial violence in immigration policy. His main objective seemed to be revealing the shocking “death toll” aspect of the militarized border, and how the United States has justified these deaths by their residual effect of deterring illegal immigrants from usurping the jobs of American citizens in a struggling economy. Like many of the readings we’ve examined in the class, Dr. Márquez exposed some of the fallacy and hypocrisy in U.S. justification for the border control policy, such as the notion that certain pundits claimed the increase in violence resulted from the attacks of 9/11 despite the fact that the death toll was high before 9/11. He discussed Rahm Emanuel’s “Battle Plan” of pushing immigrants towards desolate terrain where they would be more likely to dies from strategies of head, cold, and hunger, a type of veiled extermination. He mentioned that the agenda of U.S. officials was to perpetuate of decrease in number of immigrants by essentially warning Mexican immigrants that crossing the border could lead to their death. He pointed out the irony of the border patrol protecting rattlesnakes and skunks from the “immigrant footprint” while allowing immigrants themselves to die in large numbers. His points surrounding U.S. xenophobia and the growing death toll would not have left as lasting an impression had he not highlighted a few specific individuals and their stories. By mentioning the story of Ezekial Hernandez, a Mexican-American youth, born and raised in the U.S., who was mistakenly identified and as a drug muggier and gunned down and killed by a Marine sniper, Dr. Márquez was able to personalize and bring a face to a topic that a lecture that could have seemed dry and redundant. The fact that the Marine who murdered Ezekial Hernanadez was defended at the Pentagon for protecting his nation only increased the validity of Dr. Márquez’ lecture.

Week 8

In part of chapter 4 in Mark Cameron Edberg's book, he compares the narcotrafficker persona to the urban dealer persona in the U.S. Edberg points to a few things: the two personae share an emphasis on "performance, on establishing a reputation and carrying out a daily performance that validates the performer" (116); both simultaneously "contest and accept dominant group meanings with respect to the criteria for establishing oneself as a 'significant' or admire person" (117); and for both personae, "death is not the ending but the 'launching' of an individual into a timeless existence as an iteration of the persona whose life will float in the popular imaginary" (117).

What Edberg doesn't address what I feel is another important parallel. Just as the narcotrafficker persona is made famous through narcocorridos, the urban dealer persona receives a good bit of attention in modern U.S. rap and hip-hop music. One specific example came to mind when I read the following sentence in Edberg's book: "Sell narcocorridos, make money, be powerful — no matter what your humble roots" (109). This reminded me of Kanye West, an artist many dub a "poser" because he purportedly grew up outside of the world he sings about so frequently. Although he has little to no lived experience in the urban dealer environment, he releases songs like "We Don't Care," with lyrics about "drug dealing just to get by." And then? He sells them. For lots of money.

Kanye West is HUGE, and it's because he sings about what everybody wants to hear — the thug life — although he never lived it. Then it got me thinking: In what other ways does U.S. pop culture in general (or in specific) follow the narcocorrido model of creating what sells? Isn't it true that this idea is necessarily part of every piece of mainstream pop cultural art — artists see what their audiences find appealing, then present it to them? In what way do modern narcocorridos differ from this?

Edberg also writes that "corridos are often tales of how someone died, as a way of saying who they were..." (113). He further says that Icelanders were obsessed with honor, esteem and reputation and that Mexicans are said to share that characteristic. Often with people in Mexico (especially narcotraffickers), their honor, esteem and reputation were revealed by and commemorated after death. This made me think back to Margolles' work (jury's still out on whether it's called "art") with the dead bodies. In the "self-portraits" where she's holding or standing next to the bodies in the morgue, is that Margolles' way of saying, "Where are the corridos for these people? Who's singing about how this man died?"

My question back to Margolles would be: What do their lives mean if their death is disrespected by some lady taking gross pictures with them? OR is that the point? Does taking the pictures and displaying them to the public commemorate these people's lives in a way which they wouldn't otherwise receive? If so, why does Margolles strive to do this? How do corridos differ from this and other ways of commemorating a life (or a death)?

Dr. John Marquez – Latinos as the Living Dead

Last Wednesday, I had the opportunity to hear Dr. John Marquez presented a lecture entited “Latinos as the Living Dead – The Necropolitics of US Immigration Policy.” In his lecture, Dr. Marquez focused primarily on how the US concept of sovereignty does not allow for any grey area along the border, and how border militarization is incredibly unfair to Mexican nationals. His lecture was fascinating, albeit incredibly fast paced (sometimes so much so that it was hard to understand!). He began by explaining border militarization and its detriments. I was particularly moved by his claim that the borders that divide first and third world countries are the most volatile, as in the US/Mexico border and the Spain/Africa divide. This makes complete sense to me, though I never thought of it in that way. The immediate difference in wealth and quality of life is stark and provoking, which I of course understood, but the way Dr. Marquez explained it made it much clearer and direct. He referred to the border as a “death world,” which at first seemed too strong a term, but as he continued with the lecture, became totally appropriate in my mind.

Dr. Marquez then gave two examples of innocent children whose lives had been taken by border violence. The first was a young Mexican-American girl whose Arizona house had been stormed by minutemen, shooting her to death in the process. The second was the story of Sergio Hernandez Guereca who was caught trying to throw rocks at border patrol from quite some distance and was shot in the face after causing no physical harm to the patrol officers. Both of these stories were heartbreaking—to see how Mexican and Mexican-American families alike are affected by the border violence is shocking and disheartening. Dr. Marquez then explained that the border militarization and death toll are often blamed on 9/11, while this increase in border violence actually predates 9/11 by approximately ten years.

Dr. Marquez then explained the efforts of a group called No More Deaths, who strive to make life easier for those attempting to get across the border alive. They drop off water jugs in the middle of the desert that makes up the border where hundreds of Mexican bodies are found every year, having died of heat exposure or dehydration. This reminded me of the Brinco shoes from the inSITE exhibition. Though No More Deaths was not an artistic organization, their attempt to help those attempting to cross the border by providing supplies in a covert way was equally meaningful in its message. Sadly, the No More Deaths water jugs were ruled environmentally dangerous by the US 9th Circuit Court. The court ruled that the unobtrusive plastic jugs were distressing for the native animals of the region. This rejection of a blatant (and safe) expression of help and outreach does not paint the US Judicial system in a good light.

Though I did not always understand what Dr. Marquez was talking about, the passion with which he spoke was moving. To hear the stories of Latino struggles from someone who has studied it so extensively and is the child of an illegal immigrant himself was quite moving. Though Dr. Marquez was unable to finish his lecture due to time constraints, he ended on an emotional note, explaining how mothers of those killed on the border have come to the forefront of those fighting for a decrease in militarization of the border. The mothers are unafraid to fight to end the violence, and as Dr. Marquez noted, all they really want to know is the name of the man who killed their son. These mothers will likely never get their wish, however, as the border patrol officers (when on duty) are not acting as individuals, but rather as a part of the state, and so their names are irrelevant. This idea of anonymity on the part of the US in the border dispute was particularly jarring for me and I am still thinking about it to this day. Dr. Marquez painted a picture of family and love on the Mexican side and ruthless machination on the US side.

