From now until April, the Belkin Art Gallery over on Main Mall is hosting an impressive exhibit on Cuban contemporary art. And wow, was it contemporary. From a 25 minute-long clip of a woman seductively licking a cactus (not sure what this had to do with anything) to a powerpoint showing the overtly hidden sociological research conducted by Cuban university students which disclosed failed economic policies and staggering poverty levels in Havana, this exhibit very clearly showed a collective, however inherently dyadic, sentiment among Cuban nationals. The gallery’s title, The Spaces Between, assumedly refers to the conflicting identities which Cubans struggle with as they live in communism yet are surrounded by globalized, capitalist societies on all sides. Many of the pieces attempted to deal with these complex “spaces” involved in identity construction by confronting the hypocrisy and corruption encountered on a daily basis.

Several works in particular struck me as embodiments of these spaces. Jorge Wellesley is a native artist whose simple yet compelling style serves to reveal the dualities which ominously weave their way through Cuban life. Truth 0023, Truth, Realidad, y Lenguaje Astigmatismo (2005) is a series of three prints which, seemingly transparently, align one or two words in white type along a black background. The prints manipulate language in correlation with the dichotomy of Cuban politics: Exit/Exito visually leaves no gray space to consider. On a deeper level, it contemplates the associations of Cuban identity amidst oppression. Exit, meaning to leave, and Exito, the Spanish word for success, equally scrutinize the hardship of Cubans who wish to escape Communism and who expect greater prospects by assimilating to Westernization but who are faced with strict political radicalism. Human rights in Cuba are a major problem and the injustices further the covert gray areas of political identification.

To further my point, I’ll also put into perspective a video from the same gallery by Javier Castro called La Edad Del Oro (2012). The short film interviewed dozens of children asking them what they want to be when they grow up, and the answers ranged from astronauts and teachers to hookers and drug dealers. Yes, “hooker” coming from the mouth of an 8 year-old. Evidently, the reality in Cuba is that poverty operates with its own agency, whose authoritative strength maintains the socioeconomic weakness throughout an entire society. Identities developed as children, it seems, are established in the face of backwards regimes where there exists a lapse between what is communicated and what is comprehended, between the dreams they are told and the corruption and despair they witness every day.

However, recently these gray spaces seem to be evolving. The international news network Al Jazeera released an article explaining the latest endeavors of the Raúl Castro regime. While Latin American, Canadian, and European tourism have been fueling the isolated economy against all odds of decades of US embargoes, it appears that the island nation has decided to move towards a policy of international cooperation. An attempt to challenge US dominance could be potentially rewarding for Cuba, who hosted a summit of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) this January. Increasing support from the international community towards improving economic and human right conditions put a positive spin on years of stagnant resistance, but as of yet it is difficult to say just how Cuba can effectively push up against US sanctions. Perhaps in the near future, the gray areas expressed by Cubans will clarify with greater exposure to international trade and internal development. Solidarity and cooperation have seemed inconceivable in the face of punitive diplomacy, but these recent developments indicate a shift in both national and governmental sentiment towards progress: Exito may no longer require an Exit. 

While coming back on the train from Portland last week, I was perusing the New York Times opinion section and stumbled upon an article about multiculturalism and immigration in France. Justin E. Smith’s article, called “Does Immigration Mean ‘France is Over’?”, discusses a recent rise in apathy amongst French natives towards increasing immigrant populations. As an American expatriate unaffected by immigrant racism, Smith is able to observe these ongoings from a uniquely unbiased viewpoint. He explains that the general sentiment of the French is that immigrants are contributing to an extreme loss of culture within the nation, arguably a trend throughout Europe correlated with a parallel rise in economic uncertainty.

Philosophically, Smith argues, many of the French base their judgements upon media generalizations of immigrant “métissage”, which he crudely translates as the “mongrelization”of France. Similarly, it is quite common to use the term “overrun” or “invasion” when speaking of the influx of immigrants in France. A notable campaign promise during the 2012 presidential elections was to put a yearly cap on the number of immigrants entering the country. But, wait… don’t the French have a long history of “invading” other countries around the world? In fact, the majority of immigrants are from Francophone countries which were previously colonized by France, such as Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, and Senegal, among others. Personally, I think these immigration rates are to be expected after ditching these countries in the 1900’s and overtly causing political chaos (Arab Spring, anyone?).

Smith reinforces his point with philosopher Michael Dummett’s interpretation of the irony. Arguably, and historically, immigrants who contribute as equally to society as French-born citizens should have approximately equal legal and social status (because realistically, with a country as complex and populated as France (i.e. not tiny & homogeneous like, for example, Iceland), a cultural “takeover” isn’t going to happen anywhere in the neat future). And yet, immigrants rights to equality are “set up in conflict with the right of earlier inhabitants to cultural preservation, [which] has very much to do with both state policy and with popular opinion.” Evidently popular opinion isn’t quite so empathetic right now.

As Smith eloquently explains, “With the contraction of the empire and the reorientation of French nationalism from an imperial to a cultural focus, the distinction between equal and unequal contracted from a global to a local scale. Francophones from around the world began to move to metropolitan France in large numbers, but now their status was transformed from that of colonial subjects to that, simply, of foreigners. But of course the fact that these unequal subjects have settled in France has very much to do with the historical legacy of French imperialism; Francophone Africans do not choose to come to France on a whim, but because of a long history of imposed Frenchness at home.”

I know this was a really long quote, but I couldn’t have summed it up any better. This issue in France brings a whole new spice into the simmering multiculturalism stew (sorry): Xenophobia is the spice of hypocrisy in the post-colonial world. As we talk about Diamond Grill and various relationships among the significance of citizenship, belonging, culture, dislocation and relocation, and marginalization, the problems in France seem to echo around other Western countries committing the same blatant hypocrisy (mostly in Europe for now, but could be somewhat applied to Mexican immigration rates in the US). Multiculturalism is a nice idea, but I’m starting to doubt its practicality. Racial discrimination by not only the French but throughout the French media signifies a larger global issue of the continuation of marginalizing the powerless in heist of the powerful.  Additionally, the blatant irony of this mindset is quite shameful. If France doesn’t want so many immigrants, maybe it should go into the Congo, into Ivory Coast, and please into the Central African Republic and Syria and try to fix the political unrest and humanitarian crises it started.

Side note, today I signed up to donate to the NGO, non-profit organization Doctors Without Borders at 10 bucks a month. Instead of France taking responsibility, it’s now the rest of the world’s responsibility to go in and solve these problems. Hmm.