Racism on Disney

We've all watched a Walt Disney film as a child growing up but with no awareness of the subtle racism hidden within the texts. Children are likely to learn and somewhat apply what they've watched along with setting stereotypes on certain ethnic groups that matches characteristics of usually the antagonists in Disney films. Aladdin portrays the Arabs as "Bad" and also with foreign accents while Aladdin and Jasmine speak in standard American English as Giroux points out. Aladdin is almost depicted as an American with his skin colour being almost white despite his ethnic background in the fictional narrative of the film, while Jafar is portrayed as evil as he can be with heavy Arab accents. The hyenas in The Lion King speak in vernacular Afro American accent and are the corrupt enemies of the Lions. The Jungle Book also portrays the orangutans and gorillas as having black accent which leads to connoting black people as animals. It is hard to think of many Walt Disney children targeted films with blacks or other ethnic groups being portrayed in a positive light. The idea of white supremacy illustrated in films are likely to lead to children acquiring the generalized knowledge of other cultures and reinforcing the idea of 'the other'. Walt Disney films, which possibly is the largest mainstream corporation that produces children's movies, position themselves as contributors to white superiority power whether or not it was their intention to do so. More positive images of 'the others' may be required to balance out this biased stereotyping of other ethnic cultures, to avoid future marginalization of the next generation.

Flight of the Concords and Comedy on Racism

After Thursday’s lecture I got thinking about white comedians that tell jokes about themselves and thought of the Flight of the Concords and their episode “Drive By”. Most of the episodes by Flight of the Concords deal with negative but hilarious stereotypes of New Zealanders and Americans and their misunderstandings when brought together.

Flight of the Concords can be seen as both regressive and progressive at the same time. The season is full of negative stereotypes in which laughter can confirm their validity. One example is the three main NZ characters who are socially slow and backward. However, I think these negative stereotypes are progressive in that they show the white New Zealanders, the dominant majority group in NZ, as abnormal and weird. Therefore their comedy possibly eases tensions between different ‘races’ and make the engrained stereotypes of minority groups appear immoral and insensitive. What is also interesting is that these prejudices are nationality based as opposed to specifically race-based.

In this episode, Bret and Jemaine the (white) New Zealanders are portrayed as the disadvantaged minority, who cannot buy food or enter night clubs. In many ways I see this aspect as disruptive to the norm since it seems unlikely that an Indian American man would deny white men (although kiwi) the right to buy something from his stall. This inversion highlights the seemingly commonsense white privilege and how it is not expected to be challenged. It also portrays the negative effects that racism has on a person emotionally – Bret sits watching television from his safe box sent from home. At the end of this episode, the fruit vendor realises that he had mixed the New Zealanders for Australians and he is suddenly friendly offering them free fruit. Bret and Jemaine seem glad the vendor ‘overcame’ his prejudice for them – but the fact still remains that the vendor is racist just not to them. This humour points out the entrenched nature of people’s racism.

What I also found interesting to discover was that Taika Waititi, the Maori film director, directed this episode. This relates to what we talked in class, that the person who is telling the joke has an influence on the humour itself and its reception. Taika Waititi is said to think that “New Zealand is still a racist environment” even though there are many New Zealanders who think that racism does not exist (Lumiere). Waititi’s ideas about racism against minority groups can be seen clearly represented in this episode and I wonder how different would this episode be if it was directed by the white creators, Bret and Jemaine?

http://www.lumiere.net.nz/reader/item/1899

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zs_rXxi0zhM

Where is home

While listening to one of my favorite bands Bloc Party, I came through a song that had an underlining theme of racism. "Where is Home?" is linked with the murder of Christopher Alaneme, an eighteen year old Nigerian who has moved to UK in 1970s. Alaneme was stabbed to death on 21st of April in the year of 2006 after being racially assaulted by several white men and he happened to be a close family friend of the lead singer Kele Okereke. The police claimed that it was a 'racist murder'. The song directly relates this case with "we all read what they did to the black boy". The song also criticizes the helplessness of the singer himself, of these racisms in UK through personalised lyrics. Okereke emphasizes on the term 'home' and how there is not a 'hope' of settling in in this world of 'different rules'. The song questions the identity of black race in Britain. There were several murder cases which occurred recently in London that included deaths of many blacks residing in the city. The lyrics "In every headline we are reminded, that this is not home for us" once again accentuates the question of identity of black race. This song highlights the still occurring racism in society along with the inability to put an end to it. Okereke stated in an interview that he does not feel "comfortable" as a "second generation black person" and interrogates the society, crying out throughout the song, "Where is Home?".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSD50fbQ610

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/how-the-killing-of-christopher-alaneme-is-a-shocking-insight-into-racist-britain-475670.html

There's black in all of us?

Chris Rock is the funniest guy on earth. I love all his movies (that I've seen so far). One of my favourites is Down to Earh . His character Lance is a budding comedian who is hit by a bus and dies before his time. Wishing to return to earth, but unable to inhabit his former body, he is placed in the corpse of a rich, white Manhattan mogul. Living in the body of a callous old white man would be bizarre enough for Lance without falling in love with Sontee, the beautiful woman publicly battling Wellington's company at the same time. And as if that wasn't enough, he's got to deal with the love affair between Wellington's wife and his personal assistant, and their plot to have him killed.

This theme of black people impersonating white people (such as White Chicks) or in the case of Down to Earth, trapped in a white man's body - making fun of white people is always funny. Its ok? But would it have the same effect the other way round? I think its funny if the black man makes jokes about race, but just plain racism if a white man does it?

"They wouldn't understand"

In the New Zealand film The Tatooist (2007), a horror/thriller about “American tattoo artist Jake Sawyer wanders the world, exploring and exploiting ethnic themes in his tattoo designs. At a tattoo expo in Singapore, he gets his first glimpse at the exotic world of traditional Samoan tattoo (tatau), and, in a thoughtless act, unwittingly unleashes a powerful angry spirit. In his devastating journey into Pacific mysticism, Jake must find a way to save his new love, Sina and recover his own soul” (story line taken from IMDb)

The uncle murders a young boy whom he started doing the tatu on. After discovering that the tatu got infected he decided to kill him and cover up the murder. When Jake questioned why he didn’t take the boy (the angry spirit) to the hospital, the uncle replied that “they wouldn’t understand”. Who wouldn’t understand? The whites? The Samoan? In the end, the uncle is spared his life, but he must live with the shame of what he has done and is no longer worthy to wear the peau (tattoos around the thigh area) and he is forced to peel it off (extreme).

Also, while watching the film, I was wondering whether white people would understand what this film is getting at. This film is designed to educate non-Pacific islanders about our exotic traditions and teach them how important they are. However, there are issues of colonialism also raised by the film that resonates a Maori and White European conflict. In that I mean that sometimes I feel the racial issues in New Zealand are predominantly between Maori and White Europeans (maybe??)? Interesting to see that this film, in my opinion, associates Pacific Island stories of colonialism with that of Maori. For example, throughout the film, Jake is often referred to as ‘palangi’ and everyone just wishes he would go away, ‘back to where he came from’. One of the issues the film raised was the inability of White culture to understand the Pacific culture of shame, cultural beliefs and general differences. The characters often times share their experiences of colonialism where the ‘palangi thinks he can take whatever he wants without asking’. Although, Jake ultimately becomes the ‘white saviour’ in a sense that he figures out the problem and how to solve it, he is also the cause of these problems. He took one of the tools used to do tatau without asking (this particular tool was the one that possessed the angry spirit). The Uncle tells of how the missionaries came over to Samoa to try and convert people, to enlighten them about God. This almost destroyed their tatu traditions. The Uncle says, “The church became Samoan, not the other way round.” Christianity was assimilated into Samoan culture, where they made it their own.

MAORI KING BEER

Like wow.. where do i start.

While flicking from my facebook screen and the nz music gig site I tripped across this headline; 'Maori King ale leaves sour taste' in the NZ Herald. An American company Funkwerks has called its beer 'Maori King' and it includes a stylised moko in the background. The spokesperson of the company says they were unaware there was a Maori King but that in the short term there would be no name change because labelling had to be approved by regulators. I found a chat forum discussing the issue and one of the individuals had commented in response to outraged reactions of some people ; ' All you people want is a handout, a backhanded payment for the use of that stuff. Get over it, its public domain...' This is of course is the edited version because i do not wish to elaborate on the colourful language or the overt racist statements that were made.

In response i posted...

Public domain’ ? Hahaha

If you saw a man walking down the street with a facial moko would you consider that something you could identify with? Would you understand his reasons for wearing a moko? Would you know the history of this ancient art form? Do you know anything about the extensive history of the Kingitanga movement that still lives on at Turangawaewae in Ngarawahia? ..Judging by your previous comments i think not. So don’t try and claim the moko or the Maori King as ‘public domain’ when you and many of the dominant society wouldn’t have a clue of the origins or the value and importance of such things. It is not about money. Its about a fierce ignorance that is attempting to trivialise and reduce a culture i happen to be very proud of to a mere label of an alcoholic beverage.

I feel deeply sorry for you in that you have been so institutionalised by imperialistic ideologies your ignorance has blinded you to such examples of inferential racism that this beer campaign illustrates.

E mara, kia tuwhera ou karu – My friend, open your eyes.

#PROUD TO BE MAORI