St. John Coltrane

RP4: Question the Question

Being in Intro to Ethnic Studies has encouraged/forced me to take a more active role in my own education and take responsibility for how/what I learn in a way that I am not used to. Something that I think will really stick with me going forward is the mantra "Question the question." Using this concept as a guide, I feel I can have a starting place to engage with some of the complexities that have been on my mind this quarter. I anticipate that this concept will be something I can always return to and rely on to point me in a productive and interesting direction, if not a simple or easy-to-understand-and-communicate one. With "question the question" in mind, I want to briefly discuss one of the questions from the Byrd reading that we talked about in class recently:

How might the terms of the current academic and political debates change if the responsibilities of that very real lived condition of colonialism were prioritized?

After taking this class, I don't feel qualified to answer this question -- I mean, that's part of the point; knowledge demands are everywhere, and no single person's experience will enable them to meet them all -- but I do feel like I can "question the question" (though in a slightly different sense than that in which we've been using the language for most of the quarter) and ask what many of the words used in the question mean: "academic," "political," "debate," "responsibilities," and of course "colonialism" need to be unpacked in order to understand what this question is actually asking. To me, "question the question" means doing this unpacking and, through that, gaining a better understanding of the big picture(s)-- of the framing of the question and the position(ality) of the person/institution/group asking it.

RP$: Mignolo and Modernity

Language is so important. Words carry a weight and a history that cannot be ignored for mere convenience. Mignolo explores the difference between “discovered” and “invented” that brings to light some of the many issues presented by colonization. By using the word “discovered” in reference to colonization, one invalidates the entire peoples that are being colonized. How can a land with multiple peoples, cultures, and systems be discovered when the intention of said “discovery” is to eliminate and change all those things which were already there? “America” was not “discovered”, the idea of America was invented and thrust upon a preexisting land which had not been and had not wanted to be America.

However, this word and many others, such as modernity, are still commonly used, because of their constructed positive connotations and the persisting and underlying belief that Europeans did in fact “earn” or “deserve” to essentially overtake and run the newly named Americas. This is what truly interests me. The persistence of our word usage and general understandings of history show the true and deeply rooted problem: that many Europeans and now Americans do not see colonization as the violent and devastating intrusion that it was and is. From the European perspective, “modernity refers to a period in world history that has been traced back either to the European Renaissance and the ‘discovery’ of America” (Mignolo 8) and is seen as, “the direction of history that had Europe as a model and goal.” What is not seen, what refuses to be seen, from the European perspective, is that “the achievements of modernity go hand in hand with the violence of coloniality” (Mignolo 8). The reluctance here, I think, comes from an inability to admit that the system is dirty. The system that one was born into and participates in every single day, the system that very possibly has created a seemingly wonderful, fulfilling, and satisfying life for someone, was built upon the destruction of another system, another people, by one’s own people.

I’m going to take a little leap here, and tie this into the idea behind my final project. This ^^^ what I just described as reluctance, but is truly so much more complex, is exactly what dying looks like. What Mignolo thinks our society needs to do and what we have been attempting to do in this class is to STRETCH. To not simply succumb to the ignorance of colonization, modernity, or discovery that is far too easy to obtain in our current educational and political structures. Having now read and analyzed Mignolo, we have more than enough tools that can enable us to stretch. More completely, we have the tools to help others who are on their death beds to begin stretching. Stretch or Die. It is a choice that everyone makes, but it is never too late to start reaching, to change one’s language, or to watch and truly understand one’s word choice. 

RP4: Real or Imagined?

