The gallery has a multicultural agenda which I respect, but the execution of it has stirred up all sorts of irritating things to the surface of my mind.( Read more... )
I'm all about celebrating culture and exploring history- it's the "you look like this you should id with this" thing.
I've been trying to remember the name of a black writer who lived for a while in France and found more freedom there. He was constantly pressured from all sides (not just with grant ops) to be a Black writer. In France he found that he could simply be a Writer, but in the US it was a constant struggle. No one wanted to hear his reflections on Modernism and society- just about being Black (40's-60's I think). My friend/brother had the same frustration. He really didn't feel like he had that freedom to not discuss "Black".
I agree about the invisible/norm thing. I'd just like the invisible norm to be inclusive rather than "white", just as it has come to be inclusive of Irish (who used to get paid less than freed slaves in the north), Polish, German, etc.. Those people can still get into their cultural heritage, but it doesn't need to be separated off anymore.
Visually looking different is special kind of situation with it's own problems. You can generally id a skin color from far off, but not necessarily a Catholic- so the importance of Catholic as id has faded in the cultural mish-mash in most places. These things are always tied to politics, economics, etc., but with visually noticable stuff it's harder to turn the corner and just be "neutral"- the cultural baggage has a visual tag to tie it down.
"Even focusing on "identity" as the topic of a show is a very western, individualistic thing to do -- in many cultures (especially in Africa and Asia), "identity" can be much more unbounded and amorphous than it is here."
Yes, but we're in America, one of the most individualist, identity-preoccupied places in the world. It's the place for it. The people (including Asians- my sensei's gran-sensei is a perfect example) who have immigrated here have often done so out of embracing that, along with the fable of opportunity.
"Identity" is wide open too- it can be about group identity or family identity, I am not going to specify- the topic is up for grabs, that's the point. I've taken my East Asian history, philosophy, art, religion and society courses. My dad's dad grew up in China, and my aunts are respectively Korean and Chinese. I'm aware. Africa I know less about- only the anthro from mom.
Regarding jazz, it was a long time before black jazz artists were allowed to play in white clubs or on radio or television. It ultimately was very integrating but the path wasn't smooth. Yes- hence mention of Crow Laws- I was going to get into specifics but didn't. They jammed together, eventually paving the way for actually integrated bands, and the Savoy was for everyone. Have you seen Ken Burns' History of Jazz? You'd like it. The point is that a cultural mishmash of people respected each other's work and exchanged ideas and got respect from the public- in particular Jewish and Black musicians and singers- once again mixed with the unlabeled random "white" people of the invisible culture. "Strange Fruit" was written by a "white" english teacher, and given to Billy Holiday, who sung it and made audiences cry. Louis Armstrong wore the star of David.
Yes, Burns is fun. :~) It did tend to paint a pretty rosy picture of the situation, though, from what I remember/know from other sources.
The visibility thing is hard. For a while, at the turn of the 20th century and thereabouts, some branches of anthropology were concerned with defining racial "prototypes" of all sorts: Jewish, Italian, Irish, eastern European of various sorts, German, etc. Ultimately it wasn't successful because it was based on faulty premises. But their goal was to make such differences visible, the way skin tone is visible.
I ultimately would like the definitions to be inclusive as well, I think, but first we need to acknowledge and respect these other histories. We as a culture aren't even close to that yet -- jumping to "inclusiveness" now will just suppress those alternate histories yet again. (Like the racial profiling law that was on the ballots a few years ago -- not allowing racial statistics to be collected just means that racial inequalities will persist, not disappear.)
to the last paragraph- it's a tricky, tricky balance.
We are miles from equality- we still don't pay women of any race the same average as men. Actually, the same is true by men of any race by height. "Equality" is a mess on it's own- people just don't measure that easily.
Yes- data collection is important, my mom's Health disparities studies show that much. Yes, we need to tell all the stories and pay attention to doing so.
But... say I were writing a history book. My preference would be to flesh out the history with a full spectrum of people and their roles in things (not just race or gender, but views- just heard a great conscientious objectors in WWII story on NPR for example). I would like those scattered in rather than say, every chapter a little box with the "Black _____s" or "Women ___s). That makes them seem still outside. To raise kids with just hearing about everyone's stuff without the outsider aspect being flagged (other than the history of outsiderdom or mistreatment or exclusion).
