EMBRACING OTHERNESS IS EMBRACING MYSELF

I was walking down queen st when I saw this posted on the wall outside a shop. I thought it was eye-catching and thought provoking... but i haven’t quite figured it out yet.

Is it the dominant society accepting the ‘otherness’?

Is it the ‘otherness’ accepting that they are the ‘other’?

Is it everyone accepting the ‘otherness’ so that we can all accept ourselves?

Perhaps.

Fear of the unknown and the unfamiliar is what drives people apart.

Guess the discussion continues...

TV "Happy Endings"- for who?

Following tutorials in looking at Herman Gray's theories of representation of minority groups in television, I was surprised to think of how many examples there were. However, one stood out to me for several reasons. Firstly, it was so subtle, I had hardly noticed it which was perhaps due to the comedic nature. Secondly, I found it amusing. This was problematic as it revealed to me that despite all attempts, being inferential (Stuart Hall) can surprise you and take you off guard; these stereotypes are without a doubt instilled in our culture.

A few weeks ago, on Wednesday night, I watched a half hour comedy show called 'Happy Endings'. Two of the characters are married, a white woman and a black male and they are of middle class. In thinking of assimilationist television shows, I remembered this one as having only one black character who is undoubtedly assimilated into the 'white culture'. As Gray notes, black characters can often only assimilate with white groups on television if they have dropped all elements of their culture and social life- I have never seen this character have any black friends.

There was one stand out moment in the show, which insinuated a separation for the black male and his race entirely. The husband and wife were discussing if their friend should 'come out' as a homosexual to his parents. The white lady argued he should be open and honest. Her husband responded:

"Remember how long it took you to tell your parents you were living with a black man?"

This line was delivered satirically as to amuse the audience; there was no insinuation that the man was hurt or upset by the worry cast upon him by his race. There are several insinuations as a result of this.
1. As Gray notes, racism on in television shows such as this sitcom is always an individual's problem which can be later seen as a 'misunderstanding' and easily remedied
2. As the couple are now married, it can be assumed that the white woman's parents met the future husband and realising he wasn't "that sort of black man" approved of him

The second point insinuates that the male is so far from his black culture and social world that the parents could almost see him as a 'honorary white' as was the situation with the Japanese in the past.

This one line finished the scene, it was never brought up again in the episode. After considering the scene I couldn't help wondering who on the show was going to have a 'Happy Ending' if the only black male included has to be entirely assimilated in a white only group

Modern version of pears soap advert?

Hey guys I was just chilling on the internet and stumbled upon this advert.




This ad seems to be quite similar to...


This!



Any thoughts??

GolliBlog

Tonight’s episode of Campbell Live included a piece on Golliwogs. If you are unfamiliar with the term these are dolls that were popular in the 60s, which are based on racist caricatures of Black people. They seem to have remained popular with some people after this time and have recently made a come back. They featured on tonight’s show as a result of a tweet sent out by the US rapper Big Boi to his 300,000 followers. Big Boi is a Black rap artist who recently performed a New Zealand show. On his way through the international airport he was shocked to see a store selling these items. He expressed his disgust by tweeting: “what the fuck are these” accompanied with a photo of the offending toy. It must’ve felt strange for him to discover racist items from Americas past still being sold in a distant land.

John Campbell says how the dolls are based on images that were once very prevalent in American society. This statement is true however in some ways it detaches that history from current American society by seeing the images as a thing of the past. The images are no longer the same but they have however continued to present themselves in new and mutated forms. Popular American culture is full of examples of the black mammy, the tom, and the coon. There is also an issue of representation around this issue. John Campbell seems to be aware of the issues but the story focuses on the conversation between him and another white man who owns a store selling the dolls. Big Boi’s views are mentioned but he is not on the show. This isn’t really the shows fault as he may be hard to pin down for an interview. However John only quotes a black scholar. No black (or non black) scholars with expertise on the subject offer their perspective.

Big Boi does seem to be genuinely offended by the item, it is a shame that what was reported to be a good trip for him ended with this incident. However this did have some positives as it drew attention to the issue. Big Boi’s star power combined with the power of social media shone a spotlight on the problem. Had he not complained the issue would have remained invisible to many members of society. As a result of Big Boi’s comments the airport store in question has decided to discontinue sales of the toy. When Auckland airport was asked if they had received any other complaints prior to this one they refused to comment so it seems likely others have complained before but were powerless to force a change.

An owner of a Christchurch acquisitions store that is still selling the dolls comes on the show to defend his position. He tries to suggest that selling the dolls is not racist by pointing out that he is a “card carrying lefty” who protested the 1981 Springbok tour. This comment shows how racism operates in many different ways and how easy it is for a person who opposes racism to reaffirm it at the same time often without realizing it. His comment seems to undermine the possibility that his actions are part of a racist ideology by positioning him as someone who is anti-racist. This position allows him to say that people are getting carried away.

He also corrects John Campbell by saying that the Gollywog originated out of a children’s storybook. In the book it was a black garden gnome that people were scared of at first but then got to know. The storeowner reveals this information to support his argument that they aren’t racist. It is as though he believes the story is sympathetic to Black society. However as I have seen in many examples in this course stories that may appear to be positive can still be harmful. I am not familiar with this story but it seems to present a very stereotypical image of a Black person that is strongly influenced by society at the time. Even if the story does have a happy ending it is likely that it denies race issues. The fact that this is a children’s book does not make the image more innocent as children are easily influenced by what they see and the image was constructed by an adult.

