I found the Chris Rock clip while reviewing my footage of the classroom discussion and I believe it sums up ideas of jokes about race. This theme is centered around the difference between a white person making fun of a black person versus a black person making fun of a white person. The class seemed to be in agreement on this particular topic.
While I am very influenced by Jean Rouch's philosophy on how the ethnographer-filmmaker should behave with the camera, I have several independent views, one in particular that sprouts from how I was brought up as a child. My parents were very persistent in demanding that when I speak to someone, particularly an elder, I look them in the eyes as a sign of respect and attentive listening. For the most part, I have always looked someone in the eyes when talking to them about a serious matter or in an attempt to understand what they have to say. When I first starting filming (before my interest in visual anthropology) I would look through the viewfinder or the LCD screen. I believe that this can be attributed to feeling as if this was that right thing to do. Outside influences showed that this is how professionals were always portrayed, so I naturally mimicked those behaviors. I continued filming in this manner until I was assigned to create my first ethnographic film freshman year. This time, when interviewing the subject, and only when engaging in dialogue with the subject, I would remove my eyes from the camera to make eye contact with the subject. In addition to this stemming from childhood habits, I found that eye contact relaxed the pressure and intimidation that the camera lens often places upon the subject. Occasional glances at the camera were necessary to make sure my hand did not get lazy and cut off the top of his head. In other words, I had to constantly make sure the frame was situated in appropriate parameters. However, when I was recording and Sam wasn't talking, my eyes focused on camera. One might ask, what happens when someone or someone interacts with/distracts you outside of the frame while you are filming? I noticed that this happened frequently and proved to be very problematic in some cases.
In filming the video above, there were times when active movement or conversation of others around me, who either paid no attention to the camera or demanded attention from it, briefly solicited my own attention. In the scene (4:37) where Sam is speaking to an experienced DJ, there are people everywhere who are preparing for the show. Emcees, DJs, sound engineers, and stage designers were moving in and out of the frame. Some minded their own business and others took an interest in the camera. The most notable "interference" with the footage is when the young emcee stands in front of the camera (6:12) and says "Ay, Mr. Cameraman. Old Lil Wayne, not new Lil Wayne. New Lil Wayne is garbage." In this situation I paid little attention to him because I felt as though the real conversation was going on between the other performers. This was perhaps an ill-conceived move. I often wonder if I should have devoted more attention to his comment, but at the same time when one is listening to a conversation, one does not always turn to listen to secondary influences and background noises. I quote Rouch in this respect to allow one to understand my reasoning for choosing to half-heartedly acknowledge the "interruption". Steven Feld quotes Rouch,
To return to the terminology of Vertov, when I make a film I "film-see" (ciné-vois) by knowing the limits of the lens and the camera; like wise I "film-hear" (ciné-entends) by knowing the limits of the microphone and the tape recorder; I "film-move" (ciné-bouge) in order to find the right angle or exercise the best movement; I "film-edit" (ciné-monte) throughout the shooting, thinking of how the images are fitting together. In a word, I "film-think" (ciné-pense). [Feld 1989:234, in original emphasis]
I know I mentioned earlier that my a few of my views were independent from Rouchean methodology, however this quote best explains what happened and why I made the decision I did. For the moment I press record, I am capturing and ingesting the recorded material. At the same time, I am also figuring out where I want to point the camera in the context of the conversation.In "thinking of how the images are fitting together" I felt the comment about Lil Wayne was inconsistent with the dialogue about dancing/club music versus non-dancing/club music. In what I had conceptualized, his comment was irrelevant. This is an avenue I have certainly not mastered; "film-think". My detachment from the camera, insofar as not looking through the viewfinder or LCD, influences how I "film-think" and questions how I can properly capture what is ethnographic.
After reading an essay by Emily Yeh on Tibetan racialization in America, I have learned that marginalized Tibetans, that ingest elements associated with low-class black culture, may refer to themselves as "niggas". Personally, I feel as though the n-word should not come out of your mouth unless you are black or within the African Diaspora. On the other hand, since the n-word describes the condition of oppression and suffering, ethnicities who become racialized and grouped with blacks understand what they believe to be a similar struggle. At the moment, I am going to refrain from debate on the usage of the n-word and whether its usage is "wrong or right" for non-blacks to use (some would even argue blacks shouldn't say "nigga"). I will focus on the racialization of Tibetans and how this may allow young Tibetans to structure their identity around black culture, specifically "gangsta rap". Gangsta rap in this context as music created by low class black Americans who live a life of violence, drug dealing, and other elements that are prevalent in low-income housing projects. As a sidenote, gangsta rap does not characterize hip-hop, it is only a subgenre. This analysis is forthcoming in addition to other themes in Tibetan Diaspora.
