A critical response to Jose Marti's "Nuestra America"

A critical response to Jose Marti's "Nuestra America".  (His works overall, strike me as a quasi-didactic Comedy of Manners...but anyway).

The Oxford English dictionary explains the word Creator in some ways that I feel to be applicable in Marti’s case.

Etymology: < classical Latin creāt-, past participial stem (see -ate suffix3) of creāre to procreate, (of males) to beget, (of females) to give birth, (of God, Nature, etc.) to bring into being, to produce, to bring about, cause, to appoint. Compare Anglo-Norman creer , crier to create from nothing, to produce, make (12th cent. in Old French), to appoint or nominate (someone to a role, office, etc.) (early 14th cent.), and also Old Occitan criar , Catalan crear (14th cent.), Spanish criar (11th cent.; now only in spec. sense ‘to bring up, to raise’), crear (13th cent.), Portuguese criar (11th cent.), Italian creare (13th cent.).

A modern word that preserves most of Creator’s original meaning is crescendo—to increase in number or size. It also has roots in the Greek goddess of agriculture’s name—Ceres. The interesting thing about the Old English word where Creator is also derived, is scieppend, from the verb scippan, which means “to shape”. I think this is the point Marti was driving home in his political diatribe. As someone who was exiled to the imperialist and annexationist culture of the North and watched it take shape; Marti found himself as someone fit to critique the U.S. and its misuse of its new power. Marti labels the European government as “the tiger”: a lurking, looming predator. The use of this and other metaphors is to highlight the need for an autochthonous Latin-American identity.

This seems to be the reason Marti reflects on the uncorrupted natural individual versus “the alien, pure-blooded criollo”-- and what kind of government would reflect the “true America”— what kind of government would “undam the Indian”? Would elevate “the competent Negro”?

The natural man is of interest not because of his ignorance of “European” culture-- but because of his ability to resist “tyranny and outside ideas”-- “Outside ideas” being those that are not beneficial to the people living in that particular country. Then, the natural man has a home-grown wisdom, whereas, the criollo is the victim of “false erudition” in his “frock coat” like a Parisian. He particularly condemns those who have abandoned the sociopolitical concerns of their own country: such as the youth of Cuba: “unaware of those giants with seven league boots”. These are the youth that were somehow created by the European society: and they only care about themselves. As a result, Marti says the educated youth go out into the world wearing “Yankee or French spectacles” instead of those of their native politics, or worse, the country they are trying to govern.

Marti seems to view the mestizos in the North as those who deny their past and disavow their heritage when creating their lives. They are indifferent toward their inability to govern/ be governed with a government that did not originate in their own country. Marti goes on to stress how Latin America, namely Cuba, had no real sense of nationalism. According to Marti, Cuba was desperately calling for solidarity and original ideas from its people. Cultural independence and political freedom were the arguing points in Our America. Marti is asking us to come to terms with our multi-cultural identity and in doing so, we will understand the need to commit to upholding the dignity of humanity. In his observations, Marti concludes Our America with the non-negotiable need for a government that effectively works to embrace the diversity of its people. Without a united political agenda, Latin America was perpetually doomed to remain colonized under European influence.

Marti's "Nuestra America" en Espanol

Marti's "Our America" in English

Ideological Power

Everything is shaped by ideology: It is what makes the mass of experience discernible. Movies show us how ideology works while also doing the work of ideology. Popular culture (read: big-name actors) works to inspire copycats-- individuals who reinforce a systematic set of ideas and processes within society. Let's consider James Cameron's 1999 blockbuster film,Titanic. He chooses to tell the tale of the beloved ship's demise through the lens of a love story.

The most important scene in the film is the crash because of what the imagery symbolizes. Before deconstructing the imagery in that scene, it just seems like two lovers from different social classes sharing a night of passion aboard a ship that hits an uncharted iceberg. Now,analyzing the present cinema ideology, we begin to question: Why is this not a film about two lovers from the same social class? Could this story just have well been told about some other couple?

This “class-mixing” is important because historically, U.S. immigration strictly regulated Third class from interacting with other travelers-- this love affair would have been nearly impossible on the Titanic. Jack was legally defined as Third Class and visually controlled in society by being relegated away from the other travelers. So, why would Cameron choose these two travelers from different worlds? It is because the crash advances ideologies on class without us even being aware.

To further explain, consider the time of the crash in the love affair-- it was when this “odd-couple” decided they would go against social mores and be together-- for love. They were atop the ship, soaring together, showing their love to the world, and not just sneaking around the lower decks where people wouldn't look at them with disgust and wonderment.

When they were at their highest together they ran into an iceberg that destroyed their lives-- and this material iceberg represents the ideological “icebergs” of race, class and gender here in the U.S. The crushing, and sometimes deadly, social prejudices against “class-mixing” are focused in the iceberg that came seemingly out of nowhere, and Jack, our lower-class hero; embodies the rebellion against capitalism. Rose's inability to save Jack drives home the ideology of the system being tolerant of rebels, just as long as their path is set and their fate is clear. In the water after the crash, Rose is further confronted by “real life”-- a life that doesn't permit attachment to Jack-- she was forced to let go of Jack and accept her life of privilege. When you strip it down to the essentials, she traded Jack for that gigantic diamond. Poor Jack: His fate was sealed with his foolish desire to climb sneakily upward into a richer family and better class. Sadly, when considering these ideologies, it is evident how Cameron's Titanic fixed Jack on a path of poverty he was never to escape-- true love could not even save Jack from his impoverished beginnings and current plight.

