Indigenous aesthetics and power

BBC NEWS | Americas | Colombian Indians seek security

As this piece points out the situation that the indigenous peoples of Colombia find themselves in is precarious. Threatened as the innocent bystanders caught in the middle of armed conflict between government militia, drug cartels and the FARC these groups claim their indigenous identity is being threatened. Several things pop out at me in this article that correlate to the issues we have discussed in class recently about indigeneity.

First it is interesting how the author of the article appeals in very specific notion to an ahistorical construction of the indigenous identity. Notice:

Some 1,000 metres above sea level lies the heart of the reservation of the Arhuaco people, one of the more traditional indigenous tribes, whose members wear white robes and speak a language that greeted the Spanish Conquistadors when they landed here some five centuries ago.

-notice how the aesthetic displays (dress, language) are fixed to notions of ancientness and fixed in a particular space. When the author describes the aesthetic display of one woman who stands out in protest of the arrangements imposed by Uribe’s government – it is used to qualify her statements as contextually authoritative as the voice of the indigenous person.

Dressed in the traditional white robes with coloured beads draped around her neck, Leonor fears the consequences of allowing troops to move freely into the reservation.

The author goes on to use another visual image to drive home the point of his argument. He points to a member of another tribe who has lost his indigenous identity and marks it by referring to the ‘traffic’ that could be heard in the background of the telephone conversation.

The author seems to appeal to the Western typical notions of indigeneity inscribed in very particular aesthetics. In fairness though it seems that these people themselves are actually looking for the type of isolation from external contact that clearly is not possible.

"The more contact we have with the government, the more people that come to the Sierra, the more they will try to dilute our culture, our traditions," said Diego Garcia

This article serves to once again complexify the issues around indigeneity, aesthetics, land and power.

Obviously!

 

FAIL Blog: Pictures and Videos of Owned, Pwnd and Fail Moments

constructing the cross

Many Christians talk about Jesus’ death on the cross as the ultimate suffering anyone has ever been subjected to. The way The Crucifixion is talked about paints Jesus experience as an outstanding even the most horrific event anyone has ever had to endure. Certainly this seems to be the sentiment that motivated the production of the Mel Gibson’s movie which focuses on the especially violent aspects of Jesus death.

This notion seems inaccurate. It also seems to capitalize on a certain underdog/victimization complex that frames some of the battle like rhetoric that Christians often take up.

It is not hard to see that Jesus death was on most accounts rather common-place. It should be noted that crucifixion was not only a common feature of the Roman justice system. It was used for crimes like theft that even advocates of the death penalty would not accept as appropriate measures today. All of the actions surrounding the crucifixion (beating, thorns, even the crowd of protestors) that Christ endured were fairly common in this form of execution. What begins to appear then is that the insult of the cross was not how extraordinarily cruel it was  - but how demeaningly banal it was.

In addition it would seem that Jesus suffering in terms of both emotional and physical pain has been far exceeded by other victims through the course of history. Think of the torture endured at the hands of Nazi or dirty war death squads in Argentina. Or the horror of genocide in Rwanda, Darfur, Cambodia, etc. Many convicts who were crucified had their legs broken to ‘speed up’ death. One of the ideas that is promoted is that Jesus can identify with the depths of pain experienced by victims of these horrors because he suffered such a horrific death himself. While in a general sense because he is more than just human it is clear that identification with the incredible suffering of the world is possible for Jesus – the cross itself does not automatically bequeath this unparalleled suffering on Christ.

One of the other factors that must be considered is Christ’s willingness to go to the cross. While Jesus’ Divine nature could have certainly prevented his own death, it is not responsible psychology or theology to suggest that Christ essentially committed suicide. However, what must be accepted is that this particular form of death was intentionally chosen to demonstrate critical features of God’s redemptive plan. Again it is common to hear the rhetoric that suggests that Christ’s death was a tragedy of perpetuated by religiously calloused Jewish leaders and indifferent bystanders. This is not faithful to the notion that Jesus’ death was intended to occur and that his accusers were instrumental to that intentional plan.

All this brings a few important aspects to light that I think bear reinforcing:

-the cross must be understood as a largely symbolic act designed for a human audience. God could have just snapped his fingers and forgiven sin instead he chose to elaborate his plan in this specific drama.