There is a spew of quotations that express the importance of being able to laugh at yourself, insisting that laughter is the best medicine. But are there times when laughter and comedy begins to encroach on personal sensibilities? I'm sure most people would agree that comedians have come dangerously close to boundaries of distastefulness, insensitivity, "racist" remarks, and provocative shock humor. Comedians (from the Kings of Comedy to your funny next door neighbor) tell jokes about some of the most tragic events across the globe, such as September 11, suicide bombings in Iraq, Pearl Harbor, the Holocaust, the trans-Atlantic slave trade, and so on and so forth. While you wouldn't make a joke about a concentration camp inside a Holocaust museum, as you move farther away from the museum, mentally and physically, the taboo of joke-telling is relaxed. The same phenomenon is prevalent in jokes that rely on a stereotype of a particular race, ethnicity, or religion. My argument is not definitive, nevertheless, I believe this phenomenon is associated with a detachment from the original milieu, which increases desensitization. This theory serves to confront the prevalence of "racy" jokes, and in combination with "groupthink" and sociological theories of group behavior, the reason for the acceptance of these jokes can begin to be understood. I am not attacking the methods of comedians and their routines, but I find it interesting that the horrors of slavery are funny (I have laughed at slavery jokes too). This particular skit embedded above can definitely be a way to laugh at common stereotypes, the one below...not as widely accepted as funny material. The video below shows a white man dressed in a KKK outfit harassing blacks. This is not his only video. He picks up day laborers/illegal immigrants and then drives towards an ICE (formerly known as INS) building. He walks into an Asian restaurant and harasses the patrons saying, "What kind of Chinese are you?" Think about it. I will be sure to revisit this. There's way too much material to analysis tonight.
Click here to see, in its entirety, the new immigration bill, or as it has been campaigned, "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act".
"A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES."
"NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY SECURELY TRANSPORT AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES AND WHO IS IN THE AGENCY'S CUSTODY TO A FEDERAL FACILITY IN THIS STATE OR TO ANY OTHER POINT OF TRANSFER INTO FEDERAL CUSTODY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY."
"IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR AN OCCUPANT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT IS STOPPED ON A STREET, ROADWAY OR HIGHWAY TO ATTEMPT TO HIRE OR HIRE AND PICK UP PASSENGERS FOR WORK AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION IF THE MOTOR VEHICLE BLOCKS OR IMPEDES THE NORMAL MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC."
"IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES AND WHO IS AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN TO KNOWINGLY APPLY FOR WORK, SOLICIT WORK IN A PUBLIC PLACE OR PERFORM WORK AS AN EMPLOYEE OR INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR IN THIS STATE."
The four excerpts above highlight notable changes that reflect "problems" Arizona seems to be having. The first two, in light of Appadurai, I argue, represent the anxiety of incompleteness—frustration, fear, disappointment, anger of a minority presence and the wish to create a "pure, untainted" majority—by expelling them from the country or incarcerating them where they cannot be seen by the public eye and do not share the freedoms that legal Arizona citizens do. The last two excerpts directly target day laborers and those who hire them. These are methods that also serve to get rid of minorities and to arrest legal citizens who aid them.
Appadurai speaks on the globalization of terrorism and the process towards genocide between majorities and minorities. It would seem that comparing Arizona immigration law with acts of genocide cannot be compared in any form. However, his theories of how the majority identity acts towards the minority is reflected in the state's legislation. The people of Arizona have not developed "predatory identities" (Appadurai 2006) because they do not see themselves as one ethnic singularity. However, the anxiety of incompleteness appears in the "we/they" factor which can generate "solutions" to this "problem". Appadurai explains this sociological theory, "The creation of collective others, or them's, is a requirement, through the dynamics of stereotyping and identity contrast, for helping to set boundaries and mark off the dynamics of the we" (2006:50). Not only is this often based on ethnicity and race, I argue, that the minority problem is also connected to an immigration problem. Discerning the illegals from the legal citizens is at the heart of this immigration bill. There is a presence of illegals in Arizona, but who are they? They are of Latino heritage. Are all illegals Latino? Certainly not, but illegal immigrant and Mexican have almost become interchangeable in the last decade. So in this "we/they" factor there is a dual representation: White Arizonan/Mexican and Legal Citizen/Illegal Immigrant. (The majority are white Arizonans, but that does not mean all white Arizonans express an anxiety of incompleteness.) In reconceptualizing the "we/they" question and the anxiety of incompleteness, one can see how these concepts have actively become a part of state legislation with the hope of expelling the Other.
In the past week, Arizona has passed legislation allowing officials to ask to see legal papers from suspected illegal immigrants. Also, a new proposal that may potentially come into law would ban ethnic studies from being taught at public schools. Racial profiling and assimilation anyone? For the most part, I am against laws that shelter illegal immigrants, businesses that hire illegal immigrants, and in general illegal immigrants being in the country. Yes, there are companies and people that exploit illegal immigrants in methods of unhealthy conditions, cruel work hours, low wage, and abuse. While I am strongly opposed to exploitation and abusive practices, I am equally opposed to immigrants who do not a visa or green card. I understand that the allure of the United States is so attractive compared to political unrest and economic disasters in developing countries across the globe. However, illegal immigrants pose one main problem for me...they are ILLEGALLY here. The very basis of being in a country without going through the process of the legal system is a problem. Unfortunately, I do not have an alternate proposal on how to assist immigrants in obtaining a legal status that is easier and less discriminatory than the immigration laws in place now. I may be against illegal immigration, but I am 100% against racial profiling and forced assimilation. More on the story here.
