The Lesser of Two Evils

Which of the two representations of the American Indian in the photograph above (the National Museum of the American Indian or the Washington Redskins flag) is more acceptable? Immediately, my mind finds the more formal Museum of the American Indian to be a far more acceptable and respectful representation of Native Americans. However, when attempting to justify my answer to this seemingly straightforward question, I find answering to be far more difficult. Certainly, the Washington Redskins flag does no justice to Native American culture because it one, generalizes American Indian culture, thereby distorting it, and two, attempts to mix the diverse cultures and traditions of the many different Native American tribes with the popular culture of American football. On the other hand, the National Museum of the American Indian does this to some extent as well. By attempting to include so many diverse cultures in a single museum and under the blanket term “American Indian”, the museum also distorts certain aspects of Native American life by failing to highlight their differences. Additionally, despite the efforts to portray the modernity of the American Indian through modern art, the museum does not successfully represent the Native Americans as a surviving and technically sovereign people. Therefore, the failures of both representations of the American Indian stem from their generalizations of varied and distinct cultures, as well as their neglect for the existence of modern Native American culture. However, the question does not include the option to choose neither. Therefore, I must choose the National Museum of the American Indian to be the more acceptable of the two because it is the lesser of the two misrepresentations. Unlike, the Washington Redskins flag, the museum attempts to represent the American Indian culture in a valid manner, despite its generalizations, and also does include some evidence, be it minimal, of a continuing Native American culture.

The Pirates of Penzance from an International Relations Perspective

As a number of you know, I had to miss last Wednesday's lab to play a performance of Gilbert and Sullivan's comic operetta, The Pirates of Penzance. Although I was not able to explore the National Museum of the American Indian, my experience was not completely void of reference to world politics and international relations theory. From the characterization of the “modern” Major-General to the constructivist focus on identity and how it affects relations between, in the case of the operetta, the Pirates of Penzance and the Major-General and his daughters.

The characterization of being “the very model of a modern Major-General” is not an uncommon popular culture reference. The term has been used to describe individuals from George Washington to General Barney-White Spunner, a British general who played an instrumental role in the British involvement in the Iraq War, to even Kim Jong Eun, the possible successor to Kim Jong Il. It has its roots in the Major-General's patter song, possibly the most famous work in the Pirates of Penzance, used to describe the Major-General's impressive education and well-rounded knowledge of the world in a satirical manner (lyrics). Apart from the comedic genius of Gilbert and Sullivan, this song contains some important political commentary regarding the importance of a general education not only for the general work force but for political and military leaders as well.

In addition to characterizing common players in the international realm, Gilbert and Sullivan's operetta gives a compelling argument in favor of certain constructivist tenets, specifically the role of identity. The plot of The Pirates of Penzance is built off of the changing identity of the Major-General in relation to the altercasting of the Pirates of Penzance (synopsis). The Pirates of Penzance are described as being a band of orphaned young men. Therefore, to elicit their sympathies and escape the pirates unharmed, the educated Major-General creates a fake identity by claiming to be an orphan himself. This scene argues the constructivist belief that the relations within our international system, whether between states, NGOs, or a mixture, can be drastically affected and changed depending upon the perceived identities of the two parties. Additionally, the role of altercasting is instrumental to the development of the second act of the operetta. It is discovered towards the end of the work that the pirates were all, in fact, noblemen that developed into the pirate gang the audience sees through the altercasting of the orphanage and society in general. However, as soon as this information is revealed, the identity of the Pirates of Penzance changes dramatically back to being respected noblemen, resolving the conflicts between the previous pirates, the Major-General, and the Crown. Therefore, although Gilbert and Sullivan's The Pirates of Penzance is a genius comedic operetta, it is also has significant value as a microcosm of constructivist international relations theory.

Reflection #13

An interesting concept that was brought up in the podcast and in our readings is the idea of language. I’m not only referring to communication but the notion that our thoughts are limited to our vocabulary. There are theories that we can’t even begin to comprehend because we do not have a word for them. It’s not necessarily because we do not have the intellectual capabilities, but because we don’t have the means to describe them.

This came to mind during class today. What Cortes did (in my mind), of annihilating the Aztecs and other indigenous tribes, was inhumane and immoral. At the same time, the culture he came from had not established the concept and the word for genocide. In Cortes’s mind, what he was doing was accomplishing his mission, and if it involved killing humans, so be it. Other examples of words that were not yet developed but still had implications in everyday life are: acting ‘humanely,’ ‘humanitarian’ and ‘conquest.’ Since none of us experienced the culture of the 15th century, we are not privy to the mindset. Perhaps the notions of just and unjust killing were really there? Was Cortes capable of differentiating between these two types of killing, or was death solely an overarching concept?