-understood as a symbolic act it seems that theology must tread carefully in constructing a too specific doctrinal paradigm around this event. It seems that some fairly spurious doctrinal positions have risen out of a too literal interpretation of the crucifixion. Instead the cross ought to be the starting point of a discussion about the ideas that God wanted to communicate in this drama.

-perhaps the most important message of the Crucifixion is not the injustice of the God/Man being killed at the hands of individuals too steeped in religiosity to see Jesus’ true identity. Instead it is the fact that God was willing to have his most benevolent act toward humanity forgotten in the triviality of common cruelty. He was willing to have his death become just as meaningless as the untold thousands who lie namely in mass graves – their personal meaning erased by the identity as number. There seems to be almost a disservice that is given to Jesus’ death by elevating it above all other human suffering. I think this what Isaiah was getting at in the image about ‘the lamb to the slaughter’. This is the utter beauty of God’s death drama – not only was he willing to give up his status as God but ultimately he was willing to be reduced to a statistic.

A new take on April Showers

 

APRIL - NEW MATH by Craig Damrauer

Poker and Indigeneity

Here are a couple of clips you might have seen in the last while advertising Party Poker:

and this one…

how are the representations of these individuals given credibility? Indigenous people plus technology is what is able to produce the comic tension needed to make these commercials ‘work’.

then this…

So if as Beth A. Conklin suggests in “Body Paint, Feathers, and VCRs: Aesthetics and Authenticity in Amazonian Activism” that indigeneity is subject to the forces of external representations of authenticity then the image of the native is essentially reflected back to the observer as their own construction. Indigeneity then is strategic for the performer (the indian) to gain access to the benefits afforded by the exercise of power which is once again (seems like a broken record already) held in Western ideological structures. To suggest then that a naked body painted native is somehow more authentic than one that is dressed in western clothes is actually only a judgement on our western idea not on the natives themselves. That it should seem funny to us that an indigenous person could use technology successfully enough to vanquish the most lucrative indulgences (poker) of our western capitalist frame should really give us pause. What we are actually suggesting is that the very (visual) types that we expect natives to demonstrate to prove their authenticity is exactly what allows them to remain disengaged from advantages of our own cultural paradigms.

Canada's tolerance misplaced?

I mourn the passing of Pierre Elliot Trudeau when I read material like this: Canada's tolerance misplaced. The author constructs an impassioned argument for a return to Diefenbaker’s notion of unhyphenated-Canadianism. Canadian multiculturalism has led to a pluralistic society that most conservative right leaning individuals see as being problematic. Mr. Kanwar intones some of the typical perspectives:

It is amazing that 77 per cent of the Canadian majority are scared of offending 23 per cent of minorities. We have become so timid that the majority cannot assert its own freedom of expression. We cannot publicly question certain foreign social customs, traditions and values that do not fit into the Canadian ethos of equality. Rather than encouraging new immigrants to adjust to Canada, we tolerate peculiar ways of doing things. We do not remind them that they are in Canada, not in their original homelands…

In a multicultural society, it is the responsibility of minorities to adjust to the majority. It does not mean that minorities have to to-tally amalgamate with the majority. They can practise some of their cultural traditions within their homes --their backstage behaviour. However, when outside of their homes, their front stage behaviour should resemble mainstream Canadian behaviour.

The Mount Royal professor is drawing on Goffman’s dramaturgical social theory of the self to construct his arguments about how his view of multiculturalism is to be expressed. His comments seem to suggest that there is an essential Canadian identity: one that is definitive enough to bring ‘cultural’ distinctions like female circumcision, or religious customs that contravene these essential characteristics. The question is whether such a unified identity is actually available or useful. Certainly some could point to a few general characteristics of being Canadian – but save the commodified stereotypes of the ubiquitous beer commercials – they often seem too broad or ambiguous. Mr. Kanwar himself fails to outline what the contours of his unhyphenated identity except that in some general sense it is different in public than in private. He manages to outline several things that being Canadian is NOT!

He also misses an important observation. Freedom of expression is precisely the elevating of minority and opposing points of view to equal status in the face of the reality that the dominant majority already has access and validity in the views they express. If freedom of expression is a value we would advocate in our society it must apply uniformly. Certainly freedom of expression exists within certain limits since we know that certain language is designed to damage peaceful and respectful relationship within a society. But any limits exercised must be done so uniformly.