The storeowner continues to push the idea that these are nostalgic pieces that are popular with his customers. John Campbell calls him out on this by asking whether it is only white people who buy them and see them in this way, and it seems that this is the case. White people buying these for nostalgia purposes are ignoring the social context that these came out of. They came from a very openly racist time in US society and reflect that. Nostalgic views of history will often eradicate any of the complicated issues. These toys are very offensive to a lot of people including Big Boi because of the stereotypes they represent. They may look cute to some people or provide a sense of comfort but they also represent cultural myths that do not sit very easily with the people who are affected by them.

We are drunks too!!

It has been a while since this has been in the headlines and yet I hear comments about it. The new police strategy to use Maori Wardens during the rugby world cup. They will have the power to remove 'drunk or violent' Maori. Now this seems well obviously racist. However, the majority of those who are angry about this has been non-maori. The Maori people have not viewed this at racist, and if anyone should be mad it should be the Maori who are being portrayed as the most likely to be violent and drunk, reinforcing these negative stereotypes.

So there has been a massive backlash about this. The whites think this is racist and one commenting that "there should be ONE law for all".

If it means such a big deal for them then they should by all means let them also take the whites, surely they would have no problem doing that, what exactly would they like? "Pakeha wardens"? It seems to me that whenever there is a law that relates specifically to Maori, the whites want in with it, no matter what it is.

I mean they complain about admissions schemes and they complain about Rangitahi courts, and now this. I think its just ridiculous. These people are in no way affected by such decisions and yet if they are not included they get mad.

It seems that white New Zealand feel that they to be exactly the same as Maori on one hand and yet "the treaty breaches were so long ago we should let it go" on the other hand.

They argue equality and don't want to do anything to get to that point. Historical amnesia and avid equality fighters when it is them that is missing out. Where were they when Maori weren't able to speak our own languages at schools?

White New Zealand making themselves victims of discrimination, I laugh at the ridiculousness of that very thought.

1,2, or 3?

During this weeks tutorial on 'Whiteness' we discussed the 3 approaches to race representations that TV sitcoms usually take:
1. Assimilation/invisibility
2. Pluralism ('separate but equal')
3. Multiculturalism/diversity
The first two having a negative effect in terms of representation and the last being... the closest thing to a positive effect.

I found this a bit difficult to process during class, probably because I have accepted all three unquestioned until 210. In fact, I remember a time when I just wanted so badly for movies and TV shows to represent other ethnicities as the same (as white/western/normal). I should explain that I'm half Chinese, a bit Scottish and a bit Welsh - 3rd generation on all counts and I've grown up with very few ties to Chinese culture. Actually, with few ties to Scottish or Welsh culture too... Maybe this is proof of the 'white and non-whites' ideology? - No one asks me if I speak celtic or if I've been "back" to Britain. Sometimes it feels like my white half is perceived as more kiwi than my Chinese side, but that's a whole different post really.

What I would like to bring up is that, for a lot of New Zealanders, especially 'non-white' NZers, number one and two may not be great for the representation of "Others" but there's a certain wish-fulfillment going on there. Artz argues that interracial buddy films are pleasing to African-American audiences because they give the black buddy character empowerment, respect and acceptance within/despite his 'typical black' identity. I know that it it's within a white dominance ideology but that doesn't take away the value that it has for that community. But as I write this I realise... the reason number one and two are bad is because they perpetuate the idea that the 'problem' of race is solved through assimilation or pluralism...

I'm an assimilated, NZ born, multicultural citizen and I wouldn't have it any other way but, writing this, I think I'm having trouble grappling with the idea that assimilation is not all positive.

Ideologies of multi-culturalism on TV

In this post I’d like to address the place of race, or rather ethnicity in a TV advert that I’ve been shown recently. It’s a channel one indent from 2007 I believe and one that I’m sure most of us have come across. If not here’s the link,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L4yj5q0n8w

This ad was raised in another course, FTVMS 211 where we were considering the text in terms of how live-ness can be constructed and reconfigured through mediation, although while watching I couldn’t help but notice its relevance to THIS paper.

What stood out from the get go, was the obvious intent of the texts creators to include a message of Bi- or even multi-culturalism in relation to Aotearoa. The theme of ‘one’, often carried through this channels promotionals would here be consistent with ideas of togetherness as a nation and the bundling of cultural identities to portray a multi-cultural NZ image. We are shown a Truckie with a koru tattoo, a Polynesian family, Pakeha farmers and businessmen, a Maori family on the sea shore, a handful of TVNZ personalities also of various ethnicities and at the centre of the short narrative – an inter-ethnic couple with their son; the person who says “one” at the end of the countdown.

Like all high budget texts, this will have been highly planned and constructed, right down to ethnic casting I’d presume. The messages linking NZ with multi-culturalism in this ad are hard to miss!

And why not produce such a message? As NZers or at least Aucklanders, celebration and recognition of diversity is something that I’d think we’re all happy to accommodate and spur along. Although consider for a second if this were not your personal opinion. What if the messages that I have taken this ad to convey are ones that disgust or annoy you? Perhaps cultural diversity isn’t something you want for Aotearoa... An undesirable point of view as far as I’m concerned, although an opinion none the less, and one that I’m sure is held by at least some people around the world.

What I’m attempting to draw attention to here is the idealism behind texts, especially those produced for a national audience and by a governmentally funded and controlled channel such as One. The national ‘reality’ of multi-culturalism that is being ideologically pushed here, is a reminder that every text has a perspective, a subjective point of view, norms and preferred ideas that are chosen to be important. To be specific, it isn’t simply “multi-culturalism” that is promoted here, rather peaceful and even enjoyable co-existance. Although not all existence along ethnic lines in NZ, is completely peaceful – again it is an ideal, a preference comparable to the Benneton ads previously studied in this paper.

This message is valid, absolutely. Although what is important is that such happy-go-lucky ideologies don’t cloud the actually shape of NZ ethnic relations and situations, which aren’t so cheerful ALL of the time right?