Post-Colonialism and New Identities

What does the discourse of postcolonialism mean for the people of races “created” as a by-product of colonialism?

Pakeha is a recognition of the unique blend of New Zealand Europeans and brings them in connection to Maori. It is a ramification of the Treaty of Waitangi when the partnership of British colonial powers were supposed to be cemented. Similarly, Fijian-Indian was a by-product of colonists exercising their power to bring Indian indentured labourers to Fiji, thus forming a unique cultural identity.

When people feel their race is being undermined, collective strength is important in strengthening their identity. What is interesting about this identity politics for the postcolonial races is that, in order to amplify the voice of your unique cultural identity, is indeed to recognise and support the colonial past.

This makes me wonder whether decolonisation is even possible. One may need to undo the social constructions in place which made postcolonial identities what it is. For those relating to the “in-between”, what sense of belonging may they then retain?

South Park

I believe that South Park is an example of both progressive and regressive comedy.
There is what Sarina Pearson calls, “polysemic biomodality” evident – as in the text has many levels of interpretation.

Indeed, South Park does seem to confirm negative racial stereotypes. For example, its character “Token” is the sole African American child of their school, hence the name “Token Black”. Because of the lack of diversity in African American child characters, Token may seem to represent one version of African American, thus enabling a burden of representation and exacerbating racial stereotypes.

On the other hand, South Park implements this strategy for many characters, including its main characters (especially Cartman). It thus is used as a vehicle to ridicule society’s construction of these negative stereotypes. When Cartman puts down Kyle for “being a stupid Jew”, is argument is not actively supported by the creators as Cartman is characterised idiotic and heartless, thus his opinions do not carry weight with the audience.

whiteness

Although I may study discourses of racism, it never ceases to upset me each time whiteness is so dominant in the working order of everyday life, that it is in the expense of my identity.

Recently at work my colleague laughed when I said that I was a Kiwi. He said, “I’m sorry, but you only have to look in the mirror to know that you are not Kiwi. You are black.”
Indeed I am. I am Fijian-Indian, and although I was not born here, I’ve lived here for 15 out of the 19 years of my life. I would say that I have assimilated to New Zealand culture, on account of moving here so young – I didn’t know I had to adjust to something else.
I challenged my colleague’s point of view, asking that say hypothetically if I was a white German who had lived in New Zealand for the same amount of time, we would not even be having this conversation because the fact that I would be white would be enough to constitute me as a Kiwi.
He agreed.

This was clearly an example of what Richard Dyer states in his book White, that, “the property of whiteness, to be everything and nothing, is the source of its representational power.” My colleague’s point of view completely removed all the non-white New Zealanders from claiming selves as Kiwi. To belong, to be normal and indifferent, one must be white.

Interestingly, my colleague has only lived here for three years, and he himself is not white. As Herman Gray argues, “whiteness is the privileged yet unnamed place from which to see and make sense of the world.” Whiteness has a prevalent and superior affect on those living, or associated with colonised land. I have never disagreed with the fact that my ethnicity is Fijian-Indian, but when my Kiwi nationality is disputed, despite many struggles to integrate from my family, it is frankly disheartening.

Identity should not be invalidated by others in its exercise of Whiteness, it should matter only how you identity yourself.

Does 'othering' a problem make it easier to ignore?

Apparently this week the world's population will pass 7 billion.

I've read a few articles that have discussed both how the world's population has grown so fast, and why it is a problem.

It is interesting to see the difference in approach of these themes.

The why it's a problem side of the articles makes it clear that world population growth is a global problem. Indeed, with globalisation, the world is so interdependent for resources that this is pretty simple to understand.

However, the cause of the problem is always the developing world. The articles point to birth rates of around 2.1 babies per woman in developed countries (around the rate of 'replacement', meaning the same amount of people are dying and being born), and high birth rates in Asia, even rates of 5 and above in some African countries.

There's no doubting that this is causing world population growth. However many of these articles ignore what might cause these high birthrates (such as poverty and a lack of birth control). Even so, some of these stories are illustrated using photographs of Indian or African babies.

This 'othering' of the problem is interesting. It puts the problem out of reach of the 'developed' world

Last Airbender racially divided

The Last Airbender (M. Night Shyamalan 2010) is a film set in an ancient time where there are four main nations-the fire nation, the water nation, the earth nation and the air nation. The fire nation has taken it upon themselves to rule over all of the nations and become the most powerful nation. The only one who could stop the fire nation is the Avatar but he had disappeared but recently returned through a young kid called Ang and now he has to save the world.

Looking at M. Night Shyamalan’s film The Last Airbender based on the nickelodeon children’s television series Avatar: the Last Airbender there has been controversy over the fact that the different nations are racially divided in the film. Reading a UGO article online it readily points out these racial anxieties that may have triggered a public loathing of the film. Jordan Hoffman (interviewer) suggested to M Night the two leads are white yet they live among an Inuit community and M Night Shyamalan replied “When you see the whole movie, where the characters go, the Northern Water Tribe all have the European look that Sokka and Katara have, with a few exceptions here and there”. The fire nation which are the villains seem to be Arab such as the many villain characters in the 80s hard body action flicks. The racial division has caused tension among the fans of the popular tv series.

There are two issues at work here the fact that 2 white actors perform the two Inuit characters in the cartoon series brings up the issue of naturalization and the way white actors have a tendency to play ethnic or indigenous characters through the past decades as raised by Julie Codell in her article.

The other issue is orientalism specifically dealing with Arabian characters. Arabs are always shown as stupid, thieves and crooked evil men. The Last Airbender is no exception as it shows the Arab looking characters as the villains.

Rugby World Cup Indigenous spectacle

The New Zealand rugby world cup opening ceremony was an exotic spectacle. It showcased a unique mixture of Polynesian and Maori culture through exoticism. The New Zealand Pakeha people tended not to see themselves as part of the exoticism of New Zealand. Pakeha communities tended to see themselves as outside of ethnicity and outside of race. “This maintains the position of white people at the top of the racial hierarchy which was constructed in nineteenth-century” (Bell 148-49). White culture is thought as the national culture as it dominates the New Zealand social way of life (Bell 148-49). The Pakeha way of life in New Zealand is thought as a universally shared lifestyle. However Maori culture becomes part of the national culture when “distinctiveness and ethnic exoticism is called for” (Bell 148-49).

It seems in New Zealand the Pakeha way of life has been considered as the custom but the Maori culture is put on display when ethnic exoticism is needed. In a sense Maori culture seems to be exploited to provide an indigenous exotic image of New Zealand to the rest of the world. This is what seemed to be happening during the rugby world cup opening in October this year. Aspects of Maori and Polynesian exoticism in the opening showcased something unique and unseen to the rest of the world, this sort of displays exoticism in a positive light but it also compromised an indigenous culture (Maori and Polynesia) to fit into a Pakeha context.

Sue discusses the idea of appropriation and the way the colonizer or the dominant group take over aspects of indigenous groups for its own benefit (Sue 2011). In this case Maori and Polynesian performance seems to be taken over to benefit a wider audience-the rest of the world. The Maori and Polynesian performances would arouse the curiosity of many spectators and provide an indigenous spectacle. The Maori haka performed was shown with flashy dazzlingly visual effects which created an atmosphere of cultural and ethnic richness. The displaying of the Maori haka had fit into the Pakehas’ fictive idea of a Maori mythical past of spirits and rituals.

Bell, Avrill (1996). ‘We’re Just New Zealanders’: Pakeha Identity Politics. In Spoonley, Paul MacPherson, Cluny and Pearson, David (eds.), Nga Pati: Racism and Ethnic Relations in Aotearoa/New Zealand. (pp. 144-58). Palmerston North: The Dunmore Press.

“Talking In” through The Orator

2 weeks ago I watched The Orator (dir: Tusi Tamasese, 2011) the first feature film entirely in the Samoan language which for me personally as a Samoan felt culturally authentic. Despite the film being funded by the New Zealand film Commission and having English subtitles running along the bottom of the screen, The Orator felt far more personal to a Samoan audience. The film was made by and for Samoan people. The humor and the poetic beauty of the vernacular did not translate the same feeling across the English subtitles.

Therefore The Orator conveyed to me what Barry Barclay suggested as “talking in”. Barry Barclay further states that “The Te Manu Aute constitution proclaimed a right and responsibility for any culture to present itself to its own people in its own way- to “talk in” (75-77). Sitting in the cinema I had an overwhelming feeling that The Orator was “talking in” to a distinctly Samoan audience. The uncompromising nature of the film reflected the essence of Samoan culture in a way that other ethnic groups would not understand. It captured Samoan culture through a Samoan lens. It was one of the few rare occasions when a Samoan is able to represent Samoans onscreen.

Tusi Tamasese (director of The Orator) displayed Samoan issues and concerns that were not known in other ethnic groups. He communicated to a Samoan audience the difficulties of the Samoan way of life (fa’asamoa). The film does not compromise to convey to others outside of Samoan culture what the Samoan life is like therefore those reading the English subtitles may not find the jokes as hilarious as Samoans would. This is strongly felt when viewing the film. There is a great degree of insider jokes that only Samoans would understand and thus it provides a more intimate connection to Samoan communities. This is particularly what Barry Barclay aimed to distinguish as a stronger relationship of an ethnic group talking to their own people before talking out to a wider group.

Barclay, Barry (1990). Talking In. From Our Own Images. (pp. 74-80). Auckland: Longman Paul.

Barry Barclay's Talking In

I want to look at how Hunting Aotearoa relates to Barry Barclay's model of Talking In/Talking Out. As we learned, this model explores the idea that indigenous cultures have a right to talk to one another in they own way, something which should not be taken up by another ethnic group or race. These people should freely be able to communicate through media in ways which are fundamental to them, something which Maori Television provides a platform for Maori in New Zealand. This communication should also be free for anyone to participate in and enjoy but should not be altered.

Hunting Aotearoa is a television show on Maori Television which claims, "Is currently New Zealands only Television programme dedicated to Hunting and Hunting Enthusiasts." It is hosted by Howie Morrison Jr. in which the show, 'draws on the everyday practices of hunters an rural communities who employ hunting as a means of providing kai to whanau and friends'. Some of the show, in particular the greetings and farewells are spoken in te reo but is mostly in English although subtitles are always provided. The show travels all across New Zealand meeting with different hunters and gatherers. These people welcome people to their lands and endeavor to share the nature which encapsulates it much like Barclay's concept of the communications marae. The most interesting part of this show is that it crosses racial boundaries. The show hosts Maori of different tribes and tikanga, Pakeha, and even Canadians and other foreigners living in New Zealand. What the show highlights is in fact not racial and economic differences like most mainstream television shows tend to inevitably portray, but instead shows how similar one another are. No matter which ethnic group that appears on the show, they all have a holistic love for a sport which provides for their family and loved ones. It is this shared passion which each guest has that highlights that no matter what ethnic background you come from, your family remains paramount. Maori and Irish hunters alike are brought together on this show and can therefore be seen to be an example of a show which talks in and talks out for the Maori community. Images like the one seen above with Maori and Pakeha sharing an equal passion for something is rarely seen these days which is why the show is such a warm show to watch. Like Country Calander, Hunting Aotearoa lets a community speak to one another and does not forbid entry but makes sure it does it in its own way. I would highly recommend watching this show as long as you don't mind a bit of gore on your weekday evenings.

"To this day, hunting is still a rich source of kai for many of our people. It has been ingrained into the fabric of our rural communities. Hunting Aotearoa takes a genuine and exciting look into the hunting trips of the present day hunter while also acknowledging the traditional hunting methods of our ancestors."

Boy and the concept of polysemic bimodality

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwqfR8g-Qow

Sarina Pearson's concept of polysemic bimodality explores the idea that a text, in particular comedic texts, can be a complex discourse, one which can involve multiple and simultaneous interpretations depending on who the audience is at any given time. I want to look at a film which topped the New Zealand box office in 2010, Boy and its relation to Pearson's concept. Boy was New Zealand's highest grossing film in 2010 grossing approximately $NZ 9,294,500. A film set on the east coast of New Zealand in a small Maori community of Waihau Bay about a young boy who was coming to terms with a new addition in his life, a colourful but more or less failure of a father. The film warmed the hearts of Maori and New Zealanders alike with Boys struggle to get through primary school in small town New Zealand in the 1980's. For many Maori, Boy was a satirical look at the hardships of coastal life which many Maori have suffered, hence their large migration to city centres. The innocence of Boy himself and the outrageousness of Alamein his father was a colourful combination which was impossible to turn away from. But although many Maori and possibly other minority groups in New Zealand felt a close connection to the relationship, the concept of polysemic bimodality raises issues of potential concern. For many, in particular the dominant Pakeha group, Boy confirmed stereotypes which mainstream media have relied on for a long time. Alamein, the father who is absent from his children's childhood, was violent, gang affiliated, and was a drug abuser, was more or less a stereotypical Maori father in the eyes of many New Zealanders subject to the mainstream representation of Maori males in news and media texts. The fact that the film walks on a fine line of comedy and drama is the reason the reception of it is hard to fathom. The film comes in and out of satire and seriousness, humour and furor. It is no denying the fact the many New Zealanders enjoyed the film. The question is why? Did they engage with the eighties culture, empathise with boys abandonment issues or did they enjoy it because it showed a minority group taking the mickey out of themselves which reaffirmed their preconceptions of Maori culture from previous media engagements? Boy is a beautiful film. Its reception however, may be a good laugh at the cinema for most but it also may come at an expense for the Maori identity in New Zealand in particular Maori males, which is a shame, although I would not seek to blame the creators of the film at all.