"Latinos as the 'Living Dead'

On Wednesday February 23rd, I attended a talk sponsored by the MSA were Professor John Marquez read an excerpt from his soon to be published book "Latinos as the 'Living Dead': The 'Necropolitics of U.S. Immigration Policy." Although not heavily discussed in class Professor Marquez talked in depth about border militarization and the fact that the US government implemented this plan as a deterrent for immigration. Basically, by militarizing the border, the government expected to use force and stop immigration; death, fear and violence as effective measures. This is a human rights issue as much as it is an immigration one. In attempts to protect borders, the government has enacted plans veneered an environmental issues (various human rights groups have placed water bottle in desert areas, which are also national parks to help those crossing) to stop and demonize immigrants.

In the realm of performance, Marquez's excerpt alluded to images of death, musical performance and identity transformation. First, images of death. In addition to deterring immigration by militarizing the border, the border patrol, if I remember correctly, would go into border cities and post pictures of dead immigrants, roting corpses and the such, to stop immigration. As an activist, Marquez and others would tear down these horrific images. While the images did portray a truth, the fact that it is a truth perpetuated by those posting the pictures is ironic. On the border, the humanity of border patrol officers and the immigrants they needlessly kill are lost. In order to protect and enforce sovereignty, that is being "threatened' by this mass influx of low wage workers, the border patrol working in the name of the government and US citizens, kills many innocent and unarmed people. (Additionally Marquez discussed that border patrol officers feel threatened when people on the other side of the border through rocks at them. These may not even be Mexicans immigrating, but that is not the point. The point is that they feel threatened by a rock and retaliate by shooting bullets. This is a "disproportionate use of force" and result in unnecessary deaths.)

Musical performance as a reaction to death in the border region is inherently linked to the reading for this week. Marquez mentioned a corrido written for a young man killed by La Migra. Sergio Hernandez Guereca was on the other side of the Rio Grande and apparently threw rocks at the border patrol and was shot in the face. His senseless death caused a friend of his to write a song about him stating that the "border patrol assassinated a child" and "without power I have nothing. " Having a corrido be the song of choice implies an antagonist nature to the song, protesting hardships, power struggle and an use vs them mentality. Corridos as explained in this week's reading are considered a lower class art form. Although I know nothing about Sergio, I can assume that he was lower class and without the power that comes with being upper class, he died because of a rock.

Lastly, Marquez discussed afterwards, the mothers that take action and become voices for their dead children, almost exclusively sons. This public display of grief and putting oneself in the spotlight to shine a light on the depravity of the border region, allows these women to become more than that. They become victims in a way, losing a child way before his time. They enhance the tragedy. They ask to know who killed their children and are met with silence.

Marquez's book and subsequent Q&A session were informative and disheartening. Informative because it sheds light on the little known , to me anyway, history of border militarization and Chicago's mayor elect involvement with it, along with the rocks vs. gun situation.

Disheartening because the border patrol seems to kill people indiscriminately, even shooting American citizen on this side of the border (not that this fact makes it any worse. People are people, regardless of nationality). It is obvious after listening to Marquez that to effectively curb immigration, humanitarian and non-militarized methods need to taken, while also giving border crosses the humanity and respect they deserve.

*Also, video of Sergio being shot is all over the web. I don't plan on watching it.

Cultural Outing - Dr. John Marquez

Yesterday afternoon, several of us in class got the opportunity to listen to Dr. John Marquez speak from his newest paper "WetBlacks and Brown Panters: Foundational Blackness and Latino Politics in the Gulf South". The discussion that ensued mostly revolved around the topics from his paper: the concept of sovereignty as a tool to compare the U.S./Mexico border and the southern border of Spain. His main focus was on the concept of sovereignty in the US and how that affects how it treats its southern border. Beyond economic effects (including the fact that both the US and Mexico rely on the border to be relatively porous for economic reasons), he went right to the center of the issue: the unconstitutionality of the border and the practices there. The death toll on the US/Mexico border is higher than any other in the world. Thousands die every single year, and the way things have been going, those numbers are not expected to diminish any time soon. The fact that it is a deadly area isn't the heart of the issue though. The real problem that Marquez has with the exorbitant death toll is that it is seemingly being used as a strategy to attempt to deter illegal immigration.
Marquez argues that not only does the US actively make the border more deadly than it needs to be, but does it in a way that is entirely unconstitutional. Despite popular belief that the enforcing of the border has come on since 9/11, many of these practices of violence predate 9/11 by almost a decade. Marquez pegs the date of border militarization in the early Clinton regime (ca. 1996). In his research, he has discovered that militarizing the border was not just a benign side-effect of increased national security, but an active strategy to kill more immigrants. By militarizing the urban entry points (ie San Diego, Laredo, Juarez), the US government is purposely forcing immigrants into the more desolate landscape of the American southwest. By forcing immigrants to go that way, the US government is hoping that more of them will die while crossing and thus deter future people from attempting to cross.
This argument is then extended and exposed for what it really does to the border patrol who are on the border: legitimizing the use of lethal force against Mexican nationals for no reason other than the fact that they are Mexican. Marquez showed images and told oral histories of several Mexican nationals (some not even trying to cross the border), and Mexican Americans (full American citizens) shot and killed in proximity to the border for attempting to throw rocks at border patrol officers. THROW ROCKS! Subsequently, the US government backs up those officers, allowing and even encouraging their use of deadly force.

I felt that Marquez's talk was extremely enlightening and in every way tied to this course. His portrayal of the US relationship to its southern border, albeit biased, was still very well-researched and supported with real fact. Facts so stunning and blatantly racist that it would be impossible to make them up it seems. Pardon me for sounding informal, but the fact that Mexican nationals are being shot IN THE BACK while RUNNING AWAY FROM BORDER AGENTS are killed and no discipline is brought down on the shooters is ridiculous. Even in an actual wartime scenario, that is a cowardly thing to do to someone, how much more then is it in a situation of immigration. According to the US Constitution, ALL PEOPLES within our borders are supposed to be allotted the same basic civil and human rights regarded to citizens: fair trial, innocent until proven guilty, and NOT SHOT AT IN THE BACK. Additionally, in order to discharge a firearm against another person (use of deadly force), both police and border patrolmen are supposedly held accountable to only resorting to that level of violence when their own or others' lives are in imminent danger and the use of deadly force is the only other resort. Someone running away from you is clearly not a lethal threat unless they have guns attached to their back and can shoot you while facing the other direction.
It really surprises me that our country can be so seemingly corrupt. We constantly look at the global south and the third world as sort-of being stuck in their own plights until they can fix their internal corruption and get their economies up to snuff. But how can we as a nation say that when we're the ones in trillions of dollars of debt and apparently give men the power to shoot Mexicans on sight whether they pose a threat or not. How is that first world behavior?

