Just cos I'm here doesn't mean I like it.

Not gonna lie: I'm super tired of experiencing plain old bad taste. I don't know if the people I'm around are too drunk to notice, or if their desire to be drunk/ cool/ seen/ (all of the above) supersedes a desire to be in a pleasant environment. Maybe it also has to do with Santa Barbara being a small town with businesses that close soon after they open. Maybe this is why they close. Maybe not though, cos this is Santa Barbara, and I am one of the few people I know who seem bothered. Keep reading.

There's a new place in the Funk Zone of Santa Barbara that is trying to offer something new, hip, artsy, and just overall funky. My most recent interaction with this place involved their single occupancy bathroom which contains a toilet, a urinal, a sink, and a piano. The bathroom is large enough to put at least two stalls in, but instead, this establishment opted for the piano. There are so many things wrong with putting a piano in a bathroom-- sanitation alone should have been a thought. But what do you get when you put a drunk ass and a piano together? Now, imagine that happening in a bathroom. A bathroom that locks from the inside, which you are waiting to use. A bathroom you are waiting to use, but can't use because someone is "playing" (with) the piano. And what about when one of the two women that was using the bathroom opens the door, but the other woman won't stop playing the piano with drunk concentration? So much drunk concentration in fact that she doesn't see you've walked into the bathroom, and have asked her to please stop playing with the piano so you can piss (yea, that thing you're supposed to do in a bathroom besides playing a piano). Bathroom piano? I vote nay, it's not a good idea. How about try to be cool in another way? Well, they do.

The first time I went there, it was the soft opening (though I didn't really hear of them having a Grand Opening, so IDK what happened with that). The people who attended were a mix of scenesters and Santa Barbarans in their later twenties and on. I've been looking for a cool bar in Santa Barbara where I could feel comfortable, and hoped that this would be the spot, but quickly saw that it was not. In keeping with the exposed brick, concrete floored, industrial look of the bar, were large, acrylic pops of color over screen prints of nameless Native American faces. Canvas after canvas lined the brick walls completing the look of.... real America? Hardcore America? American grit? More like American habit of cultural appropriation. 

It's my instinct to be automatically suspicious of anything Native, ethnic, cultural, etc when it's in a setting of pure decoration. It's hard to explain: it's more of a feeling. In this case, I'm basically at a pricey hipster bar, and this is the shit on the walls. Nothing that explains the faces in the pieces. At the time, the piano in the bathroom didn't even stick out as something "different" because the wall decor was so distracting. Native faces modge podged onto a canvas with magazine prints, stencils, under acrylic paints, like comic book Warhol. Dang.

A few weeks later, I returned to the bar for a birthday celebration, and the artist was in the house. I approached him and amicably started a conversation in hopes of feeling comforted by the creator himself. NGL, I didn't have high hopes. The artist was an older, white man dressed in a bright green, sleeveless pullover cardigan with a screen printed native man wearing a feather headdress on the side. He completed his look with a light colored fedora, maybe it was straw, matching the color of the print on his sweater. He appreciated being identified as the artist behind the canvases, and when I said I wanted to ask him about his "inspiration" for his subject matter, he smiled and was ready to enlighten me. I told him that his choice of using Natives in pop art was "bold" and before I could actually ask a question, he proudly said that he's heard that before. "Why did you do that?" I asked. I couldn't hear much of what he said over the noisiness of the crowd, but I definitely heard him say that he's part Native American and that it all started with his screen printing work in fashion. He had been screen printing Natives on t-shirts for quite some time apparently. Fashion, the trillion dollar industry that has a bad habit of calling patterns "Aztec" and "Navajo", selling tribal jewelry, socks, and underwear at Urban Outfitters.

