Pale Privileges

In class we were encouraged to read an article titled ‘White Privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack’ by Peggy McIntosh. The article discusses unearned white privileges.

 

I would say that at a subliminal level I realise my ‘whiteness’ advantages me in society. However, prior to reading this article I had never consciously considered exactly how my skin colour benefits me. McIntosh claims that this is quite natural, because from a very young age we (white people) have been socialised to be oblivious to our “invisible package of unearned assets”. McIntosh claims that we have been taught to realise that people from minority cultures often occupy a disadvantaged position in society. However, we have not been encouraged to think about why this is; the answer being because white people are over privileged.

 

McIntosh made a list of fifty ways in which she believes white people are privileged in every day life. I decided to see whether I agreed or disagreed with McIntosh’s list, keeping in mind that the article was written in 1988 and from a white American perspective.

 

The first advantage McIntosh listed was “I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time”. Personally, I disagree with this statement on two levels. Firstly, I would not consider this statement to be an advantage. Surrounding yourself with only people from your own culture, I believe leads to parochialism. It does not encourage white individuals to enjoy the exciting aspects and benefits of other cultures. Secondly, it would be extremely difficult in New Zealand to surround yourself with only Pakeha people. New Zealand is very culturally diverse, and is only going to continue to broaden in terms of ethnicity. A place where people are commonly unable to avoid culture diversity is the workplace. The New Zealand Equal Employment Opportunities trust has projected that by 2016 at least half of Auckland’s workforce will be non European, with Maori, Asian and Pacific Island peoples making up a significant percentage of the working population (EEO, 2010). 

 

A further white advantage McIntosh listed was “I can easily buy posters, post cards, picture books, greeting cards, dolls, toys and children’s magazines featuring people of my race”. I believe that in some ways this is an advantage but also a limitation. After reading this point, I went and had a look at the different magazines spread across my dining room table. There were three magazines, and on the covers were Victoria Beckham, Pippa Middleton and Cameron Diaz. I realised that McIntosh was right; I can easily read about white people because they are plastered all over the front of the magazines. I admit that in some ways I do like this because I know who these celebrities are, I am familiar with them and I can relate to them. Obviously, I enjoy reading about white people because I buy magazines which feature them.

 

Whilst writing this blog I could hear the television in the background so I decided to have a look at what my six year old sister was watching. She was watching a programme called ‘Little Bill’ where the protagonist is a little black boy. I sat with her until the advertisements came on which said the following programme was going to be Dora the Explorer, which features a Spanish female protagonist. I thought to myself that perhaps McIntosh was mistaken, that perhaps media content is becoming more reflexive of the worlds increasing ethnic diversity. However, I changed channels and found the next two channels were playing Barbie and Tinkerbell. It was at this point that I realised, McIntosh’s statement was indeed correct. If we want to only read, watch and hear about people of our own race it is relatively easy, all we need to do is change the channel, buy a different book or listen to a different radio station.

 

Whilst, I have to confess to predominately consuming media content that features people of my own race, I also believe that our ability to do this is extremely limiting. Once again, I feel that only interacting with material that supports our own culture often enhances feelings of cultural superiority. Limiting our knowledge of cultures that are different to our own, makes us quicker to stereotype them, and categorize them into one homogenous group which is often referred to as ‘the other’.

 

Although I have only discussed two of McIntosh’s perceived white advantages, I feel that I have touched on some important topics with regards to race, familiarity, the media, and the notion of the ‘other’. I can see how McIntosh refers to both points I have discussed as hidden white advantages, but I believe that if we want to have better inter-cultural relationships then McIntosh’s points should not be really viewed as advantages at all.

 

Reference

EEO Trust. (2010). Diversity management in New Zealand’s workplaces 2010. Retrieved from http://www.eeotrust.org.nz/toolkits/index.cfm

 

 

Exotic? or the Uncivilized

Being a media student, I am interested in all kinds of films, but most of all documentaries. Something that I recently noticed watching a tourism documentary was how Asia was portrayed. For the recent few decades, economy of nations such as Korea, Japan, China and Singapore has rapidly grown, hence developing up to the standards of the western society, but yet, Asia in such documentaries was being portrayed as they were 50 years ago (When Japan was destroyed by war, Korea was in top 10 list of poorest nations and when China had closed door policy where they refused to adopt a lot of western influence). The documentaries themselves were portraying and creating Asia as an exotic and uncivilized place introducing activities, food and places that me being a 1.5 generation Korean as well as a New Zealander has not been to. (In this case Korea) When I was about to accept and believe that “maybe, that’s how things are”, I was introduced to the concept of Eurocentrism. The term Eurocentrism refers to an approach that takes European values, judgments, beliefs, and cultures as normal, natural and ideal, hence making the European values central and dismissing others to the periphery.
Such portrayal of Asia was something that frustrated me for a while, it wouldn’t be wrong to say that Asia was the way it was portrayed but I wouldn’t be right to say today’s Asia is how it is portrayed in some of today's tourism documentaries. Thinking about the term Eurocentrism, I realized that portrayal of Asia as an uncivilized and exotic place, connotes Eurocentrism where the western society see themselves as the civilized and superior over Asia. Although it could be seen that the primary aim of such documentaries is to promote tourism, the ways of filming and some of its context mediates Eurocentrism whether it was intended or not. And maybe, the reason why Asia is still represented in such way is due to “Burden of Representation”. The term "Burden of Representation” is when a society or a group of people are represented by a single character or an icon, character's role and action will determine the stereotype of the society he/she is representing. The fact that Asia being unable to change how it is represented in western media supports an ideology in "Burden of representation" of the sensitivity around stereotypes and distortions largely arises, then, from the powerlessness of historical marginalized groups to control their own representation. Through this example, it can be said that the multi-cultural society we believe to live in is not really multi-cultural but Eurocentric in many ways.

