Wednesday, July 27, 2022


The history of creativity is white and male

In recent years, museums in the United States have been moving toward diversifying their permanent collections to remediate the historical underrepresentation of non-male and non-white artists.

However, a recent study shows that American museums still have a long way to go in diversifying their collections, as they remain overwhelmingly white and male. The study was conducted by a group of mathematicians, statisticians, and art historians at Williams College (Chad M. Topaz, Bernhard Klingenberg, Daniel Turek, Brianna Heggeseth, Pamela E. Harris, Julie C. Blackwood, C. Ondine Chavoya), together with Kevin M. Murphy, senior curator of American and European Art at Williams College Museum of Art, and Steven Nelson, professor of African and African American Art at the University of California, Los Angeles.

The researchers surveyed the collections of 18 major US museums to quantify the gender, ethnic, and racial composition of the artists represented in their collections. Its findings came from a rigorous dive into the public online catalogues of these museums, deploying a sample of 10,000 artist records comprising over 9,000 unique artists to crowdsourcing, and analyzing 45,000 responses, to infer artist genders, ethnicities, geographic origins, and birth decades.

The study’s results — with all statistical caveats considered — paint a somber picture of the lack of parity in museum collections. The study found that 85.4% of the works in the collections of all major US museums belong to white artists, and 87.4% are by men. African American artists have the lowest share with just 1.2% of the works; Asian artists total at 9%; and Hispanic and Latino artists constitute only 2.8% of the artists.

This examination follows recent studies meant to encourage diversity in the cultural sector, including the Andrew W. Mellon’s landmark Art Museum Staff Demographic Survey in 2015. However, this study affirms, “While previous work has investigated the demographic diversity of museum staffs and visitors, the diversity of artists in their collections has remained unreported.”

Some museum collections are more diverse than others, the study shows. The researchers found the institutions among this grouping with the highest percentage of white artists are the National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC (97.4%) and Detroit Institute of Arts (94.7%). The Rhode Island School of Design (RISD) Museum and the Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA) in Los Angeles had the lowest (78.2%).

Museums with the highest percentage of women artists include MOCA (24.9%), San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (SFMOMA) (18.1%), and the Whitney Museum of American Art (22.1%). The lowest collections of art by women are at the Detroit Institute of Arts (7.4%), Metropolitan Museum of Art (7.3%), Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (8.2%).

The High Museum of Arts in Atlanta has the highest representation of Black and African-American artists (10.6% of the artists in its collection), but all other museums had 2.7% or less. Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) and the National Gallery of Art come close to zero (considering a margin error of up to 3.7%). Asian artists are most represented at LACMA (17.7%), and the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (16.1%). Hispanic and Latinx artists are best represented at MOCA (6.4%) and the Denver Art Museum (5.4%).

The four largest groups represented across all 18 museums in terms of gender and ethnicity are white men (75.7%), white women (10.8%), Asian men (7.5%), and Hispanic/Latinx men (2.6%), the study says. All other groups are represented in proportions of less than 1%. The researchers also found that 44% of artists represented in these collections are from Europe, while 44.6% are from North America.

These results expose a “very weak association between collection mission and diversity,” the study says. “We interpret gender and ethnicity as demographics reflective of artist diversity, and we interpret regional origin and birth decade as reflective of a museum’s collection mission and priorities,” the researchers write, thus concluding that a museum wishing to increase diversity in its collection should be able to do so “without changing the geographic and/or temporal emphases of its mission.”

“Our study finds museums that have roughly similar profiles in terms of the art they collect (time periods, geographic regions) and yet have quite different levels of representation of women and/or people of color,” Chad Topaz, a professor of mathematics at Williams College and the lead researcher in the study, told Hyperallergic in an email. “I can’t say what the more diverse museums are doing to achieve this, but I take our measurements as evidence that it can happen.”

Comprehensive and illuminating as it is, there are important caveats to the study that must be taken into consideration, Topaz emphasized. “All statements about artist demographics are limited to individual, identifiable artists,” said Topaz, further clarifying that race and ethnicity depend on how artists define themselves. Furthermore, some works have no identifiable artist. “MFAB boasts 85,000 works of art from Egypt, the Near East, Greece, Italy, and other areas. These generally have no identifiable artist,” Topaz added.

