Now a few posts ago some rather vitriolic words were taken right out of my mouth, regarding disapproval of how popular opinion seems to blame Donald Trump's success on American's allegedly being "stupid". Its not a sentiment unique to politics, either. Things like rampant consumerism, daily bombardment with advertising and other media, racism in all of its shapes and forms, are routinely claimed to have originated in, or been endlessly perpetuated by, Americans. America has long been seen by the remainder of the Western world as unsophisticated (excessive number of fast food restaurants), power-hungry (being all Team America: World Police), just plain evil (9/11 = Inside Job, man), and much, much worse. "Of course someone as nutty and egomaniacal as Trump would be popular in America, that's where American's are from!!" Here's a video from some Australian comedy cronies which sums up these sentiments succinctly:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE
You know, to increase the relevance this post has to our course content I'm compelled to use the word EUROCENTRISM, to explain how these ridiculous beliefs continue. The supposedly civilized nations are a beacon of hope, the yardsticks of sanity and progress to which the remainder of the world, irrespective of ethnicity, must strive to emulate. Racism? America's problem, we moved on from that when our colonies were prized from our grasps. General hostility to minorities? No way, look at the progress the former Slavic nations have made since the 1990s, no trouble here. We all get along, the demons of the past far behind us, we are far too intellectual and empathetic to ever bow down to a malevolent dictator like Trump. That's what Americans do.
Since the terrorist attacks in France and Belgium last year, there has been a tremendous rise in anti-Muslim sentiment throughout Europe. Surveys have revealed widespread support for drastic measures such as limiting Muslim immigration, extra surveillance of existing residents, and the meteoric rise of political groups which, quite frankly, make Donald Trump look like David Lange. The French National Front party, a group of neo-Nazi's promoting Holocaust denial and radical nationalist ideology, gained 24.86% of the overall vote in their 2015 general election. Third place. Likewise, whereby several radical nationalist groups in Germany, who caused an uproar entering politics in the early 2000s, have also started to gain prominence. The scourge of Islamophobia has compelled many Europeans to support the same kind of rhetoric that Trump has been lambasted for in America, yet somehow the "American's are stupid" cliche carries on convincing everybody that nowhere else in the world suffers this problem. Its not even unique to racial issues, either. Look at Rodrigo Duterte becoming the latest President of the Philippines, the problems of crime there are serious, yes, but surly there are better ways of tackling them than sending out "Death Squads" to "fill Manila Bay with the bodies of 100,000 criminals"? His words. Oh, and someone who made several vile jokes about the rape and murder of an Australian missionary, far more misogynistic than any of Trump's quips and which I dare not repeat here, is probably only slightly exaggerating.
Whoever wins the upcoming US election is completely, utterly irrelevant. The societal problems which lead to massive support for racist, brutal, egomaniacal and just plain idiotic leaders are by no means unique to America. Racism and Xenophobia occur when people lack sufficient education and understanding to realize how certain sociological and political processes effect them. The hostility toward Muslims we've witnessed all across Europe, along with resistance from many countries to provide a safe haven for Syrian refugees, occurs because stereotypes and their dehumanizing effect makes people assume a scant few radical nutjobs are representative of all Muslims everywhere. Never mind that ISIS has caused far more destruction to Muslim lives and freedom than any other nations, once everybody is in the same group there's no going back...
Basically, what I'm trying to say (in an admittedly highly convoluted manner, which I've been told is a normal result of writing when you're foaming at the mouth), is that this ridiculous hatred and singling-out of America has got to stop. Racism is the World's problem. It effects everyone, and undermines Mankind's humanitarian progress in ways which are truly frightening. Lets make this course part of the school curriculum, and lets put sociology in there, too.
Thursday, 2 June 2016
Manny Pacquiao
There aren't many Filipinos that appear within mainstream media, however one example or maybe the only example that most people would probably know of is Manny Pacquiao.
I moved from the Philippines to New Zealand in 2008, and being the fresh kid I was I struggled explaining to my new community, friend and teachers where I came from. Most of the time they would have no idea where the Philippines was even situated, and Im sure up until now a lot of people are still unaware of the country. Those whom did know about the country however, almost immediately proclaimed Manny Pacquiao. The famous boxer is ultimately and literally the only, sole Filipino that has ever appeared within mainstream media. Making Manny Pacquiao a definite example of having 'The Burden of Representation.' Due to the absence of Filipinos within mainstream media, we are under-represented, and the perceptions given to us becomes purely based from the very insufficient information relayed through those that have the burden to represent such as Manny Pacquiao. This inevitably leads to a lack of understanding, or even a skewered understanding of minority groups, which can be detrimental.
