One thing I found both interesting and extremely funny throughout these clips was the Native comics' abilities to blend aspects of white, mainstream culture with both contemporary and older Native culture. They all seemed to do this very effectively.
In the "Last Real Indians" comic, the artist combined the taking aspects of Native identity and culture by modern, white hipsters with the idea of identity theft protection through "Hipster Repellent." The Chiefs of Comedy blended older Native stereotypical culture with the animal skins and the feathers and the music of the Beastie Boys--definitely a juxtaposition, but funny and done well. The Frybread movie combined the traditional art and competition of making Frybread with the skeleton of a modern, mainstream cooking competition that might be found on the Food Network. This, in a way, mocks how seriously some people, even Natives themselves, might take cooking competitions. It seemed that some of this trailer may have been tongue-in-cheek, but it's hard to tell for sure. Finally, Charlie Ballard's clip (my personal favorite) linked traditional stereotypes of Native peoples with modern stereotypes of gay men. Statements such as "I'm not afraid of getting HIV from white men, I'm afraid of getting smallpox!" humorously combine these cultures.
I think this blending of cultural ideas is extremely effective for these comedians. Not only does it make the clips hilarious, but it also sends a message about the relevance of Native culture. These clips show the links between modern white culture and contemporary Native culture, which is a connection which most white people don't really think exists. Most white people think that Native Americans all still wear headdresses and feathers, or are all sad and angry at white people. This is simply not a fair generalization to make, and these comedians show this. These connections also serve another important purpose, separately for white people and for Natives. The Native humor aspects help the comedians connect to the Native audience, while the jokes about white, mainstream culture help comedians relate to a white audience. In this way, then, everyone is in on the joke, and this greatly helps advance understanding of Native culture for non-Natives.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Monday, March 26, 2012
The Comedy Ladder
In the" Diversity Day" episode of season one of the television show The Office, manager Michael Scott learns an important lesson about humor: who is telling a joke can be the difference between hilarity and offensiveness. While Chris Rock can pull off a joke about Black people on his comedy show, Michael cannot without being complained about to the corporate office. Here is the clip:
Toward the beginning of the clip, after mulling over the difference in consequences for him and Chris Rock, Michael asks, "Is it because I'm White and Chris is Black?"
In Drew Hayden Taylor's collection on Native humor entitled Me Funny, Taylor introduces an interesting idea about humor between and among people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds. Through what he calls a reverse pyramid (or ladder; same essential metaphor) of oppression, Taylor lays down the rules as to which groups can make fun of which other groups. Humor scholars, comedians, and many people from minority backgrounds would probably answer Michael's question with a resounding "Yes!"
I've spoken to many people in my life who have complained about this very issue. They have all been white people harping on about how unfair it is that (insert group here) can make a joke about (insert same group here), but if a white person does it, it's offensive. Needless to say, most of the people I've heard this argument from are none too bright. But it is undeniable that being the majority, being part of the privileged group can be uncomfortable when it comes to humor about and of minority groups. When is it okay to laugh? And should we (when I say we, I mean white people such as myself) be telling these jokes? More importantly, should anyone be telling these jokes?
For me, I tend to laugh when I am amused, and I am amused a lot. I laugh at everything, even when I'm not supposed to. I share this trait with my mom, the only other person in the world I've met who 100% understands my humor. I went through a phase where I refused to laugh at racially charged humor, and then I watched Lisa Lampanelli. I still do refuse to laugh at them unless a professional comedian is making the joke, and sometimes not even then. I have never thought a women's rights joke was funny (which is interesting, because I am a part of that group. Maybe I'm being hypocritical). My point is, maybe it's okay to just laugh when we're amused. We don't have to agree with the humor, but some things are just funny.
However, I don't think the average white person should be telling jokes about Native peoples, or Black people, or Asian people. I am on board with Taylor's ladder of oppression. Don't poke fun at people below you. So, as a middle class, white, female, atheist vegan (and yes, I'm going to go outside racial and gender boundaries into minority choice territory. Deal.), I should be able to make jokes about rich people, males, folks of the Church of Christ, and omnis, since they are all higher and more respected in our society's hierarchy than myself.
As far as whether anyone should be telling these jokes, maybe they should, maybe they shouldn't. The point is, they're going to do it anyway. White people are going to tell jokes about minorities. Minorities are going to keep telling jokes about themselves and everyone above them on the social ladder. (This is why I'm not a philosophy major anymore). While I don't generally agree with white people telling jokes about minorities, there are of course exceptions for those who make their living off of comedy (sometimes). Maybe all we can do is take a stance.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Generalizations and Stereotypes: A Retrospective on the First Half
HOLY CRAP PINK SLIME. IT'S EVERYWHERE.
Okay, so that was totally unrelated, but seriously something you should all check out. It's messed up. And I just saw it on the front page of Yahoo News.
Ahem.
Anyway.
One thing that I've been trying to be more conscious of is not generalizing. That is, trying to recognize that Native peoples come from different tribes and that those tribes can be vastly different from one another, that they don't all share the same opinions or experiences. As I've said in previous posts, some generalizing can be necessary for understanding, but, once you understand, how much should you generalize? Ideally, not at all, but this doesn't seem very possible. We're probably going to do it anyway.