As far as direct connections to class, this seems to me to be exactly what the entire Chicano movement was fighting against. That if you look Mexican and live close enough to the border (even if you're on the US side), you are still regarded as shoot-able and an invader. One other aspect of Marquez's discussion of US sovereignty was the rhetoric, or myth as he more aptly put it, of calling Mexican immigration an "invasion". Due to this rhetoric and the increasing militarization of the border gives it the impression of a "war zone". This is where the shooting and police brutality comes from. Now, imagine that you're a Chicano. You've lived your whole lifke in the US. You've never committed a single crime in your life. But still, somehow, you are viewed as the enemy, as the invader, as the alien in your own land. Compounded with that, you aren't actually Mexican, so going south of the border, you still find yourself ridiculed for not speaking Spanish and not being Mexican enough. Where are you supposed to go? Once again, forgive my informal writing, but I think putting yourself in their shoes gives a glimpse into what they actually have to deal with.
It is no surprise then that people like Bustamente, Fusco, and Gomez-Peña do the performances that they do. How else can they attempt to explain such blatant racism and rhetoric of hate against their people? Whether or not you agree with those artists repetoire or count it as effective or not, you cannot argue that it is topical and in direct response to real-life issues.
Additionally, Dr. Marquez played a corrido written to commemorate the death of a 15-year-old boy shot and killed by a border patrolman. This goes right along with Kun's piece on the border as an aural space. (Which could be argued to be a whole other border and could comment on the discussion a few blog posts down about the tunnels into the US from Mexico). This corrido really shared the pain and hurt put on an entire community after this boy's death and directly supports Kun's argument that the border is not only physical, but aural as well. The physical border brought about this boy's physical death, but the corrido, by creating and discoursing with the aural border, was definitely a part of that border experience.

I know that a few other people will be posting on this event, and I look forward to bringing it up in class and discussing this more on the blog as well.

Chicago's Mayoral Race...and Implications for Latino Voters

As many of you may now know, Rahm Emanuel has won the mayoral contest, beating out candidates such as Gery Chico, Miguel Del Valle, and Carol Moseley Braun. As yet there are few news agencies reporting on the consequences of this election - a turning-point for Chicago politics, or Daley III? - but one thing is clear: the Latino community will prove a decisive factor in Emanuel's development and maintenance of a strong constituency in the coming term. According to NPR, the Latino vote was divided in this election, and Emanuel garnered very little Latino support. Moreover, Emanuel has modeled his education policy on ex-Mayor Daley's, holding up charter schools like UNO as models - and yet, according to pundit and professor Maria de los Angeles Torres, these schools overtly discourage students from speaking more than one language. Although Torres did not specify which language was encouraged, we can assume it to be English.

How will Rahm fare against the Latino community (or rather, communities) and the unions? Stay tuned...

Extra Credit Current Event

Another way into the US from Mexico, through flash flood water tunnels. A view at the Border Patrol and what they have to put up with and how they characterize their work (contraband/drugs/illegals).

I found Josh Kun's argument that the official US cultural border has no narrative fascinating. He contends that the US government and its policies promote little more than intrusive surveillance, biased legislation, and, consequently, distrust amongst people on both sides of the border. The narrative comes from the various reactions to this experience. The border is articulated and expressed through the retellings of the daily performances and "rituals" of the borderland peoples.

The use of the word "ritual" made me sit back and think. Clearly, the word has a religious connotation, yet I believe that the inherent value it its use here is more indicative of a transcendent, communal experience closer to something a shaman would preach rather than a Catholic priest. How do the daily activities and "rituals" of the borderland people transcend the surface level of their actions? How are religious icons and portrayals used by both the borderland people and the US government to further their agenda (or lack of one)?

Eliminating the border through art

Much of the discussion and performance surrounding the border conflict and culture centers around the idea of effectively eliminating said border to perpetuate a greater sense of cultural intertwining and a lack of cross-cultural distinction. Josh Kun’s article titled “The Aural Border,” along with Guillermo Gómez-Peña’s articles on “La Pocha Nostra” and “The Multicultural Paradigm: An Open Letter to the National Arts Community,” reflect the need for the United States and Latino communicates to educates each other and share their artistic and culture identities to the point where the idea of a “border” is essentially obsolete. Gómez-Peña, in particular, discusses numerous misconceptions surrounding Latino culture and certain hypocrisies inherent in the juxtaposition of U.S. fascination with Latino culture and its resistance to the growing number of Latinos in U.S. communities. He stresses the need for “dialogue” between the communities and the importance of emphasizing the similarities between cultures. Josh Kun, in his article titled, “The Aural Border”, discusses the ways in which music and the “sounds of the border” can blur the media-contrived differences between Latin and Anglo-American cultures. Both authors also declare the need to unite intellectual and artistic sectors of the populations. The performance and artistic methods seem to range in their effectiveness, but the general message of the emerging border-art scene appears to suggest a desire and need to erase the concept of the “border” in order for the cultures at hand to coexist in a peaceful manner.

Week Seven: On Dialogue

In The Multicultural Paradigm, Gómez-Peña puts an enormous amount of emphasis on the use of dialogue as the tool for progress in inter/trans/multi-cultural relations:

"All we can aspire to is beginning a dialogue. This document is a humble contribution. I ask you to join in."

Elaine Peña then critiques and queries this proposal in Pedagogic Interventions, with a focus on how and among whom this dialogue ought to take place. I have a few more fundamental questions with regard to this proposal that, at the end of the day, are questions I have about theater and art in general. They include:

1. Is dialogue really the change we're seeking? And if it isn't the change in and of itself, is it really the vehicle for change? (Many revolutionaries throughout history have been unsatisfied with dialogue.)

2. Is dialogue within reach? Is it a possible goal? Gómez-Peña does argue that dialogue has never taken place between first and third world countries. (Side-note: do we agree with that?)

3. Is performance/theater/art the most useful vessel for dialogue? The most efficient? Is it worthwhile in its capacity as a dialogue-creator? And to that end, is all performance/theater/art capable and of equal value in the creation of dialogue or is there (as La Pocha Nostra seems to believe) a specific methodology for using those media to create dialogue?

Furthermore, how successful is Gómez-Peña's writing in it's attempt to create dialogue? I personally found myself feeling much more invited into the ideas of these readings, as opposed to many past readings that (intentionally and unintentionally) alienated those of us who are white, non-Spanish-speaking, and so on.

Week 7

Guillermo Gomez-Pena's article, with its discussion of North/South vs. East/West and the nature of border culture, made me wonder about the role that globalization plays in defining cultural geography. For example, he describes the shift from an East/West mindset to one of North/South and how there are "hundreds of types of Latino American art in the United States. Each is aesthetically, socially, and politically specific" (21). This idea of how we define and categorize our views of the world and its cultures made me think about the idea of globalization, something we discussed in the first week. Many subscribe to the idea that new information and technology are "shrinking" the world, allowing a diverse range of people to communicate more closely than ever before. However, I wonder how this idea fits in with Gomez-Pena's ideas of geography. What does globalization do to borders? Shift them? Decrease their significance? Increase it? Similarly, how does it affect culture? Do cultures become more similar to each other, or do we get a wider range of subcultures like the ones that exist within Latino art?

Week 7

One similarity that I noticed in the readings this week was between the first article by Kun and Arrizon's article about Chicana Identity and performance. In what ways do these two articles relate about the hybridity of sound and the hybridity of language? In what ways are the aural sounds of the border and spanglish a hybrid? In what ways is the language and sounds/music their own individual entity?

La Pocha Nostra

La Pocha Nostra, the all encompassing arts initiative started by Guillero Gomez-Peña, uses shock value within the realm of human display to parody history. This display of the human body immediately brought to mind Saartjie Baartman, the "hotentot venus" who was put on display around Europe because of her body diverged from what Europeans were used to.

By altering a historical event, adjusting it to make it relevant to La Pocha Nostra and inviting audience participation, intercultural relations are able to take place. Using performance art as a medium to critique history seems like an effective method of bringing light to an underrepresented topic. But for those that are ignorant, is the meaning lost?