In the Philippines we worship Manny Pacquiao as an idol, not just because he is one of the greatest boxers to have ever lived, but because he is the only Filipino to have ever been recognised within such a global, and universal scale. As a matter of fact every time he has a boxing match the crime rates in The Philippines almost always drops to zero, which goes to show the amount of support Manny Pacquiao gets from the Filipino people. Filipinos see their pride as central to their culture, and are very fond of expressing it. Hence why Manny Pacquiao is so appreciated and respected within the country, as not only does he represent the Filipino people, but he also gives them the opportunity to promote their pride. Whether it be through supporting his boxing matches or proclaiming his success and highly acclaimed stories, Manny Pacquiao allows the Philippines and its people to show their pride within a global scale, which leads to giving the country the opportunity to be better known across the world. If Manny Pacquiao had never existed, or had never been as successful, The Philippines would be much more hidden and unknown to the world.
The way Manny Pacquiao is represented within the media however is not always positive for the Filipino people, having a rough start in his childhood and literally rising to success from the bottom and having nothing, most if not all mainstream media that broadcast his fights such as HBO will always display a backstory of his life. In doing this the very pessimistic side of the Philippines is displayed, showing mass poverty and the very deprived, impoverished aspect of the country. This sole representation and perspective given to the country can be taken as a universal representation for the whole of the Philippines and its people. Which I have sadly experienced myself whenever I mention my country, I am questioned whether the country is remote, impoverished and most commonly used "full of slums". In reality the Philippines does have a serious economic and social problem in regards to mass poverty, but the country comprises of much more than just that.
In the Philippines we worship Manny Pacquiao as an idol, not just because he is one of the greatest boxers to have ever lived, but because he is the only Filipino to have ever been recognised within such a global, and universal scale. As a matter of fact every time he has a boxing match the crime rates in The Philippines almost always drops to zero, which goes to show the amount of support Manny Pacquiao gets from the Filipino people. Filipinos see their pride as central to their culture, and are very fond of expressing it. Hence why Manny Pacquiao is so appreciated and respected within the country, as not only does he represent the Filipino people, but he also gives them the opportunity to promote their pride. Whether it be through supporting his boxing matches or proclaiming his success and highly acclaimed stories, Manny Pacquiao allows the Philippines and its people to show their pride within a global scale, which leads to giving the country the opportunity to be better known across the world. If Manny Pacquiao had never existed, or had never been as successful, The Philippines would be much more hidden and unknown to the world.
The way Manny Pacquiao is represented within the media however is not always positive for the Filipino people, having a rough start in his childhood and literally rising to success from the bottom and having nothing, most if not all mainstream media that broadcast his fights such as HBO will always display a backstory of his life. In doing this the very pessimistic side of the Philippines is displayed, showing mass poverty and the very deprived, impoverished aspect of the country. This sole representation and perspective given to the country can be taken as a universal representation for the whole of the Philippines and its people. Which I have sadly experienced myself whenever I mention my country, I am questioned whether the country is remote, impoverished and most commonly used "full of slums". In reality the Philippines does have a serious economic and social problem in regards to mass poverty, but the country comprises of much more than just that.
Sport and ethnicity
Sport in Aotearoa and sport on a global level experience a certain
degree of racism, specifically institutional racism. Stuart Hall’s ‘The Grammar
of Race’ includes ideologies by which minorities are described and categorised,
one such category is ‘clowns/entertainers’.
The idea behind this ideology is that minorities have
natural abilities being naturally funny, or naturally great singers or even
naturally great athletes. This is problematic because totally attributing
talent to a persons ethnicity totally disregards any hard work, training or
effort that was put into becoming that great athlete or singer etc. Through the
continuation os this ideology, certain groups of people are being stereotyped
in certain ways which become normalized in our society – eg. ‘Polynesians are
better at sport than in the classroom’
An example of this is in 1997 a study took place which
analyzed NFL broadcaster comments, it was found that when individual players
were described, intellect-related qualities were highlighted in white players
but physical qualities (particularly their appearance) for black players.
Maybe a link could be made between this stereotype of
minorities being named natural athletes and the concept of the noble savage,
whose physical characteristics involve being strong and brave – perhaps these
characteristics still play a significant role today in determining someones
natural abilities.
