what is the dominant narrative of this place?
p.s. The man in this photo is named George McJunkin. Born a slave, he was working on a ranch in NM in 1908 when he discovered a prehistoric site where, famously, a mastadon bone was found with a spear head embedded in it.
the dominant narrative seems to be as subjective as the the myriad narratives of the people who inhabit or inhabited LC or "the area". One can focus on culture, but who's? Is the history of everyone subject to one stereotype? Are all whites interlopers? Are all hispanics subjugated by a minority culture? Are Blacks irrelevant culturally here as a whole? How about native cultures? Who is native? Are Mexicans native? Do they claim the Spanish heritage that today is colored as imperial, colonial and bad? What group can be considered native? Is it by how long a group has been here? How far do we go back? 100 years? 500 years? 1000 years? It seems are yes and no's to every one of those questions and on some level all are true and false depending on the teller and listener. To me, the tone or tenor of each group is completely dependent on the lens they choose or feel obligated to look through. Which in no way solidifies that take as "the" take on this area, just one take. I am really curious as to what the final narrative becomes in the meshed product of all groups, and if everyone feels OK how their particular lens ultimately is muffled or amplified. All takes are interesting and valid, but it seems all SO very subjective as a narrative.
ReplyDeleteAnother question would be: Who is qualified to give the dominant narrative? What are the stipulations of what must be included and what should be discounted in the dominant narrative? Can a resident of only 60 years give a valid narrative? Are there stipulations that would take their narrative from (their perspective) being dominant to (another perspective) being only anecdotal? Also does a "Dominant" narrative ever change (I know it does but...)? Has it changed here? If so what was the dominant narrative (before- from when to when) and what is it now (when did that narrative begin)? It's like a Pandora's box.
My lens is skewed. I see only what I see, and I have a low opinion of Las Cruces and the surrounding area as a whole. Some of the dominant narratives I've witnessed here: Racism - ethnicity, other than white or Hispanic, is viewed with suspicion, at best, and whites are subject to reverse racism (though this is understandable to a point). A manana mentality that effects various aspects of progress, especially things like recycling, taking care of our bodies (food that is available here, restaurants, etc). A despising of education - families actively encourage their children to only do average (C's) for fear that they will leave them and this city and not take care of them as they age. Hyper-Catholic, which places certain values over others that place an unwieldy burden on the young to care for the old, and consequently not themselves. Other observations: girls are often encouraged to get pregnant at a young age so as to "capture a man" before high school ends. Then there is Sexism, Machismo, and Violence (especially Juarez). Also, a latent rudeness that is not common in other parts of this country. And almost all of this stems from the acute poverty that affects this region.
ReplyDeleteDo I see any positive narratives? Few, and almost all of them come from, again, my skewed lens of being a part of this university. But even the university treats its wards shabbily. On campus housing is a joke: Lead in the water and paint, asbestos tiles in the houses, mold inducing swamp coolers, to name a few. When I lived on campus in Sutherland housing, I raised such a stink about the lead in the water that I, along with others, got them to at least put filters in the kitchen sinks. However, they only change them once a year. Why do they not demolish those houses that are health hazards? Because that would cost roughly $45,000 each due to the toxicity of the asbestos and lead (yes, I was pushing for this, too - I was on a council). So now, over the course of the last decade, more and more of the residents in the houses are international students, for they come from other places and have a different set of standards and also do not plan on sticking around. The university knows this and is one of the reasons they do nothing (again, manana).
As far as narratives go, the beginning is when You notice, and then how far back You trace. It is You and your perspective. Hence there are thousands of stories here. I can only see what dominates my own vision... (or lack thereof...)
For me, the dominant narrative is Military Conquest. All the way back. Tribes displacing each other, the Apache being chased off just enough to allow Mexican settlement. The U.S. marching in, and eventually, the U.S. declaring New Mexico their favorite place to blow stuff up real good.
ReplyDeleteOur economy is so dependent on military spending. White Sands keeps how many contractors busy every year? (I know from personal experience that White Sands remodels the same snack bars and restrooms almost annually to keep from losing budget money. Hawks/Republicans out there: national defense is just another wasteful government program.) And how many of the people that work out there keep Wal-Mart afloat? Look at the public schools here. We aren't turning out rocket scientists and nuclear physicists. We have to import them. New Mexicans are the ones cleaning the labs and manning the front gate. Southern New Mexico was primarily agricultural prior to the arms race. It might have been poor, but it was employed locally and based on food production. The government confiscated so many family ranches in the 40's and 50's to create their missile ranges. What is the spiritual cost of beating plowshares into swords?
The problem with the military's overlarge influence in New Mexico goes back to the 1840's, when Kearny marched into Santa Fe. Our first entrance into American life was at the hands of a military government. For the most part, people were willing to accept the new government so long as they kept the Navajo and Apache at bay (who were themselves victims and perpetrators of military conquest). There is a powerlessness, or at least an indifference in New Mexico that disturbs me and I think it has to do with this narrative. Power has never been based here, it arrives on the heels of well armed emissaries from somewhere else. Santa Fe was just a branch office of the Spanish Empire, then Mexico, and finally, of the United States. New Mexico seems fairly content to let someone else make the big decisions as long as they are allowed to sweep up and sell concessions. We are the land of manana, but that manana, like El Dorado (another New Mexico creation) is always over the next rise.
I propose a trilogy of books to read, if you want to follow this line of thought:
Blood and Thunder-Hampton Sides
Tularosa:Last of the Frontier West-C.L. Sonnichsen
Fire On The Mountain-Edward Abbey
You'll get a pretty good sense of New Mexico as an internal colony of the military industrial complex from these books, from Kearny and Kit Carson, through Pat Garrett, up to John Prather, the brave rancher who refused, with rifle in hand, to cede his ranch to the government.