Going to this museum was a very emotional experience. The focus wasn’t on facts and dates, but challenging systems of oppression. I was very moved by the interactive exhibit that recreates the experience of a sit-in. I was thankful for the next part of the exhibit where I got to sit in a dark room, watch a video, and cry. I needed that time to be alone and reflect on the experience.
After the sit-in interactive experience I started thinking about why it affected me so strongly. I liked how it wasn’t about playing the role of someone at a sit-in, but showing me the level of fear they experienced. And by ending with a message about recognizing the heroic people of color who fought to end segregation, it focused on their strength. As I sat there, hearing people scream and feeling them push my chair, I truly understood the power required of people who participated in sit-ins.
I’m often frustrated when people try to recreate the experience of a group. For example, I remember being irritated in high school when my friends went to a church event where they didn’t eat for 24 hours in order to experience hunger. I knew of another group that went on a trip to help homeless people, and weren’t allowed to shower that week. I thought it was kind of ridiculous. How did this help anyone? How did it allow them to gain a better understanding of poverty? I don’t think it did. Because the difference is, at the end of the day or at the end of the week, they got to go to their houses where they had access to food and running water. I didn’t like the idea of playing the role of the impoverished. It was their choice to not eat or shower, but the people they were supposedly helping did not have a choice. Unlike these experiences, I think the sit-in exhibit, and all the exhibits at the Center for Civil & Human Rights, were beautifully done and really pushed me to think critically and feel deeply, without allowing me to play the part of a group I’m not a part of.
I began thinking a lot about the Youth Creates theme of “giving voice to the voiceless.” Coincidentally, this was the theme of the Martin Luther King, Jr. exhibit. I think the wording of this theme is odd, because it implies that oppressed people are incapable of speaking. The issue isn’t that women, people of color, people with disabilities, and other marginalized groups are incapable of speaking; the issue is that no one is listening. This theme also implies that someone is responsible for giving voice to a voiceless group. Why should someone who isn’t a member of the marginalized group speak for them? Do you have to be a member of a group to properly advocate for them? MLK called for people of color to have the “moral courage to stand up for their rights.” This doesn’t sound like he gave “voice to the voiceless,” but rather gave voice to the silenced. Oppressed people have a lot to say and a lot to fight for, the problem is how to you give them the time to speak, and how do you get people to listen?
Here are some quotes I collected at the museum that relate to the theme of people who are silenced:
“And I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the great purveyor of violence in the world today: my own government.” –MLK
“The don’t know each other because they cannot communicate; they cannot communicate because they are separated.” –MLK
No comments:
Post a Comment