In closing, my question here is:

Is any of this "whipping back of the curtain" on these ideologies effecting some change in our own "real lives"? 

Racial Commodification

Lupita N'yongo is someone who has been commodified by the media. She has allowed the French media, namely Vogue and Lancôme, to mediate her dark skin as some racialized conceptualism. Both ad campaigns have visually defined the terms of her "blackness" by substantially lightening her skin tone in their ads. Although she is a Yale graduate, a film writer and producer, as well as an advocate for the humanitarian situation in Africa; her beauty is reduced to the superficial presence of her blackness and African-ness. After the necessary changes, some high-couture designers flocked to do something avant-garde; not something timeless. They wanted their design on the metaphorical "new car" before everyone else had the chance to wrap her form.

The lightening of Lupita's skin tone in the visual ads stabilizes racialization and destabilizes diversity; it echoes an age-old preference for people who engage in some version of race performance: She did not have to agree to this photo shoot, knowing the history of these companies. Throwing all of that aside and marketing herself as some pan-African, remarkably rare, yet acceptable version of blackness; N'yongo is now fit to define, valuate and commercialize the U.S.-African market. Her breakthrough role was that of a commodified, racialized person: A black slave woman.

Even though she is quoted to have said "she felt she had to play the role", that in itself is very interesting...

The Myth of Photographic Truth

The myth basically assumes that the subject matter is true and real and that cameras were made to capture real, unaltered life at any given moment: Generally speaking, no questions are asked about the “practice of looking” that is involved when we view photos.

As we all have read, hopefully at some point or another; photography was initially used for scientific and statistical reasons-- and some of that "authority" still echoes in our considerations and processes of our own visual culture. We hardly consider technique or why the subject matter was even chosen in the first place. I think this is because of how powerful imagery is for the human brain: It's what the brain processes first. Visual storytelling is, IMHO, the strongest form of communication: Most often times, it's instant, emotional and captivating.

Now, turning this information to my readers specifically-- I am prompted to ask these questions:

How have we used perception, visibility, imagery to resist political erasure and structured oversight?

How does understanding this help us to organize ourselves politically for the future?

Is there something substantial in being disruptive to the visual status quo?

What are the mediated effects of our viewing imagery real-time as opposed to a photograph?

-------------

To "unpack" what I mean, consider the images used to support the cause that were released to the public by Sojourner Truth. The quote is defining the visual homonym of selling photos of herself in place of her formerly being sold.

Visual culture and storytelling are important because they prompt us to take action; to change behaviors; to connect; and most importantly-- they seek to convince.

What is a "Sellout"?

Analyzing the term “Selling Out”

Before being asked to write this response, I had a pretty narrow view of what it meant to be a sellout. I thought it was mainly reserved for people who somehow betray their “race” by marrying outside of it. Growing up in the Los Angeles area also contributed to my defining sellouts in a way that meant a person was making alliances with “white people”; Uncle Toms; or " trying to be/ look "white"; "acting white" and also anything that "isn't pro-black" . Today, in several dictionaries, the word “sellout” is generally being defined as someone who betrays their original cause for personal gain.

A sterling example of this is the famous so-called "civil-rights activist" and politician Jesse Jackson Sr. His claim to fame was his fabrication of being with MLK Jr. when he passed on: This never happened. When reporters tried to uncover what Jackson was hiding to the public—they were met with serious death threats. Today, Jesse Jackson Sr. claims to be for black people and their advancement, and yet, he constantly demands exorbitant fees to appear publicly and/or assist people in need of leadership. To add insult to injury, he has a particularly long record of behavior linked to fraud activity. This included his Operation PUSH and shady deals that sold aspects of the black community to crooked Chicago businessmen. As a so-called "civil rights activist", he clearly has no integrity; he talks one game and plays another by degrading the mantle of civil rights instead of advancing it.

Another example of “selling out” worth discussing is that of Bob Marley and the Wailers. This group’s sound was modified by an "outsider", a "white" Jamaican producer named Chris Blackwell. Together, he and Marley sat and changed the band's sound from one that only a marginalized group of people could understand to one that used nuances in the world of rock music. These changes to the album, and the sound of Bob Marley and The Wailers are what propelled an increasingly broke and bitter group to international stardom. These changes are what gave these artists full control of their art. By making the music more of a "reggae-rock" style, the band was able to stay rebellious and intensely political without completely racializing the music. It is still disruptive to this day-- even though Bob Marley "sold out" and let "white" people contribute to the production of his music.

Truly, we still feel the effects of Bob Marley and his message to this very day. He saw some value in “mainstream white media” and used those things to make his music transcend more barriers than it could in its beginnings. This form of selling out "...made reggae a musical force to be taken seriously" and it also gave the social, political and economic injustices faced by these people a real stage on which to shine "despite its extensive commercialization.” That is something I hadn't really considered: If selling out could ever be viewed as something constructive and after comparing these two "sell outs", it's clear that it can be.

 









References

Wint, E. (2003). Bob Marley: The man and his music : a selection of papers presented at the conference Marley's music, reggae, Rastafari, and Jamaican culture, held at the University of the West Indies, Mona Campus, 5-6 February 1995. Kingston, Jamaica: Arawak Publ.