Additionally, because La Pocha Nostra is a multicultural organization that crosses multiple boundaries, it can be considered Chicano in the US and something else elsewhere. Does having this morphing ability, take away from La Pocha's message?

Week 7

This week, I was most taken with La Pocha Nostra's mission statement reading. Their structure is so defined and yet so unorganized. Seeing how their organization works from top to bottom was a very worthwhile experience. Their brand of performance art is one that I find more accessible than that of Bustamante or Fusco. I do have a couple of questions about Pocha, though. Who do they want in their audiences? Willing, fun people, clearly, but what ages do they target? Do they change the skeleton of their show based on where they are? Going beyond the "local ethnic kitsch" they require from the local venues they tour, how much does the show vary by location?

On a more concrete level, why did they move to be headquartered in San Francisco? I would think that LA would be closer to their target audience, considering they are rooted in a Mexican background, but San Francisco's art scene is more vibrant and alive with performance art.

Pocha Nostra represents a wide range of artistic expressions. Their show is just crazy enough to be endearing and the fact that they put so much trust in their audiences is thrilling. I must say, I do not usually like performance art, but the structure of the Pocha Nostra shows sound intriguing. This is audience participation to the extreme; Pocha literally puts the show in the audience's hands. I wonder why they chose to make such a drastic choice? What message are they trying to convey by having the audience create and dictate their performance experience?

Gomez-Pena's Negotiating Performance

Reading the Gomez-Pena piece regarding cultural performance and the movements of multi-cultural art I was struck by several of his points. One of the first things he said that really stuck with me was his ideas regarding culture and what that means. He says "We must realize that all cultures are open systems in constant process of transformation, redefinition, and re-contextualization. What we need is dialogue." I really like this idea that all cultures are in a constant state of flux, in the art and performance world we tend to label and classify things. Chicano art, Latino art, African art...culture becomes a definition. We regard it as a stable, unchanging, structured entity- it is the way that we define what we are seeing. The problem with this is just what Gomez-Pena points out, there is no modern culture that is unchanging. There is no way to define a culture, it is composed of too many parts and too many peoples to create a single defining aspect that we use as a label. The only way we will ever be able to "create a dialogue" is if we stop this arbitrary labeling and naming. It is human nature to categorize the things that we encounter but especially in the art world we need to create a multi-cultural/multi-national language that can be used without the judgments and standards imposed by a labeling something as from a specific culture or country. While this is obviously easier said than done I think that something like this has to start with the artists themselves. I often notice in the works that we read written by performers and artists that they tend to lay blame on their audience. They attack the public for labeling them, for not understanding them, for being ignorant. They blame the group as a whole for imposing a label upon them but in reality a lot of times the artists themselves creates their own classification. They self-identify in a certain way and they create art in that same vein. I liked Pena's point that we must create a new language and a new way of making art that will stop this from happening. If we can find a way to create an in-between of sorts, we might actually be able to separate our art from labels and allow it to be seen purely and completely.

Questions

In "The Aural Border", Josh D. Kun talks about all the different kinds of borders that are being formed. "Outside the grasp of the official border(s) yet informed by them, there arises a multiplicity of unofficial borders where borderness is voiced and rescued from the willful aphasia of official culture." This includes narrative, performative and aural borders. All these mediums are helping to draw lines in the sand but I wonder if Kun thinks they are drawing the same line? He speaks of so many types of cultural borders, but does he seem them all as separating the same two sides? Are they simply layered one on top of the other; expressing the same split through different artistic traditions?

In his address, Pena expresses frustration with the select few that have come to represent a Latin boom in American popular culture. "It is mainly the artists who voluntarily or unknowingly resemble the stereotypes who end up being selected by the fingers of the Latino boom..." How would he address the select group? What responsibility ought they bear on behalf of the Latino culture or would he rather they detach themselves entirely? Is it better to have (mis)representation or none at all?

UNdocumented at NU

To continue the conversation of the previous two posts, I am also going to speak about my experience at the Community Action Forum, Undocumented at NU. I, personally, have not had such an experience in getting involved in a movement from the beginning of such a large issue and I found it to be exciting and incredibly informative. While in class we only have a chance to skim over a lot of information about immigration and the issue at large here in the United States, the forum was helpful in delving into the topic even further.

Being a political science major, I was interested in learning the politics regarding the DREAM Act and what exactly it involved. As I was listening to the speakers, however, all I could think about was the clip we watched in class of an interview with Charles Bowden about ways to fix the tension over immigration over the US-Mexico border. Bowden spoke of the issue being not the responsibility of the United States but rather that of the international sphere. The problems surrounding immigration and undocumented persons in the US stem from NAFTA’s inability to accommodate a Third World country like Mexico. This made me wonder about the potential successes of a movement like that of Undocumented at NU. Maybe the issues to address first are international, the root of the problem, before looking at passing the DREAM Act. Perhaps the context of its proposal is not accommodating, what with the economic circumstances and political climate.

What was really exciting, however, was the presence of a representative from the Albany Theatre Project, which we have yet to study. He began by mentioning that in their youth theatre performances, there are currently 6 undocumented performers. He seemed to understand the necessity of the DREAM Act in educating undocumented students who had no say in their coming to America. He also understood the power of the arts in educating and informing the public about the issue. A project that the Theatre is working on now is called 9 digits, about a young person’s obstacles in graduating high school without a social security number. As we have seen in class, the use of the arts to convey a message is highly effective and I think that the tensions surrounding the DREAM Act would be well portrayed through theatrical arts, an opportunity to look at the individual effects on youth and being undocumented.

Ultimately, I learned a lot about the DREAM Act and its costs and benefits but also about the issue of immigration, itself, and its place in the artistic realm. Our class has truly opened my eyes to tensions and issues that I had not truly seen before, especially not through an artistic standpoint. I believe that theatre is a perfect means by which to educate the public to the effects on the youth and children of illegal immigrants who had no say as to whether they wanted to cross the border. Who can say how successful Undocumented at NU will be in gaining community support and sending a message about the DREAM Act but it is an issue that should be recognized and not left to go under the radar. Even if there are bigger issues at hand, community recognition that a problem exists is a good place to start and theatre, as the Albany Theatre Project has realized, is a great means by which to educate and inform.

Questions

1. According to Kun's "The Aural Border", he distiguishes music-making for aesthetic from a term he borrows from Christopher Small: "musicking". He goes on to define it as " 'the totality of a musical performance between the peoplw ho are taking part in whatever capacity in the performance,' whether it be through performing, listening, rehearsing...'Musicking' is not so much about music as sound, but music as social relationship" (Kun 11). Obviuosly, looking at music in this light is especially useful in his argument of an aural border, but is it accurate? I happen to think it is. Music, for me, does have the ability to transcend just pure noise or sound and enter in consciousness and discourse itself. But does it have that power everywhere? In the face of strict border control and il/legalization, does music really have a voice?