I reiterated how his subject matter, or at least who he puts on his canvases is quite shocking, and he answered with another nod and smile saying "Yea, I know, I know" like he's some sort of pioneer doing something amazing for humanity. The conversation was going nowhere and seemed to be giving him encouragement, so I politely excused myself. Before I could go, he pointed at two sheets of white paper taped to the wall next to the exit. It was his "About Me" and price list. He's slangin' his art for up to $8,500.00 under titles like "Vivre 805" (pictured above), "144 Cowboys and Abandoned America", and "Chief Wallace" (yes, he native'd himself, and was promoted to chief). 

The image above is his logo... like drippy Wonder Bread. Wonder Bread was white bread, 
right? When I looked at his site, I scrolled through his pieces for sale, and it kinda goes something like: native, native, native, Michael Jackson, native, native, Kobe Bryant, native.... Oh, and then there's the one where he makes himself Chief Wallace. What bothers me the most is how he can stick a Native face on a piece, like it's just a thing.... No names. We know Michael, Kobe, and we know what a Native person looks like so why even acknowledge who they are-- they can be whoever we want them to be. Like magic. They're just there. For decoration.To be superimposed over Louis Vuitton print, cos that's profound. Fortune behind the unfortunate? Not too different from Selena Gomez and Vanessa Hudgens rocking bindis at Coachella and the MTV awards cos it's sexxxy. Forget any cultural or religious "symbology"-- rock it out in the name of art, fashion, and self expression. That's hawt.

Judge for yourself: You can check out all this stuff online at walliceisart[dot]com -- I'm obvi not gonna link you, but that's where all of it is at. .

So I'm sure I'll be at that bar again because that's where my friends are, and they're there because one of them in particular really wants people to be there (cos he works there). I don't like being there, and I am not impressed by their service, food, drinks, or atmosphere. I try to have a good time, and don't like having conversations about the place at the place. That's just awkward. Their Yelp score has thatm at 4.5/5, with 6 reviews. I am not one of the reviewers (yet). I'm disappointed that we go there, and pay. Considering the experiences I've had there, I always walk in feeling uncomfortable and ready for something to offend me. The only comfort I do feel is my discomfort, if that makes sense. And when things to do awry, I'm right there to say "yup, I told you so". So far though, those moments have only happened to me, and like I said earlier, no one else really seems to care. I've been accused of "feeling too much" and "not letting things go". Maybe that's true, but that's why I have this blog. :)

To Put (or Not to) Put a Ring on It

I'm well into the age when there are milestone "seasons". Right now we're in engagement and baby season. At my age, if you know someone (who knows someone via Facebook) who just got engaged, or pregnant, or given birth, or had a wedding, then it's that "season". A friend of mine has just gotten engaged, and my BFF just had her first baby. So when's it gonna be my turn?? I shrug. 

I'm way passed the "I'm too cool" for marriage and babies thing, but am way into the "life is hard" thing. Adding a wedding or a whole 'nother being into the budget would break the bank. Putting all realities aside, I think it's always tough when a lady gets asked the "when's your turn" question. What you say automatically puts you in one of two boxes-- you're either the needy traditionalist or the liar. LOL.. amirite?

This past weekend, I was at a hangover brunch with my significant other and two other couple-friends. One couple has been married for 25 years now, while the other has been dating for at least 3 years. Basically the subject of our friends' engagement came up and the pressure was "on" my boyfriend and the other non-married dude to propose. The married couple looked at me and said, "ok, so you're next?"--"No", I replied, "we're not getting married". That was pretty a definitive answer. But I quickly followed it up with, "but I don't hold it against other people who want to!"

In my experience, at least when I'm with his friends, it's the girlfriends who want to get married that get the crazy look. When his friends hear my answer, they probably think, "her boyfriend's lucky". Women who want to be married aren't crazy. I think it's actually kind of normal and it's not women's fault. We're flower girls when we're kids, dresses are a big deal, and you just think that it's what you do when you're in love. Real love.

