On Thursday, Senator Mike Lee had blocked legislation that would create National Mall museums for women and Latinos, who lack proper representation in the United States. This legislation would establish a council to manage the creation of the museum and would designate an area for the museum. It had also achieved bipartisan support and after Lee voted against it, Republican Senator Susan Collins said the failure of the legislation is a sad moment. Lee’s reason for his vote is that "The last thing we need is to further divide an already divided nation with an array of segregated, separate-but-equal museums for hyphenated identity groups."
This is not the first time Lee had blocked legislation for the creation of a new museum. Lee had also voted against the Smithsonian Women's History Museum Act. That would have created a museum for women, in honor of the 100th anniversary of women's suffrage which also had bipartisan support. Lee believes that women and Latinos do not deserve their own museums, as it would cause America to become even more divided.
However, if there is a museum for indigenous peoples, then there should be a museum for Latino-Americans and women, as they have also been subject to decades of oppression. For the decades of oppression that America had set upon these minority groups, the least that can be done is to honor their resistance and to respect their representation in the public domain.
15 comments:
I somewhat agree with Lee's logic of not wanting a "separate but divided" country, but I don't necessarily believe that that applies to this situation. The museums proposed would honor women, Latinos, indigenous people, and other underrepresented populations. It's educating the public on different identities and reclaiming these groups' histories. Honoring people is not dividing people, but rather showing how they overcame the divide that was so present in America (and still is) to instill hope into everyone, especially new generations. To vote against this, one could argue, is even more segregationist as he's saying these groups didn't really do anything to deserve museums in their honor, leading them to be squashed down and put on the back burner once again. As a caucasian male, I don't really think that Lee has the right to speak on the behalf of the oppressed and take away something that is being done to honor the years of oppression they've gone through.
I don't really see how museums could divide the nation. Not many people go to museums extremely frequently anyways, and it would be like all other news: it lasts for a month and then everyone forgets about the divide. Plus, further exposing the divide between our people might be the best way of addressing it. By knowing exactly what kinds of people are divided and why they feel they should be divided, we can better educate the American people on how to treat one another. In regards to Lee's decision: I think it was poor, and possibly racist. To be blunt, saying the museums could divide the nation seems like a weak excuse to deny the establishment of the museums for racist beliefs, as explained earlier by the fact of the matter that museums almost never affect our day-to-day lives. He himself speaks for the side that doesn't believe in Latinos being recognized as a large part of American history, and it is a little frightening knowing that a significant of our population is Latino. Overall, I really hope that the museums are pushed for in the future in order to address the problems being reflected by Lee's decision.
I don't get how Museums can divide the Nation, especially since Museums, such as the one proposed, dedicated to our Latinx Women, can "divide the nation." How can something so unifying divide a nation, that actually was already divided? I feel like this was a horrible attempt to try to cover up feelings of racism going on and to distant one self from what was really going on. Museums, as previously mentioned, don't really affect day-to-day life, so it brings a more daunting realization of how even the People we trust with leading us and guiding our political endevors can totally state something against the democracy we are trying to build. Overall, I hope that Museums, such as the one proposed, can get pushed through and made a reality, to bring in the inclusivity we all need and the clear representation of all the beautiful cultures we have in America.
This kind of reminded me of Trump's stance on diversity training, as he also claimed that it would "divide." To be honest, I seriously do not see why anyone could be so strongly opposed to these things (especially the museum. I mean, it's just a museum). I think both Trump and Lee don't understand the point of diversity and taking accountability for the past. Or, they're just scared of the possible implications that learning about past mistakes has on patriotism and support for the government. However, this view is very detrimental to women and minority groups. How can we move forward and have them equally represented in high level jobs / positions when we can't even address past injustices and systemic oppression? We can't solve problems by sweeping them under the rug and pretending they don't exist, nor can we ignore our checkered past in favor of blind patriotism. I also found it interesting that the bill had bipartisan support. Clearly this museum had the potential to unify instead of divide. But sadly, as a white male, Mike Lee has the privilege to overlook these problems because they don't directly pertain to him.