2. Gomez-Peña, in his essay "The Multicultural Paradigm..." argues that "The so-called dominant culture is no longer dominant. Dominant culture is a meta-reality that only exists in the virtual space of the mainstream media and in the ideaology and aesthetically controlled spaces of the more established cultural institutions" (Peña 19). Is this not an oxi-moron? Isn't the idea of a dominant culture really the culture that does penetrate through mass-media and established cultural institutions? How can he argue that there is no dominant culture in one sentence, and then say it is a meta-reality put out by the prevailing dominant culuture the next? This question isn't worded as well as I might like it to be, but I hope you understand my meaning. I agree with him that we do live in a diverse East/South-meets-West culture that is constant redefinition and evaluation, but I think there is still a dominant culture. If there weren't, Gomez-Peña himself would be out of a job and without a cause. If there is no dominant culuture, what is he fighting against?

Week 7 - Cultural Outing

Tonight I went to the UNdocumented NU forum. It was a small group, maybe 20 people participating in a led discussion on primarily undocumented students, the DREAM Act, and how we as students can help create change. The forum was loosely structured in that two girls led a question and answer section where they posed questions to the audience, we answered, and responded to each other. It was a fairly subdued crowd and the discussion surrounding each point was short. We then discussed what we could do as students and where the University stood on the issue.
I was not very interested going into the event. I'm interested in immigration and social justice movements, but have never taken an active role in any of them. This is how I felt too about UNdocumented NU. I'm decently informed on where immigration reform stands, but had no intetention of becoming involved, but this discussion changed that. The main focus of the group is to create applicable solutions on campus to make it easier for undocumented students to go to college, and create an accepting atmosphere on campus. I think that both of these are realistic goals that improve the lot of many in this country who may be here undocumented through no choice of their own. I'm very much in favor of anyone who wants an education being able to get one, and that was the main implications of the work being done by this group. Coming out of the forum, I'm more interested in the topic, and strongly considering being formally involved. If I don't become formally involved, I would like to go to more discussions/events and definitly will support ideas that move the culture in the direction of acceptance.
This forum relates to class material through both politics and performance. There was a lot of discussion about the DREAM Act, which we also discussed as to how it would change communities on the border by legalizing many people brought here at the discretion of others. The focus was not primarily on the Mexican-American border, but references were made to it, and by making it easier for undocumented students to go to college would obviously apply to Mexican immigrants as well.
Performance and demonstration were also discussed. The May marches in Chicago were referenced many times as a sign of increased awareness of the immigrant struggle. This tactic, along with the civil disobedience of the UIC students gain attention and were heralded as forerunners of where public opinion is headed in relation to immigration reform and undocumetned reform. One member of the audience was a member of a theatre troop that has 6 undocumented members and does theatre about the struggles that these people go through. This is similar work to what we've been studying by using theatre to discuss the struggles, fears, and hopes of marginalized immigrant groups.

Cultural Outing — UNdocumented NU Community Action Forum

At this forum, which was this evening (Feb. 17) at 7 p.m. in Harris Hall, I expected to learn more about the issue of undocumented students than I did. What the forum ended up being was about 15 minutes worth of actual dialogue about the issue, interspersed with 25 minutes of the moderators making filler comments and glancing around the small lecture room in hopes someone would say something to spark further conversation, plus 10 minutes at the end where one of the forum organizers outlined the designated plans of action. While I didn't 100-percent enjoy the structure of the forum, I did find some of the discussion helpful.

The gist of the problem is that undocumented students—defined on a fact sheet handed out at the event as "individuals without citizenship who were born abroad and are not legal residents of the United States"—face monumental roadblocks in accessing higher education, largely dealing with inability to pay tuition or even apply for federal financial aid that would ease the monetary burden high tuition costs place on students. The fact sheet further states that around 65,000 undocumented students graduate from high school in the United States each year and only about 5-10% of those students pursue a college degree (compared to 75% of their documented classmates).

The article in The Daily Northwestern, "Undocumented at Northwestern," stated that there are at least three undocumented students currently attending NU, only one of whom would agree to speaking anonymously for the story. One moderator this evening responded to an attendee's question as to whether any undocumented students were leading this push for action at NU, admitting movements tend to be stronger and more effective when led by people advocating for themselves, but that NU doesn't currently have the right climate to support undocumented students themselves being the face of this advocacy. The same attendee who asked the question (who was actually a company member of the Albany Park Theater Project) said he thought "allies" (documented students working on behalf of their undocumented peers for change) can change the lexicon in discussing the issue, so that the rhetoric shifts from being about "illegal immigrants" to focusing on "undocumented students."

That particular comment, on allies changing the lexicon, struck me. If it is true that the climate at NU is not, at present, ideal for candidness on the part of undocumented students, I wonder if the campus would even be receptive to a changed lexicon. On The Daily's story, I saw a handful of user comments utilizing the argument that NU's actions in supporting undocumented students attending the University would be "reprehensible" in that the administration would effectively be complicit in breaking the law, in aiding and abetting in illegal activity. A couple stated in more plain language that the undocumented students should "go back to Mexico" and "make that country better" (although nowhere in the story is it stated that any of the undocumented students at NU are from Mexico). I know this isn't necessarily the view the majority (or even a large minority) of students at NU have. But it's pretty telling that issues like the DERU membership list publishing garner more attention on the web than immigrant issues. Students at NU just don't have a common vocabulary on this. I think, rather than a changed lexicon, a movement on this campus will have to build a lexicon from scratch. And it won't be easy. Any effort like this runs the risk of ultimately just preaching to the choir, of reaching out to the groups within a certain comfort level the organizers share, thereby "spreading" the dialogue to the people who already know about it. This was a problem the organizers briefly discussed once they moved on to the "action" part of the forum (that particular issue is #2). The following were the action points discussed:

1. Faculty Outreach — The event organizers emphasized getting faculty members on board, keeping them informed on the issues regarding undocumented students and perhaps having them sign a petition for change.

2. Student Groups Outreach — The organizers emphasized that this outreach must be campus-wide, not just among allied organizations. Their reasoning is that this issue "affects us all."

3. Web Awareness — This includes social media and other online publicity. I'm not sure whether this will include such organized structure as a movement website or just a few Facebook events, but at the forum I remember thinking back to our discussions of online "involvement" in causes. I hope the movement doesn't at any point begin to rely on connecting to people just on the Internet, or complacency could set in and spread pretty quickly. You know, the "Oh, I just clicked a button...that means I'm a supporter" type of deal.

4. Event Planning/Programming — This would include further outreach on campus in the form of topic-targeted awareness forums on amnesty, the DREAM Act, etc. In my opinion, this type of programming needs to get more specific, and FAST, because future events can't just be planned the way tonight's was and expect to incite passion and fire for change among the student body.

5. Research and Policy Change — This will include participants putting together information on policies other universities put in place that could work at NU, possibly including some form of private financial aid pool for undocumented student applicants, and then making a policy proposal to NU administration, which the organizers said are "generally friendly" toward this issue.

6. Evanston Outreach — This would include talking to high schoolers about the type of programs they would like to see in place for undocumented students at an ideal college for them. This endeavor, I could see running into some issues, as local high schoolers may have the same surface-level understanding of this issue that many NU students have. I do think it is important to reach into the community, but again, I feel the specificity is lacking.

I think action point #5 should be the culmination of the first leg of this movement. A proposal to the University should not be made hastily, without having a substantial proportion of the student body behind the issue in a meaningful, sincere way.

All in all, I enjoyed the forum but thought the organizers could have been more, well, organized in providing the blueprint for a helpful dialogue. The forum felt like a very premature first step, whereas I think with more preparation, it could have been a solid, progressive first step already moving forward into the second.