Fredrick Barth suggests that ethnicity is produced and maintained not as some essentialized notion in isolation from other ethnicities. Instead he advocates that it is produced and maintained at the boundaries between ethnicities. Distinction is a productive choice of the interaction between ethnic types. If Barth is right then Mr. Kanwar’s position is a most interesting one.  In his view being Canadian is not:

• a place where female circumcision is practiced
• a place where marriage is conducted on the dowry basis
• a place where female fetus are aborted based on their sex
• a place where national loyalty can follow religious conviction

The question is then – what kind of boundary do these statements actually contest or define? In any event it seems distinct and important enough for Mr Kanwar to suggest that…

Those who come here of their own volition and stay here must be truly patriotic Canadians or go back.

The Daily Me

This morning on the way to school CBC’s “Q” Guest host Jonathan Torrens had a fabulous interview with Nicholas Kristof about his Op-Ed piece in the New York Times. Kristof is working off several M.I.T. studies that point to the connection between the self selection of news and information to a hyper polarization of common discourse. Here are some quotes.

We may believe intellectually in the clash of opinions, but in practice we like to embed ourselves in the reassuring womb of an echo chamber.

…Americans increasingly are segregating themselves into communities, clubs and churches where they are surrounded by people who think the way they do.

The result is polarization and intolerance. Cass Sunstein, a Harvard law professor now working for President Obama, has conducted research showing that when liberals or conservatives discuss issues such as affirmative action or climate change with like-minded people, their views quickly become more homogeneous and more extreme than before the discussion. For example, some liberals in one study initially worried that action on climate change might hurt the poor, while some conservatives were sympathetic to affirmative action. But after discussing the issue with like-minded people for only 15 minutes, liberals became more liberal and conservatives more conservative.

What does this all mean?

Kristof argued in the radio interview that not only would this lead to further polarization in the general population but that information itself would change. We can note with alarm that newspapers are dying but it is not the forest decimating feel of paper in our hands that we will lose – it is the ability to have an open dialogue in the public sphere. When we can reinforce our own ideological point of view with the type of news we read or by selecting the source of our information we need not confront our own errors.

Kristof’s solution is to actively read a wide range of ideological material. Of course the classic excuse is that we have too little time to spread our attention across the veritable filth that occupies all other perspective but our own. So are we doomed to this narcissistic polarization?

Op-Ed Columnist - The Daily Me - NYTimes.com

Enter the Sloganeering

Here you go! Fed up with the God taunting ads - make up your own!

Calgary: Aryan Hotbed?

No doubt many of you readers will be aware of this story. Anti-racist and a neo-Nazi, Aryan groups clashed on the streets of Calgary. The wild west, frontier cowboy town image is certainly not lost in Calgary. Perhaps it is muted by the fact that the combatants used cans of vegetables and placards in what one police officer labelled an obviously premeditated attack.

A survey of the news reports from different corners is very telling in terms of how they have constructed the issue with reference to race. The Calgary Herald seems particularly concerned with Calgary's reputation. Interestingly they seem to lay blame at the feet of the Aryan group for starting the violence citing one observer who suggests, "That's precisely why these groups are so prone to resort to violence, because they are frustrated their message has no popular resonance." In this piece one MP is quoted as saying he would rather have these racist groups out in the open than have their operations turn to more clandestine methods.

The Globe and Mail seems to lay the blame for the violence on the anti-racist group. ""We can be thankful; we did well," said Insp. Williams, who chiefly blamed members of the anti-racism group, comprising in total around 450 people, for the trouble."

The CBC News story reveals claims by the anti-racist group that police officers were protecting the Aryan group.

The Toronto Star tries to give a balanced approach? First it quotes an anti-racist who suggests that the demonstration and clash was a blow to the racists and then it quote two teenage girls in the racist group who don't see themselves as racist at all – just misunderstood.

Media representations are critical in the development of public rhetoric on race. The source of your news obviously affects the perspective you will get. Does anyone else find the above photo interesting and ironic?

Guillermo Stars in Burromance

this guy is my new fav - i just can't stop laughing!