Commission for the National Museum of the American Latino
[To be clear, the inquiry that follows is intended as an informal engagement with the national project of the creation of the “National Museum of the American Latino” in the context of our seminar investigations and in no way implies a position for or against this project politically or otherwise]
I recently received a solicitation on Facebook from the Smithsonian Latino Center, as a member of their Young Ambassadors Program:
Urge your senators to support the Smithsonian American Latino Museum Act…We need a physical space to showcase the contributions of Latinos in the arts, sciences, and humanities, in the United States. It’s about time we had a space to share the Latino archive with the American public and tell the untold stories of our gente [sic] found within.[i]
My first impulse was to make a phone call or send an email in support of this venture and to celebrate the steps being made in the recognition and representation of Latina/os and Chicana/os in the United States. However, as I read and thought more about the proposed plan of action and reports to congress, I became leery—even more so when I began to think about this project in relation to Diana Taylor’s notions on the archive and the repertoire.
My initial questions on this national endeavor to secure a permanent position for the “American Latino” in the official space (Smithsonian Institute) and narrative of “Americans” in the United States stem from the terminology used to define Latina/os and Chicana/os in the United States. As my own use implies (Latina/os and Chicana/os), the official title negates a female inclusion with the singular masculine use of “Latino.” Deconstructing this further, what does the usage of “American Latino” connote? Certainly this is a national project of the United States and is not meant to apply “Americas” in the hemispheric sense. Is the title, then, problematic when thinking about the “Americas” in relationship to the United States? What difference would be implicated if the title was reversed to “Latino American”? I think of this as it relates to the already existing “Native American” museum and “African American” museum yet this title is “American Latino.” Perhaps “Latino American” would read too much in association with “Latin American” and the boundaries, set by the United States, defining Latina/os and Chicana/os would be further blurred?
These details in terminology seem to implicate a specific history as it relates to the official historical narrative of the United States. This leads me to question what and whose history is being written through this museum’s project? Museums themselves as national institutions can be called into question here. The archive and the repertoire, as Taylor suggests, becomes a way of examining this project in terms of its inclusion and representation of culture. The museum, in this case, is situated as an archive and bearer of the official culture and art. As we have learned to question, what unofficial narratives and histories are not visible and can the inclusion of a repertoire makes the invisible, visible? How might this be done in the context of this project? Taken from the official website’s question and answer section:
-Would the art being housed in the potential museum be only from U.S. Hispanics or would it also include art from Latin America?
The vision of the museum is to showcase American Latino art indigenous to the United States. While this art is certainly influenced by Latin American artists, this museum will be uniquely American in its outlook.
-What type of art would be in museum? Contemporary? Visual?
Part of the Commission’s mandate is to identify the type of content a potential museum would house. To determine this, the Commission has hired experts in the arts and is getting input from the public to include in their final report to Congress.[ii]
Further complicating notions of an official historical narrative:
Tell your members of Congress that you support the creation of the American Latino Museum and that they should vote to pass the Smithsonian American Latino Museum Act, S.1868. Don’t let the contributions of American Latinos be forgotten![iii] (my emphasis)
This excerpt, taken from the project’s Facebook page (which also raises questions that I will not tackle here about social media’s role in the perpetuation and creation of history), problematizes the writing and position of this history as the excerpt implies that this history will be forgotten if it is not included in a national archive—thus history is relegated to governmental institutions as the only creators and carriers of historical narrative. This also becomes apparent within the official final report of the commission in their mission statement, “To Illuminate the American Story for the Benefit of All” as “some Americans, including American Latinos, know little of our country’s rich Latino heritage” therefore the government institution is positioned as a champion and savior of culture in assuming the role of educator of both Latina/os and non-Latina/os. Adding to this is the priority placed on the “American-ness” and adoption/assimilation of cultural and historical values that negate the culture and history of the Other as seen in this excerpt from the official commission’s final report:
The fulfillment of the American dream is embodied in the deeds of generations of American Latinos who have proudly celebrated their “Americanism” with fellow citizens and residents of this nation.[iv]