That sort of thing honors and includes without continuing to hold the wall. I think that as we continue to focus on the wall we increase it- I feel like we've actually gone backwards in some ways since the 90's.
as to rosy picture... dunno they mention tour buses getting attacked and the like, the lynchings going on in the background, the white bands taking credit, the idea that the black musicians were "primal" and therefore didn't have anything to do with sheet music, the segregation in the clubs and hotels, the fact that the black bands would not be allowed to be customers in many of the venues they played in...
I've been trying to remember the name of a black writer who lived for a while in France and found more freedom there. He was constantly pressured from all sides (not just with grant ops) to be a Black writer. In France he found that he could simply be a Writer, but in the US it was a constant struggle. No one wanted to hear his reflections on Modernism and society- just about being Black (40's-60's I think). My friend/brother had the same frustration. He really didn't feel like he had that freedom to not discuss "Black".
I agree about the invisible/norm thing. I'd just like the invisible norm to be inclusive rather than "white", just as it has come to be inclusive of Irish (who used to get paid less than freed slaves in the north), Polish, German, etc.. Those people can still get into their cultural heritage, but it doesn't need to be separated off anymore.
Visually looking different is special kind of situation with it's own problems. You can generally id a skin color from far off, but not necessarily a Catholic- so the importance of Catholic as id has faded in the cultural mish-mash in most places. These things are always tied to politics, economics, etc., but with visually noticable stuff it's harder to turn the corner and just be "neutral"- the cultural baggage has a visual tag to tie it down.
"Even focusing on "identity" as the topic of a show is a very western, individualistic thing to do -- in many cultures (especially in Africa and Asia), "identity" can be much more unbounded and amorphous than it is here."
Yes, but we're in America, one of the most individualist, identity-preoccupied places in the world. It's the place for it. The people (including Asians- my sensei's gran-sensei is a perfect example) who have immigrated here have often done so out of embracing that, along with the fable of opportunity.
"Identity" is wide open too- it can be about group identity or family identity, I am not going to specify- the topic is up for grabs, that's the point. I've taken my East Asian history, philosophy, art, religion and society courses. My dad's dad grew up in China, and my aunts are respectively Korean and Chinese. I'm aware. Africa I know less about- only the anthro from mom.
Regarding jazz, it was a long time before black jazz artists were allowed to play in white clubs or on radio or television. It ultimately was very integrating but the path wasn't smooth. Yes- hence mention of Crow Laws- I was going to get into specifics but didn't. They jammed together, eventually paving the way for actually integrated bands, and the Savoy was for everyone. Have you seen Ken Burns' History of Jazz? You'd like it. The point is that a cultural mishmash of people respected each other's work and exchanged ideas and got respect from the public- in particular Jewish and Black musicians and singers- once again mixed with the unlabeled random "white" people of the invisible culture. "Strange Fruit" was written by a "white" english teacher, and given to Billy Holiday, who sung it and made audiences cry. Louis Armstrong wore the star of David.
On "tolerance"- yes exactly.
Reply
The visibility thing is hard. For a while, at the turn of the 20th century and thereabouts, some branches of anthropology were concerned with defining racial "prototypes" of all sorts: Jewish, Italian, Irish, eastern European of various sorts, German, etc. Ultimately it wasn't successful because it was based on faulty premises. But their goal was to make such differences visible, the way skin tone is visible.
I ultimately would like the definitions to be inclusive as well, I think, but first we need to acknowledge and respect these other histories. We as a culture aren't even close to that yet -- jumping to "inclusiveness" now will just suppress those alternate histories yet again. (Like the racial profiling law that was on the ballots a few years ago -- not allowing racial statistics to be collected just means that racial inequalities will persist, not disappear.)
Reply
We are miles from equality- we still don't pay women of any race the same average as men. Actually, the same is true by men of any race by height. "Equality" is a mess on it's own- people just don't measure that easily.
Yes- data collection is important, my mom's Health disparities studies show that much. Yes, we need to tell all the stories and pay attention to doing so.
But... say I were writing a history book. My preference would be to flesh out the history with a full spectrum of people and their roles in things (not just race or gender, but views- just heard a great conscientious objectors in WWII story on NPR for example). I would like those scattered in rather than say, every chapter a little box with the "Black _____s" or "Women ___s). That makes them seem still outside. To raise kids with just hearing about everyone's stuff without the outsider aspect being flagged (other than the history of outsiderdom or mistreatment or exclusion).
That sort of thing honors and includes without continuing to hold the wall. I think that as we continue to focus on the wall we increase it- I feel like we've actually gone backwards in some ways since the 90's.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment