Essay 3

My topic for Essay 3 will be Damali Ayo's "Panhandling for Reparation."

1. How does this piece of art further African Americans in today's society?

2. Why is Damali dressed as a bum?

Resources:

1. Black Performance [Special issue]. Theatre Journal v. 57 no. 4 (December 2005) p. VIII-XVI, 571-714

2. Wiretap magazine, Kameelah Rasheed, October 3, 2007 "Panhandling for Reparations"

3. Associated press, Oct 11, 2007, "Group Panhandles for Slavery Reparations"

4. Seattle times, July 25, 2005, Florangela Davila, "Outspoken artist, author wants to make us think deeply about race"

"Culture in Action"

One of the projects contained in the "Culture in Action" exhibit was Haha and Flood. For this project its creators, "Formed a volunteer group called Flood, dedicated to the building to the building and maintenance of a hydroponic garden for the production and distribution of foods for AIDS patients," (Kwon 130). In other words, a volunteer group grew food for AIDS patients in a garden that was dependant on nutrient solutions rather than soil. Yet, to me this does not seem like a piece of art. It seems more like a good deed aimed at helping out the less fortunate. If one considers this to be a piece of art does that mean that all other groups looking to help the less fortunate are "works of art" as well? Are the many walks for various diseases art? Is the wearing of tiny, yellow, cancer bracelets on your wrist art? For me, this is not art. However, to the author of the book "One Place After Another", Miwon Kwon, this is art. It is an art form known as "Culture in Action"; art that is dependant on residents of societies for the creation of the artworks.

"Video and Resistance: Against Documentary"

"Video and Resistance: Against Documentary" begins by refering to photography as an invention that could unquestionable capture an event as fact, opposed to relying on memory to recall the event. From the invention of photograph many artists began trying to replicate both nature and society. When film came around the idea of replication was presented in the form of documentaries. However, documentaries were and still are a complete disaster because the facts get distorted in order to tell a compelling story (like in Nanook of the North pictured to the right). To counteract this problem these films should announce that the image as shown in the documentary are only a "version" of the subject matter.

Just like Susan Sontag, "Video and Resistance: Against Documentary" speaks of photographs as "traces" of events that actually occurred. Sontag goes on to say that, "At one end of the spectum, photogrpahs are objective data; at the other end, they are items of psycological science fiction." This fits right in to the "Video and Resistance: Against Documentary" article because in it the discussion of taking images in the form of a documentary and distorting them as a sort of fiction in order to tell a story is quite prevalent. One such example is the Nanook of the North documentary in which the filmmaker had Nanook hunt a walrus using harpoons although he always used a gun. This was done becuase it was more appealing to the telling of the story.

Super? Fund

It sounds like a great idea: A government program created for the sheer purpose of cleansing America’s most hazardous waste-infected sites. That is what the federal government thought back in 1980 when it created the environmental program, Superfund, to do just that; clean up hazardous waste sites around the nation. Fast forward twenty-seven years and 886 successful cleanups later, and Superfund has found itself in the presence of severely hard times (Knickerbocker 1). The article by Brad Knickerbocker, “Superfund Program: A Smaller Cleanup Rag,” which was published in the Christian Science Monitor, exposes many of the problems that Superfund faces today. The most potent of which is the fact that, “The government fund that’s paid for that cleanup at a cost of more than $1 billion a year is bankrupt,” (Knickerbocker 1). As a result, Superfund has relied on a completely unsatisfactory method of “polluter pays” to financially back their site clean ups.

One of the waste-filled sites that is on Superfund’s clean-up list is Onondaga Lake. Located in Syracuse, New York, Onondaga Lake is not only one of the most polluted lakes in the United States, but it is also a shining example of the difficulties that come with the “polluter pays” philosophy. Reason being, the “polluter pays” philosophy is based upon the train of thought that, “Any party that ever touched the waste, no matter how remote the involvement, can be held liable for the full cost of remediation,” (Knickerbocker 2). This does seem fair, but when the clean-up site is one like Onondaga Lake, a site that has had many polluters throughout the years, pin pointing a specific polluter to pay the cleansing fee is quite difficult and controversial considering it is the public that generally suffers.

Among those responsible for the deterioration of Onondaga Lake, the general public has been one of, if not the greatest, target to financial support Superfund. Responsible for the sewage runoff into the lake, the general public has recently had to pay increased taxes in order to monetarily support Superfund’s cleansing process. In fact, “The portion funded by individual taxpayers has increased from 18 to 53 percent of the total costs of site renovations,” (Knickerbocker 2). One the other hand, in no way shape or form should the citizens of Syracuse have to pay a tax for renovating a lake when their average household income is only $35,671, (CNN Money). Their money can go to things much more important than cleaning a lake, like food, rent, utilities, and savings for their childrens’ educations. Although this taxation of the public is completely outrageous, it is done for the purpose of avoiding the legal ordeal of placing the cost of remediation into the hands of major companies.