These ideas have really made me consider how most of us do that with any group. Black people are just black people, not South African, Moroccan, Jamaican, Haitian. Feminists think that... Liberals/conservatives believe...
Of course, a lot of this has to do with stereotypes. But there's also another level of generalization, one that's less intentional, less cruel than stereotyping. It's me thinking that Native Americans wear feathers. It's that girl in my Shakespeare class saying that feminists would like Helena from All's Well. It's those people I sat next to in the Bear's Den who believed that all Mormons are polygamists. This type of generalization is more about misunderstanding differences within a group rather than perpetuating false perceptions of a group. While it is less cruel, it can have the same effects as advancing stereotypes.
For example, if I decide that all Native peoples are like Paul Chaat Smith and think that white people who are interested in Native people are stupid, I'm going to be disinclined to support their cause. And if I tell other white people that Natives are just angry and don't want our help, those people are probably going to harbor the same feelings of hostility. Certainly some Natives feel that way, but not all do.
The basic difference, then, between generalization and stereotyping is that stereotyping generally springs from a complete lack of knowledge nor care of a particular peoples, whereas generalization can spring from a little information and some care, but a misunderstanding. I consider myself, up until this point, to have been functioning from a state of generalization. I knew the stereotypes were wrong, but I didn't have enough knowledge to know generalizations from specifics.
Where am I now, then? All I know is that I still have a lot to learn. And maybe I'll never get past generalization. Hopefully, though, I can make it most of the way there.
Okay, so that was totally unrelated, but seriously something you should all check out. It's messed up. And I just saw it on the front page of Yahoo News.
Ahem.
Anyway.
One thing that I've been trying to be more conscious of is not generalizing. That is, trying to recognize that Native peoples come from different tribes and that those tribes can be vastly different from one another, that they don't all share the same opinions or experiences. As I've said in previous posts, some generalizing can be necessary for understanding, but, once you understand, how much should you generalize? Ideally, not at all, but this doesn't seem very possible. We're probably going to do it anyway.
These ideas have really made me consider how most of us do that with any group. Black people are just black people, not South African, Moroccan, Jamaican, Haitian. Feminists think that... Liberals/conservatives believe...
Of course, a lot of this has to do with stereotypes. But there's also another level of generalization, one that's less intentional, less cruel than stereotyping. It's me thinking that Native Americans wear feathers. It's that girl in my Shakespeare class saying that feminists would like Helena from All's Well. It's those people I sat next to in the Bear's Den who believed that all Mormons are polygamists. This type of generalization is more about misunderstanding differences within a group rather than perpetuating false perceptions of a group. While it is less cruel, it can have the same effects as advancing stereotypes.
For example, if I decide that all Native peoples are like Paul Chaat Smith and think that white people who are interested in Native people are stupid, I'm going to be disinclined to support their cause. And if I tell other white people that Natives are just angry and don't want our help, those people are probably going to harbor the same feelings of hostility. Certainly some Natives feel that way, but not all do.
The basic difference, then, between generalization and stereotyping is that stereotyping generally springs from a complete lack of knowledge nor care of a particular peoples, whereas generalization can spring from a little information and some care, but a misunderstanding. I consider myself, up until this point, to have been functioning from a state of generalization. I knew the stereotypes were wrong, but I didn't have enough knowledge to know generalizations from specifics.
Where am I now, then? All I know is that I still have a lot to learn. And maybe I'll never get past generalization. Hopefully, though, I can make it most of the way there.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Smoke Signals: A Native Reality?
Today in class we watched the majority of the film Smoke Signals. One of the points of discussion about this film is how representative it is of the average Native American experience. Obviously the experience of Natives in every nation is different, but, for the sake of argument, I am going to generalize a bit.
Before I even began to consider the content of the film, I did a little research on the good ol' IMDB. What I found was encouraging: Smoke Signals is directed by, written by (screenplay and book), and stars Native people (on a side note, the woman who played Suzy voiced Pocahontas in the Disney film. I'm not commenting on her credibility, I just thought it was interesting. A gig is a gig is a gig, I guess...). This fact certainly boosts the degree of the film's sovereignty for Native peoples. It is a story written by Native people, filled with many jokes meant for Native people, filmed at a place where Native people really live, with all creative decisions about the film made by Native people.
As far as the content of the film, it seemed to be very much based in reality. By this I mean that it is not a film in which the Native experience was romanticized. It showed modern Natives on a modern, poverty-stricken reservation. There was no Native crying at litter on the side of the road, nor were there peyote rituals or rain dances or potlatches. The Natives in the film litter. They drink, though some do not. Some live in poverty, and some have money. They have senses of humor. Most importantly, they are all different people. The dichotomy that exists between Thomas and Victor exemplifies this. Thomas has money, lives with his grandmother, and never seems to have suffered any abuse. Victor lives with his mother and, when his father was around, he was an alcoholic and abused both Victor and his mother. These are experiences as different as between any two people of any ethnicity.