Also, a final note, I didn't feel an atmosphere of excitement or potential for sweeping change emanating from that room. I couldn't help but wonder how different a meeting like this might have been if NU were located in a border state, for instance, when this issue would be one, to use a current course term, of almost "forced intersubjectivity." Does this movement have a chance at succeeding in a university with students facing, instead, "optional intersubjectivity"? Will the goal of this movement have to become changing that "optional" into a "forced"? How can that be done? I hope the people involved are ready and willing to face that issue and make something of it.

(I may or may not be taking part in the early stages of the movement, depending on whether they use the "exit card" I filled out before leaving to fervently recruit me. I suppose that can be their first test.)

Sylvia Mendez Wins Presidential Medal of Freedom

Mendez, aged 74, was a pioneer in desegregating US public schools, in a case that created a precedent for Brown v. Board of Ed. Click the post title to link to the full article.

Bridge Between Fear and Peace

This popped up in my facebook newsfeed (and interestingly not from someone I would have imagined would closely follow happenings on the border)...It's an NYTimes story with the headline "Bridging a Gap Between Fear and Peace." It's a brief profile on the bridge (as traveled by foot) between Ciudad Juarez and El Paso.

Also, I'm pretty sure it mentions the killing of the students Anna mentioned this past class. They were gunned down at a car dealership on the Mexican side of the border.

Indigurrito

I just wanted to throw out there that, in reading Arrizon's piece on Laura Esparza and Nao Bustamante, I got a sense that "Indigurrito" was a TON more aggressive than it actually was (or at least seemed from the filmed version we watched in class). I felt immensely alienated by what I imagined the performance to be upon reading what Arrizon had to say. But upon watching Bustamante, I had none of those strong feelings I expected to feel. I had imagined her yelling militantly to the white men in the audience to come up, rather than asking humorously and in a soft, sensual tone. I just wondered if anybody else was expecting something different from what we saw in the video.

STUFF.

Reading this week’s play by Coco Fusco and Nao Bustamante I was really intrigued by their exploration of consumption. I took a class last year that focused on sex work, with a specific focus in sexual tourism in Central and South America/the Caribbean. Much like Fusco and Bustamante, we discussed the implications of sexual tourism, the effect on both the tourist who travels to another country with the express desire to find sexual companionship and the sex worker who makes a living dependent upon the desires of these travelers. In the situations of both of these groups, we can see the consumption that the authors discuss. On one hand, we see the tourist as a consumer, searching for a product for the week and then returning home to a “normal” life. Fusco and Bustamante demonstrate this in their second “Travel Tester” performance where they show the interaction between a tourist and a sex worker (it should be noted that they never really expressly identify these women as empowered “sex workers” but more portray them as engaging in sex work out of necessity). This interaction obviously sheds light on the consumption of the tourist but what is really intriguing to me is the consumption of the woman. At one point in the piece Coco reads a postcard addressed to the audience that says the following:
“So when you come charging in our direction, running from whatever it is you’re running from, you may not think that we who serve you could be eating as well. But we do. Gently but efficiently, we devour you. The more visceral your desires, the more physical our labor.” This was a point that really resonated with me and that I saw as a focal point of the entire piece. Food, sex, women, men- the interactions between these things are a two-way street. One does not consume the other, the two consume each other until there is nothing left. As Fusco and Bustamante point out in their performance note- “WE are dealing with how cultural consumption in our current moments involves the trafficking of that which is most dear to us all- our identities, our myths, and our bodies.” So my questions are the following: If cultural consumption is inherent in our world of globalization and interconnection, what should our goal be? To stop cultural consumption? To create a positive way of consuming? To create a more equalized system of consumption- you consume me and I consume you? Because the fact of the matter is, we are constantly consuming the things around us. It is not a choice to stop but rather a choice to make our consumptions beneficial to those that we are consuming instead of stuffing our faces (to use Fusco and Bustamante’s food metaphor) with no regard for the effects we might be having on those around us.

Like Sara, I also found the most intriguing aspect of this week's readings to be in Alicia Arrizon's "Chicano Identity and Performance: Beyond Chicanisdmo". Indeed, language construction in both the written and oral forms in the Romance languages has subjugated women to a subsidiary role to that of their male counterpart. It's curious to note that "nosotras", "ellas" and "vosotras" (used only in Spain) are pronouns that refer to "we", "them", and "you all", respectively. From a linguistic point of view, it's worth noting that the only difference between using "nosotras"- the female conjugation of "we"- versus "nosotros"- the male conjugation- is the presence of one single man. That is to say that if a woman were speaking or writing about, let's say, 10,000 women gathered in a single space, "nosotras" would be used to describe "us", a group of females. However, if only one man were present in that same space, the entire construction would have to be altered to "nosotros". It is bizarre to note the dominant male presence in language construction cemented in history. The implications of this insubordination have been far-reaching and extreme. How has this linguistic inequality permeated into the works we've read so far? What are the implications within a work with a female protagonist, for example, in a Spanish production?

Importance of Self Identity

With the scene(s) from Stuff, one theme I found interesting and constant throughout the piece was the need for maintaining a sense of self through all the adversity and pressure to adapt to the ways of the "gringos". The narrator at one point describes the fact that she is the only one who cooks and doesn't "live on take out." I think the whole cannibalism aspect to the piece is an abstract, metaphorical way for the Chicanas to maintain their identity. The way the author talks about the process of eating humans so casually makes me believe that such an extreme metaphor is used to convey the urgency and importance in maintaining one's identity.

Week 6: Myth

Although I think there's all kind of reactive, incendiary things to say about the works in this week's readings, I'm interested in looking at a somewhat more docile subject: the use of myth.

Last week, we saw a very direct use of myth in Hungry Woman, and this week, myth appears again, although used in a different way, in Stuff. I'm curious

1. How myth can be utilized in different ways to offer different perspectives on a culture
2. How myth tends to be utilized in art/literature/etc today, and for what purposes it is useful (I feel like myth is often used to exoticize or folklorize contemporary cultures)
3. What affect the use of myth had on us as readers of Hungry Woman and Stuff, and if we feel like this affect was the intention of the author

Week 6 Questions

I was very intrigued by the idea in Stuff that the Latin women are in turn eating their conquerors, that they too are being fed. Is this desire for transformative physical encounters inherent to all of us? Where is the allure in such experiences and how might we harness that appeal productively? Is that even possible?

Arrizon's article placed a lot of emphasis on the one-woman show as a unique tool in Chicano culture, but the mechanics of why this spectacle was so effective were never fully spelled out for me. What is it about a one-woman show compared to say Moraga's play (which still features almost all women) that "undermines patriarchal society" so much more effectively?

Week 6 - Feb. 14

I was made very uncomfortable by the description of the performance of Indigurrito, and a little confused about how this is supposed to relate to the Chicana feminist movement. While I agree with the movement, I found the description of the performance repulsive. How is that supposed to create gender equality? How does parading onstage nearly naked, eating from your shirt, and strapping a burrito between your legs make you equal? I think that it asks the audience to objectify you and detracts from people who are actually struggling and working hard for equality. Also, I did not understand why she would expect people, and why anyone did, come forward to ask for absolution. How can she absolve them, and did they do something specific against Chicana women or are they just white men that must bear this burden because of who they are? If they did not participate in the racism, but others of the same race did and they are then blamed, is that not also presumptuous of the performer?