After years of cultural oppression, I think the museum would have been a great way to honor these people's cultures and history to educate future generations. Acknowledging people's different ethnic background doesn't encourage a divide but rather encourages us to understand each other's views and backgrounds. I agree with Pariya, I think for them agreeing here would have meant that they are admitting their mistakes or are coming across "in-patriotic".
It is important for people with power especially white males to acknowledge their privilege and use it not to overlook these problems or ignore them but rather contribute to unifying the country and to address past injustices.
Almost every demographic of people has faced adversity through out history, and almost every demographic of people has a story to tell. While a women/latino museum would be nice, I don't see why it is necessary. If the main goal is to raise awareness for the injustices done in the past to these people, then I don't think a museum is the solution. What world problem has a museum ever solved? If the organizations advocating for this initiative want to help women and latinos, then they should realizes that there are women and latinos that are still struggling today. They should consider more direct solutions that would bring these groups out of the margins of society and into high level jobs and positions. Like Pariah said, "It's just a museum." It would certainly be great if it happens, but its not the end of the world if it doesn't work out.
To celebrate the existence and acknowledge the unique experiences of a certain group is NOT to build permanent barriers between them and others. The real divisive tactic here is to suggest that it is! The museums themselves have a significant symbolic function (I hesitate to say "mainly" because museums also play a very important educational and artistic role), and it seems to me that Senator Lee and those who voted with him fear that symbolism. Regardless of their exact rationale for voting against this piece of legislation, by doing so they diminish the history of both groups in America-- a history that, like Pariya mentioned, is full of hardships that they would like to sweep under the rug of passing time. Lee and Co. are essentially adopting the "I don't see color" rhetoric, which completely ignores the fact that different groups of people have fundamentally different life and historical experiences that SHOULD be recognized. I agree with the above commenters that ignorance and denial is not the way to mend a country's societal fissures.
As a final note, I understand that a museum is not the only way to honor a group. It is often more passive than active, and can never be an all-encompassing representation of the thing that it aims to showcase, but I think it's an important piece of a larger puzzle.
Like many people above me, I don't believe that establishing specific museums for educating people on the history of underrepresented minority groups would do anything to "divide America" like Senator Lee suggests. Frankly, that sentiment goes against a lot of what the U.S. is supposed to stand for - a celebration of diversity of opinions and people living together in the same area and allowed to participate in the government that governs them. There are so many different underrepresented minority groups that have been wronged in the past by the U.S. government and deserve recognition for the role they played in our history, even if that history is embarrassing and regretful for some. Like Simone, I believe that willful ignorance and denial has historically not worked to resolve racial tensions and gender divisions in the U.S. (as recent racial justice and gender equality movements have proven) and it will continue to not work.
Quite simply, Senator Mike Lee's concern over dividing the nation with the addition of museums dedicated to women and Latinos is invalid. By not including or acknowledging the history of Latinos and women in this country, whose past experiences largely differ from the majority, the U.S. sends a message that such minorities do not deserve recognition, thus dividing the nation. Such a move would not only attempt to erase the history of the minorities, further invalidating their struggles and existence, but spreading hate instead of unity and acceptance.
In response to Lee's ignorant and divisive comments, President and CEO of the Friends of the American Latino Museum Estuardo Rodriguez has expressed his dedication to seeing through the legislation.
"We are committed to getting this through before the Senate recesses and will be working with Republican and Democratic sponsors in the House and Senate to have this included in the omnibus."