Cultural difference

I have two younger brothers below me with a one year gap between the each of us. Having only a year gap between one another, we have always been educated in the same way, at same schools, played the same games and did everything together. No difference really became apparent until we reached a certain age. Until then I was never aware of what a big difference that one year could make in terms of the cultural gap it had created and the different lens we perceived the world in. Even though we moved to New Zealand at the same time, I soon grew to realize that not all three of us possessed equal amount of the two cultures. I moved to new Zealand at the age of 7 yet associate myself to be more a Korean, however for my youngest brother who moved here at the age of 5 when asked he always states himself to be more of a kiwi. As we grew the cultural gap became more and more apparent in many different ways. I could speak Korean when he could not. I enjoyed watching Korean television where none of my brothers really understood any humor behind Korean jokes. What became the most divisible line between me and my brothers were not only the different groups of people we associated ourselves with but also why the one year gap was making such a difference when perceiving media texts.


Last Thursday's lecture on racial politics and comedy was very interesting for me. I laughed so much during the lecture until the moment I stumbled upon a little comic strip on my own race displayed near the bottom of the slide. Although we didn't pause long on the comic strip during the lecture, it was something that really caught my attention and to some extent made me feel uncomfortable. The content was concerned with the issue of Koreans eating dogs, which is something that I cannot deny. However, it is uncommon and I was nervous to think how others may stereotype Koreans and the kind of impression they would perceive from this text. To be honest, I did not quite understand why people would make jokes out of such issues and to whom the text was aimed at. However, when my brothers were later exposed to similar material, he did not react in the same way I did. In fact to be frank he didn't seem to care at all and found it funny. This made me question why I was feeling so horrible whilst he was not if we had been exposed to the same cultures and grown up together in the same environment. He further stated that some of his friends once joked about it and it was totally fine, and in fact I noticed him a couple of times pulling Asian jokes around his Pacific and Maori friends and wondered if this brings him any closer to breaking physical boundaries between him and his friends. Although I was feeling uncomfortable about such text, I also had to remember that moments ago it was me laughing at racial comedy that was aimed at other cultures. However, I still don't quite understand why one year is making such a big difference to how we perceive media text. It also makes me question firstly who the texts are really aimed at and why some find it appropriate whilst others don't .

Me no speaking Enlgish

I recently had an interesting experience during one of my shifts at Starbucks. An old lady entered the store. We exchanged smiles as she approached the counter, and she placed an order by stating slowly and clearly: “One. Flat. White please.” Obviously she had assumed that maybe I would have difficulty in understanding English, and her reaction was “Whoa! Your English is very good?!” after I answered her in my usual manner. I have had numerous experiences such as this, when people have reacted as if they were pleasantly surprised at the level of English I am able to speak. As much as I want to accept this observation as a compliment to my intelligence (?), most times I find myself thinking “Dude, what do you expect? I’ve been around here for 17 years”. So, the question is: What did the old lady expect?

When I think what I think, I’m not at all annoyed or insulted, but just as surprised as the sweet old lady. I am Korean, and my family came to New Zealand early in my life. So for me, it seems only natural that I am able to communicate the way I can through the use of English, because the way I have learned English is through the same learning process and educational facilities as the kids I grew up with. The only distinction is that I happen to be Asian. Now, obviously the old lady couldn’t have been aware of my life’s circumstances, but the question lies on what she expected from me not knowing the information. Shohat and Stam’s notion of the ‘Burden of Representation’ discussed in class and the readings seems applicable to the situation. The old lady’s expectations of me had been influenced by some form of representation of Asians such as the media, or maybe it was personal experience. But even if it turns out that her assumption was based on personal experience, the act of generalising her experience as being applicable to every Asian is what Memmi has called the “mark of the plural”.

Another interesting point in my story of the old lady is her reaction. Her comments on my English being “very good” seemed more like a compliment than a simple observation. Does this mean that just because I can communicate and express myself through the use of English at a level that is “very good”, I somehow positively represent Asians? And let us say, hypothetically, that this is in fact the case, why does my ability to speak English coherently become a positive attribute personally, and to Asians in general? In this sense, her reaction implies a disadvantage, if not a problem, of not being able to speak English. Of course I believe that her intention was to be considerate (in reference to her expectations), but a ‘Eurocentric’ idea seems to be implied in her reaction. Those who give compliments position themselves in the dominant role to acknowledge the lesser. As it has been discussed in class and the readings that the world seems to operate through a Eurocentric system, the English-speaker (English being the dominant language of the West) is positioned as the dominant compared to the non-English speaker.

Or maybe I read too much into it?

It's just a joke...

In support of friends I found myself reluctantly attending The Law Revue this Friday. Harbouring tentative hopes it would not prove as racist and sexist as I had been warned; it wasn’t long before these hopes were swamped in endless “jokes” about Maori inferiority and periods. Judging by the laughter from the theatre however, my disappointment was clearly not felt by the majority. Which got me thinking about our recent lecture on comedy and race.

Jokes in which Hone Harewera burnt hash brownies to tag lines such as “Maori, even when white people try to help them they still f**k it up” appeared in every third sketch or so. And the largely white audience lapped them up. Mentioning afterwards to a friend how often the idea of Maori as inferior was raised she agreed it was a little over the top but was, after all, “just a joke”.

As Gillespie pointed out in our reader, “most humour is based on some form of degradation” (93) and as such these jokes are possibly not remarkable. But she also argues that “the telling of the tale, the teller, the context of its telling and the social power relations between participants play a critical role in determining who laughs with and at whom and why” (94). Looked at in light of this, the revue was little more than a show of white hegemony and the degradation of other cultures. This is particularly embarrassing given that Generation Y is supposed to embrace multiculturalism in a way others have not.

This hegemony manifested in a number of ways. First, the show was produced by university students, a group within which Maori are underrepresented. Second, it appeared to only include two performers who identified themselves as Maori, in a cast of around thirty. And thirdly, it played (and appealed) to a largely white audience, never once making a joke about middle-aged heterosexual white men.

Though some of the jokes were meant to be ironic and pitched to an educated audience who “knew better” than the stereotypes, this could not be achieved in the context in which the play occurred. With so few Maori performers and audience members, the show could never have strengthened racial relationships by allowing multi-cultural participants to laugh at themselves and one-another and in so doing realise the absurdity of their prejudices. Instead it degraded racial others for cheap laughs.

I couldn’t help but think that had this performance been made on a Marae, its mockery of the powhiri and other traditions would not have been so readily accepted, nor so hilarious. It was racist and it revelled in it, largely because this was a ‘white arena’. Perhaps I took it all too seriously, but I can’t help but think that laughing at people behind their backs, and the fact that young, educated people find Maori culture SO hilarious is quite disgusting.

Sciven, Michael and Roberts, Emily (eds) Group Identities on French and British Television. NY and Oxford: Berghan Books.

Facebook and Racism

On Facebook it is very noticeable to see the amount of humorous 'racist' pages that exist. There are countless pages mocking different ethnicities. Reducing them to their stereotypes and setting up the opportunity for the entire Facebook community to laugh at these racists remarks. These pages which people can 'like' act as sites that further encourage racist comments and develop into a forum for people to argue their viewpoints. I have noticed in particular there is a lot of pages that pinpoint Indian culture. For example:

"Going to India and becoming a taxi driver just to see how they like it"
"Not attending your arranged marriage, because you're a fearless Indian"
"I have an Indian friend, and yes they're a Patel"

These pages along with many others target the stereotypes of Indians, such as being taxi drivers, eating curry and wearing turbans. Other races are not exempt, these pages make remarks about countless races. Such as:

"In a maths test- Hemi and Rangi have $2, "bullSHIT they do."
"Seeing a Asian Woman with a old man, and thinking He bought her online"

In one way these sites are potentially embarrassing for a culture though i am very aware these pages are quite tame and can be seen as simply jokes. In many cases it could even be someone from the race 'liking' the page and laughing at their own culture. But it really begs the question why in the first place people feel the need to make these jokes. Sometimes these jokes are not 'funny' and they appear much rude which encourages a reaction from Facebook to remove the page. The page: "my turban brings the taliban to the yard, & their like, we wanna bomb cars" was eventually shut down by Facebook as it promoted too much negative feedback and ultimately did not adhere to the Facebook Terms.

Facebook is quickly becoming a ubiquitous internationally, therefore it is having a huge influence on society. As a result these Facebook groups can give us an insight to the large role racism has in our society. In the case of these pages racism is getting taken lightly and has become simply a 'joke'. Though we should understand there is a fine line between humour and offensive racism.

The Mammy Caricature

The Mammy character is a constructed symbol that served the political, social and economic motivations of dominant white American culture from times of slavery through to the Jim Crow era. The caricature of an African American woman was originally used as a way to prove to people that slaves – and in this case female workers – were extremely pleased, sometimes even downright overjoyed to be working for their white superiors. The mammy, like all other caricatures often takes a truth and blows it out of proportion so totally that the original idea is barely recognizable. In most cases, the caricature depicted an African American woman who was an overweight, crude maternal symbol who had persistent devotion and love for her white “family” but often treated her own family and culture with contempt. Although she frequently came from a large family with many children, the character was completely desexualized. The white family owned her, though this was rarely ever explicitly stated, the idea was that she wanted to be there and was a faithful worker. Clearly, the mammy caricature was far more mythical that factual.

Mammies from the slavery period of American history did not want to be liberated. She was too happy serving her white family and engulfing white southern society’s children in her large, maternal arms. The mammy figure was so loyal to her white family that she was often willing – and required to- risk her own life to defend them. A great example of this phenomenon comes from the shockingly racist film ‘Birth of a Nation’ (1915) based on Thomas Dixon’s novel ‘The Clansmen’. The Mammy in this text defends her white master’s household against African American and white Union combatants. The significance of this behaviour was clear – Mammy would rather fight her family’s enemies than be free.

The Hollywood classic ‘Gone With The Wind’ (1939) contains another strong model of the black Mammy ideology. In this film, similar to in ‘Birth of a Nation’ the Mammy character embodied by Hattie McDaniel battles African American soldiers whom she believes may hurt her beloved white mistress – the infamous Scarlett O’ Hara.

Except for a few examples the Mammy character has for the most part disappeared from the silver screen since the death of Annie Johnson- an actress who often took on the Mammy role. The uprising of black audiences and black pride in America shrunk the market for films that perpetuated the Mammy myth, particularly in the 1970s. The attempted elimination of old racist stereotypes encouraged the creation of a new female African American persona on screen- the empowered, attractive and outspoken black woman, portrayed by actresses such as Pam Grier and Cicely Tyson. Some saw this as a huge turning point for the portrayal of black woman in the media but it is still generalizing a people- and unlike the Mammy character, is still seen regularly in films made within the last decade such as the character of Vernita Green in Kill Bill Vol. 1.
Although films like ‘Birth of a Nation’ and ‘Gone With the Wind’ can seem ridiculous now, with the stereotyping of Black people being so blatant and infuriating, they are still important to watch to remind ourselves of the racist ideologies that were prevalent in western society only decades ago. It is also important to remember that the pigeonholing of African American woman into certain broad caricatures of real people has not stopped in western cinema.



Bogle, D. (1994). Toms, Coons, Mulattoes, Mammies, & Bucks: An Interpretive
History of Blacks in American Films. Continuum , 57.
DelGaudio, S. (1983). The mammy in Hollywood film I'd walk a million miles —
for one of her smiles. Jump Cut , 28, 23-25.

Goodness Golly - White Toy or Tool?

Friday night before settling in to watch NZ’s NTM my attention was grabbed by the lead story on Campbell Live – seems that hip-hop star Big Boi had tweeted photos of golliwogs on sale at Auckland Airport as he left the country. The seemingly racist name we called our rugby team had caused confusion for him until it was all explained but the sale of these dolls just left him quite rightly outraged. “Ok all blacks is a rugby team but what the **** are these …” was his succint comment (ok he didn’t tweet the stars but ...). John Campbell had an interview with the owner of the shops (it’s a nationwide chain), Richard Thompson who described himself as a card-carrying lefty, as if that gave him an automatic dispensation for any reasonable responsibilty for selling the dolls with their negative connotations. He took care to state that for many people they didn’t carry any such traits and were just nostalgic reminders of old times, and that they sold really well – 80 over the last three months! Nostalgic reminders of old times they might be but those old times caused immense damage and destruction to many peoples with the subjagation and enslavement that went hand in hand with the good old colonial imperialism that swept the globe setting up the ‘white man’ as master of all he surveyed. This defense of nostalgia indicates to me an insidiously negative characteristic of whiteness; it’s a privileging of experience that doesn’t allow for the ‘other’ to be recognised or identified as someone to whom a serious wrong has been done. The dolls for me do indicate a stereotype of blacks as a happy and naïve child-like ‘other’ – the happy faced fuzzy wuzzy if you like, and for many it is easier to recognise or cast the ‘other’ in this way then to contemplate the awful entrenchment of power and dominance that the dolls actually represent. By infantilising the problem it diminishes its capacity to outrage – they are just dolls is not a defence but a cop-out. To end this post a story - I happened to walk past one of the same shops in the chain in Sylvia Park on Saturday and despite the dolls apparently being removed from sale at the airport after both Campbell Live and the Herald reported on it there was a massive display of gollywogs set up right in the middle of the store, which made me think obviously while we don’t want our precious overseas visitors to see us as racist we are quite happy to continue to be racist in our own midst.