**********************************************************************

Writer and coach, 29, reveals she was told she's 'not truly black' after writing a viral open letter blasting the 'cult of wokeness' and insisting she's not oppressed by her skin colour

She sounds like quite a gal

A writer and coach has revealed how she faced a backlash over a viral letter in which she said: 'I'm not oppressed because I'm black'.

Africa Brooke, 29, who lives in London, spoke to the Diary of a CEO host Steven Bartlett about her views on race, and what it really means to be oppressed for his popular podcast.

The writer and coach 'specialises in helping people and groups with personal or professional challenges related to self-censorship and self-sabotage', and has 229,000 followers on Instagram.

Last year, she wrote an open letter declaring she was 'leaving the cult of wokeness' that insists she will 'forever be opressed because she's black', while others told her she's not 'truly black'.

Africa, who was born in Zimbabwe, told Steve: 'I've seen real oppression', adding that she's a 'huge advocate' against FGM. FGM stands for female genital mutilation and happens in many African countries. The barbaric procedure, that involves the removal of the clitoris, often without anesthetic and with dirty equipment is rife in communities that believe female sexuality is wrong.

Africa said 'I said that I don't feel oppressed as a black woman, and a lot of people didn't agree with me, they didn't like it. 'Many people thought I was undermining black people and women. It's something non-controversial, but is now seen as a controversial statement to make. 'I was messaged, mainly by white people telling me that I am oppressed, but I wasn't raised to be a victim and I refuse to be one.

'Culturally or in my family home I have never for one second, apart from the moments I needed to misplace my rage, have seen myself as a victim.

In her open letter last year, Africa addressed cancel culture and wokeness a societal issue. She said in the letter 'If there's one thing I'm NOT afraid of, it's being 'cancelled'. ​'If being cancelled means me living in integrity as a human being who thinks for themselves, CANCEL ME TODAY!

​'What I'm truly afraid of is existing in a world that forces me to submit to an ideology without question, otherwise I'm to be shamed (or pressured to shame myself) and cast out of the community.

​'A world that tells me that because I inhabit a black body; I will forever be oppressed and at the mercy of some omnipresent monster called "whiteness".

​'That because of the colour of my skin; I am a victim of an inherently racist system by default - and me rejecting the narrative of oppression means that I am in fact, in denial. 'How empowering!

​'You know, as someone that comes from Zimbabwe, a country where the general population is truly oppressed, it perplexes me that oppression is now being worn as an identity piece in most parts of the West, especially by those who claim to be "progressive".

​'What I'm truly afraid of is existing in a world that forces me to consider the colour of my skin and my gender (and that of others) at every f****** turn, instead of living by Martin Luther King's teachings and prioritising the content of mine and other people's character.

​'I dread the prospect of a world where context, nuance, critical thinking, meritocracy, mathematics, science, and rationality are considered tools of 'white supremacy', and the rule is that you're not allowed to question or argue this senseless statement - especially if you're white.

​'A world that is conditioning you and I to believe that we will always be trapped in some weird hierarchy because of our race, our genitals, our physical abilities, our neurodiversity, our sexuality, and our politics.'

'For me it's not even a conscious decision. I don't walk through the world thinking my skin color is a burden and that's not the only truth. 'Yes I am aware I have experienced things because of my skin colour, but I am a powerful being in a black body, and I should be able to claim that power.

'People always want to hear the hardship stories when it comes to race. What if there isn't one? When I get interviewed I get asked about the colour of my skin. Instead of being a "black entrepreneur", why can't I just be an entrepreneur?

Steve agreed with her sentiments, saying: 'I'm sure I've walked into boardrooms in front of middle aged white men where my colour has had an impact on the outcome, either positively or negatively. 'I'm sure there was prejudice against me, but it's not my responsibility to cure it.'

