Reflection 13

Throughout the semester, Professor Jackson has asked us to view the places our class visits as texts. We've analyzed the architecture and ceremony of Nationals Park, Arlington Cemetery, and the Spy Museum. In all these places, presentation has made an implicit argument about how the substantive elements of a place should be understood. The National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI), which we visited this Wednesday, struck mew as a place with a particularly odd dialog between substance and presentation. First, the NMAI didn't serve the typical substantive function of a cultural museum, housing historical relics. Many aspects of the museum that at first seemed like presentation in fact, upon reflection, constituted artifacts central to purpose. Second, although the museum made arguments about Native Americans, it didn't really link those arguments to artifacts. The result was a museum reimagined as a theme park; although I enjoyed the trip, as I have most of our University College expeditions, I didn't feel that I gained much intellectually from this particular trip.

The substantive function of any museum, in my opinion, is to display artifacts, whether impressionist painting, T-Rex skeletons, or German submarines. The presentation of a good museum, meanwhile, presents an argument that contextualizes these artifacts and gives them meaning. The artifacts in the NMAI were distinctly atypical. Only two of the building's four levels contained conventional exhibits at all, and, with the exception of an excellent art exhibit by Fritz Scholder, conventional artifacts did not figure prominently into these exhibits. Instead, the exhibits were based around large, prominently placed text and video installations that rarely referenced the more marginally positioned historical relics beside them. The first and second floors of the museum were dedicated, not to exhibits, but to an admittedly delicious cafeteria and a sprawling gift shop. The museum only makes sense when the artifacts the museum is designed to display are redefined: the video displays, the foods, and the overpriced crafts are the museum's artifacts, while the historical relics are merely wall decorations.

            Without an effective presentation, artifacts are meaningless. Unfortunately, the elements that are typically used to frame artifacts, are artifacts in the NMAI, and there is nothing with which to make a unifying argument about the significance of the museum's artifacts. Although the cafeteria was one of my favorite parts of the trip, and could even be considered a significant cultural experience, the food wasn't placed in a context where it had meaning beyond the aesthetics of taste. Likewise, the museum's text and video installations usually adopted the immersive and uncritical perspective of a native, rather than the objective and critical perspective of an anthropologist. There was no voice present that could make an argument as to what the various cultural perspectives meant, and why they were important. Even the architecture of the museum referenced naturalistic, rock-hewn forms that failed to engage in a dialog with the surrounding spaces.

Reflection 12

I was excited to go to the Native American Museum because that was one of the few museums that I hadn’t been to before. Overall, I thought it was a good museum. I really liked the exhibits and thought they had a lot of good information. I was surprised how big it was and going through it with everyone was fun.

Now for what we did in class this week. I think I liked this weeks simulation better than any of the other ones we’ve done. I thought the idea of a trial was a good one. Although we didn’t actually put Cortes on trail I thought it was a good learning experience to be able to argue both sides even if you didn’t agree with your side since the groups were picked randomly. I also like that it forced us to not only use theouries of why Cortes should be guilty of crimes against humanity, but we had to find proof and prove to Jacquelyn that our argument was the best. In the end Cortes was found guilty which is the stance I would have taken.

yes, i know, i should have used a synonym for justice some of the time

On Friday, my group and I taught the lesson about justice. Through our trial/debate simulation we tried to ask is the court system a good way to practice justice. Through our recent readings, visit to the American Indian Museum, and classroom discussions I would say no. I am not saying that justice does not exist within the court system because sometimes is does. However, as we pointed our in our lesson, sometimes the winner is whomever has the best argument, and that method has the possibility to not reach a just ruling. So, how do we prevent this method? How do we make sure the just answer alway prevails? Well, I’m not sure we can.  A trial or debate is about making arguments, there is always a better arguer.

Additionally, as we mentioned when we talked about both Cortés and Columbus and their encountering of the natives, different groups of people have different perspectives.  According to their values, both men were able to justify their actions whereas we could argue that the men’s actions were not just. One question our group prepared for the class but I do not think we has time to ask was, “can perspective/ideals determine justice?”  I would say yes because without looking and one’s perspective and ideals how can one decide what was just?  However, this also makes room for clashing ideas of what justice is because clearly people frequently do not have the same ideals/perspectives.  In scenarios where people cannot agree on what is just ideals are always imposed on someone who does not agree with them.

I really liked the American Indian Museum and I am planning on returning to see what I did not get a chance to look at.  For those of you who did not see the special exhibit, Fritz Scholder, I would suggest going back!

I hope everyone has a good break and a Happy Thanksgiving!

I AM "BABY JESUS"!!!!!

I’M FREE!!!!! I finally got out of the Psych Ward of Sibley. Thanks to everyone who visited me in that boring place. While at the hospital, I encountered some interesting people. Being the youngest one there was a bit daunting considering once they put me on the drugs I as feeling normal and was a bit creeped out. I saw a side of society that I probably wouldn't see normally. Ironically, I can relate this to poverty and justice. I will admit I can in with some preconceived notions about the people in the ward. Sadly, I was mostly right. Some of the people were really nice and let me be, but this one lady would not leave me alone. I was trying to read my articles for my economics paper but she decided to it next to me and tried to talk to me. Half of what came out of her mouth was gibberish but decided to call me “baby.” I don’t know why but she did. Then I became “Baby Jesus.” By the end of the day she was calling me “Baby Jesus” and following me around. If it wasn’t for the nurses, I would have been stalked by some lady who obviously needed to be there. But that’s now behind me, so its time to get back on track.