Indiana Jones and the Ongoing Imperialist Fantasy

The Indiana Jones trilogy was definitely a family favourite throughout my childhood and looking back it was clear that I grew up idolizing the central character of Dr.Jones, always wishing that I too could one day be as adventurous -while at the same time as intellectual and scholarly as he was. However after reading and understanding Edward Said’s theory it is very hard not to notice the examples of Orientalism apparent throughout my beloved 1980s franchise, and in particular in the film from the trilogy I am most familiar with – ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’.

Edward Said explained in 1978 in his book ‘Orientalism’ that a Western discourse of the Orient had created a constructed knowledge of the East. Directors and screenwriters did this in part through films by associating ideas- often with no factual backup- to ‘exotic’ peoples and their cultures. If countries in the West saw themselves as the complete opposite to these mysterious and outlandish places and people, then actually, it was themselves that they were trying to define, by showing people examples of what they were not.

So what are some ways that ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’ used “other” peoples as a method to define key characteristics of the American culture?
In ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’ the group of people that seem to be represented with the most with an unfair racial subtext are the ‘Arabs’ within the film. It is interesting to note that the film occurred in a very anti-middle East climate in America; it came out in the very early 1980s, straight after the Iranian hostage situation and at the beginning of the Reagan regime. The key Middle Eastern character in the film is Sallah- a middle aged Egyptian man who speaks English well and has known the protagonist of the film, Dr.Jones for many years. It is interesting to note that John Rhys-Davies- a white Englishman- plays the special ‘Arab’ – somewhat in the tradition of the Imperialist films from the early to mid twentieth century that the Indiana Jones Trilogy references regularly- and claims to be poking fun at.
Sallah acts as a protector of the protagonist and his interests, plus an individual who can get Indiana anything he needs in order to complete his quest. Although Sallah is portrayed as a very jolly and kind person, he is also often depicted as being over emotional. For example towards the end of the film when Sallah puts Indiana on a ship he starts to cry and gives Indiana a prolonged hug, with Indiana making a sound when Sallah hugs him that insinuates that he is being crushed by Sallah’s overly passionate and strong grip. The connotations of this is that Sallah is slightly effeminate compared to the lead character and therefore America, letting his emotions get the best of him instead of taking the rational and reasonable route to a solution like an American person would. Other ‘Arab’ people within Raiders of the Lost Ark are mostly seen as swarming masses, for instance when Indiana loses Marion- his love interest- in a market in Egypt after she is captured by random, nameless middle eastern henchman and put into a large basket. A famous scene depicts Marion and her captors getting lost in the huge crowd of people in the market- with our hero unable to distinguish between any of the ‘other’ people and the many similar baskets that they are holding.

This visualization of the others being for the most part, a collective entity also occurs regularly toward the end of the film, when we see Indiana trying to infiltrate the Nazis excavation of what they think is the chamber that holds the lost Ark. Apart from Sallah in these scenes, the ‘other’ Middle Eastern people here are seen as miserable and dim-witted pawns to the white Nazi villains with no individual personalities or character Arks. For example when Indiana and Sallah are making their way to the Nazi camp, we see many many Middle Eastern men slowly digging for the Nazis in a sad and dejected way while simultaneously singing in another language in a droll manner, thereby reinforcing the idea of them being one nameless, faceless mass of people.

It is easy to reject the notion of Orientalism in popular media such as the Indiana Jones trilogy -especially if you have been a fan of the series for such a long time, and find it difficult to look at the films in a critical way. However, after considering Said’s theory and applying it to the films, it is undeniable that ideologies associated with “other” peoples and using the method of binary opposition to define a western culture are best received by people through mediums such as mainstream films. It may not be that the directors of the three films purposefully set out to load their story with racially offensive material but they should perhaps be more knowing of how certain ‘exotic’ cultures actually operate especially when their films are responsible for being some western people’s only window into another culture.




Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books.

Shaheen, J. G. (2001). Reel Bad Arabs : How Hollywood Vilifies a People. New York:
Olive Branch Press.

Whiteness and White Privilege

Peggy McIntosh’s article about “white privilege” encourages those who read it to make a list of personal experiences where they have noticed forms of “white privilege” in their community. Although I more or less agree with the 26 everyday examples that she gives, (even if some are only applicable to America), I, as a white male, cannot think of any examples of ‘white privilege’ in my own life. The reason being, is that my whiteness and the ‘advantages’ that go with it, have been completely invisible me, and although I am now aware that it exists, it still eludes me. What is worse is that I’m not alone. When members of the public were asked; “what does it mean to be white?” in Derald Wing Sue’s DVD about ‘Whiteness’, many said that they didn’t even consider themselves to be ‘white’, they were just ‘normal’. Even more shocking were comments that ‘racism didn’t affect them’ and that it was an issue only concerning coloured people. This illustrates the extent to which white supremacist ideologies are engrained in western culture. Interestingly, when I asked a friend of mine, who is of ‘colour’, (the term non-white perpetuates ‘white’ as the norm bringing other ethnicities under an umbrella of ‘abnormality’), how they perceived me as a white person, they said that they never thought of me as ‘white’ and that they never perceived their other friends, also of different ethnicities, in relation to their race. What is ironic, however, is that my friend would commonly refer to themself, both in seriousness and in jest, as an ‘ethnic’. If I were to ask them to help me, or do something for me as a friend, they would identify it as ‘cheap ethnic labour’. Regardless of the joke, the term “ethnic” as a form of self-identification is the equivalent to the term ‘non-white’, positioning themselves outside of the ‘norm’, unconsciously aware that they were adhering to the preservation of the whiteness as the dominant race in our society.