Week 6

1. In reading the script of Stuff I couldn't help but wonder who the audience was meant to be and who would continue on stage as the script continually sexualizes the performers. Who did Nao Bustamante and Coco Fusco intend to reach in this performance and was the performance successful in doing so? Also interesting to me is the two subjects of sex and food and their importance to the Chicano and Mexican culture. What aspects of these two subjects are specific to Chicano culture and how does this relate to the more universal needs of food and sex?

2. Additionally, I would like to explore the feminism that is tied to the Chicano nationalism movement. The 1960s saw both racial integration and feminist reform but why did the Chicano movement entangle itself in so many webs at one time? Does this make performance of the movement and identity confusing as it combines race, gender and sexuality into one large issue? Why has performance lived on but the movement fell apart? I would also like to compare this feminist movement to the struggle and action of the Maquiladores - is it more effective to fight for civil and labor rights legally or through performance? I understand why sex and gender are entangled in Chicano performance and culture but is it effective to emphasize sex and sexuality as much as they do in their works? Is it worth discomforting viewers and pushing audiences away?

Week 6

Performance art makes me wonder. In each of the three pieces, heavy issues are dealt with so candidly, which just seems to be so different than the other forms of art we've studied in this class. Rather than taking the issues with much intensity, and creating almost a divide between the art and the audience, the performance art includes the audience as part of the piece. In Bustamante's piece Indigurrito, particularly, white males from the audience are called up onstage to eat a burrito strapped to Bustamante, as they absolve their wrongdoings. Is this audience participation forcing the audience to get the message in a more immediate way? Does audience participation encourage a more active response from the audience, rather than the usual passive, after-the-fact response that other art forms suggest? This type of performance art, which speaks to events that are happening both currently and have happened in the past, bring to light a special shared experience, which is very important to the cause. By directly including the audience in the artistic experience, the artists are forcing the audience to think and ask questions now. Does performance art that includes audience have the ability to reach an audience in a more immediate way than even traditional theatre performance or does it merely alienate the participants and audience alike?

Chicano Identity II and Tourism

Reading this week's texts, I was fully engaged and intrigued by the writing. Alicia Arrizon's work juxtaposed language appropriation with gender division within the context of the Chicano theatre movement, while Coco Fusco and Nao Buscamante use performances to expose sex tourism.

Taking a word that was originally thought of as derogatory, many Chicanos have come to identify and embraced the term "pocha." It is an extension of their Mexican ancestry and American upbringing and the meaning has been altered for the young people that use it. This example immediately brought up to mind the "n-word" and how the original meaning has been subverted. Of course this can be argued and I argue that the meaning has not changed and it still carries a ton of weight when spoken. But with the "n-word" there is a racial divide that makes its use more contentious than the term "pocha". "Pocha" when used, positively or negatively, is amongst people from a relatively similar ethnic/cultural background, where the only difference that can be discerned arises out of the use of language, which is one of the most important markers of identity. *

Additionally, the a/o hybridity allows for Spanish speaking females to reclaim their womanhood without succumbing to the male dominant hegemony of Chicanismo. By adopting these two ideals as a form of identity, Chicana artist are able to tell their stories and "herstories" with their history, gender, sexuality and culture in tact. My first question is a response to my statement: Is too much emphasis put on gender differences in Chicana art?

The work of Coco Fusco and Nao Buscamanete in "Stuff", is both hilarious and revealing, underlying a sinister truth that lies behind tourism. Sex tourism as one of the many themes in this story and takes the point of view from the tourist and the sex workers themselves. From Straight makes and homosexual females looking for a "fun time," to unsuspecting woman and prostitutes who become part of this subversive sect of tourism. Stuff manages to bridges these two ideas and make the audience think about the lives of the people involved. With this week's title being: Chicano/a and Latino/a performance art, does anything about the work strike you are particularly Latino/a apart from the languages? And if not, do you think that is the artists' aim?

*This statement is made from my personal opinion and is in now way meant to be taken as fact. While some points I bring up may be true, I was making generalizations for simplicity's sake.

Week 6

The thing that stood out to me the most in this week's readings was Alicia Arrizon's discussion of the "a/o" split, and how "the grammar of most Spanish - and of most Romance languages - has subjected women to masculine constructions." This echoed Anzaldua's discussion in last week's reading of the discovery of the first person plural pronoun "nosotras" as an alternative to the masculine "nosotros," which made me think about the ways language can subtly reinforce a certain hierarchy. In turn, this reminded me of something Lah Tere said when I went to her talk as my cultural event for class. She talked about the colonized mentality of immigrants, an inferiority complex that becomes ingrained in their minds after years of being treated as second-class citizens. Clearly, the patriarchal society and the masculinized nature of the Chicano movement have created a similar state of mind for Chicanas, who have to empower themselves as women before they can fully gain rights as Chicanas. I wonder, then, what roles men and women should play in this effort. How much of the work must be done by the Chicanas, and how much and what kind of contribution should Chicano men have in bringing women into the movement?

Intersubjectivity

In the "Chicana Identity and Performance Art" piece on Laura Esparza and Nao Bustamante, these two performance artists' works are described as relying heavily upon intersubjectivity, upon willing and invested contribution from the audience. Bustamante, at the time of her "Indigurrito" performances, told the audience they must participate in order for her to continue on with the performance. Later, Bustamante is quoted saying, "One of the many wonderful paradoxes about performance is that actually you are controlling me right now..." (pg. 94). If this is the case, does this level of audience control change in the context of intersubjectivity seen in Margolles' works, specifically in "Vaporization"? Are these two cases of intersubjectivity equally offensive and alienating? What characteristics separate the two?

Secondly, with "The Couple in the Cage," I wonder about the chosen use of the cage, which is itself a significant component leading to unrest and disgust among viewers. If, as the video suggests, the artists' purpose was to offer a "satirical comment" on the past, why did the cage (an iteration of which was only featured in a couple of the video/photo examples we saw from the "past") seem an important part to incorporate? Was it for technical purposes (i.e., kids could have pulled Coco Fusco's wig off if there were no bars to stop them)? Was it to intensify the demarcation between "observer" and "observed"? If so, did the artists not dress and act differently enough for this relationship to be implied without a cage? Was the cage there to make viewers feel safe on the other side, much as the U.S.-Mexico border makes many U.S. citizens feel secure knowing there's a wall there keeping people out (or in)? Or perhaps the cage was there to say, simply, the Guatinauis (for the people who believed they were such) had no choice, had no place to hide, were necessarily subject to exploitation, as the indigenous people before them were?

Further, with the cage in place, viewers faced optional intersubjectivity (as opposed to Bustamante's and Margolles' forced intersubjectivity). Viewers could choose to put money in a box to watch the "Guatinauis" tell a story, dance or reveal genitals. OR they could just stand and watch from a distance. If intersubjectivity is utilized, is it preferable (from an artistic standpoint) that it be forced or optional?