Miss Universe Japan 2015
Ariana Miyamoto was crowned Miss Universe Japan 2015 – also
the first “bi-racial” Miss Universe Japan, which was very hard for some people
to come to terms with.
Ariana was born to a Japanese mother and African American
father, making her a “hafu” – the Japanese equivalent of a half caste. Despite
being born in Japan and having “many Japanese things about her on this inside”
she, in the eyes of her critics is not Japanese enough to represent Japan as
Miss Universe.
Upon being crowned with her title, she was met by a tyrade
of ridicule because she simply didn’t look Japanese enough. In an interview she
discussed how “when I say I’m Japanese people say, no you can’t be!”
The racial discrimination she experiences is not unheard of
in Japan, especially for hafu’s, some of whom feel Japan belongs to them but
they don’t belong to Japan.
I think Ariana Miyamoto’s win could serve as a very
important learning curb that there always needs to be an open minded attitude
towards the world’s ever growing diversity.
Black men can jump
Within the sport of Basketball, there tends to be a recurring, stereotypical understanding that "if you're black you can dunk" or "black people have hops", as in incredible jumping ability. Perhaps this notion has been fuelled by those professional athletes, such as those in the NBA, with help from the media that showcases the abilities of players within the association to a mass audience. Predominantly the best dunkers are undeniably of African descent, although this stereotype was nearly conflicted when the top two dunkers in the 2016 NBA Slam Dunk Contest weren't entirely of African descent, instead they were two incredibly talented, high jumping 'lightskin' African Americans (pictured below). This idea of Basketball players of African descent being the dominant dunkers within the association, unconsciously creates an expectation for black basketball players that they should be able to dunk. Being a Basketball player myself, there have been numerous occurrences where as soon as a black player steps on the court he is immediately acknowledged for having the ability to dunk, regardless of even seeing him play before. It then becomes unfair when the stereotype becomes an expectation, as for those black basketball players that do not have the ability to dunk, they are downplayed and their abilities are devalued as they fail to meet socially constructed expectations. Similarly to the typical stereotype where Asians are meant to be smart, there is also a socially constructed expectation for Asians to be highly educated and to perform well with their studies. Equivalently they are belittled if they fail to meet such expectations.
In relation to 'The Grammar of Race' by Stuart Hall, he states that naturalised representations include minority groups having a clown/entertainer component. That they have the natural and innate ability to entertain, and that athletes of colour are inherently physically talented. This goes back to the idea of African Basketball players, instead of proclaiming their dunking ability as an individually acclaimed skill, it is seen as a more inherent characteristic that is expected to exist within a whole group.
The binary opposite within this exists within White Basketball players, earlier portrayed by the film 'White Men Can't Jump', there is a societal understanding that White people have little to no jumping and dunking ability. The stereotypical expectation then becomes much less than of Black basketball players, and it leads to debasing and underestimation of the abilities of White basketball players. Hence why whenever there is a White basketball player dunking it appears as a spectacle, as if it wasn't normal and implausible. Completely adverse to when Black basketball players dunk, it is seen as a basic, normal skill.
The binary opposite within this exists within White Basketball players, earlier portrayed by the film 'White Men Can't Jump', there is a societal understanding that White people have little to no jumping and dunking ability. The stereotypical expectation then becomes much less than of Black basketball players, and it leads to debasing and underestimation of the abilities of White basketball players. Hence why whenever there is a White basketball player dunking it appears as a spectacle, as if it wasn't normal and implausible. Completely adverse to when Black basketball players dunk, it is seen as a basic, normal skill.
could someone help me understand
A warning before I start, this is going to be long, please bare with me and read till the end if you can. Sorry if it causes offence, I don't mean to, there are just a couple of things I'm struggling to understand.
I am British and lived in England until last July when I moved here on exchange. My experience of social issues is very different than the ones I have both learned about and experienced here. I am white, with English, Irish and Welsh heritage. So many of these issues haven't affected me in the same way, but my parents have always taught me to be aware of them.
Mainly the social issues that surround indignity in this country is something that is very new to me, it is not a racial issue that is present in British society, nor are the wide variety of social discourses that come along with this. Growing up, we were never taught about colonisation, I know England once had an Empire, but we never really taught were it was or what countries were colonised (or at least I wasn't). I also had very little awareness of Indigenous people in New Zealand or Australia before I did research prior to coming to the country last year. Which is bad I know, our government appears unwilling to teach us about the not so wonderful part England, and by extension Britain as a whole, played in world history.