            Imagination. Imagined. Real. My relationship to Greece is my real home. My relationship to my imagined home is my family. My family’s love is my imagined home, no matter where they move, there love is always home. She says I need to address Greece as real and imagined. Especially with Greco-Abrahamic thought: Greek Philosophy and language. She says local knowledges of Greece are used for design. In essence, how is our own work, in relation to racism and colonization, affected by Greek civilization and philosophy? These questions almost remind me of the movie, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, where the dad constantly says that everything came from the Greeks and that this civilization was founded on Greek principles. We must ask ourselves then…since we know that the Greeks only contributed to some modern day advancements…what ideas did the Greeks contribute that are affected by or affect our work as Ethnic Studies scholars? Democracy. Democracy was originally implemented by the ancient Greeks: the idea of voting directly in order to shape a city’s politics under a unanimously decided idea. The question about democracy, however, is who is in and who is out. Who is a citizen and who is not. Who counts as a citizen and who does not. This idea of inclusion and exclusion always has been and currently is a part of our modern day societal systems. In ancient Greece, those that were allowed to vote were Greek citizens. Well what was considered a citizen? A Greek, upper class, male, citizen. No one else. No women, no foreigners, no slaves. This system sounds extremely similar to that of the early United States. Back when this land of the great patriotic U S A was “founded” (some might say by civilized people) it was only AMERICAN (meaning British immigrants), upper class, white, male citizens that were allowed to vote. This basically only qualified American, upper class, white, male citizens as human beings in the “elsewhere” of United States America. This same idea of who is a human, who is a citizen, who belongs, who is included and who is excluded has continued with the practice of colonialism, coloniality, and imperialism. This whole idea of a direct democracy turned into that of a representative democracy. One in which the beloved people elect an official to decide their own important issues. And who are the elected officials? Majority white. Majority men. All citizens. These systems continue to push down those of a different race from the “all supreme” white race. It oppresses those of black, red, yellow…not to forget, brown. BUT, we have all decided that race is an arbitrary thing. So then the question is, what can we do to deconstruct this system that oppresses something that is so arbitrary as the color of your skin? Agency. Use the agency that you have in order to speak up and speak out. Use your own rights in order to better the lives of someone else. Represent someone to give them their own rights one day. Agency. Real? Or Imagined? I say…real.

RP4: Where'd I Come From?

In our small group discussions in Thursday’s class, Thania, Sam, Yaneli and I ended up discussing our family histories. Specifically, we talked about how our families got to the US. It got me thinking about the Roots and Routes assignment we did at the beginning of the quarter. I titled it “I Feel Like I Should Know More About Where I Came From” and now that’s shifted to “I Wish I Knew About Where I Came From And How They Got Here”.

My mom’s dad’s (Grandpa) family came to the US from Ireland in the 1840s or 1850s during the potato famine. From what I understand, they were in New England for awhile before they settled in Traverse City, MI and started a cherry orchard. The orchard was in the family for over a century, but it was sold off a few years ago. I don’t know very much about my mom’s mom’s (Grandma) family, only that they came over from the Netherlands around the same time. Both of my mom’s parents came from strictly Catholic households, but they ended up breaking away from that and went in a more Protestant direction, which apparently caused some tension for quite some time. 

My dad’s dad’s (Grandpa Robert) family came from Rochlitz, Germany in the 1860s (I think) and were some of the first European settlers in Nebraska. I don’t know too much beyond that. Our family still owns the property Grandpa Robert was born on and I think that had been the family farm for awhile before that. My dad’s mom’s (Grandma Ople) family came from Norway. Beyond that, I really don’t know too much. We do go to the Rochlitz reunion, but I don’t think I ever met anyone from Granma Ople’s family.

I don’t really know as much about either of my grandma’s families, to be honest. Grandma didn’t talk about her family much and once I was old enough to get more curious, she had gotten Alzheimer’s. Grandma Ople talked about her family sometimes, but I always got the feeling that there were some unresolved tensions there. So I ended up knowing more about Grandpa and Grandpa Robert.

Something I’m grappling with is how assimilated the different branches of my family are. I mean that in the sense that I don’t know Gaelic, Dutch, German, or Norwegian and that we don’t practice any traditions from Ireland, the Netherlands, Germany, or Norway. I wonder what it must’ve been like for the Irish branch of the family dealing with the social stigma towards the Irish and the German branch during the World Wars. Like, that must’ve been hard. But we don’t really have much to go on from back then, in stories or in journals and whatnot. I wish we did though.

RP4: Tense Matters

"Although critical theory has focused much attention on the role of frontiers and Manifest Destiny in the creation and rise of U.S. empire, American Indians and other indigenous peoples have often been evoked in such theorizations as past tense presences. Indians are typically spectral, implied and felt, but remain as lamentable casualties of national progress who haunt the United States on the cusp of empire and are destined to disappear with the frontier itself. Or American Indians are rendered as melancholic citizens dissatisfied with the conditions of inclusion" (Byrd xx).

I’ve been thinking about this quote a lot this week—especially in conjunction with what Dr. Gómez asked us to talk about on Tuesday: How might the terms of the current academic and political debates change  if the responsibilities of the very real, lived conditions of colonialism was prioritized? To help me think about this question, I had to think about the ways in which the real and lived conditions of colonialism are not prioritized—a clear, succinct, direct idea was necessary, not just rhetorical and broad statements of frustration. This idea was well described in the quote above.  The lived conditions of colonialism have been so pushed aside, not prioritized, that the groups who have lived and live in those conditions are evoked in the past tense and as “lamentable casualties of national progress.” The most common reference to indigenous communities is though stereotype—specifically a historical stereotype: The ‘Noble Savage” with long dark hair, acting as one with the universe, the image of the stoic yet dangerous man wearing little clothing, a feathered headdress , and war paint. These are dominant images of a group of people lumped into the easy title of Native Americans. These images are everywhere from advertisement to children’s entertainment.

The popular Disney movie, Peter Pan, begins in the orderly, civilized, real world that seems to include only wealthy white people. It then moves into a fantasy world that includes boys who have no parents, pirates, and Indians who sing “What makes the Red man Red.” The characters enjoy their stay in this fantasy world, but in the end, the children have to return to the real world…where apparently these groups don’t exist? No, actually orphans, piracy, and Indians do exist in the real world—they simply do not have the same levity as portrayed in Peter Pan’s Neverland. The simplification of what is means to be Indian, both in the film and in the broader portrayal of Indians, is firmly placed in a historical stereotype and as a past tense presence. It relies on the already-stereotypical and simplifying image of how Europeans viewed Indians when white man first “discovered” the Americas. It does not recognize the current presence of indigenous communities and how they might be different from that historical image. It does not acknowledge the history of genocide and imperialism of indigenous communities and how that might have forced them to change and adapt in order to survive.

Maintaining a single narrative and image that originated six hundred years ago removes the effects of colonialism on this country and the people who have lived here and been subjected to this coloniality. What does recognizing this lived condition look like? Because for me, before I can think about what effects that might have on academia and politics, I need to think about what form prioritizing the lived conditions of colonialism would take. I think it would take changing norms; it would take changing what we see as standard and normal for “Indian.” The best way to do this is through art and media. Change the way we talk about Indian-ness and the way indigenous people are portrayed and talked about. Distinguish between different groups, recognize the land we stand on, strive to understand the current condition of colonialism rather than naming it as past lamentable casualties. Stop talking about people in the past tense when they are here. Speak in present tense.

RP4: Tongues

On Tuesday, Dr. Reid Gomez brought up the idea of language and its role in colonization. I can't stop thinking about it.

For years I've been into languages, not just the spoken ones, but that's where I've been living for the last few years.

I grew up speaking both Spanish and English and started learning German about five years ago.

For years, I've admired the power of language, of words. How much little scribbles can mean and how much  can convey -- everything from love to hate and desire and even who has power.

I'm breaking from the "don't bring in too much outside knowledge to the class" thing we sometimes have going.

I'm used to making connections from class to class and bringing in everything together and I gained a lot from sticking to single texts but I was in another class where the role of language was brought up. I guess I've been trying to link language to ethnic studies in a more direct way than what we have kind of touched up on in class, as evidenced in my last post also being about language.

In this other class, we discuseed the role of language in society and identity formation.

I line up closest with the idea that the original telos of language is to facilitate communication -- but that it has been used in it's parasitic forms to facilitate subjugation.

I'm bilingual. Two tongues. Both brought to this land chunk centuries ago by colonizers.

I can't speak either language "properly." I have an accent when speaking English, when speaking Spanish.

Which tongue holds more power? I have no idea. I don't know if that is a valid question, at least I wish for it to not be. But I guess that is why I'm so interested in this and have made it a point to read Mignolo again and to get my hands on some Jose Medina books and understand language more.