He added that labelling himself as a 'disadvantaged person' could lead to 'less confidence ' and 'more pessimism'. 'That could be more harmful than discrimination,' he said. 'On a day-to-day do I want to burden myself with a label that won't serve me? Others can do as they wish.'

Africa added: 'You can choose not to be oppressed and still fight for equality. I'm very fierce about this.'

She continued that we need to see more people from minorities, 'positioned as powerful sovereign beings'.

'It's my responibilty to claim my power as an individual in a black body.' 'I say, "No I'm not oppressed". People don't know what to do with you.

'There's a lot of moralism out there, people believe people that fit into this identity marker. They need to become champions for the oppressed black people, but they've become regressive in their quest to be progressive.'

Steve, who was born in Botswana, and moved to the UK at the age of two, said: 'There's an argument out there that you can't tell a black person what racism is.

'A lady argued with me saying: "White people can't tell black people what racism is". She abandoned truth, in this binary narrative, that white people can't talk about racism - I'm half white so I can shapeshift.'

The letter received outrage, with some even labelling Africa a 'white sympathiser' among other things and not 'truly black'.

However, since the release of the podcast last week Africa has gained 10,000 Instagram followers and received praise from fans worldwide for her direct and intelligent approach to contemporary issues.

*************************************************

New HHS Rule Would Force Insurers to Pay for Children’s Sex Changes

The Department of Health and Human Services announced a new rule Monday that would force insurance providers to pay for breast removal and other transgender surgeries, including for minors.

The proposed rule change by the federal agency concerns Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare, a section of the law that prohibits discrimination in health programs based on race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability.

In a conference call with reporters, Melanie Fontes Rainer, acting director of the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services, said that under the proposed changes, the definition of discrimination based on “sex” would be expanded to include gender identity, sexual orientation, and abortion.

Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, added that the new rules would “promote health equity” and contain provisions for “medically necessary care.”

“This work will help eliminate avoidable differences in health outcomes experienced by those who are underserved and provide the care and support that people need to thrive,” Brooks-LaSure said.

Transgender activists often describe procedures for minors, including cross-sex hormones and so-called gender-affirming surgery, as medically necessary.

The HHS rule change also would prohibit discrimination based on the revised definition of sex discrimination, as well as require organizations receiving federal funding to implement “civil rights procedures and processes.”

Notably, Rainer said that “discrimination on the basis of sex includes discrimination on the basis of pregnancy or related conditions, including ‘pregnancy termination.’”

The agency’s description of the proposed rule change is available here on the HHS website.

Roger Severino, vice president for domestic policy at The Heritage Foundation, sees the rule change as dangerous for children. (The Daily Signal is Heritage’s multimedia news organization.)

“This rule will mandate that insurance companies cover the full menu of gender identity interventions such as mastectomies, hysterectomies, breast augmentation, hair removal, and a lifetime of cross-sex hormones, including for minor children,” said Severino, who headed HHS’ Office for Civil Rights during the Trump administration.

“It would also force doctors to perform cross-sex surgeries and to administer puberty blockers to children if they believe such interventions ‘can never be beneficial,’” he said.

Severino referred to Section 92.206 of the rule, in which the Department of Health and Human Services explicitly says that doctors who view such treatments as harmful in all cases must perform them anyway or risk losing federal funding.

This change of the rules “flips medicine on its head,” he argued.

Severino also said medical providers will lose federal funding even if they follow state law prohibiting medical gender interventions for minors.

During the phone call with reporters, Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said repeatedly that his goal in instituting the rule change was to prevent perceived discrimination in health care.

“We want to make sure that Americans are free from discrimination when getting the health care that they need,” Becerra said, before adding that the rule change would “promote gender and health equity.”

When asked by reporters if the proposed rule changes were in response to an increase in complaints surrounding abortion, Becerra declined to answer.

Becerra noted that the proposed rule change is still subject to public comment before it is finalized.

“We’ll move as quickly as we can,” Becerra said in response to a question on when he hoped the rule change would be put into place. The HHS secretary added that the process would be done “hopefully by next year, if not sooner.”