As our world evolved over time, obviously new takes to an idea expanded as well. For example, take law. What started off as a king writing out a list of laws on a scroll has turned into a complex court system with international law, the UN, allies, treaties and much more. But what is interesting is despite these differences, the underlying idea is still there. Cortes recognized the need to work with La Malinche and Montezuma, though the phrase, ‘I need to make allies and treaties’ did not go through his mind. There were some forms of diplomacy back then (though not as complicated as today) which he chose not to use in order to peacefully accomplish his mission. The narrower language that Cortes was born into limited him, but he was still human. Vocabulary has changed, but human instincts haven’t. Murder has never been something societies’ readily promote. That is why I believe it is hard to defend Cortes for his actions because regardless of the archaic language and concepts, he is still human with human senses.

La Malinche: The Mother of Crucified Woman

In Chavela Vargas' song La Llorona, she sings "yo soy como el chili verde, llorona, picante, pero sabroso"
I am like a green chilli: spicy, but delicious.
I think this is the mantra of La Malinche and every intelligent woman who is in the midst of duty and pleasure.

What fascinates me is representation of these women. She is both the mother and the raped or the chingona. She was violated. Some people say that La Llorona did not have a choice in the matter. She was weak. The name La Llorona signifies this sentiment. But at the same time, she is strong, she is the suductress. Those lips, those eyes, the fiercity in her tongue. She is the mother of a bastardized land. Did she abandon her people? Was she selfish? To me, La Malinche will not be one or the other: weak or whorish. She is strength to me. Strong women find themselves fighthing themselves at the end. They are glorified for their intelligence and prized for their beauty like a jewel. But they are judged as possession. That is the mistake. They are not treated as women. If they refuse a man, she is a harlot. If she sleeps with him, she is a harlot. This is the ascribed identity of a La Malinche. And trust me, there are several of these mujeres walking amogst us: Cleopatra, Frida, Ms. Monroe, our mothers, even you.

But what we need to realize is that these women were women. Not gods. Not monsters. Women. They were full of life. Full of determination, love, lust, youth. Women who defy the norm are automatically categorized. But we are not weak. We are not La Llorona. We are La Malinche. Women of our own destiny. Choices we make are not for any man. In my mind, La Malinche, although lost her name, stole Cortes'. She became the face as he became the raper. I am not glorifiying La Malinche. I am paying homage. To me, La Malinche is not just a mother or a weeper. She is strength. She is intelligence. She had a duty to herself and no civilization and no man. How dare empire after empire puts her on trial. Trials in which men stand up and point the finger at a woman with hair thicker then huipiles. As my mother always says men will always point fingers, but it is up to us to hang our heads in shame or hold our backs tall and take the arrow with pride. But must we lose at the end? Have we? Have we coquetas lost everything? No. We are the winners at the end of the day. We live in songs, poetry, cantina songs in bars tucked in verdant Chiapaneca hills. That is where we live. We live between heaven and hell. We are Las Malinches de La Tierra. The Malinches of the Earth.

CORTEZ, the Interpreter and Manipulator of Maladies

Todrov in part 2 of THE CONQUEST OF AMERICA makes the argument that the Spaniards were able to conquer the Aztecs successively because they were able to communicate in the forums of interhuman communications. In fact, Todrov said on page 104, that "Communication among the Aztecs is above all a communication with the world". It was too holistic and left room for Spanaird manipulation.

I agree with him from a cultural anthropoligal persepective but what needs to be added is the fact that the Spaniards were able to manipulate the fact that Aztecs did not hold so much of an importance on interhuman communication as the Spanairds did in retrospect to other forms of communication such as communication with the Glods. The identities ascribed in Aztec societies were beyond the human domain. Gods could walk and Earth and were political actors in Aztec society. Everything was read into. Todrov describes the Aztec documentation of the sizes of fish or the swallowing of a fisherman by an aligator (p. 94). Omens were everywhere to the Aztecs. In fact, there were men who were trained to read these omens and decipher what it meant (p. 79). There was a cultural hierarchy with several systems. The Aztecs looked at history cyclically. So when Cortez came, Moctezuma was terrified that Cortez was a god who was once a Toltec, the civilization the Aztecs conquered. Moctezuma was not confident because he was afraid of exogenous attacks because it

was mentioned in history and in legends that the Gods would take action.