For a long time (like years) I didn't say one way or another that I wanted it. I just figured it would happen to me. I have a huge family and all the girls who are older than me are married with kids. The older I get, the less likely I see it happening and it's not just because of who I'm with. It's just not in the realm of my reality. Por ejemplo: I thought I was going to be a lawyer. Six years after I graduate with my BA, I'm not a lawyer. It just didn't happen. And I'm fine with that. Have you seen the jobs numbers for attorneys?! The only time it stings is when someone asks me about it. There's definitely that moment where I feel like I fucked up, but then I remember that I'm not doing so badly. I still have a job and goals and opportunities.... And I kind of see marriage the same way: I'm still in a loving, long-term relationship-- I just don't have any paperwork or hardware.

I'm not married  (not necessarily by choice because I've never been proposed to), butI don't plan to be married to the extent that I know I don't NEED it. I don't think I'll ever need it actually. I chose for myself that I'd rather be happy and in love with someone, without the anxiety or fear that I'll never be married to him. There are some couples who just know from the start that they want marriage. And hey, lucky them. But when in the situation of being with someone who doesn't value it, you just have to choose: marriage or just.... not. 

If he was to propose to be, I'd say yes. Maybe. What's a surety? I really want to eat some french fries right now. I'll go with what's sure. 

The end of the [white] world?

Maybe it's just me, but I feel like the days of white dudes like Mitt are numbered. *Disclaimer: that number is probably high, but is nonetheless numbered. Now that the American people have spoken (not just via electoral college, but by popular vote too), that number may be on its way down.

In DUD style, my aunt posted a sad status today:

Ah, yes. Fairness. Good versus evil. Lazy versus hardworking. Life should be fair and full of simple binaries. After a few refreshes and 20 minutes of nothing, I had to comment. Especially since there were already 2 likes. 

We could go through the my aunt's sad status line by line but I'd like to focus on reality. The American people have spoken and they chose Barack Obama. We could focus on how Governor Romney and the GOP botched their campaign, but let's not. Let's focus on what really happened: the voice of America has changed. Governor Romney and his gang had the money and a 25 point lead in white, male voters. President Obama had 71% of the Latino vote, 73% of the Asian vote, 93% of the African American vote, and 55% of women. You can have all the old, white men in the country, and they are nothing without everyone else. And everyone else is starting to count a lot more than those old, white men.

America and the American dream no longer seek the status and stature of the white man. We are becoming increasingly comfortable with our individual, ethnic, and communal identities. Linguistically, President Obama and Governor Romney illustrate that exact point. Have you ever seen Mittens try to land a joke? Barack on the other hand, is hilarious. The American heartland, which was once seen as a the truer America, is no more or less true that urban centers (you know, those places filled with traffic, buildings, and people of color). These ideas that we've had about America are quickly becoming useless (GOP, are you listening?). We aren't a white, agrarian society anymore-- we don't need summers off to harvest corn. I don't have to get married to exist in this world. We are a diverse, innovative, technological, advanced country. We don't have to blindly follow the tradition of assimilation anymore. We can be pro-choice in every aspect of our lives.

The economy isn't just about money. It's about the choices we make, and how we live our lives. And for those people who continue to make choices and live their lives the way they post status updates (like the one above): you're welcome and you're lucky that there are plenty of people who live in the real America and show up when it counts. 

Sincerely,
1 of the 50.4% of voters who saved your asses


UPDATE 11-8-12 @ 12:58

Why is it that the Facebook posts of my GOP/conservative family members are so difficult for me to understand? Bad for our country, good for the blog. Shrugs.

UPDATE 11-8-12 @ 2:24

If he was talking about what I think, then he forgot about the gays.

Get your head outta the Cloud [Atlas]

I haven't seen the movie or read the book. I sure have heard about it though. Is Cloud Atlas a racist film? On purpose? Mehh, probably not. But all that "race bending" sure is ballsy. From my experience, you have to be pretty privileged to think up something like that in a time like this... Playing with race is a pretty touchy thing to do, especially in a country that is for the first time, a minority majority. 