*****************************************************************

Big Democrat spending bill ("Minibus") would be a highroad to economic ruin

Against the backdrop of a contracting economy and falling real incomes, the House majority is trying to increase federal spending over the next decade by $1.7 trillion—imposing a cost burden of future taxes and inflation that would be equivalent to more than $13,000 per household.

As a first step, the House’s Democratic majority has decided to cram half of the regular appropriations bills into one giant bill. Running this massive so-called minibus through Congress so quickly, with little public discourse, is just another gimmick for the left to conceal its plans from the American people.

If enacted, all the increased spending would add to the national debt, continue to feed inflationary pressures, and choke American industry. As with all government spending sprees, the bar tab will come due eventually.

In short, this minibus offers a one-way trip to inflation and economic ruin.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., chairwoman the House Appropriations Committee, had the audacity to claim that the funding levels of these bills have “significant increases [in spending] to help fight inflation.” But, as Americans have painfully learned over the past year and a half, government spending is exactly what triggers inflation.

However, congressional scoring rules undercount this burden. Under those rules, the one-year $132 billion increase in discretionary budget authority would result in dramatic baseline spending increases over the next 10 years. In this case, the increase would be roughly $1.5 trillion in new discretionary spending and an additional $200 billion in increased interest costs on the national debt.

Many of the bill’s spending increases are targeted at expanding the regulatory state. The annual economic cost of federal regulations is already estimated at about $1.9 trillion. That means that for each dollar spent on nondefense operations, we suffer $4 worth of regulatory burdens. So, the economic harm of those spending increases will be greatly magnified beyond their cost on paper.

Insidiously, this bill doubles down on its inflationary and other disastrous economic aspects by funding liberal priorities and dramatically expanding the administrative state.

In fiscal year 2023, the Environmental Protection Agency would receive a 21% budget increase. While that would be an enviable raise for most Americans, the EPA’s bureaucrats would instead use those taxpayer funds to issue new regulations that will further drive up energy costs and reduce competition.

Continuing their attacks on the core of the American energy industry, programs related to renewable energy and climate change would receive roughly 25% funding increases, and the bill would spend $100 million on electric vehicles for federal use.

So, while you might continue to struggle to afford gasoline, don’t worry about the federal government. It will be just fine. Rest assured that it will put your tax dollars to work waging war against fossil fuels—a war that will result in even higher energy costs for American families.

Similarly, the IRS would receive a billion-dollar increase to be able to go after American entrepreneurs with increased vigor. The Federal Trade Commission would receive a 30% funding increase to bolster its anti-business regulatory intrusions.

While there is no good time to weaponize the federal government against the engines of our economy, now would seem to be an especially poor moment to do so.

Weighing in at a 433% (unneeded and unjustified) increase in funding are grants to local and state governments for their election systems.

The minibus would provide “the highest level ever” for international food assistance, despite record-setting food costs for Americans.

The minibus also provides hundreds of earmarks at your expense to benefit a well-connected few. Some of those projects can be found on this 271-page list and include the usual gaggle of entrance-road relocations, bridges to nowhere, and funding for civic centers and parking garages. All on the taxpayer’s dime, with essentially no input from the people being taxed.

These bills also feature attempts to undermine state laws, gut long-standing protections to ensure taxpayer money isn’t used for abortions, and to track every ammunition purchase in the country.

Broadly speaking, these bills are aimed at promoting the leftist agenda and at undermining your freedoms and other rights—all of it funded with your money.

Beyond the specific deleterious provisions, it’s vital to remember that every dollar spent by the government imposes a cost on American families. Even the noblest and most constitutionally sound programs—such as national defense—still represent a trade-off.

Governments can’t create value. They can merely redirect it. Though national defense and some other government activities are needed, the vast majority of the federal government’s spending is some form of wealth redistribution, totaling three-quarters of non-interest spending.

All three options that governments have to get money ultimately come out of your wallet.

They can tax it, destroying the delicate business arrangements that provide paychecks and produce the things we need and use. By driving down economic production, this empties store shelves and can send prices sky high on what remains.

They can print it, directly devaluing your savings and the value of your paycheck by using their new dollars to drain value from yours. The dollars you earn represent the hard work you’ve done and the real goods and services you’ve created.