It is also important to remember that this project can only come to fruition with the approval of Congress. It required government approval to form a committee tasked with “proving” to Congress the benefits and necessity for the creation of the “National Museum of the American Latino.” How does this complicate not only the procedure required for inclusion but the politics of history writing in the museum’s formation? Without the support (and let’s not forget funding) from Congress this project will dissolve. This led me to think about what voices and bodies were present on this committee:
The legislation to establish the Commission was enacted on May 8, 2008, as Public Law 110-229, 122 Stat 754. The Commission consists of 23 members appointed by the President, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, the Majority Leader of the Senate, and the Minority Leader of the Senate. The Commission members were chosen based on qualifications in museum administration, expertise in fundraising, experience in public service, and demonstrated commitment to the research, study, or promotion of American Latino life, art, history, or culture. (my emphasis)[v]
The committee members are linked here along with their bios. Interestingly, Eva Longoria-Parker has become the unofficial “face” of the campaign for support which is most evident in the Commission’s official video: Commission Video
What I finally come to is the complicated question of the benefit in having any representation, regardless of its flaws and exclusiveness, than to have no “official” national representation at all? Is this really a benefit? If the possibility of revision was available, how do we even go about addressing and “fixing” these problems/concerns? The official site invites public response and opinion on this project in the form of a short survey, yet the questions themselves seem to fall into the same limitations:
· What would a National Museum of the American Latino mean to you?
· What are the benefits of telling the American Latino story?
· What programs, activities or collections (objects, artifacts, documents)
would best capture the telling of that story?
· How can the Commission best involve you in the development of the
National Museum of the American Latino?
Works Cited
“American Latino Museum | Facebook.” Commission for the National American Latino Museum. Web. 12 Dec. 2011. <https://www.facebook.com/NationalMuseumoftheAmericanLatinoCommission>.
Friends of the National Museum of the American Latino. Web. 13 Dec. 2011. <http://americanlatinomuseum.org/>.
My American Latino Museum. Commission for the National American Latino Museum. Web. 12 Dec. 2011. <http://myamericanlatinomuseum.org/>.
National Museum of the American Latino Commission. Web. 13 Dec. 2011. <http://americanlatinomuseum.gov/>.
Taylor, Diana. The Archive and the Repertoire: Performing Cultural Memory in the Americas. Durham: Duke UP, 2003. Print.
Gender, Performance and the Body in Contemporary Latin America 
While reading your post, one understands almost immediately why you bring up the notions of “archive” and “repertoire” that we find in Taylor`s book. I think that it is not by chance that you start questioning the terminology: why “American Latino” and not “Latino American”. I agree with what you, in some way, suggest: this terminology might be proposing that the “National Museum of the American Latino” be less concentrated on the Latino issues than on the American ones. The question is how this can be understood. Does this mean that this project implies making the Americanization of the Latino visible rather than what keeps being Latin@ despite its incorporation in the American culture? In other words, it seems like the Commission in charge of carrying out this project seeks to hide every sort of resistance of the Latino to the Americanization. Thus, what is effectively being produced here is what Taylor describes as an archive: the place where the law (and, in addition, the order it forms) is preserved. In Taylor, the implications of this notion are twofold: first, the archive’s order reports the relationship between the archive and power; second, all what risks the archive’s order is excluded from the archive. Many statements in the quotations that you bring up in your blog confirm these two implications. I think, for example, of these two: “While this art is certain influenced by Latin American artists, this museum will be uniquely American in its outlook”, and “the American dream is embodied in the deeds of generations of American Latinos who have proudly celebrated their ‘Americanism’”. Both sentences make it clear that what this project encourages and celebrates is the disappearance of the Latino. In other words, it reveals that the preservation of the order this archive is related to requires the exclusion of what can essentially be Latin American. Perhaps, this implies that Latin Americanism be a threat to that order. Then, it could be asked whether this Latin American threat is supported by racism (and the prejudices involved with racism) or by the existence of a Latin Americanization in some places of the United States (which, in some way, questions the enchantment of the American culture, somehow linked to a discursive structure of power).
من درخصوص منجلی کردن این مطلب
فیش های زیادی را جستجو کردم و به نظرم این
مطلب می تواند به خاطر بغایت از بازدید کنندگان مناسب باشد