I think that I like the idea of hybridity better than the other theories of mixture we’ve looked at so far. By that I mean my understanding of hybridity is that it’s a positive and pretty much inclusive way of viewing culture as a process of constant creation rather than some totally pure and tangible thing which must be preserved (fetishized.) More and more so culture is becoming a highly specific process of self-construction (cus intronet and endless choices and stuff) and so to epitomize any group of people would be to ignore the multitude of variety within it.

I don’t think the mixing of cultures and people should be rationalized or romanticised like with the mestizaje reading, we shouldn’t view progressions of culture from some overreaching moralistic, deterministic framework. That would completely overlook the many human forces which have shaped the evolution of peoples and their cultures. On the other hand, while the term “transculturation” does help to make the distinction that rather than “acquiring” western culture, many cultures were subject to the suppression of colonial rule it does not endeavor to describe the new products of these interactions and what has been created through hybridity, rather only (the imaginary of) what was “lost.” We have seen through the many different conceptions of “popular culture” in history that they often still rely on the same hierarchies of race, class, gender as well as an opposition to something else- a notion of us and then the outsiders. This makes “it” (the people, popular, culture all that stuff we haven’t stopped talking about) vulnerable to manipulation often of the ideological sort. In fact by confining any given group of people to symbols or signs which embody their “true” “essential” culture you are falling into the rhetoric of “make *BLANK* great again.” Xenophobia has many faces- from the cultural snobs at the Oxford tea shop, to Evita Peron’s affective paranoia, to the “wall-building” orange man who shall not be named. All of these examples have utilize the idea of cultural purity (which does not, and can not, exist) to manipulate people into fear and violence. It seems to me that if we all started viewing the world as a hybrid (and maybe also started driving hybrid cars) it would be a much better place.

I love melodramatic trash TV (not necessarily saying telenovelas are trash, they sound like quite the opposite but don’t worry i will get to that ) and not in some ironic way (still seriously don’t get how it’s possible to like something genuinely and ironically?) I truly truly love it (the good trash that is.) I think everybody does to some degree (this may be my bitterness speaking but I feel as though “male” targeted trash programming is less villified/condemned than it’s “female” targeted counterparts…looking at you “history channel” you are in no way superior to Kardashianess ) there are elements of melodrama in almost all modern modes of communication from what we read in magazines, see on the news or even project with our internet “selves.” I moved to the U.S. when I was 8 and went from a tiny town with one elementary school of like 50 children straight into a giant “middle school” and more importantly into the world of television, which I only ever saw movies/cartoons/news on before (cus my cheepo parents refused to pay for things like cable and air-conditioning and still do.) My older sister and I both became obsessed with our tv because a) we had no friends after moving b) there was so much yet to be discovered on that thing c) it was all so over the top and ridiculous and exciting. Also we had our own “play room” in the basement where we could vegetate in front of our disturbing programming undisturbed by our parents and quickly hit the “last channel” button whenever we heard their footsteps down the stairs. So with one small change in circumstance my sister and i went from arguing over which one of us was D.W. and which one was Arthur to contemplating “A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila” (a google search will tell you what you need to know, the shame still haunts me.) Also we would watch reruns of american sitcoms that we didn’t even know existed before moving because most were canceled before we were born like “full house” “sister, sister” “family matters” “7th Heaven” etc, all equally awful and cheesy but it was on this very rerun channel where I first encountered soap operas and on occasion, telenovelas (which, upon reflection were probably but not certainly Mexican.)