So the movie is definitely not about race. Race is just the usual casualty of this type of... creativity. People from the film have defended their choices by calling the "race bending" not about race itself, but of humanity. I guess they're trying to show some transcendence-- an Asian woman can be a Latina, a white man can be Asian, a black woman can be a white lady... It's about humanity. Post-race, right? Any race, any person can perform any character, no matter what race because we've passed that shit. Right? Just slap on some light colored foundation on that dark skin and we're there. Asian? Slant-ish eyes. Boom! 

What I find problematic about this post-race/ transcendence is that we are still conforming to the most basic assumptions and stereotypes of race-- eyes, noses, skin color. We just put it on and we've nailed it. For something that is supposed to transcend seems to focus on some specific physical differences. And it doesn't even look cool. It looks like makeup.

The film got the most heat from Asian American organizations, who complained that the ridiculous looking dude in "yellow face" was just that: ridiculous. Asian men are super rare in film, especially in heroic, main-character-esque roles. To cast a white man with dumb wannabe Asian eyes is just insulting. 

My point is that the whole "post-race" thing is a cop-out. The transcendence thing, and the "we are all part of humanity" thing is bullshit. If we were really trying to get closer to transcendence and humanity, we would be casting Asian men. We would be casting people who are hardly ever casted in films-- not putting putting on yellow-face or brown face.  There are real implications to this: Asians are reduced to slanty eyes, Latinos reduced to brown skin... 

So before we get our societal heads stuck in the clouds, maybe we should deal with our white supremacist earth. 

My evening with a Japanese American Black Panther

On the subject graduate work in the humanities, there are two types of people: the believers and the skeptics. When I studied English and later comparative literature, I saw my share of concerned and perplexed looks. "But what will you DO with that? Teach?", as if teaching is an illegitimate goal. I thought I would go to law school, but have since then been living through detour after detour on this road trip of life. 

Last night I saw a talk on Richard Aoki, the samurai among panthers, by Dr. Diane Fujino. She recently published a biography about this Japanese-American activists and was presenting her work to her home campus of UC Santa Barbara. To say the least, it was inspiring seeing someone talk about one man who symbolized so much. A Japanese-American in the Black Panther Party. Is it really that hard to rationalize? He was a child of the internment camps, he lived in a black neighborhood in Oakland, he lived his life as the "other". I think we call get caught up in the hype of the Black Panthers, and even perhaps Black Studies, as being an exclusive group. But we forget why they're there in the first place-- they exist because they are real; they deserve to be heard, studied, and learned from. 

Anyone who dedicates themselves to the humanities isn't in it for the money (at least they shouldn't be 'cos they'll be disappointed), they're in it for what is owed to the past and what we hope for the future. They have to be in it for the long-game. No sprints. Not even a marathon. There is no end. History has been written once, through one perspective and it's time for it to by told by others. Richard Aoki was a prominent figure of the Third World Liberation Front who fought for Ethnic Studies to be added to university curriculum. He, and many others saw the status quo as... in my words: too white. Today, while there are many ethnic studies programs, there is no question that minority (well, soon to be majority) culture is still underrepresented. One of the panelists last night commented that Richard Aoki wouldn't say they failed, he'd say they just didn't finish the job.

At the beginning of the talk, Dr. Fujino was introduced by black studies professor, Dr. George Lipsitz who said that his profession is one of hope-- you write something and put it out there and hope someone is looking for it. I've been looking for this for a long time...

... The Bible tells me so

Not surprisingly, a family member of mine shared the above photo on Facebook today. She's young, so... translate that as you will. So far, it's been up for like, 5 hours and has 12 likes (weak-sauce).  Most headlines had Joe (who I wish could be my grandpa) winning overall. Bust out the Bible verses, armageddon is near. Sore losers much? Anyways, among the other ridiculous things popping up on my newsfeed since the Veep debates last night, this one kind of bothered me. There's something about invoking the Bible that grinds my gears, especially when it involves politics... 

Before any outsiders to my blog say I'm a godless harlot, I went to Church with my family on Sunday. Boo yah. My parents brought me up Methodist, and I grew up in a very liberal church. I wouldn't call myself a Christian, honestly. My Facebook profile lists Agnostic. I'm more of an appreciator of knowledge and ideas, no matter where they come from...