The Museum of the American Indian was interesting. Two levels of gift shops, thats a bit much even for a free museum. But besides that I found the exhibits interesting and informative, even though I wasn’t at my best that day. The food court was good but very expensive. But if I didn’t leave when I did, I wouldn’t have seen the president of Bolivia. I was maybe 10 feet away from him in the lobby. Pretty amazing experience if you ask me. This week was long and rough but I have come out for the better. Hopefully this week goes better with Black Friday and all the amazing sales to look forward to.

Is our way of knowing better than Columbus' way of knowing?

As we talked about in class during Columbus’s time people valued tradition and faith, they generally believed what they were told by people in authority. Today, people value science and proof without a doubt. While the questions may be the same I think these are two different ways of looking at the world. I’m not sure which one I would say is better though because I think there is good and bad about looking at the world both ways.

Today we are more critical and I would say a lot more cynical, which I don’t think is such a good thing for society. However, we shouldn’t just believe everything someone in power tells us. That is just as dangerous to do. Columbus did what he thought was right based on his faith and education at the time. Today, scientists also do what they think is right but because they are trying to prove/dispove things we’ve never been able to know for sure.

Not to avoid the question, but I would say that a combination of looking at the world Columbus’ way and the way we look at the world today is best. I don’t think the answer so much matters though because we will never know who is right. People years from now may wonder why we believed what we do today, they may come up with some alternate way of deciding truth.

Response 13

Is our "way of knowing", our contemporary empirical standard of truth, better than the deterministic standard of truth that Tzvetan Todorov attributes to Columbus? In a way, I feel like answering this question is cheating, because its a question that my last reflection and conversation with BoVice fairly directly addressed. But in another way its nice to engage in a more sustained, less fragmented dialog than what typically occurs in this forum. The nature of truth is a question that we can examine in almost infinite detail and study along almost infinite tangent

The purpose of existence is by definition to achieve happiness. In judging a standard of truth, we should evaluate the ability of that standard to create happiness. The first question we must answer is whether there are things that exist objectively and supersede a particular standard of truth. I would answer yes. First, our own existence and the sensations that constitute this existence are fundamentally and objectively true. Second, the nature of happiness is fundamentally true. Unfortunately, while we are party to the first truth, we are only partially party to the second truth. Without a standard of truth, we cannot link feelings to external causes; we realize that the sensation of pain makes us unhappy but do not understand why we are in pain.

In order to analyze the utility of a standard of truth, we need to first adopt a standard of truth. First, let's adopt some modern and vaguely empirical standard of truth. Although it is impossible to definitively know whether Columbus was happy, Todorov's portrayal isn't one of a deeply unhappy man. Plus, empiricism tells us that, statistically, religious people are happier; although whether this is a result of religion or community involvement is up for debate, the certainty of eternal bliss seems likely to promote happiness. By this standard, Columbus's "way of knowing" actually seems pretty effective, and perhaps more effective than an empirical standard of knowing that means we have to spend a lot of time worrying over our own fallibility and the uncertainty of  the future.

On the other hand, empiricism would also suggest that, in the long run, an empirical standard of truth is the only sustainable one. Empiricism, like any standard of truth, is based upon arbitrarily deeming certain things as true. However, in an empirical standard of truth, it is not a particular experience that is deemed as true, but rather the preponderance of experiences. If we posit that there is some degree of universality in the human experience, basing truth on the preponderance of what individuals experience leads to the creation of a fairly common standard of truth -- one in which individuals are unlikely (or at least less likely) to be at odds with each other. Columbus may have been happy, but if his weapons were not superior to those of the Indians, his life would have been a short happy one.

uhhh...no

Today we know what we know because it is proven. We know the earth is round and about subatomic particles because scientist have confirmed their existence. Even though any one individual cannot explain these “known facts” that individual can go to another individual who does know the answer and can explain/justify it  Today we are taught to question theories and ideas that have not been proved. Has a whole, humans today are naturally skeptical, we analyze things because we are taught that by blindly following people or believing ideas without proof we might be believing something that is not true. 

Saying all this, humans only know what comes before us. We know science thanks to the scientists that have existed before us. In other words, everything we think or know comes from a pre-existing idea-- nothing is original. Even new discoveries have been inspired by what comes before them. Basing our ideas and justification of what is true by what has come before us makes us the same a Columbus.

As Lucas said in class, “Columbus was a product of the society in which he lived.” Like we do today, Columbus only knew what came before him. He knew mermaids exists because those who came before assured him so-- they saw mermaid! In 1492 people did not have the skepticism that people have today. There were not scientists nor the scientific technology like we have today, knowledge was gained through experience.

Basically, I am saying that our way of knowing is not better than Columbus’ because our two ways are fundamentally the same. Society today and in 1492 told people how they know things. In 1492 through pre-existing experts, and today, through scientists, researchers, or experts in the field. In both cases people “knew what they knew” in the way society told them was the proper way to know something.