ChicanA Theatre

One quote I found striking this week was when Esparza and Bustamente identify themselves and "pochos/as," a derogatory term for not of Mexican or American descent and use terms considered Spanglish. In many ways this reminded me of many other not so nice words used to refer to groups of people in the US. The most shining one brought to mind was the n-word. However, like these artists, how is that by reclaiming the word as an identity can it be twisted to have a positive connotation, or if not positive then at least be self-affirming? For example, the African American community has reclaimed in their pop-culture through music, television, stand-up comedy, etc. By accepting it through their art, have these women accomplished the same feat?

Another point I found interesting was the intention of the Coco Fusco performance art piece. While the couple's intention was to comment on the idea of discovery, spectators unexpectedly thought the artists in costumes were real natives on display. In what ways are other cultures spectacles, especially for those in the United States? It also seemed as though the people observing thought it was pretty normal to observe the artists in the cage almost as if (as reflected in the flashes of film) they were observing a freak show. What does this nonchalent behavior of the spectators say about us as first world citizens?

Feminism tied to Chicana/o Theatre

1. In the Chicana Identity.... piece, Arrizon points out that "Chicanismo nationalism's reinforcement of male supremacy or machismo as the symbolic rule of cultural representation" hurts their cause. In light of our discussion last week regarding the "falling apart" of the Chicano movement (especialy in comparison to the Civil Rights movement), how could/should the leaders of the Chicano movement included women/queers to their advantage?

2. In Stuff, Bustamente and Fusco end up going the entire other way. The godess is the one that is worshipped and feared, female sexuality is celebrated and addressed without ridicule or awkwardness. Is it too much though? Are they successfully making a point, just going for schock value, or estranging and alienating their audience?

What struck me the most about Anzaldua's article was how she states that a people who are neither completely American nor Mexican are left with no recourse other than to create their own hybrid language, one completely familiar yet distinct from their respective cultures that formulate their diverse upbringing. Cultural distinction is a natural response to the stimuli around them with language itself becomes a necessary component of ethnic identity. Without the various languages of the Chicano people, could they be recognized as entirely separate from Mexican or Americans? Anzaldua would argue no, yet at what point does language transcend communicative purposes and evolve into a integral part of a people's identity?

This idea of trans-gendered language fundamentally rooted in a "mezcla" of ethnicities and a displaced people made me wonder how we can analyze their experience in order to better comprehend the Chicano situation- or predicament, as some would call it. I returned to the Christian Science Monitor article on the budding "adventure tourism" industry in Mexico. Would Anzaldua view this as a gateway experience to see how some Chicanos indirectly choose to become Chicano? Or would she view this tourism industry as a cruel parody of the hardships that Chicano's suffer for the profit of others?

Week 5: Language

"Ethnic identity is a twin skin to linguistic identity"

In "How to Tame a Wild Tongue" Anzaldua explores the multiplicity of language that exists between English and Spanish, and which is relevant to Chican@ identity. I agree very much with her statement about identity, and I think that language is (probably obviously) an extremely important consideration when creating performance.

Anzaldua goes on to list the eight languages she speaks in various different contexts, but I think it's here that she unintentionally contradicts what she is actually saying about language.

Language, and culture, and ethnicity are fluid and borderless. They are in a constant state of change, and while categorizing them certainly appeals to our need for organization, I don't think a list of differentiated languages represents the reality of language and its relation to culture. As languages blend and mix and borrow and segregate and split and morph, so do the people that speak them. A hundred years ago, had I grown up with the genetics and geography that I did, I would have been a distinctively Irish girl in all kinds of ethnic conflict with new waves of immigrants. But over the last hundred years, languages have become friendlier to one another, and so have people. Now I am a girl with an Irish last name and a vocabulary full of Puerto Rican curse words and Yiddish complaints.

So I guess all that's just a bunch of thoughts, but here are some questions:

1. What does linguistic identity mean for theater and performance?
2. How can we utilize the linguistic-ethnic connection in performance to communicate better and to make social progress?

Week 5

Reading the works of the Anzaldua and Moraga for this week brought up significant questions of identity. Anzaldua narrates the struggle of Chicano/as in finding a voice (and a language) to call their own. She expresses the hardships of speaking a "bastard language," the "linguistic terrorism" that separates and judges, pulling apart groups and picking them to pieces. Wild tongues resisting taming. Moraga further questions identity- what it means to be Chicana, a lesbian, a mother? At what point are we defined by our race, our sexuality, our gender? I was reminded of one of our first readings, the first chapter by Anzaldua where she brings up the issues of culture. Those conceptions of culture and of ancestry really stuck with me and I kept thinking of them as I read for this week. Her exploration of the borderlands, a race of people displaced and uprooted, unclaimed and yet separated. A land split in parts, an earth divided. In the same way, the two readings for this week explore these divisions. Perhaps not in such a literal, barbed-wire-fence sort of way but they are borders all the same. Identities are not only chosen, they are often imposed. Anzaldua's first chapter deals with a physical boundary and the separations created between two cultures- an American side and a Mexican side. Her fifth chapter is more intimate, a more personal exploration of identity. Of how language is power, how words can cut in the same way barbed wire does. Similary, Moraga's piece is a personal one. The story of a modern Medea.

Week 5

      I think I would include Amy Sara Carroll's "Muerte Sin Fin: Teresa Margolles's Gendered States of Exception" with the readings for week 5 as Margolles' work complements this week's plays in a very striking way.  Anzaldua's chapter "How to Tame a Wild Tongue" raised more issues of identity. Is it something we define in terms of language? Where do we draw lines within a language group? She brought up issues between Chicanos regarding who can be considered authentic or legitimate. This search for identity is echoed in Margolles' work, though of course, through a completely different medium. Margolles effectually washes her artistic subjects of any personal status or uniqueness by separating the body from the self. Where is one's own agency and character amidst so much struggle? Both Anzaldua and Margolles explore this question in their own right.
    
      In its own way, Moraga's Hungry Woman has a similar level of shock value to Margolles' art.  Moraga unabashedly and explicitly explores issues of gender as they do or do not fit into cultural norms, expectations, and upbringing. We know from Carroll's text that Margolles, too, intended to explore questions of gender. Yet, her statements on that topic are overshadowed by the visceral images in her the foreground whereas Moraga lands on the other end of the spectrum; placing so much emphasis on gender that perhaps we lose some understanding of the cultural and national context. Which is more effective? I'm not sure, but both artists have given us strong statements regarding the role of gender in this conflict.

Chicano Identity

Reading this week's works was enjoyable while also bringing to ideas of identity: cultural, ethnic, sexuality. These readings while varied and interesting, also connected to one reading from the past. Chapter one of Gloria Anzaldua's Borderlands explores the ideas of Chicano identity by referencing their indigenous ancestors and their forgotten history. She also writes in both Spanish and English to create a connection between the readers and their heritage, something that they may have regressed for whatever reason.

Anzaldua's writing directly correlates to the main characters in each of this week's reading; The Zoot Suit wearing youth, the inhabitants of a fictional Phoenix, the young Chicanos of the US. Their entity is an inherent part of the narratives and it is their identity that is cause of their problems with the external world.

Anzaldua's writing from week one makes a point to mention that the former boundaries of

Mexico included that areas that have high number of Mexican ancestry now. With this idea in

tact, Zoot suiters of LA became targets, Medea's well being was jeopardized and Anzaldua

herself was threatened with losing her mother culture.

Referring specifically to Zoot Suits, do you think this writing is in any way related to the

border or is it simply an examination of Chicano identity and not ones relationship to Mexico?