Now the Spaniards on the other hand had a great resource. La Malinche. A woman who will be forever be revered and hated in Mexican history. She was the intelligent interpreter who was the lover of Cortez who was able to narrate to Cortez the stories and attitudes of the Aztec people. So not much was a priori to the Spanairds. They were able to focus on interhuman connections with Malinche and other Indians who were on the fringes of Aztec society. They were the minorities that were marginalized by the powerful state of the Aztecs. The Spanairds were able to decifer signs that the Aztecs decifered thanks to internal connections to the Aztecs. But since they had that knowledge they were able to manipulate it. The best example is when Moctezuma and Cortez are climbing the stares of the palace and Moctezuma is tired. Cortez knows that the Gods never feel pain in the Aztec religion so he says that he is not tired. He is ascribing the identity of GOD with his action. He is duping Moctezuma because he is making himself look like the divine (114).

Of course Cortez had guns, germs, and steel on his side to conquest the Aztecs. But the manipulation of the knowledge of signs led them to the position to assert the 3(GGS) in the first place.

PAINTING ABOVE BY José Clemente Orozco, Cortés and Malinche, 1926.

Todorov and Signs

Todorov takes an interesting approach to the quote, “Did the Spaniards defeat the Indians by means of signs?” Since the word ‘sign’ is ambiguous, it holds many forms of interpretations. Todorov continues to expand on this idea by proposing some options: signs in the form of religious emblems, through communication, through divination, astronomy etc. Because the natives on the Americas were so intuned to nature and the gods, a small bump would cause a shift. In other words, the arrival of the Spaniards was so out of the ordinary that the alignments of the stars were different as well as other forms of divinity. He writes, “Every event the least bit out of the ordinary , departing from the established order, will be interpreted as the herald of another event, generally an unlucky one, still to come (‘which implies that nothing in this world happens randomly’) (64). The indigenous quickly picked up on these occurrences and responded to them. Because they spent more time on this, then building up an army, they were materially less advantaged. The Spaniards were the opposite, and instead, spent time building an army and a navy. Todorov asserts that by utilizing these techniques, the Indians backed away (in some regards), superstitiously.

Though he makes a strong argument, I still feel there are some loopholes. The indigenous acknowledged the signs, but they had options as to how they would respond. They have enough knowledge of the land to stage surprise attacks and undermine the Europeans. They could be sly and fight back. But sadly, the Spaniards were stronger and carried with them unstoppable diseases. As we can see, the Indians were defeated because the odds were against them.

Despite this missing link, it’s important not to undermine the theology of the Indians. Due to the era and the mindset of Columbus in 15th century Spain, he was not able to fully appreciate their culture. Because of this, he inevitably missed the ‘signs’. This references another questions brought up in class, “What is the ‘it’ we are accusing Columbus of?’ I believe there are many, but in regards to the signs, I think the ‘it’ is his ignorance. He is ignorant of their mindset and their perspectives. Yes, he comes from a society that isn’t aware of other cultures or religions. But he does and can see their “perplexed and doubtful” faces when he lands; and it doesn’t take a genius to understand that he should have stopped and think rationally. He doesn’t, and that is when things fall apart. Perhaps I am an optimist, but if he had approached the natives more reasonably and equally, the signs might have been different. Would the Indians have lost then if the signs were different?

Reflection (Week #12)

I found last class' discussion about poverty and the differences between various philanthropic organizations, specifically the differences between organizations like “World Vision” and “Kiva”, very interesting. Although there was significant discussion regarding the flaws of single-gift donations through organizations such as “World Vision”, there were very few negative comments about micro-finance. I found this strange considering that the effectiveness of micro-finance in severely impoverished areas is strongly debated. Personally, I think all of us, myself included, gave unjust glorification to the idea of micro-financing in class. Although, micro-financing is, in my opinion, more effective than single-gift donations, I think its implications for development are limited.

On the surface, micro-financing appears to be a near perfect idea: provide a small loan to an individual in an impoverished area to help finance the creation of a small business and upon repayment of the loan recycle the money to help another individual lift themselves out of poverty. However, despite the fact that the ten largest micro-finance funds grew an enormous 32% last year alone, micro-finance is no where close to the be-all end-all of philanthropic donations that it appears to be. Apart from the the lack of empirical data on precisely how effective these loans are of lifting individuals out of poverty, the defining idea that enterprises are financed on a specifically individual basis is the intrinsic flaw in the the idea of micro-financing. Financing individuals to create extremely small enterprises often does not lift the individual out of poverty and is not a cost effective way help eliminate poverty within an entire population. Countries that have helped impoverished populations have never done so using micro-financing. It was done through the funding and development of large enterprises, which provided jobs and resources for a significant percentage of the population. For example, funding a garment factory rather than giving a loan to individual entrepreneurs to buy sewing machines is a far more cost effective way to both promote industry and create jobs. Therefore, we should be directing less of our money towards individual development, through either single-gifts our micro-finance, and more towards the development of large job-creating enterprises and general industrialization of impoverished areas.