In regards to the cleanup of Onondaga Lake, putting the financial blame upon big businesses can only bring about vast legal proceedings. Because the “polluter pays” philosophy is based upon putting the cost of remediation onto any polluter even remotely responsible for pollution of a site, lawsuits are a plenty when it comes to placing the blame on big businesses.
In other words, if a big business were to be declared financially responsible for the cleanup of a sight such as Onondaga Lake, they would then be able to search for any other company who may have had the slightest involvement with the polluted lake and sue them under joint and several liability standard to pay the bill. Thus, as the Knickerbocker article points out, “Much of the cost of Superfund goes to lawyers, consultants, private investigators, and administrative overhead rather than for actual cleanup,” (Knickerbocker 2). As a result of this legal run around, many developers refuse to buy and renovate areas where pollution once occurred because they do not want to be charged with having to pay for restoration.

Furthermore, the taxation of the public is not right because the pollution stemming from the general public is only a slight percentage of the total pollution contained in Onondaga Lake. While the city of Syracuse prospered in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries due in part to industrialization, Lake Onondaga suffered immensely. “In 1884, the Solvay Process Company began production of soda ash on the Lakefront and nearby properties. Approximately 6 million pounds of salty wastes, made up of chloride, sodium, and calcium were discharged daily to Onondaga Lake,” (Onondaga Lake Partnership). Unfortunately as time moved on, the lake became even more polluted. “Allied Chemical and Dye Corporation discharged an estimated 165,000 pounds of mercury to Onondaga Lake between 1946 and 1970,” (Onondaga Lake Partnership). Also affecting Onondaga Lake is a sewage treatment plant named Metro which was created to clean the water in Onondaga Lake in the late nineteen seventies. “The lake’s water quality improved in the 1980s , but still did not meet federal water quality standards by the 1990s when Metro contributed over half the phosphorus and 90 percent of ammonia entering Onondaga Lake,” (Return to Glory 10). Thus, the general public should not be responsible for 53 percent of the total costs of site renovations.

Therefore, the “polluter pays” philosophy used by Superfund is a great sounding idea. Then again, although the idea sounds great, in reality it is a completely unsatisfactory method aimed at raising funds. Yes, the general public is slightly responsible for the sewage runoff in the lake, but they should not be taxed to pay over half of the cleaning costs of Superfund sites. Thus, instead of Superfund, the reliance on organizations like The Onondaga Lake Partnership should become the norm. “Under the leadership of the Onondaga Lake Partnership, civic and government leaders are working with the public to develop a shared vision for the lake and how it should be,” (Williamson). In doing so, the vast legal preceding that come with Superfund as well as the taxing of those who cannot afford to be taxed would be avoided. In fact, Superfund should be done away with all together. It was a good thing when it started, but things change, and now Superfund is an almost bankrupt institution that has concocted ludicrous and unfair ways of paying for what they cannot afford.

New Source

This is the new source for my Superfund/Onondaga Lake essay:

Onondaga Lake Improvement Project

It has some good facts as well as current cleanup projects

Christian Science Monitor Article Synopsis

It sounds like a great idea: A government program created for the sheer purpose of cleansing America’s most hazardous waste-infected sites. That is what the federal government thought back in 1980 when it created the environmental program, Superfund, to do just that; clean up hazardous waste sites around the nation. Fast forward twenty-seven years and 886 successful cleanups later, and Superfund has found itself in the presence of severely hard times, (Knickerbocker 1.) The article by Brad Knickerbocker, “Superfund Program: A Smaller Cleanup Rag,” which was published in the Christian Science Monitor, exposes many of the problems that Superfund faces today. Perhaps the most potent of these troubles discussed in the article is the fact that, “The government fund that’s paid for that cleanup at a cost of more than $1 billion a year is virtually bankrupt,” (Knickerbocker 1.) The article goes on to quote the assistant administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Marianne Lamont Horinko, who says, “‘We still face serious challenges because we still have much work to do at our remaining sites,’” (Knickerbocker 1.) Because of these facts, the fate of Superfund is up in the air: some believe it should be done away with while others see that as politically impossible. This affects Onondaga Lake because it is one of Superfund's sites.

For backgroud info I will use the following links:
Onandaga Lake Partnership
Superfund Official Site