There is something so distinct about the set/lighting/costumes/general aesthetic of these programs which makes them easily recognizable as their genre. Maybe it has to do with the powder-coloured extravagant interiors with lace curtains, high ceilings and candelabras- the obvious artificiality which provides a perfect backdrop for the very realistic elevated emotional rollercoaster which is the dialogue. Also this may be inappropriate and a mere matter of preference but I have always found the female protagonists of telenovelas to be more beautiful/better actors than in English soap operas, or at the very least better at delivering a convincing portrayal of dialogue (that i don’t even understand) and vivid emotion. Though I can’t say I ever stuck around long enough to consume a full telenovela (or that I ever knew what was going on) they are certainly visually superior to American/British soap operas. Also, interesting to note the difference between the content of “soaps” in individualist, money hungry societies, such as ours tend to focus more on business, scandal, prestige, and opulence i.e. issues of REPUTATION where the Latin American versions seem more concerned with familial dynamics and private as opposed to public forms of betrayal i.e. issues of COMMUNITY. The genre itself seems to be refined to perfection by its Latin American incarnation. They are proliferated through time by their ability to represent different kinds of people and “bridge the gap” of opera and drama portraying only the upper classes this “insists on the importance of the ordinary” – melordrama. The english name of the genre would imply this is it’s entire aim- Opera being a form of “high culture” with many conventions going along with the title, soap implying that it is being brought down to the common level (and also referencing it’s female audience) and should be consumed by everyone. Both high and low- another example of “mixture” at work! I was also really intrigued by the tropes we think of like inter-family drama and extra marital affairs being placed alongside traditional myths, stories and songs- wow, much mixture, very cool! Issues of representation are important, and the bad behaviour of only rich and untouchable people being glamourized can get stale after too long, I think people really are interested in confronting depictions (however dramatic) of issues that are real to them as well as a variety of characters which may represent them or be relatable to them. The dependency of the structure of the program on the structure of it’s society (seen in the different carnations of telenovela for different countries) as well as the many genres inside the genre (Political, ecological etc) prove how far reaching this genre is within Latin America, and just how successful it is in reflecting an artificial yet tangible mirror of reality for people to relate to and possibly learn from. Also, it’s worth noting how American reality and sitcom tv could take a nod from telenovelas, i need better, more realistic trash to consume!

Sorry this is really late! I have been busy and kind of forgot but I’m still going to say some things

I think the issue both of these essays fundamentally try to solve or at least explore is the inability of a single word to describe ALL processes of cultural interaction- regardless of context- and I don’t think that can be done. I found Ortiz’ writing to be lovely for the most part he takes special care to detail the trauma and shock and suppression experienced by the native people of what is now Cuba and the African slaves uprooted to there. However, I think his advocation for the sufferings of different groups of people was ultimately futile. he basically just explains how vastly different the experiences of groups of people in Cuba are and why acculturation cannot encompass all of them and then replaced one catch all term with another. It is arguably better or “more attractive” like we discussed in class but is there a real solution or way to improve our specificity that we won’t disregard a history of dominance and imposition so vulgarly?

In his critique of Ortiz’ writing Millington explains why implementing an secondary term to describe the experiences of subaltern groups (victims of violence & oppression) vs. the experiences of those who are uprooted from an original culture in hope of seeking something better (and not to escape violence or oppression.) Not to mention, it cannot take into account the effects of the experience of the individual and the context which surrounds their transition from one cultural experience to another. He says:

“There has been some emphasis in recent discussions of transculturation on interaction, but I think that we need to be clear about what we take that term to mean, because interaction may not imply equality and mutuality. Influences may operate back and forth between cultures but be asymmetrical in quantity and quality, be highly imbalanced and still take place with well oiled efficiency. Above all, therefore, and recalling elements in Ortiz, we need to try to understand how these processes affect people’s lives and the social relations in which they live.” (267)

To conclude: the specific experience of the individual (on whichever side of the power structure they may lie) is transformed and continually influenced by forces of cultural “interaction” yes, but what we should focus on attempting to understand and describe is the forces of influence which have shaped and continue to shape their experience on a more individual level. Instead we tend to want to group people together and use words which can describe our “Globalized” world, but maybe in this instance that may be incredibly difficult. There are definitely patterns and similarities one can find in all groups of people and their daily lives but I think the urge to create one, or even 2, 3, terms to describe the relationships between cultures and on a micro level, people, is impossible but we will definitely keep trying, it’s what we do. What do you think?

Mexican Muralism-

A very interesting read! It is the most pure embodiment of ‘Popular Culture’ I have ever encountered,in the way that I now understand it to be. A mural (in the doctrinal sense of the Mexican Republic) is a totally unfiltered public platform for aesthetic expression, cultural storytelling and political discourse- so it must represent the public in totality right? In many ways the mural does serve it’s function and destroys the limitations and prestige of the gallery by creating tangible and universally accessible content- popular culture. This was not exactly news to me, like many people I have seen many beautiful photographs of said murals and understand them to be a fixture of Mexican cultural identity, and pride. Also, I am interested in Diego Rivera’s life (and even more interested his wife’s, duh) so am familiar with some of his particular work. That being said, a factor of this government-funded-public-artwork that I had not previously considered was just how much control the administration would have over the messages which are portrayed. Additionally I had not considered that of course, there are murals are held on the same pedestal I assume they intended initially to destroy. “The Mexican government has made muralist a national cult, and of course in all cults criticism is outlawed. Mural painting belongs to what might be called the wax museum of Mexican nationalism” (31) (Said by Octavio Paz in late 1970s)
The destruction of certain Murals and preservation and glorification of others can certainly be considered an act of control and censorship. Understanding these works as a reflection of the Mexican Gov’s revolutionary nationalism, one which is public but perhaps more importantly Official. That which is communicated on the elevated, institutional mural is no longer representative of individual expression on a popular level but is then Public State expression. He goes on to discern between two types of what is essentially understood as the same medium- the actual public mural which is often destroyed, and seen as oppositional to the official or administrative mural. This he coins the “Problem of Visibility.” “Even the destruction of murals by the authorities is often explained as incidental to a change in administration, a bureaucratic accident, or an alteration in the physical environment of a government office, rather than as a result of ideological differences.” (35) What set out to inspire the destruction of the hierarchal art world now is a direct reflection of only the ruling class or administration. In fact, in an act of rebelliousness a public mural was PAINTED OVER IN WHITE. The falsified voices in this mural which mimic the public disposition was (rather ironically) censored.

To relate this to my life like I always seem to do, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this mural culture has been completely exported and utilized here in Vancouver BC & all over the world! I live in East Vancouver and there are many a mural, most of which are clearly commissioned due to their intricacy and large scale extravagance. Most of which, in my neighbourhood in particular, seem to be attempting to depict only nature and beautiful women (ok I’m generalizing but this is pretty much all art, no?) Contrast this with the writings on bathroom stalls or scrawls on bus stop benches… not all flowers and sunshine a lot of disturbance, and anger etc. Not to mention the inhabitants of the neighbourhood are attempting to be encompassed in these murals or else benefit from these murals in some what but if you pay attention to what Everyone is saying/feeling, and not just to the select few who we would ideally LIKE to represent the whole it is clear this conundrum is inescapable, no matter where in the world you are.

ALSO i have read the Spirit Queen’s Counsel 3 times now and I am still unpacking everything… I will eventually organize my ideas but for now I will just say it is MY KIND OF WEIRD, MAN.

“Defeat has brought us the confusion of values and concepts; the victor’s diplomacy deceives us after defeating us: commerce conquers us with it’s small advantages”(10) For me, this statement stood out and really resonated with me. I think it expresses the conundrum of the simultaneous horrors and conveniences which colonialism has introduced to “Latin American” countries. His Prologue was defiant and impassioned but his anecdotes about Eugenics and the end left a weird taste with me. This was my reception to most of this reading- being amazed by the clarity and beauty of a lot of his phrases and simultaneously a little disturbed by others.

The author seems to be torn between wanting to preserve what was great about the native cultures and wanting to embrace what is, although I think his pursuit for a celebration of the mestizorace he (intentionally or not) had to assert it’s greatness through diminishing other races. I think exploring the place the mestizo holds in Latin American culture is incredibly important, but a lot of his exploration is merely opinion based and somewhat troubling. He insists certain things are true about ENTIRE races of people (I’m sure a few black people in the world aren’t the embodiment of dance) which makes us all very squirmy in 2017.
“Race” is a fabricated social concept that humans invented, and not an inherit or finite thing as it is often spoken of (as with in this essay.) It is easy to see why humans have created it, and the function it serves- to describe physical differences in an attempt to categorize or group types or regions of people, and yet describes no actual THING (words do this, often to our own detriment.) That is not to deny that certain groups of people have been racialized, and that their race is a very much real part of their identity, I’m simply trying to stress how our entire notion of that word (to this day) asserts is that “whiteness” (no actual group of people…not real) is the ‘Norm’ and “others” (groups who do not fit the empirical requirements of “whiteness”) are not. Clearly this is not biological (we are all completely genetically unique) or inherit to our existence some guys literally just made it up. Our concept of race also involves a great deal of retroactive speculation with very little certainty. We can see this in our authors constant return to his imagined “atlantean” people. I understand that we are approaching this “cosmic race” from a Darwinist perspective and so there are certain conventions which go along with it but i thought it was worth pointing out (also this essay gives me mid 20th century vibes and so perhaps that is why some of the terms aren’t up to my stuffy pc standards.)

I think what is so (contemporarily) troubling about this essay, and the perspective of it’s author, is this particular breed of nationalism (or culturism??) mixed with nostalgia. A longing for the “golden age” of his people (which is not before colonialism??)….. (maybe we are so appalled by this because our bumbling orange puff of a president seems to cling to this idea as well in perhaps more harmful ways?) In fact, this retroactive glorification of one’s history is a rhetoric used by crazed leaders (and old men at rural pubs/bars) the world over. It seems as though when a particular group or nation undergoes a period of depression, oppression or unrest this naturalized racial superiority or”biological greatness” of their people is used to boost morale creating an “us” which always necessitates a “them”= POPULISM. Even at one point he credits the ‘superior spaniards’ as well as the christian religion from rescuing his people from “cannabalism.” I think dismissing his feelings (however uncomofortable they make me,) and overlooking the dynamic which has produced them would be a disservice to myself and to the text.He feels pride for both sides of his heritage and perhaps is reacting against scholarship released at the time that harkened back to pre-colonial times as somehow pure or better, he seeks to prove the mixed identity as not only better but the “cosmic race” or destiny of the world. There is some merit to this thought perhaps and I too believe one homogenous “mixed” identity to be the “cosmic race” of the world. I do take issue with him lowering the status of marginal races, along with other groups he resents, such as the “Anglo-saxon” people of the United Sates (because every person in the USA can trace 100% anglo-saxon lineage…right?) “They (anglo-saxon colonialists) and their masters did nothing else but spoil the work of Spanish genius in America” (14) His contemporary Latin American view of the USA as the belligerent, militant right-wing “paternal figure” (huge eye roll) is exactly what they were and so it is not hard to imagine why he assumes his “Spanishness” is the separation between the two cultures which makes his somehow better. Unfortunately crediting their modern political disposition to their pre-historic “Anglo-saxon” race really diminishes all of his other thoughts on the subject. Additionally, he seems almost to believe in cultural (or racial..?) determinism and that perhaps it was the destiny of the “Latin” and Anglo Saxon” people to conquer the Americas because of their racial greatness.

Still having to encounter this kind of thinking to this day may exhaust us but it is really important to not say “screw everyone who thinks like this evil racists, evil misogynists, evil trump supporters” etc the only way we can change this kind of thinking for good is understanding what built the perspective of the person, and how they are able to justify it to themselves.

Legend of the Singing Tablets-

I really enjoyed reading Austrias’ writing! I love all the imagery and his terminology created a Universe all its own! My thoughts are really choppy and my interpretation may be a little far fetched so sorry if this is kind of incoherent.

My personal favourite was The Singing Tablets, I became totally immersed in the beauty of the (dare i say it.. psychedelic-ish) (sorry) imagery in this story.
The elements of animism (inanimate (non-animal) beings considered as animate or conscious beings) were particularly intriguing for me because I like to imagine our Universe (or ecosystem) as one giant body made up of tiny bodies. In this society there is an implied natural intention or a collective consciousness i.e. their idea of god lives in everything. The nature seems to take on even negative or diseased animation that we would associate with people and is described as being insane and spastic at certain points (could it be reacting to it’s “cultivation” and extraction?)

At the beginning the Green-ness of the hills, and Utuquels hair (which is described as a kind of a living being) reminded me of the double or even maybe triple meaning of the word green. The obvious one the colour, to be innocent or inexperienced and the magical green Arthurian universe (my Eurocentric perspective coming out?? Or maybe cus I’m an English Major????) I found the contrast between the green of their world vs the introduction of the white at the end (which obviously holds both racial and secularly religious connotations) really interesting .