It is optimistic that many groups are still pushing to get Senate approval and eventually pass the law to begin working on the museums celebrating women and Latinos in this country.
https://www.npr.org/2020/12/11/945389843/sen-mike-lee-blocks-legislation-for-latino-womens-museums
Like many people above have stated, no matter how I look at it I don't really see a way in which museums can divide countries. There is no real harm of this museum, if anything its beneficial for women and Latinos as people will further understand their history. Along with that, people outside of said groups will be educated on the history of Latinos and women. Senator Mike Lee's reason for not permitting the museum to be is quite fragile and nonsensical. In what world does a simple celebration of culture and history divide a country? And while sure, the museum may not be necessary, it would be a nice addition to help educate people on the struggles that women and the latino community had to overcome. Lastly, as people prior brought up, this may be seen as no patriotic as they are admitting to past wrongdoings, but realistically admitting to mistakes is better than sweeping them under the rug and pretending as if they never happened.
I do not understand why dedicating a museum to women and Latinos would create a “divide” in our nation. Museums are created to help educate people about history, and if anything, a museum dedicated to women and Lations would greatly benefit our country. By dedicating a museum to a specific group of people, this will help people who are underrepresented feel welcomed into this country, and maybe even lower the amount of racism this country holds. People automatically judge others because of their culture, but if people truly understood one another’s backgrounds and history, I feel like racism wouldn’t be as common as it is today. Museums are not that popular in the US, so in my opinion it wouldn’t hurt or “divide” our country in any way. I think it is important to represent all cultures and not to exclude or look down on specific groups of people. I think Lee’s call about museums is unfair and untrue, and hopefully museums will be dedicated to the underrepresented soon.
Like many of the previous commenters, I also do not see the risk of dividing our country by merely establishing museums dedicated to women and Latinos. What these museums can potentially do is start the healing process of our divided country. There's been too much oppression of minority groups, enraging groups of people, causing more conflict. The lack of equal representation for the history of minority groups in the U.S is quite embarrassing especially when the U.S is known for the diversity of its people and culture. At this point, dedicating these museums to women and Latinos is the least the government should do. We cannot change everyone's mindset, but we should also respect them. This issue brings into light the intensity of biased views on minority groups. There's a fear that a certain group may no longer assert its dominance and be in control. There are not many noticeable downsides to trying to educate and remember women and Latinos.
Responding to Michael's comment, a museum isn't necessary but it doesn't make sense to block the legislation either (which is what I was trying to get at in my original comment. "It's just a museum," so why block legislation that has bipartisan support? A museum doesn't harm anyone). Also, if legislation for a simple museum is blocked, imagine how other legislation aimed at helping women and minorities are treated by Mike Lee and other congresspeople. Like Simone said, the museum would have a symbolic value, illustrating America's recognition of past injustice and its willingness to educate about / address said injustices. A museum would do perfectly well on educating people on injustices, thus raising awareness on the issue so perhaps people can understand how minorities / women are oppressed today. The problem is that there are people like Lee who refuse to acknowledge these problems and pretend they don't exist, so major legislation to help these groups will not pass.
Museum's should not be seen as causing division in this country. It is similar to the idea of people thinking unless there is a museum for every single demographic, then the existing museums are exclusive and only that, when that is just not true. And those who are upset about museums being formed to highlight a group of people, or to educate on previous and current oppression, are not truly looking out for mitigating the divisions of this country, but they are looking to still exert some control or superiority over the, often minorities, that these museums are being formed around. Because in all truth, museums can be a great form of honoring things or people with the basis of both truth and inclusion, and in many ways are seeking to educate on previous and existing divisions in our country. And lastly, I really don't think that many Americans regularly visit museums, especially one's that may not "pertain" to them.
This is definitely a very odd action taken by Senator Lee, for I do not understand why this would be a pressing issue that he felt the need to block. I view museums as extremely interesting places where groups of people can be honored and past issues throughout history can be showcased and learned from. This would've been a great addition to the museums throughout our country, for it would represent the culture and history of groups that are regularly overlooked. Additionally, the Smithsonian museums that I attended did a great job at showcasing the histories of different topics. In his own words, Senator Lee said that the museum "weaponizes diversity" which the majority of other senators disagree with like Senator Susan Collins who said: "we will not give up the fight" (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/11/us/politics/mike-lee-smithsonian-latino-women-museums.html).
Post a Comment