One thing that really struck me was Victor's insistence upon looking like a "real" Native. This could be seen as something negative, but from reading Tom King's college years in which he wore the bone choker and the leather satchel and feathers, it doesn't seem to be such an unusual trend. Perhaps there are a handful of young Native people that go through this phase of wanting to conform to the stereotypes of "Indians."
On the whole, I was quite impressed with the degree of authenticity (at least, based upon what I know) in Smoke Signals. I feel like I have a better understanding of the experiences of some Native Americans and look forward to finishing the film.
Before I even began to consider the content of the film, I did a little research on the good ol' IMDB. What I found was encouraging: Smoke Signals is directed by, written by (screenplay and book), and stars Native people (on a side note, the woman who played Suzy voiced Pocahontas in the Disney film. I'm not commenting on her credibility, I just thought it was interesting. A gig is a gig is a gig, I guess...). This fact certainly boosts the degree of the film's sovereignty for Native peoples. It is a story written by Native people, filled with many jokes meant for Native people, filmed at a place where Native people really live, with all creative decisions about the film made by Native people.
As far as the content of the film, it seemed to be very much based in reality. By this I mean that it is not a film in which the Native experience was romanticized. It showed modern Natives on a modern, poverty-stricken reservation. There was no Native crying at litter on the side of the road, nor were there peyote rituals or rain dances or potlatches. The Natives in the film litter. They drink, though some do not. Some live in poverty, and some have money. They have senses of humor. Most importantly, they are all different people. The dichotomy that exists between Thomas and Victor exemplifies this. Thomas has money, lives with his grandmother, and never seems to have suffered any abuse. Victor lives with his mother and, when his father was around, he was an alcoholic and abused both Victor and his mother. These are experiences as different as between any two people of any ethnicity.
One thing that really struck me was Victor's insistence upon looking like a "real" Native. This could be seen as something negative, but from reading Tom King's college years in which he wore the bone choker and the leather satchel and feathers, it doesn't seem to be such an unusual trend. Perhaps there are a handful of young Native people that go through this phase of wanting to conform to the stereotypes of "Indians."
On the whole, I was quite impressed with the degree of authenticity (at least, based upon what I know) in Smoke Signals. I feel like I have a better understanding of the experiences of some Native Americans and look forward to finishing the film.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Native Peoples and the Role of the Anthropologist
We've been talking a lot about rhetorical sovereignty and what role it plays or should play in the imparting of Native stories and struggles. Issues of rhetorical sovereignty ask several questions. Do Native peoples have exclusive rights to their stories, identities, and struggles--to fight their own fights, in essence? Do white people as the majority have a responsibility to aid them in their struggles? Or do we have the responsibility to get the hell out of their business? Most interestingly, what is the role of the anthropologist, who must categorize an entire peoples, but also has a duty to support understanding of who those peoples really are?
I realize that I've already posted about rhetorical sovereignty, but, as I'm taking an anthropology class right now, I'm becoming interested in the unique role of the anthropologist, who must stay objective and categorize groups of people, things that can be detrimental to the advancement of a people, especially groups as heterogeneous as Native American nations.
From reading an ethnography on the !Kung people of Botswana, I have noticed that recording aspects of the lives of a group of people requires much generalization and categorization. Practices, relationships, religions, and other aspects of daily life must be generalized so as to be easily understood by outsiders. Generalization is nearly essential for understanding. At the same time, generalization limits understanding. Individuals in any group are still individuals, not homogeneous automatons who all share the same exact understanding of the world. No reasonable person would categorize a country such as the USA in this way, whose different states sometimes seem like different countries, so why should people in the US categorize others in such a generalized fashion? It's certainly easier for us, but is it helpful for the group being studied?
To have an opinion on the latter question, one must consider whether it's better to have a vague understanding of a people or no understanding at all. I would argue that at least some understanding helps, but, as an addendum to this understanding, one must be aware that this is merely a generalization, that no group is homogeneous. As long as this is understood, anthropology could be helpful for Native American nations and other marginalized or misunderstood groups.
I realize that I've already posted about rhetorical sovereignty, but, as I'm taking an anthropology class right now, I'm becoming interested in the unique role of the anthropologist, who must stay objective and categorize groups of people, things that can be detrimental to the advancement of a people, especially groups as heterogeneous as Native American nations.
From reading an ethnography on the !Kung people of Botswana, I have noticed that recording aspects of the lives of a group of people requires much generalization and categorization. Practices, relationships, religions, and other aspects of daily life must be generalized so as to be easily understood by outsiders. Generalization is nearly essential for understanding. At the same time, generalization limits understanding. Individuals in any group are still individuals, not homogeneous automatons who all share the same exact understanding of the world. No reasonable person would categorize a country such as the USA in this way, whose different states sometimes seem like different countries, so why should people in the US categorize others in such a generalized fashion? It's certainly easier for us, but is it helpful for the group being studied?
To have an opinion on the latter question, one must consider whether it's better to have a vague understanding of a people or no understanding at all. I would argue that at least some understanding helps, but, as an addendum to this understanding, one must be aware that this is merely a generalization, that no group is homogeneous. As long as this is understood, anthropology could be helpful for Native American nations and other marginalized or misunderstood groups.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)