“The brunt of comic opera, must yield up his mock heart of chocolate.” The Comic and Opera being “high” artistic genres, (assertion of Euro cultural Value onto native context) the brunt, (or person who bears the burden of this “poetic war”) is described as yielding up his “mock heart” (representing the colonial view of indigenous people as being somehow less human or “mock” versions of themselves ) of chocolate (quantifying the value of the people based on what can be extracted and commodified- their worth= chocolate to be sent home.) They insert their alien concept of monetary value onto the (spirited) natural world describing it in terms of “epic” or using “high” or western notion of art to glorify while simultaneously stripping every member of this culture of their celestial integrity by claiming and objectifying them….. How horrifying!!

Utuquel says “to create is to steal.” Going on about how every work of “art” is appropriated and stolen from other places. In their “creation” of what we now know as Latin America the colonialists did steal a lot from the land and it’s inhabitants. They held a view of the land (and the people who call the land home) as material items to be won, understood (rather, re-interpreted), and commodified by them. The “poetic battle” is representing the contrasting the materialistic and ritualistic Catholic spirituality (which covers the once green land with the concept of “Milk White” purity) with the inclusive omni-present spirituality that existed there long before it’s “conquest.”

The Pongo’s Dream

This was heart wrenching, and the picture of the adorable real-life Pongos certainly didn’t help with that. This story more than any other provided a clear concise “moral” and though it did have spiritual elements there did seem to be a larger use of Catholic terms- “heaven” “angel” “the Our father” and “Hail Mary” as well as the appearance of St. Francis who is guardian of the poor etc. This reinforces the control the mean and nasty lord (or what he represents) has over all aspects of the Pongos life. For me the lesson at the end made me think of one (not so classy phrase) “Don’t shit where you eat” which on a literal level is some good advice, but can also mean don’t bite the hand that feeds you (another weird expression) aka don’t abuse those who you rely on. It also harkens back to the world in Austurias’ myths where every being exists in a cycle where they rely on the other. The golden honey may cover the lord’s (also interesting how he is “lord” and “father” while he also attempts to play god in his dominion over the Pongo) temporary earthly body, in heaven he is on equal level with the Pongo and must “taste his own medicine.” A thoroughly satisfying conclusion which allows us to feel a little less sick to our stomach about how the little boy was treated. And take pride in the resilience of men women and children who were able to sustain themselves and flourish even under such conditions. The meekness and piousness which the Pongo is seemingly punished for is ironically a direct reflection of Christian teachings, which the false “lord” clearly does not uphold. He listens to the Pongo recount his dream because it exists in HIS heaven and by HIS terms, but he is quickly proven to be an utter fool by his own standards!

I found both of the readings genuinely interesting and particularly enjoyed viewing the same phenomenon from opposite perspectives.

I was particularly drawn to the personal account of Evita Peron, which was emotionally charged and highly enigmatic. Her wildly dramatic eulogy to her former husband was so moving it reminded me of religious writings or a heroic epic or something (probably because she viewed him as a demigod.) These sort of grand proclamations about the inherit greatness and incorruptibility of any mortal (especially a  political figure) generally come off as very artificial or feigned; but Evita’s passions (however misplaced they may be) were  moving and  surprisingly highly convincing . It is not hard to see that she is manifesting (or reinforcing) a cult of personality but the fervor with which she describes her own adoration of his character feels highly personal and so all the more believable.   That being said, she (consciously?) contradicts herself throughout all of her monologues in simultaneously glorifying and mistrusting and condemning her “people.” It seems to me that the  “people”  she refers to are Peron and those who follow him fanatically. I believe source of both her love and “venom of hatred” (which overtake her writing at many points) to be her fanaticism toward Peron, which she describes instead as a deep suffering for her “people” (by which I assume she means Argentinians.) Her boundless adoration for Peron shows the direct result of his artificial charisma being praised as a direct reflection or representation of his “people” while her closeness to the subject prove just how manipulative and calculated Peron’s public and private personas are.

Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!