So what continues to so successfully and subliminally perpetuate these forms of white supremacy in our society? Is it the news? (McIntosh’s number 5), is it the predominantly Hollywood individualistic white protagonist films, with which the ‘dominant audience’ are meant to identify with? Or is it they way in which western history is presented to the world, through Stuart Hall’s notion of the “white eye”? (McIntosh’s number 6). I don’t know which is to blame, (possibly a mix of all three, but that would be oversimplifying it), I do know, however, that if any change is going to occur, there needs to be public mediations explicitly addressing the extent to which the world has been ‘white-washed’ even in ‘multicultural’ societies such as New Zealand.

McIntosh, Peggy (1988). “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.” New York Model for Batterer Programs. Electronic Article. 19 August 2011.

Wing Sue, Derald. “What does it mean to be White? The Invisible Whiteness of Being.” Microtraining Associates, 2004. Educational DVD.

Where's the money at? Prime-time and representation of multiculturalism

In this weeks lecture on the topic of ‘The Racial Politics of Comedy’, I thought the question that was brought up in regards to why comedies that make fun of themselves such as ‘Bro’Town’ are able to be slotted into prime-time? was a question worth investigating further.

According to Sarina Pearson (2002) prime-time is between 6 to 10pm and is the time “when shows make the greatest impact”. This is a highly contested time for broadcasters and in the past Pearson has noted that shows which centre on Pacific Islanders’ culture tend to be slotted into a Sunday morning time slot, where as, highly rated shows such as ‘Police Ten 7’ are the only place that Pacific Island faces show (p.93).

So from this it could be assumed that television in New Zealand favours commercial success. Achieved by repeating stereotypes that reinforces the majority prime-time audience’s beliefs, allowing a ‘laugh at’ rather than ‘laugh from within’ minority cultures. However the introduction of Bro’Town, New Zealand’s first animated prime-time televisual show, and written by Pacific Islanders, could be read as being a progressive comedy that uses laughter from within to ease tension between different cultural groups. But perhaps its animated style and fairytale narrative sets it back in a place that acts to attempt to talk about racism in a disconnected world where it is much easier to laugh. In this case perhaps its situation in prime-time makes it operate as light relief that offers what is described as “bimodal appeal” to gauge interest larger than a minority audience to guarantee commercial success (Pearson, 2002, pp. 91-92). Although on the outset this could be an obvious answer, when comparing the goal of the programme to that of British-Asian programme, “Goodness Gracious Me”, which claims to work as a “cross-over show” because the writers used their “Asianness” to get their humour across, “not the other way around” (Gillespie, 2003, p.98) Bro’Town also works in a similar way. Bro’ Town uses humour to get ideas based on race relations in suburban New Zealand onto prime-time where their show is able to make the largest impact on New Zealand television. Therefore it must be argued that Bro’Town is a type of “cross over” show which through humour creates a kind of “comic inversion”, a technique which subverts existing stereotypes (Gillespie, 2003).

What is missing from New Zealand prime-time is a show similar to African American show, “The Living Colour”, which operates as a response to traditional discourse, where African Americans can take situations in American history and popular culture to rewrite them in a kind of comic inversion. This creates a new African American text that acts to celebrate and empower African American’s whilst including the white audience (Pearson, 2002). Thus I believe that New Zealand television needs to work harder to create a sense of multiculturalism during prime-time on mainstream networks that work to empower New Zealand’s identity as a multicultural nation. This needs to be achieved before ‘we’ become stuck in a sort of “separate-but-equal” (Gray, 2001, pp. 452 – 454) kind of existence during prime-time, in which Maori Television or Bro’Town is the only place to find acknowledgment of another kind of cultural text but is kept separate from ‘mainstream’ television stations or camouflaged as light relief.

References:

Gillespie, M (2003). From Comic Asians to Asian Comics: Goodness Gracious Me, British Television Comedy and Representations of Ethnicity. In Scriven, M and Roberts, E (eds.), Group Identities on French and British Television. New York and Oxford: Berghan Books.

Gray, H (2001). The Politics of Representation in Network Television. (excerpt). In Durham, Meenaskshi, G and Kellner, D (eds.), Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks. (pp. 450 – 461). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Pearson, S. (2002). Subversion and Ambivalance: Pacific Islanders on New Zealand Prime-Time. In Farnsworth, John and Hutchison, I (eds), New Zealand Television: A Reader. Palmerston North: The Dunmore Press.

Is this really New Zealand Close Up???

Just the other day instead of writing my blog I got side-tracked as you do by the delights of the internet, in my defence I did check out Stuff first to check out the news and straight up on the home page was this front page story (now filed in Technology) which reminded me of the recent lecture where Sue brought up the issue of the Trade Me auction of the licence plate Maori, and the huge amount of racist comments that the plate provoked. After that lecture Sue was also able to show our tutorial class a clip of a debate (for want of a better word) that was broadcast on TVOne’s Close Up programme so I went back to look at that – I wasn’t procrastinating at all this was serious research now. The premise of the debate was great – do new media platforms make it easier to be a racist? The studio guests included sociologist Paul Spoonley, from Massey University, known as an academic expert on racism, Willie Jackson, best known as a radio/media commentator and ex ACT advisor John Ansell the man behind the controversial Kiwi vs Iwi billboards hosted by Mark Sainsbury as a live debate. Sadly however it soon deteriorated into a shout-fest that only confirmed all my worst fears about the NZ media and how it quite insidiously promotes racist discourses. John Ansell immediately turned the debate into an attack on Maori ‘privilege’ rather than the issue at hand which was does the internet allow racism to go unchecked as it can be posted anonymously. He used words like ‘attitude problem’ and raised bizarre claims about the Treaty history. All I could think of was all the viewer’s sitting there on their couches agreeing him, and he even said many New Zealander’s would agree with him. If Close Up considers itself New Zealand’s top current affairs and this was an example of the standard of live interview/debate it broadcasts then I think it’s fair to say that this provided the evidence that the mainstream New Zealand media is built around an inherent institutional and insidious racism – and if you look at the writing of Stuart Hall and the definitions he gives us for both ‘overt’ racism and ‘inferential’ racism Close Up hits the mark in in both cases. To remind you:

• Overt racism: those occasions when favourable coverage is given to racist arguments.
• Inferential racism: the naturalised representation of events relating to race, whether ‘factual’ or ‘fictional’, which have a racist bias in them as an unquestioned assumption.

For me this this programme showed that John Ansell was given free rein to spout some clearly outdated views – which reflects not only his deep racism towards Maori but sadly I feel also reflects the view of the ‘white majority’ that is programmed in to watch TV One and its news and current affairs. Close Up totally missed a chance to have a meaningful debate on racism in New Zealand, sadly I am not surprised.

White Saviour films and the Trampoline effect of the 'Other.'

A particular point of Shohat and Stam’s gave me a surprising ‘light bulb moment.’ In their discussion of the idea of stereotypes and the ‘other,’ their ideas surrounding the film City of Joy give notable insight into the film itself, but also provide a good starting point for a look into various other films. Shohat and Stam’s key point surrounding City Of Joy is that the ‘other’ becomes a trampoline for personal sacrifice and redemption. Another theory that interested me is that of the White Saviour film. When looking further into these ideas, they became undeniably apparent within City of Joy’s Subtext. However, upon this unearthing, I found myself thinking about many of the other films that this could apply to. Unsurprisingly, there was an insane amount of films that came to mind that I believe follow a similar and underlying storyline.

The first film that came to mind was Rambo IV (for the fourth film in a series, it’s still remarkably entertaining). The Rambo series, as stated by Sue, contains a storyline based on the White Saviour film concept. Rambo clearly emerges as the white saviour in these films, as he helps those who are oppressed. In Rambo IV, the ‘other’ acts as a trampoline for the central characters personal sacrifice and redemption, while keeping the white saviour image intact. While Rambo is clearly trying to put his past behind him, he somehow finds himself wrapped up in the killing and violence that has over-run Burma. While trying to stop this violence (with even more violence), he manages to help a community, by eventually taking out a merciless military officer. With the political significance of the film also comes great means for character building, and personal redemption. The Burmese are represented as the ‘others’ in this film, and they are shown to need the help of Rambo in order for their community to become civilised. This ultimately brings them towards a much closer prospect of peace, and the ‘saviour white man’ is what has enabled this. To conclude the film, John is shown going back to his family home in America. There is a sense that this is where he belongs, and an even greater sense that helping the ‘other’ is what drove his personal and emotional breakthrough.

The Painted Veil is another film that stuck out for me. Based in the 1920’s, a young, vein socialite is dragged to a remote Chinese village with her British husband. He is a Doctor, and is attempting to help the village with a massive Cholera outbreak. He helps the Cholera-ridden community, while putting his life on the line for the sake of the people. Eventually, Walter dies, making the ultimate sacrifice. In this film, Walter’s character represents the definitive White Saviour. Although he is not saving them from the effects of colonisation, he is effectively saving them from themselves. Initially, the village will not listen to his advice surrounding drinking water, but he does not give up. Not only does this film strike me as a White Saviour film, but the character of Kitty (Walter’s wife) uses the ‘others’ as a propeller for her own personal redemption. With the help of the people and the local orphanage, Kitty has an emotional breakthrough. She learns to love, and dedicates herself to helping the community, rather than basking in her own vanity.

Both of these films made me think about the representation of White people as the ‘Saviour’ for an oppressed or foreign community. Drawing on Shohat and Stam’s idea of the other, these films also display how the central characters utilise the ‘other’ as a trampoline for their emotional and personal redemption.

Who gets to laugh?

Racial comedy cracks me up. Its gold. South Park, love it, Bro Town (early days), loved it, The Kumars at no 42, loved it and all the race-based comic gold that comes out of stand-up comedy. In launghing myself, or with my white family or (more often than not) white friends I ussually just assume everone else is laughing.

This is because of the priveleged place in our lives comedy exists, it can delve into issues otherwise taboo because its funny. People are allowed to say it so long as it makes people laugh. When people bring race into the newsroom, there's a difference, there's a problem.

I now consider the possibility that I might be wrong about comedy. Just because I'm launghing,
and the people I'm with find it funny doesn't gaurantee it is universally consumed as funny, or even laughed at by the majority. So often the defence of racism in comedy is that its just for fun, an extension of this being that "its funny cos its true." Of course the people who offer these defenses are generally not the target group, the butt of the joke. And when you think about it how often is the butt of the joke White? Apart from appearing in Chappelle's comedy whites are very rarely laughed at. Why? is it because they just aren't funny. Or is it because "white people...function as the human norm?" (Dyer, 1997). White's are not laughed at because they offer the norm, the status quo, what is expected. Consequently we laugh at the deviations from this norm, the driving ability of Asians, in the US the fiscal prudence of Jews, loudnessof Italians, problems with authority of "blacks" etc. White audiences (the dominant audience of media products)and audiences in general often applaud a marginalised social group for being able to laugh at itself. This explains the longstanding affection New Zealand audiences have with Billy T and the success of the likes of Chappelle, Chris Rock, Bro' town and The Kumars and No 42.

The critical point I would like to make however is that the deviations from the norm that are the source of humour all position hence re-instate the position of Whie as the norm. In this respect they are all somewhat regressive. Though they appear progressive in encountering otherwise taboo racial issues and often promoting harmonious relations through subverting difference to humour the continual framing by the "white eye" as constructing "the norm" racial comedy remains somewhat regressive.

Furthermore minorities that serve as the butt of the jokes may not be laughing. The play on racial stereotypes in "the Kumars"or in Bro Town or in Billy T by members of the mocked minority race themselves seem to legitimae the humour ethically for audiences. The defense of this comedy being that "well they're saying it themselves, so its alright now." This stems from the "burden of representation" yet again. Just because one minority person or media product makes a self-referential joke doesn't imply that that entire social group finds it funny. Indeed the three mentioned example sall recieved criticism by memebers of thier social group, most notably Billy T, for mocking themselves in conforming to the white dominated stereotypes of the groups.

Finally, it is siad that "film inevitably mirrors itsown processes of production as well as larger processes" (Shohat and Stam, 1995). I'm extending this quote to include comedy beyond just film.Its hardly a contestible claim that white cultures typically dominate media production and enjoy a privileged place in society. .Consequently its hardly a surprise that comedy products that arrive through media mirror society and processes in laughing at minority groups from a typically White perspective. Or from a minority perspective though conforming to White stereotypes.

Despite this I simply can't stop laughing at racial comedy, its just funny. Maybe it cos I'm white?

On Billy T - Te Movie

Last Sunday evening, I went to see Billy T – Te Movie. The thing I found the most interesting was, I suppose predictably, Te News. In an article written for the New Zealand, Peter Calder states that “the inescapable inference to be drawn from his TV career is that he had to be made into a Pakeha before he could be allowed to be a Maori.” This is a very interesting statement when looking both at the film, and at the comedy present in Te News. In his first television experience he was cast as an Englishman, followed by a presenting role on Radio Times, and both of these roles definitely did help him to establish a somewhat Pakeha identity. He was relatable, and could talk to people who were not Maori, and at a time when there were not many Maori on television at all, this was a great feat.

So when he started doing Te News it is interesting to question whether the racially based humour was harmless fun, or whether it really was harmful to Maori communities. He did face a lot of outrage from the public, especially from a number of Maori activists who claimed that he was portraying negative stereotypes from a white perspective. In Te Movie he claimed that he wasn’t trying to hurt anybody, and that he actually knew people like the one he was portraying, and that they would be laughing.

As mentioned in yesterday’s lecture, there is a difference between comedy which is progressive, and forwards the interests of the minority group in question, or whether it is regressive, and simply reinforces negative stereotypes.

In some senses, it looks as though Te News perpetuated rather than undermined stereotypes about Maori, in the sense that it was portraying Maori as lazy simpletons, but on the other hand, we do need to take into account the entire context. Billy T was a well-established entertainer, loved by both Maori and Pakeha audiences, and the fact that people knew him as someone else than the Te News character might have been a positive thing. He was a successful, wealthy, well-spoken Maori person, and for this reason, the fact that he was portraying someone who was not went to show that the stereotypes were not true. Because it was different to his normal persona, and to the Billy that people knew him as, it showed people that it was nothing more than a stereotype, and could have helped people to realize that they couldn’t reasonably impose that stereotype onto all Maori people.

It affirmed a sense of group identity, wherein one member of a group can make jokes about other members of the group, and ultimately was an attack on racism. The message, rather than being that all Maori people are like this, was that Maori people are as diverse as anybody else, and even though this stereotype exists, it does not mean that everyone should be judged accordingly.

For this reason, I think that Billy T’s comedy in Te News was progressive, and not regressive, in the sense that although it might have been mistook at the time for racism, it was simply a new form of highlighting the tensions between Maori and Pakeha in New Zealand.

Racial Stereotypes and being the 'Minority!!'

When thinking about, and considering some of the key points surrounding racial stereotypes, a substantial amount of personal reflection finds its way into my thoughts. From personal experiences to images I have seen on TV and cinema screens, the idea of racial stereotypes, the burden of representation, and the general way that racial ‘minorities’ are treated are much more obvious.

Being of NZ Maori/European descent, I have had first-hand experiences of what it is like to fall within this ‘minority’ group. Growing up, I had always been in touch with my ‘Maori side.’ That was, until I went to high-school, and I found that the attitude towards Maori ethnicity was COMPLETELY different. Being one of about 15 Maori students in the entire school, I soon found out the harsh reality of the impact of racial stereotypes. Because there were so few Maori, we were immediately thrown into a minority group. Specific lunches, meetings and groups that were organised for us were completely looked down on, and jokingly made fun of by my non-Maori friends.

When listening to one of Sue’s lectures, there was a certain story that stuck in my mind. It was about a kid of Maori ethnicity who was embarrassed when news reports came on TV about people who were Maori. This story stuck with me, as I have to admit (shamefully) that while I was at high-school, I too battled with this kind of issue. After a while at high-school, my friends used to joke about my supposed ‘warrior gene,’ and would make fun of my supposed ‘rough’ relatives. I specifically remember one of my guy mates joking that he had “seen my uncle on Police Ten 7 last night,” which of course, he didn’t. I now wish I had said, “Maybe you saw my Dad then, you know, the real-life Maori Cop?”

Basically, the racial stereotypes that the media portrays affected my high-school life. I had lots of friends who were sheltered with positive white images, and showered in negative images of Maori in the media. The negative effects of assimilation are reflected in the loss of my own cultural and social specificity, in a bid to gain my friends acceptance. This is what I consider to be a first-hand experience of some of the ideas discussed in the lecture, especially regarding assimilation, and especially the burden of representation.

The Burden of representation is a relevant issue that is hugely impacted by the Media, especially in New Zealand. As Sue stated in her lecture, Maori were initially said to be overly kind and loving to their children at the time of colonisation. Now, how has this image changed? It’s not undeniable that there have been issues surrounding family violence, however, do these issues truly lie strictly within Maori communities, or do the media primarily report on those involving Maori, in order to draw more public interest and controversy?

I also believe that the Maori ‘warrior’ stereotype is used as a joke. The well-known ‘Jake the muss’ character is commonly exploited as grounds for humour, as are the general cultural stereotypes. This clearly came to mind when watching the Comedy Gala, as I watched the Irish comedian Jimeion crack jokes with a totally generalised view of Maori. With this comedic attitude and extensive stereotyping, the media’s role in the burden of representation will forever rob those of their individuality, and continue to represent them as an entire group.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpUuOnTE_5Y (Sorry about the video, it was the only clip of this I could find!)

http://www.google.co.nz/imgres?q=the+maori+party,+dont+take&hl=en&biw=1304&bih=664&tbm=isch&tbnid=v_QuG27UJbHbiM:&imgrefurl=http://www.freakensweet.com/YourSay/2008/&docid=R-DOgMs5LTxuZM&w=300&h=240&ei=dDZWTs_XBuLvmAWt55iTDA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=474&vpy=111&dur=9240&hovh=192&hovw=240&tx=100&ty=139&page=1&tbnh=152&tbnw=213&start=0&ndsp=16&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0

Thank You Craccum

So I was a bit eager today and arrived early at one of my lectures, sitting outside and wondering what to do to kill time, and then I stumble upon a copy of dear old craccum. Haven't read one since my first year so I decided to have a quick browse, which led to a quick read of "The World Cup and You' section and fortunately my time was not wasted because it has given me a topic for my second blog before mid-semester break..YUSS!