But to my main point, there are things that I hope people who have grown up here and who have a better understanding of this would be willing to explain.
Differences in education between Maori and the more 'Eurocentric' education is something I have never experienced, differences in education is not really present in British society. I know about Tuakana, I would just like to know why this bridge is needed. What are the differences in education?
I have traveled throughout the country and have found it hard to gain a real understanding of the Maori culture, as a visiter to this country I have witnessed the culture either being used as consumer product or only vaguely mentioned, and I would really like to have a better understanding of the Maori culture.
Another quick thing though, I met a girl in the residence I am in who used the fact that 'biologically' she is part Maori (I think it was one great grandparent or something) to change her entrance requirements for the University (or something similar) I know she does not identify as Maori and went through the 'Eurocentric' education system in New Zealand but was still able to use her biology to use this system because she didn't get as good grades as she wanted at school, and she appears around of this. Why?
In relation to this I have struggled to understand what Pakeha and Pakeha-ness really is. I know what the 'dictionary meaning' is and it's links to whiteness, white privilege and colonialism but that's not always what it really means. I think mainly, learning about this issue through this course I'm struggling to understand the aversion to the word Pakeha. If no one is 100% sure what it means than is it not possible to define it in a way that is personal to you. Isn't accepting you're race and the implications that has in, not just New Zealand society but World society, a good step forward. From an outsiders point of view (and by all means ignore it if you'd like), accepting 'Pakeha' as an identifier also means accepting the history that comes with being a Euro-New Zealander, which I guess isn't great. But to move forward, don't we need to accept that past and use it to help bring us together. I know my heritage comes with a lot of baggage, and British history comes with a lot of pain and a lot of war, but I've never felt ashamed. I want to use that history to find a way to do better by the many people hurt by those actions and that history.
Again I sorry if I have caused offence to anyone, and if it got this completely wrong please don't get angry with me. I would just like help understanding from people who have a better idea of what these things mean, both historically and in relation to modern society.
Thank you for your patience and help.
Louis Crimp was a delusional old fart, basically (but RIP sorry)
Right on cue with our lectures on the challenges of indigeneity and 'Pakeha-ness' in New Zealand, I found the following 2012 interview the New Zealand Herald published with Act Party's largest financial backer Louis Crimp.
Act backer: We all dislike Maori
Crimp, the article reports, doesn't like Maori. He gave his grand donation of $125,250 to the Act Party during the 2011 elections in the hopes that "they could stop the special treatment for Maori who were either 'in jail or on welfare'". Demonstrating what can only be called delusion, Crimp believes that he has the support of "other 'white New Zealanders'". His inspiration? The 2004 Orewa speech from then-National Party leader Don Brash. This speech broached the subject of the "special status of Maori people" (as if they are lucky that their ancestors were robbed of their land and culture and rights for over a hundred years?), suggesting that a "one rule for all" approach was needed in New Zealand and called for an end to "the Maori's special privileges". Criticisms of this speech included Brash "playing the race card" - a term usually used by generally racist individuals against people of colour for bringing up their tribulations, but in this case opposing one of the racists. It seems that no one is allowed to bring up race.
Back to the article on Crimp: rather than denounce his intensely racist claims against Maori, the article reports that the Act Party "affirmed Mr Crimp's right to have his say - and welcome future donations if he was inclined to make them." Not that I expected any less from the right-wing party, and it's not as though I'm not aware that Maori continually experience racism even in 2016, but it is disturbing to really see such bigotry in political action.
Crimp says about Maori, "[they should] be treated like equal New Zealanders... they don't get any more than a normal New Zealander and we're all the same." 'We're all the same'; like, Maori also turned up on boats and colonised an entire ethnic group and stole their homes and attempted to assimilate them, and a century or so later promptly forgot all the horrors they had committed? That is historical amnesia right there.
"I know white New Zealanders want the Maoris to be treated like ordinary New Zealanders." - wait, what? First of all, if you want the Maori to be treated the same and act the same as you, don't differentiate them from the 'ordinary' people. And secondly, Crimp is displaying the kind of aversion to Pakeha-ness that we talked about in week 7; a refusal to use the term 'Pakeha', calling them 'white New Zealanders' to distance them as much as he could from Maori. He is clearly at odds with his Pakeha identity. What's more, it is immensely obvious that he cannot accept his Pakeha privilege, the same privilege that no doubt allowed him to become a multimillionaire and donate his money somewhat frivolously to a party that has not been incredibly successful.