It just so happens that the pastor's sermon on Sunday was about the Bible. Divine intervention much? He opened his sermon by saying that the reason we come to church is to share, evolve, and grow together. Key word being evolve. He described the Bible as a "challenge document" that contains 66 different books, or canons, that were written, edited, and redacted by more than one hundred people over a period of 1500 years all over the old world. Despite it being one of the most important texts ever written in his opinion, he acknowledges that it is not an end-all and be-all. You can watch and listen to the sermon here: 

http://camvideo.sermonpodcasts.com/

Challenge document he says. He explains that when he reads the stories, which were the best form of science, faith, and knowledge at the time it was written (and rewritten) three thousand years ago, the world could have in fact been created in 7 days-- but it's not that is not the case today. We must use the Bible as a challenge document that gives birth to NEW and APPROPRIATE understandings. For example, Exodus. God parts the Red Sea to free the Jews from the Egyptians. The commodity of liberation is handed to you: Jews saved. Egyptians bad. It is a story of oppression and understanding the oppressor(s). Today though, he says, we can't look for a god to part the Pacific Ocean or bring down plague. Today, he says it is our challenge to look for liberation of gays and lesbians, of women, of Syria, of Libya.... The challenge is not to accept the status quo or the past, and instead to examine and change the future. We need to evolve.

So, lets. There are Bible verses specifically about debates? Jackpot. How enlightened you must be to repost this! You sure showed me how serious and holy memes can be sometimes. But I challenge your verse with all the other ones about lying. I probably won't find one that specifically talks about stimulus money, or defense budgets, or math... All that aside, I'm glad you didn't come up with any Bible-memes about abortion. 

My afternoon with Rachel Maddow

Ah, Rachel Maddow. She's brilliant. Despite being unable to sign my book after the show, her words, message, and overall charm were more than enough to inspire and motivate. My sister and I were two of the about two-thousand patrons of the Arlington Theater in Santa Barbara yesterday afternoon. It was a comfort to see how many people came in support -- there's hope for America after all!

When I first started watching Rachel on MSNBC three years ago, there was very little not to like about her. If anything, there were those petty complaints a girl can have about another of her kind. But her wit, humility, and command of subject matter earned her the right to be imperfect in other ways. In her talk, she explained how she doesn't think about the thousands (or millions) of viewers when she's broadcasting. She instead thinks of her partner, Susan, or the camera lady, Jackie, or her parents, and how she would explain things to them. The true sign of expertise in a field is the ability to accurately explain complex ideas to laymen, without making them feel inferior, and to the contrary, empowering them to take interest. This is what Rachel Maddow has done for me. She readily admits that there is no such thing as unbiased news, and the fact that I know who she is and what she stands for only strengthens my convictions in her. 

Her greatest show of command was during the q&a portion of the talk when she was asked about how people should vote. Her answer to question like these was simply that the vote is only one (small) tool we have as people, and that not voting, or voting a third-party long shot really isn't to get your voice heard in our system. She suggested, in a very nonjudgmental and matter-of-fact way, to align yourself with the candidate that most closely represents your interests, vote for them, and if s/he is elected, to pressure them do doing what needs to be done. Political power doesn't only come around once every two or four years-- we have it every day. 

There was a noticeable sigh from the audience when the topic of the presidential debates was brought up yesterday. But in true Rachel-form, she quickly put both hands up and with a ear to ear smile, reassured the audience that it's OK because there are still 3 more debates coming up and everything will be fine. She is no pessimist. She is such an optimist that it's contagious. Probably for that reason, the audience roared in applause when she was asked if she considers running for political office one day. She was flattered but answered no, and left us with one of the most empowering statements of the night: She began by saying how honored she is to have so many people sitting in the dark on such a beautiful Sunday in "beach town" listening to her speak because we agree on so many issues. Then she posed the question: Why don't you run? There's about two-thousand people here who would probably vote for you too.

Maybe I will one day, Rachel. Maybe I will.