Okay so back to im sitting and reading... and then i browse upon the RWC section and down in the "Team Most Likely To Cause a Massive Upset" is a description of Samoa's team that their "imposing and aggressive style of play tends to terrify their oppositions, and in some cases (i.e Australians) causes them to shit their pants. The Samoans have no fear." And it gets better they describe the upcoming match between Samoa and Fiji as "Fiji has a lot of pace and rich Sevens history but aren't as big as their Samoan counterparts...this match is almost guaranteed to be a close, extermely physical encounter." Funny guys.

This immediately brought to mind the lecture on Stereotypes and the idea of positive images being used as a way of rebelling against or challenging the stereotype placed upon a group of people. It is a process that proposes to "right the balance". However when the media, in this case craccum uses phrases such as "imposing", "aggressive", "terrify", "have no fear", "big", "extremely physical" and so forth to describe "The Samoans" it no longer seems to be about 'righting' the balance so much as controlling the balance.

Chris Baker states that "positive images fit into assimilationist expectations of white society - that they are part of a need to show that minority groups are 'really as good as' or 'as human as' white people." Despite the adjectives used to describe Samoa's team, I do see that they(craccum) were complementing(or so i hope) the physique or the physical ability of the team. But when these are repeatedly used throughout all media forms then it becomes ingrained within the minority group in the sense of the 'burden of representation'. One time in Australia when my mother was having a chit-chat with a newly made friend, one of her comments to my poor mum that stuck with us was, "aww you dont look Samoan because Samoans are fat", usually this would be one of those awkward moments when a person realizes that they had just verbalized their thoughts, but my mums 'friend' just went on laughing. So being the 'kind' and 'friendly' people (as it says in ads for holiday vacations to the islands) we laughed along hahaha...haha...ha....huh?

Positive images or negative images either way they both place a whole load of..... 'burden' on minority groups. These images conjure a criteria that suggests who you are and what you do. Futhermore they create boundaries of which minority groups become "prisoners of the image", i think thats the right phrase.. or was it 'prisons of image'? oh well you get my gist. The image acts as a form of social control - a tool of those in power to control the powerless(so much for big and aggressive) a neat piece of concealed propaganda within various forms of media.

Anyways to finish off I would suggest that if you haven't already, grab a copy of this weeks craccum, turn to the last page and read the section "The Great Craccum: How-To Guide: How to cover your public racism." I am almost absolutely sure that Craccums editor took this film paper ;)

HA HA HA HUH?

Russell Peters. During the lecture on Orientalism, Russell Peters name came to mind. For those of you who do not know him, Russell is a comedian. He was born and raised in Canada but his ethnicity and his parents are from India. Peters raises a lot of race, ethnic and cultural issues through the use of jokes, these jokes are very enlightening and so truthful that the only way it can be said out loud is through the joke. While watching his shows for the first time, i constantly got those 'ahhhhhh' moments that Sue was talking about, like a lightbulb went off in my head and thought, "hey that's so true! A certain race is totally like that!" I'll post a link at the end to illustrate what the heck I'm talking about.

It's funny I started writing this blog two days ago but had not yet finished it because I was stuck on what else to say and in today's lecture, Sue talked about and even showed a clip of Russell Peters. So now I can add more to this blog and actually finish it! From today's lecture, I believe that comedy can be way of pointing out obvious truths about race and stereotypes and that it certainly does provide a forum to speak of taboos and unspeakable things about ones race. I think a comic text can be both progressive and regressive but I'm leaning towards more of a progressive stance being the optimistic person that I am. Why progressive? Well because at some point, dwelling on the past or dwelling on negative and racist energy just becomes frivolous and you need to move on.

Using comedy can highlight certain harsh yet truthful aspects about different races that would not possible if said in a serious manner. Race has always been a touchy subject area treated with the utmost care and sensitivity, in my opinion some people especially in New Zealand, are a bit too PC. A joke is a joke, it's what it is, trying to make people laugh. Questions do arise about who does the laughing, who is being laughed at and who ultimately gets the joke and who doesn't?

So take a look at these two clips and see if you end up laughing or if you get the joke. If you don't then humour is lost on you. JOKES!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn5jlrxcpkI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34HgvQlWoA0

i am 'other'

In our first tutorial we were told to state how or whom we identified ourselves with. Too easy - I am Samoan. But as each member described themselves I became aware that it wasn't so simple. I realized that in New Zealand most people are aware of Pacific Islanders hence most will have a fair idea of the island of Samoa of which I associate myself with. But when I moved to Australia two years ago and people asked me that same question I proudly stated my Samoan heritage only to get bombarded with statements such as 'oh i thought you were Phillipino' or 'whats Samoan?' or 'where is Samoa?' or 'i thought you said you lived in New Zealand'. I found it amusing at first because many people used my 'features' or outward appearance to classify me as an Asian descent because they had never before encountered Pacific Islanders.

This reminded me of the anxiety caused by the 'unknown', and that this need to stereotype people is not for the benefit of the 'other' but rather it helps the person applying the label/stereotype to identify the 'type' of person that this 'other' is.

And I have experienced the downside of being stereotyped in such a way about 2 months ago. I was waiting for my sister at the Auck Domestic Airport and thought I'll just grab a brochure to kill time when a white police officer approached me and asked for my name and said if I were from Manurewa. I thought I'll be funny and say "If I am, is that a good thing or a bad thing?" Only to get told to give him my full name, address and phone number. You would think my adddress would be enough to tell him I'm not the person he's looking for. But then again maybe it was the way I walked, or the way I talked, or the fact that I picked up a brochure for tourists, or maybe, just maybe he saw my beautiful exotic brown skin and bingo ! There's my girl ;)

Let me be the other that gives the 'white eye' such anxiety to label me. Let me be the binary opposite for without me the 'white eye' will have no function. Let me be 'exotic' so that the quirks of the 'white eye' are normalized. Let me be me for I do not know you.