"All the white New Zealanders I've spoken to don't like the Maoris, the way they are full of crime and welfare." And: "This is the problem with New Zealanders... most of them dislike the Maoris intensely, but they don't like to say so." Crimp is displaying a monocultural view of what NZ society should be like and ignoring the challenges of indigeneity forced upon indigenous people by white colonisation. He is acting exactly as a rich, white, presumably heterosexual male old fart comfortable with his privilege but uncomfortable with acknowledging it would; not that this conviction makes me feel any better. The fact that Crimp has the money and time to advocate for the end of Maori rights, awarded to them precisely because they are underprivileged, institutionally beat down by systems that favour Pakeha-ness, some (but certainly not all, Mr Crimp) driven to crime because of their low socio-economic positions, concerns me greatly. And while I don't believe that Crimp is backed by all those he believes, I'm aware that he is not alone in his beliefs, and these people (mostly rich men I'd wager) aren't going to be swayed so easily. All I can do is hope that they are unsuccessful in teaching this hatred to their children, and it will end with them, the old twits.
Act backer: We all dislike Maori
Crimp, the article reports, doesn't like Maori. He gave his grand donation of $125,250 to the Act Party during the 2011 elections in the hopes that "they could stop the special treatment for Maori who were either 'in jail or on welfare'". Demonstrating what can only be called delusion, Crimp believes that he has the support of "other 'white New Zealanders'". His inspiration? The 2004 Orewa speech from then-National Party leader Don Brash. This speech broached the subject of the "special status of Maori people" (as if they are lucky that their ancestors were robbed of their land and culture and rights for over a hundred years?), suggesting that a "one rule for all" approach was needed in New Zealand and called for an end to "the Maori's special privileges". Criticisms of this speech included Brash "playing the race card" - a term usually used by generally racist individuals against people of colour for bringing up their tribulations, but in this case opposing one of the racists. It seems that no one is allowed to bring up race.
Back to the article on Crimp: rather than denounce his intensely racist claims against Maori, the article reports that the Act Party "affirmed Mr Crimp's right to have his say - and welcome future donations if he was inclined to make them." Not that I expected any less from the right-wing party, and it's not as though I'm not aware that Maori continually experience racism even in 2016, but it is disturbing to really see such bigotry in political action.
Crimp says about Maori, "[they should] be treated like equal New Zealanders... they don't get any more than a normal New Zealander and we're all the same." 'We're all the same'; like, Maori also turned up on boats and colonised an entire ethnic group and stole their homes and attempted to assimilate them, and a century or so later promptly forgot all the horrors they had committed? That is historical amnesia right there.
"I know white New Zealanders want the Maoris to be treated like ordinary New Zealanders." - wait, what? First of all, if you want the Maori to be treated the same and act the same as you, don't differentiate them from the 'ordinary' people. And secondly, Crimp is displaying the kind of aversion to Pakeha-ness that we talked about in week 7; a refusal to use the term 'Pakeha', calling them 'white New Zealanders' to distance them as much as he could from Maori. He is clearly at odds with his Pakeha identity. What's more, it is immensely obvious that he cannot accept his Pakeha privilege, the same privilege that no doubt allowed him to become a multimillionaire and donate his money somewhat frivolously to a party that has not been incredibly successful.
"All the white New Zealanders I've spoken to don't like the Maoris, the way they are full of crime and welfare." And: "This is the problem with New Zealanders... most of them dislike the Maoris intensely, but they don't like to say so." Crimp is displaying a monocultural view of what NZ society should be like and ignoring the challenges of indigeneity forced upon indigenous people by white colonisation. He is acting exactly as a rich, white, presumably heterosexual male old fart comfortable with his privilege but uncomfortable with acknowledging it would; not that this conviction makes me feel any better. The fact that Crimp has the money and time to advocate for the end of Maori rights, awarded to them precisely because they are underprivileged, institutionally beat down by systems that favour Pakeha-ness, some (but certainly not all, Mr Crimp) driven to crime because of their low socio-economic positions, concerns me greatly. And while I don't believe that Crimp is backed by all those he believes, I'm aware that he is not alone in his beliefs, and these people (mostly rich men I'd wager) aren't going to be swayed so easily. All I can do is hope that they are unsuccessful in teaching this hatred to their children, and it will end with them, the old twits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)