Only criminals and the government enjoy the luxury of producing money without producing real value. In fact, more than half of the new federal debt during the pandemic was funded by these newly printed inflationary dollars.

And finally, they can borrow the money, leaving debts for your children while draining the oxygen out of the economy today as the government crowds out investment in new and innovative business endeavors. The further devil in the details here is how they pay it back.

Every dollar borrowed by the government must be paid back somehow. Governments borrow with the promise to either tax someone or print even more money in the future. The certainty of the burden it will impose and the uncertainty of how it will be imposed cause economic chaos.

The resulting chaos triggers inflation today as people try to hedge against the prospect of future slower economic growth and a devalued dollar.

This is the path laid out by the House majority’s appropriations bills. The minibus before the House this week is just the down payment on the next installment of a larger government that will imperil the future of every American family.

*******************************************

Australia: Churches back boycot by football players against being forced to endorse homosexuality

Reverend Dr Ma’afu Palu has never met the seven Manly players who chose to boycott Thursday’s game rather than wear a rainbow jersey that challenged their personal beliefs about sexuality.

But he’s proud of them. “Christianity takes a very strong root in our people,” said Palu, from the Tongan Evangelical Wesleyan Church in Greenacre. “Whatever the bible says is very authoritative to us. Personally, I’m very proud.”

When it told players to wear the jersey without consulting them, Manly unwittingly created the latest flashpoint in deepening tensions between some Australian religions and the mainstream community over sexuality and same-sex marriage.

A similar battle has been happening in schools, in politics and even inside the churches themselves as secular and progressive religious communities embrace sexual diversity – but the more theologically conservative, such as Palu, think it contradicts the bible.

Almost 50 per cent of National Rugby League players trace their heritage back to the Pacific Islands, where many people are actively Christian as a result of a significant push by missionaries in the past few centuries.

Reverend Hedley Fihaki, the National Chair of the Assembly of Confessing Congregations, said Christianity was “ingrained into our culture. It’s not just a matter of going to church on Sunday, it’s part of our DNA, it’s part of our culture, it is who we are.

“I think the club has no right to force their particular ideology on all the players. I am very proud of them for standing up against the strong push to embrace something that we cannot.”

The Anglican and Catholic Archbishops also weighed in. A spokesman for Catholic Archbishop Anthony Fisher said forcing a player to wear a jersey that contradicted their faith or values failed to demonstrate the inclusivity the club wanted to promote. “It has also created unnecessary hurt and division for all involved,” he said.

Anglican Archbishop Kanishka Raffel said Sydney had a pluralistic community that had seen rapid social change. “We are still having a conversation and working out how we are going to have respectful difference,” he said.

Many in the pride community were frustrated by Manly’s failure to consult the players over the jersey, which replaced the traditional white stripe against the maroon background with rainbow colours, but supported its intentions.

Coach Des Hasler has apologised for the lack of consultation and communication with the players, and said he was concerned about the welfare of the men who chose to boycott the game.

Andrew Purchas, from Pride in Sport, said Manly would be the first rugby league team to play in a pride jersey, even though there was a precedent in other codes. “It’s a pity that the players have taken this approach [of boycotting the game],” he said.

“We respect the right for players to have their own views. It’s quite a nuanced topic and it needs to be done comprehensively, [and] needs to be supported by a whole bunch of other activities as well.

“Clearly [the furore] is not great for those who are struggling with their sexuality. I would encourage them to look at the players who are wearing the jersey.”

The chief executive of Pacific Rugby Players Welfare, Dan Leo, said players should not be forced to support a position with which they did not agree. “The power of the rainbow flag has always been that it’s been promoted by people who want to wear it, not forced to wear it,” he said.

“If Manly said we were promoting Christianity without consulting the playing group, if everyone had to wear jerseys saying ‘We Love Jesus’, there would be equal protest. You can’t impose that on people without proper consultation.”

Leo also hoped the issue would not be regarded as just a Pacific Islander one. “There are a lot of people who identify as Christian in this country.”

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************

No comments: