Friday, December 28, 2007
Benazir Bhutto, 1953-2007
Excerpts from Bhutto's "Diary" written for Slate.com in 1997
"I shout as loud as I can over the microphone, "Sir, why do they panic every time they hear the name of a woman?" That shuts them up. At least temporarily.
When I finish, the Treasury benches start discussing my speech. Their first speaker makes sexist remarks--"She is melodramatic. She should have gone to New York and performed in the theater. She would have been a prima donna."
Bored, I sit back and begin to read the "Tasbee," the Muslim rosary. When I finally get to my office in the Parliament I am too tired to meet the press.
We go to the upstairs lounge, put on CNN, call for some green tea, and sit down to watch and chat.
Bliss.
Tomorrow is another day."
www.slate.com
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Your shit bling bling, my shit bling blaow
M.I.A. and the Double Standard of MTV Censorship
Posted by Tom Breihan at 5:58 PM, December 18, 2007
M.I.A. is mad at MTV. Just recently, she wrote a MySpace blog rant, one that's since been taken down, about how the MTV-edit version of her "Paper Planes" video has fallen victim to the channel's standards-and-practices department. The gunshot noises on the track's hook are gone, replaced with, in her words, "this fucked up mess with double-tracked bullshit mess." Something similar happened when she did the song on the David Letterman show, except there the gunshot noises got changed to some weird pitch-shifted clicks that sort of sound like the gunshot noises that come from those little wartime-noisemaker toys that I drove my parents nuts with when I was nine. All this makes a difference because "Paper Planes" is probably the best shot that M.I.A. has of entering the pop mainstream in any significant way without stamping out any of the confounding, ambiguous political subtexts that her music carries. "Paper Planes" is a light and airy and bewitchingly pretty song, but it also rides on a Clash sample and has a chorus that's all gunshot noises and cash-register chings and a chorus of amped-up kids singing a double-dutch refrain about taking your money. It's a great song, and its remix is something like an epic, the guest-verses from Bun B and Rich Boy adding manifold layers of anger and desperation and swagger. Bun's verse, in particular, is a manifesto in favor of directionless violence disguised as a pearl of sage wisdom, done by a virtuoso veteran who has plenty of ideas and knows how to get them across in plain everday language. I'd rather M.I.A. release the remix as the single, but even without Bun and Rich Boy, it's a dizzying song. Without those gunshot noises, though, the meaning of the track changes massively; it loses all its tense, ominous charge. If M.I.A. is to escape the indie ghetto where she seems increasingly out of place, she'll do it through a version of her song that's been gutted of meaning (though, to be fair, it still sounds pretty amazing). On that disappeared MySpace rant, M.I.A. calls it "sabotage." Should MTV be allowed to pull that stuff?
Lately, 50 Cent has been going on and on about MTV's double standard, how they'll change the title of his single "I'll Still Kill" to "I Still Will" and change the kill on the chorus to chill (as in "I still will chill," which sounds stupid) but that they won't think anything of running a video by a band called the Killers. He's got a point. In my comments section a while back, someone floated the theory that rap sales are nosediving in part because MTV and BET and radio remove anything that sounds like it could possibly be a reference to drugs or sex or violence, and so a lot of rap verses become unlistenable, their bleeped-out silences sometimes outnumbering their actual words. Whenever a rap video wants to imply violence, it has to pull some goofy nonsense where the character's hand is outside the camera's frame or whatever. But whenever a big-budget rock band like My Chemical Romance or Green Day or whoever wants to stage a war scene, guns appear again. Maybe "I'll Still Kill" glorifies violence and that Green Day video doesn't but what qualifies MTV to make that call? And when it comes to "Paper Planes," a song with an actual meaning buried under layers of implication, the question of whether or not she's actually advocating violence gets a whole lot thornier and more ambiguous. MTV probably wants to avoid those questions altogether, so it's eliminating any possible trace of violence. But the effect ends up being weirdly racial. On the Letterman show, Dave introduced her as being an "acclaimed Sri Lankan rapper," a label that doesn't really fit her at all. But MTV is treating "Paper Planes" the way it treats all rap songs, and it's hard not to wonder how they might've handled the video if she were white or played guitar or whatever. The weird thing about all that is that MTV is totally cool with airing commercials of movies or video games that prominently feature guns. Any impressionable little kids watching MTV are learning that violence is cool anyway. So why bother removing gunshot noises from a song? Would the uncensored version of "Paper Planes" really offend anyone?
As it is, the "Paper Planes" video, with its sandwich truck and its computer-generated paper airplanes and its unnecessary Beasties cameo, is still pretty good. It might even get some early-morning airplay, since that's the only time MTV sees fit to air actual music videos. I remain unconvinced that M.I.A. really has a shot at crossover pop stardom, especially since pop stardom itself has become vastly more nebulous and meaningless over the past few years. More people will probably watch the "Paper Planes" video online than on MTV anyway, and it's not as if the uncensored version would inspire rioting in the streets even if it premiered on prime-time network TV during Lost or whatever. But "Paper Planes" is a song that deserves to start a few arguments, and it should go out into the wider world with its argument-starting potential left intact. So, I'd argue, should "I Still Kill"; that one is lifeless gangsta cliche and the other is confused capitalist critique is immaterial. Nobody expects MTV (or BET or radio) to be a stronghold of mainstream morality anyway, so what's the difference? It's not as though antisocial, dangerous ideas are disappearing from popular music, but the cultural outlets in which that music makes itself heard are increasingly afraid of offending anyone, ever, for any reason. That weird standoff between artists and gatekeepers means that we can't watch videos on TV or listen to music on the radio without a whole lot of songs being reduced to meaningless gibberish. No wonder so many of us are downloading.
Posted by Tom Breihan at 5:58 PM, December 18, 2007
M.I.A. is mad at MTV. Just recently, she wrote a MySpace blog rant, one that's since been taken down, about how the MTV-edit version of her "Paper Planes" video has fallen victim to the channel's standards-and-practices department. The gunshot noises on the track's hook are gone, replaced with, in her words, "this fucked up mess with double-tracked bullshit mess." Something similar happened when she did the song on the David Letterman show, except there the gunshot noises got changed to some weird pitch-shifted clicks that sort of sound like the gunshot noises that come from those little wartime-noisemaker toys that I drove my parents nuts with when I was nine. All this makes a difference because "Paper Planes" is probably the best shot that M.I.A. has of entering the pop mainstream in any significant way without stamping out any of the confounding, ambiguous political subtexts that her music carries. "Paper Planes" is a light and airy and bewitchingly pretty song, but it also rides on a Clash sample and has a chorus that's all gunshot noises and cash-register chings and a chorus of amped-up kids singing a double-dutch refrain about taking your money. It's a great song, and its remix is something like an epic, the guest-verses from Bun B and Rich Boy adding manifold layers of anger and desperation and swagger. Bun's verse, in particular, is a manifesto in favor of directionless violence disguised as a pearl of sage wisdom, done by a virtuoso veteran who has plenty of ideas and knows how to get them across in plain everday language. I'd rather M.I.A. release the remix as the single, but even without Bun and Rich Boy, it's a dizzying song. Without those gunshot noises, though, the meaning of the track changes massively; it loses all its tense, ominous charge. If M.I.A. is to escape the indie ghetto where she seems increasingly out of place, she'll do it through a version of her song that's been gutted of meaning (though, to be fair, it still sounds pretty amazing). On that disappeared MySpace rant, M.I.A. calls it "sabotage." Should MTV be allowed to pull that stuff?
Lately, 50 Cent has been going on and on about MTV's double standard, how they'll change the title of his single "I'll Still Kill" to "I Still Will" and change the kill on the chorus to chill (as in "I still will chill," which sounds stupid) but that they won't think anything of running a video by a band called the Killers. He's got a point. In my comments section a while back, someone floated the theory that rap sales are nosediving in part because MTV and BET and radio remove anything that sounds like it could possibly be a reference to drugs or sex or violence, and so a lot of rap verses become unlistenable, their bleeped-out silences sometimes outnumbering their actual words. Whenever a rap video wants to imply violence, it has to pull some goofy nonsense where the character's hand is outside the camera's frame or whatever. But whenever a big-budget rock band like My Chemical Romance or Green Day or whoever wants to stage a war scene, guns appear again. Maybe "I'll Still Kill" glorifies violence and that Green Day video doesn't but what qualifies MTV to make that call? And when it comes to "Paper Planes," a song with an actual meaning buried under layers of implication, the question of whether or not she's actually advocating violence gets a whole lot thornier and more ambiguous. MTV probably wants to avoid those questions altogether, so it's eliminating any possible trace of violence. But the effect ends up being weirdly racial. On the Letterman show, Dave introduced her as being an "acclaimed Sri Lankan rapper," a label that doesn't really fit her at all. But MTV is treating "Paper Planes" the way it treats all rap songs, and it's hard not to wonder how they might've handled the video if she were white or played guitar or whatever. The weird thing about all that is that MTV is totally cool with airing commercials of movies or video games that prominently feature guns. Any impressionable little kids watching MTV are learning that violence is cool anyway. So why bother removing gunshot noises from a song? Would the uncensored version of "Paper Planes" really offend anyone?
As it is, the "Paper Planes" video, with its sandwich truck and its computer-generated paper airplanes and its unnecessary Beasties cameo, is still pretty good. It might even get some early-morning airplay, since that's the only time MTV sees fit to air actual music videos. I remain unconvinced that M.I.A. really has a shot at crossover pop stardom, especially since pop stardom itself has become vastly more nebulous and meaningless over the past few years. More people will probably watch the "Paper Planes" video online than on MTV anyway, and it's not as if the uncensored version would inspire rioting in the streets even if it premiered on prime-time network TV during Lost or whatever. But "Paper Planes" is a song that deserves to start a few arguments, and it should go out into the wider world with its argument-starting potential left intact. So, I'd argue, should "I Still Kill"; that one is lifeless gangsta cliche and the other is confused capitalist critique is immaterial. Nobody expects MTV (or BET or radio) to be a stronghold of mainstream morality anyway, so what's the difference? It's not as though antisocial, dangerous ideas are disappearing from popular music, but the cultural outlets in which that music makes itself heard are increasingly afraid of offending anyone, ever, for any reason. That weird standoff between artists and gatekeepers means that we can't watch videos on TV or listen to music on the radio without a whole lot of songs being reduced to meaningless gibberish. No wonder so many of us are downloading.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Human Rights v. Cultural Relativism
A Saudi woman is kidnapped at knife-point and gang raped by seven men. A court ruling sentences her to 200 lashes and jail time because she was with a man that was not a relative. The debate from both the West and Middle East is whether the strict, patriarchal Islamic Law is an issue of the abuse of basic human rights or cultural relativism.
The international community was wholly outraged when the news of the Saudi rape case broke, sighting archaic laws and abuse of Islam. Indeed, Saudi Arabia is governed by the most strict part of the Quran, the shari'ah. Shari'ah law effects women both socially and politically. At birth, a Saudi woman is assigned a male guardian; this man (most likely her father) governs this woman's life. When she marries, her husband is her new guardian. Similarly, Saudi women are not allowed in public with men who aren't their relatives. Politically, women have essentially no chance. Shari'ah counts a woman's testimony has half a man's testimony.
The rape case exemplifies the bitter injustices Saudi women endure: lack of representation in the public and private sectors; an excessively patriarchal and conservative government; and no personal freedoms. It is poor logic to argue that because Saudi Arabia is a Muslim country based on Islamic principles, it should be devoid of basic human rights for women. There are numerous Middle Eastern countries that do not govern solely on the Quran and shari'ah law and women have similar freedoms as men. It irresponsible and inhumane for the Saudi government to hid behind Islam as an excuse for their desecration of women.
Outrage should have resonated from every single liberal country, especially the pro-democratic United States. But guess who the US gets oil from? Saudi Arabia. So guess what George Bush said regarding the rape case. Nothing.
UPDATE: The Saudi woman was pardoned today by King Abdullah. A Justice Minister told the Saudi Arabian newspaper al-Jazirah: ''The king always looks into alleviating the suffering of the citizens when he becomes sure that these verdicts will leave psychological effects on the convicted people, though he is convinced and sure that the verdicts were fair." Whatever.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Happy Birthday Merez!!
"I think we should go rehearse in a garage, call ourselves the vomit squad, play clubs and start from scratch. Not everyone's into it, but that's the only way to keep it honest."
--Frank Black
--Frank Black
Monday, December 10, 2007
'tis the season to be final.
The history books of America and Western Europe demonstrate their people as greedy, land-obsessed conquerors, always looking for more land to claim, be it occupied or not. The readers of these history books are taught that this quest for land was necessary and good—the more land claimed in the name of England, Spain, or anywhere in the West, the better. The land was exploited and was only looked at in terms of the potential gain it could bring its owner. After all the land that was fit to claim was claimed (and then subsequently fought over and reclaimed), the people of our past carved out our ideologies and began exemplifying what would be our way of life: a white, Christian patriarchy with a strong work ethic and an emphasis on capitalism and "freedom." In her book "On the Beaten Track," Lucy R. Lippard identifies the difference between a tourist and a traveler. A tourist, she says, is more constricted in terms of experience while a traveler is freer. While both are relatively upper class (not everyone can afford a vacation), what separates the two are their views of the land upon which they set foot: the tourist, as Jamaica Kincaid points out in “A Small Place,” sees the land as his "freedom," his property, while the traveler, like Sal Paradise or Dean Moriarty in “On the Road,” views the land as full of new experiences and how this newness relates to the Self.
Jack Kerouac's "On the Road" exemplifies perfectly a traveler's views and purposes for movement. The Beats of the 1950s were concerned with environmentalism and leaving the land pure and untouched. Instead of it being there for their pleasure, the Beats allowed the strange land and different culture to affect them in a certain type of spiritual and personal growth. They were spontaneous and open to experiences not incorporated into a travel schedule (for there generally wasn’t one). The Beats espoused a traveler's prerogatives by embracing the new experiences and trying to leave as few finger prints as possible.
“Many towns are not so much potential destinations as service stops along the way to more desirable places. Considered negligible, they are unseen, recalling tourism in its innocence, when travelers were strangers, providing entertainment for locals, when the passing tourists looked out upon views that were the same before they came and after they left,” (Lippard, 14).
Sal and Dean “passed through” places physically, as travelers, but allowed each place to affect them much more than that. They left things relatively how they were found, untouched (except for the women) with a yearning to understand and, if permissible, participate in the culture of their location. “There’s no suspicion here, nothing like that. Everybody’s cool, everybody looks at you with such straight brown eyes and they don’t say anything, just look, and in that look all of the human qualities are soft and subdued and still there,” Dean said of the people in Mexico. “Dig all the foolish stories you read about Mexico and the sleeping gringo and all that crap—and crap about the greasers and so on—and all it is, people here are straight and kind and don’t put down any bull. I’m so amazed by this,” (266). During their time in Mexico, neither Sal nor Dean had any expectations of the people or the land—only that it would be different. “Now, Sal, we’re leaving everything behind us and entering a new and unknown phase of things. All the years and troubles and kicks—and now this! so that we can safely think of nothing else and just go on ahead with our faces stuck out like this, you see, and understand the world as, really and genuinely speaking, other Americans haven’t done before us—they were here, weren’t they? The Mexican war. Cutting across here with cannon,” (264). Sal and Dean do not exploit their new surroundings in the way that Kincaid’s “tourist” exploits the land, but instead hold the differences in high regard and with and immeasurable respect: “the sun rose pure on pure and ancient activities of human life,” (266).
While Sal also exemplified the post-tourist in his constant struggle of how the land and the experience of being there related to the Self, he also had more respect for the land, recognizing that he did not own anything he experienced throughout his travels, except what he rarely bought with his own money. The Beats were known for being environmentalists and for being conscious of their influences. They were largely against popular consumerism and would instead trade or work for their necessities. After meeting and falling for Terry, she and Sal planned to pick grapes in Bakersfield, California to earn some money before moving back to New York. “We arrived in Bakersfield in late afternoon. The plan was to hit every fruit wholesaler in town. Terry said we could live in tents on the job. The thought of living in a tent and picking grapes in the cool California mornings hit me right. But there were no jobs to be had, and much confusions, with everybody giving us innumerable tips, and no job materialized,”(83). Because Sal and Dean only had limited resources, they were not vital to the San Francisco or Mexican life or economy. In fact, Sal finds that young women cotton picking in Mexico can accomplish more picking than he, a white male, can. Displaying an idealist attitude, Sal tried wherever he went to be incorporated into the everyday lives of the natives. In this sense, Sal and Dean were the antitheses of the modern day tourist who, in places such as Belize, Jamaica and Mexico, provides the main economic industry—his exploitation of the strange land and its people is vital to the economy of these places through his incessant consumerism and need for “all-inclusive packages” and souvenirs for friends and family back home.
Jamaica Kincaid addresses the tourist in all his ugliness in “A Small Place.” She points an unremorseful finger at “the tourist,” a position in which many of us, as Westerners have been. Ignorant of other cultures, the tourist has high expectations for a good time, and there are many factors that could ruin this: rainy or cold weather, unfriendly people, bad food, illness, etc. But, for the natives, this is another day. Kincaid explains the motives for a tourist’s movement “because being ordinary is already so taxing, and being ordinary takes all you have out of you, and though the words ‘I must get away’ do not actually pass across your lips, you make a leap from being that nice blob just sitting like a boob in your amniotic sac of the modern experience to being a person visiting heaps of death and ruin and feeling alive and inspired at the sight of it,” (16).
In Larry Krotz’s “Tourists: How Our Fastest Growing Industry is Changing the World,” he explains the drastic effect that tourism is having on the world, mostly poorer places in the world, places to which Westerners attempt their “escape”:
“What the marauding army of tourists primarily leave behind is a radically American culture. Riding in the travelers’ suitcases, western, basically American culture—sporting its other self-appointed guise as world or global popular culture—intrudes everywhere. It is both cart and horse, in advance of and as a result of, tourism. In some ways, the culture precedes the tourists in order to welcome them, to make them feel ‘at home.’ If it is believed, for instance, that the American traveler will only go where he or she can watch CNN, as the British masses earlier would only go where they could get chips with their meals, CNN will certainly (and quickly) find a way to be there… This has two effects, the first being that it changes the culture of the places visited. The second effect is that for the visitor, it becomes increasingly impossible to get away. If you are American, it is more and more difficult ever to leave America behind,” (195).
Ultimately, tourism to poverty-stricken nations is exploitation in its most extreme.
“A tourist is an ugly human being. You are not an ugly person all the time; you are not an ugly person ordinarily; you are not an ugly person day to day,” (14) Kincaid says of the tourist. He is only ugly when he comes to places like Kincaid’s homeland, Antigua, with the expectation that the land is at his disposal. When a tourist is on “holiday,” he tends to forget that there are natives of this strange land. He seems to forget that it is a strange land in general, coming with the expectation and assumption that commodities like television and T-shirts will be waiting for him. In the film “Life in Debt,” Kincaid narrates, reading an excerpt from “A Small Place”:
“For every native of every place is a potential tourist, and every tourist is a native of somewhere. Every native of everywhere lives a life of overwhelming and crushing banality and boredom and desperation and depression, and ever deed, good and bad, is an attempt to forget this,” (18).
This idea is juxtaposed over images of crispy, sunburned faces lounging on a beach. That’s what beaches are for, right? These same Westerners are pleasantly surprised upon exchanging their American dollars for some funny new coin and doubling their currency. With this instant increase in capital, tourists buy and spend and treat themselves nonstop. They stay at luxury suites, which were only built in these countries to please the tourists. They spend hundreds of dollars on cheap goods to help them remember that time they got away from it all in the tropical heat on a white sandy beach.
“Every native would like to find a way out, every native would like a rest, every native would like a tour,” Kincaid continues. “But some natives—most natives in the world—cannot go anywhere. They are too poor. They are too poor to go anywhere. They are too poor to escape the reality of their lives; and they are too poor to live properly in the place where they live, which is the very place you, the tourist, want to go—so when the natives see you, the tourist, they envy you, they envy your ability to leave your own banality and boredom, they envy your ability to turn their own banality and boredom into a source of pleasure for yourself,” (19).
But where are these natives of the foreign lands? They do not all work as tour guides. “Wednesday is the day everything changes over. On Wednesday the big chartered airliners from North America…make their turnarounds at Phillip Goldston International Airport [in Belize], where they pick up the seasoned veterans, holidayed-out, and leave behind new groups of fresh, pale, eager new faces,” writes Krotz (65). In places like Belize, destination locations that Krotz calls “flavors of the month,” the main industry is tourism. Businesses cater to these strangers and put a tremendous emphasis in making their patrons feel anything but “home.” At these destinations, tourists take advantage of the dry season that can have devastating effects on the local crops. They take for granted the bilingual locals who have learned to speak the language of the Other. The fact that all-inclusive luxury suites are not the lives that the locals lead does not even cross the mind of the tourist; they protect themselves from stepping foot into the ghettos of Kingston, Jamaica or Oaxaca, Mexico and only remain sunning in the beach or buying pieces of coral reefs to take home and show people back at the office. Ignorance plays a large part in tourisms popularity. The culture of the land is never taken into account (except, of course, for the food). Once a certain location catches on in terms of its paradise-like feel, the escaping tourists must move on like a herd in search of a watering hole. They feed the economy briefly and then bring their money elsewhere, to exploit a lesser-known tropical paradise.
While the difference of the views on land is largely different between tourists and travelers, views can be seen as equally selfish. While the Beats acknowledged the other cultures and their different ways of life, they still used them to relate to themselves, involving these differences in their personal and spiritual growth. However, if tourism were to come to a halt, many countries would be even more impoverished than at present and would have to rely on an entirely new mode of production. But perhaps if these people were made aware of the Other that they are visiting, the true nature of how these people live, they would spend their money in more pertinent ways: through shopping at farmer’s markets, experiencing both the city life and the relaxed beach life, and staying outside of the ritzy, Americanized resorts. If tourists, with all of their money, took the points of view of the traveler, much good could be done with a mutual respect: the money helping the economy and the appreciation of differences amongst how people live day to day. For, Jamaica Kincaid was not placing the blame on Sal or Dean, who neither helped nor harmed their destinations; she places the blame on the ugly tourist with expectations of perfection that the natives are forced to achieve for the traveler’s pleasure. Just as a tourist stops being ugly when they stop being a tourist, according to Kincaid, a tourist becomes a traveler when they stop expecting the foreign lands to provide for them an all-inclusive experience.
Jack Kerouac's "On the Road" exemplifies perfectly a traveler's views and purposes for movement. The Beats of the 1950s were concerned with environmentalism and leaving the land pure and untouched. Instead of it being there for their pleasure, the Beats allowed the strange land and different culture to affect them in a certain type of spiritual and personal growth. They were spontaneous and open to experiences not incorporated into a travel schedule (for there generally wasn’t one). The Beats espoused a traveler's prerogatives by embracing the new experiences and trying to leave as few finger prints as possible.
“Many towns are not so much potential destinations as service stops along the way to more desirable places. Considered negligible, they are unseen, recalling tourism in its innocence, when travelers were strangers, providing entertainment for locals, when the passing tourists looked out upon views that were the same before they came and after they left,” (Lippard, 14).
Sal and Dean “passed through” places physically, as travelers, but allowed each place to affect them much more than that. They left things relatively how they were found, untouched (except for the women) with a yearning to understand and, if permissible, participate in the culture of their location. “There’s no suspicion here, nothing like that. Everybody’s cool, everybody looks at you with such straight brown eyes and they don’t say anything, just look, and in that look all of the human qualities are soft and subdued and still there,” Dean said of the people in Mexico. “Dig all the foolish stories you read about Mexico and the sleeping gringo and all that crap—and crap about the greasers and so on—and all it is, people here are straight and kind and don’t put down any bull. I’m so amazed by this,” (266). During their time in Mexico, neither Sal nor Dean had any expectations of the people or the land—only that it would be different. “Now, Sal, we’re leaving everything behind us and entering a new and unknown phase of things. All the years and troubles and kicks—and now this! so that we can safely think of nothing else and just go on ahead with our faces stuck out like this, you see, and understand the world as, really and genuinely speaking, other Americans haven’t done before us—they were here, weren’t they? The Mexican war. Cutting across here with cannon,” (264). Sal and Dean do not exploit their new surroundings in the way that Kincaid’s “tourist” exploits the land, but instead hold the differences in high regard and with and immeasurable respect: “the sun rose pure on pure and ancient activities of human life,” (266).
While Sal also exemplified the post-tourist in his constant struggle of how the land and the experience of being there related to the Self, he also had more respect for the land, recognizing that he did not own anything he experienced throughout his travels, except what he rarely bought with his own money. The Beats were known for being environmentalists and for being conscious of their influences. They were largely against popular consumerism and would instead trade or work for their necessities. After meeting and falling for Terry, she and Sal planned to pick grapes in Bakersfield, California to earn some money before moving back to New York. “We arrived in Bakersfield in late afternoon. The plan was to hit every fruit wholesaler in town. Terry said we could live in tents on the job. The thought of living in a tent and picking grapes in the cool California mornings hit me right. But there were no jobs to be had, and much confusions, with everybody giving us innumerable tips, and no job materialized,”(83). Because Sal and Dean only had limited resources, they were not vital to the San Francisco or Mexican life or economy. In fact, Sal finds that young women cotton picking in Mexico can accomplish more picking than he, a white male, can. Displaying an idealist attitude, Sal tried wherever he went to be incorporated into the everyday lives of the natives. In this sense, Sal and Dean were the antitheses of the modern day tourist who, in places such as Belize, Jamaica and Mexico, provides the main economic industry—his exploitation of the strange land and its people is vital to the economy of these places through his incessant consumerism and need for “all-inclusive packages” and souvenirs for friends and family back home.
Jamaica Kincaid addresses the tourist in all his ugliness in “A Small Place.” She points an unremorseful finger at “the tourist,” a position in which many of us, as Westerners have been. Ignorant of other cultures, the tourist has high expectations for a good time, and there are many factors that could ruin this: rainy or cold weather, unfriendly people, bad food, illness, etc. But, for the natives, this is another day. Kincaid explains the motives for a tourist’s movement “because being ordinary is already so taxing, and being ordinary takes all you have out of you, and though the words ‘I must get away’ do not actually pass across your lips, you make a leap from being that nice blob just sitting like a boob in your amniotic sac of the modern experience to being a person visiting heaps of death and ruin and feeling alive and inspired at the sight of it,” (16).
In Larry Krotz’s “Tourists: How Our Fastest Growing Industry is Changing the World,” he explains the drastic effect that tourism is having on the world, mostly poorer places in the world, places to which Westerners attempt their “escape”:
“What the marauding army of tourists primarily leave behind is a radically American culture. Riding in the travelers’ suitcases, western, basically American culture—sporting its other self-appointed guise as world or global popular culture—intrudes everywhere. It is both cart and horse, in advance of and as a result of, tourism. In some ways, the culture precedes the tourists in order to welcome them, to make them feel ‘at home.’ If it is believed, for instance, that the American traveler will only go where he or she can watch CNN, as the British masses earlier would only go where they could get chips with their meals, CNN will certainly (and quickly) find a way to be there… This has two effects, the first being that it changes the culture of the places visited. The second effect is that for the visitor, it becomes increasingly impossible to get away. If you are American, it is more and more difficult ever to leave America behind,” (195).
Ultimately, tourism to poverty-stricken nations is exploitation in its most extreme.
“A tourist is an ugly human being. You are not an ugly person all the time; you are not an ugly person ordinarily; you are not an ugly person day to day,” (14) Kincaid says of the tourist. He is only ugly when he comes to places like Kincaid’s homeland, Antigua, with the expectation that the land is at his disposal. When a tourist is on “holiday,” he tends to forget that there are natives of this strange land. He seems to forget that it is a strange land in general, coming with the expectation and assumption that commodities like television and T-shirts will be waiting for him. In the film “Life in Debt,” Kincaid narrates, reading an excerpt from “A Small Place”:
“For every native of every place is a potential tourist, and every tourist is a native of somewhere. Every native of everywhere lives a life of overwhelming and crushing banality and boredom and desperation and depression, and ever deed, good and bad, is an attempt to forget this,” (18).
This idea is juxtaposed over images of crispy, sunburned faces lounging on a beach. That’s what beaches are for, right? These same Westerners are pleasantly surprised upon exchanging their American dollars for some funny new coin and doubling their currency. With this instant increase in capital, tourists buy and spend and treat themselves nonstop. They stay at luxury suites, which were only built in these countries to please the tourists. They spend hundreds of dollars on cheap goods to help them remember that time they got away from it all in the tropical heat on a white sandy beach.
“Every native would like to find a way out, every native would like a rest, every native would like a tour,” Kincaid continues. “But some natives—most natives in the world—cannot go anywhere. They are too poor. They are too poor to go anywhere. They are too poor to escape the reality of their lives; and they are too poor to live properly in the place where they live, which is the very place you, the tourist, want to go—so when the natives see you, the tourist, they envy you, they envy your ability to leave your own banality and boredom, they envy your ability to turn their own banality and boredom into a source of pleasure for yourself,” (19).
But where are these natives of the foreign lands? They do not all work as tour guides. “Wednesday is the day everything changes over. On Wednesday the big chartered airliners from North America…make their turnarounds at Phillip Goldston International Airport [in Belize], where they pick up the seasoned veterans, holidayed-out, and leave behind new groups of fresh, pale, eager new faces,” writes Krotz (65). In places like Belize, destination locations that Krotz calls “flavors of the month,” the main industry is tourism. Businesses cater to these strangers and put a tremendous emphasis in making their patrons feel anything but “home.” At these destinations, tourists take advantage of the dry season that can have devastating effects on the local crops. They take for granted the bilingual locals who have learned to speak the language of the Other. The fact that all-inclusive luxury suites are not the lives that the locals lead does not even cross the mind of the tourist; they protect themselves from stepping foot into the ghettos of Kingston, Jamaica or Oaxaca, Mexico and only remain sunning in the beach or buying pieces of coral reefs to take home and show people back at the office. Ignorance plays a large part in tourisms popularity. The culture of the land is never taken into account (except, of course, for the food). Once a certain location catches on in terms of its paradise-like feel, the escaping tourists must move on like a herd in search of a watering hole. They feed the economy briefly and then bring their money elsewhere, to exploit a lesser-known tropical paradise.
While the difference of the views on land is largely different between tourists and travelers, views can be seen as equally selfish. While the Beats acknowledged the other cultures and their different ways of life, they still used them to relate to themselves, involving these differences in their personal and spiritual growth. However, if tourism were to come to a halt, many countries would be even more impoverished than at present and would have to rely on an entirely new mode of production. But perhaps if these people were made aware of the Other that they are visiting, the true nature of how these people live, they would spend their money in more pertinent ways: through shopping at farmer’s markets, experiencing both the city life and the relaxed beach life, and staying outside of the ritzy, Americanized resorts. If tourists, with all of their money, took the points of view of the traveler, much good could be done with a mutual respect: the money helping the economy and the appreciation of differences amongst how people live day to day. For, Jamaica Kincaid was not placing the blame on Sal or Dean, who neither helped nor harmed their destinations; she places the blame on the ugly tourist with expectations of perfection that the natives are forced to achieve for the traveler’s pleasure. Just as a tourist stops being ugly when they stop being a tourist, according to Kincaid, a tourist becomes a traveler when they stop expecting the foreign lands to provide for them an all-inclusive experience.
Monday, December 3, 2007
More Proof
that the world bank is evil. http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif
This article details how the WB wanted to impose free-trade regulations on the impoverished nation and cut its fertilizer subsidies. They also suggested that Malawi grow cash crops for export and then import all their food. (logic that wouldn't get past a 6-year-old's bullshit detector.)Malawi ignored the "experts" and grew lots of corn thanks to subsidies on fertilizer.
The NYT says: "The country’s successful use of subsidies is contributing to a broader reappraisal of the crucial role of agriculture in alleviating poverty in Africa and the pivotal importance of public investments in the basics of a farm economy: fertilizer, improved seed, farmer education, credit and agricultural research."
And the US's role?
"The United States, which has shipped $147 million worth of American food to Malawi as emergency relief since 2002, but only $53 million to help Malawi grow its own food, has not provided any financial support for the subsidy program, excephttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gift for helping pay for the evaluation of it. Over the years, the United States Agency for International Development has focused on promoting the role of the private sector in delivering fertilizer and seed, and saw subsidies as undermining that effort."
Everything you ever wanted to know about globalization but were afraid to ask.
Lots of bias!
This article details how the WB wanted to impose free-trade regulations on the impoverished nation and cut its fertilizer subsidies. They also suggested that Malawi grow cash crops for export and then import all their food. (logic that wouldn't get past a 6-year-old's bullshit detector.)Malawi ignored the "experts" and grew lots of corn thanks to subsidies on fertilizer.
The NYT says: "The country’s successful use of subsidies is contributing to a broader reappraisal of the crucial role of agriculture in alleviating poverty in Africa and the pivotal importance of public investments in the basics of a farm economy: fertilizer, improved seed, farmer education, credit and agricultural research."
And the US's role?
"The United States, which has shipped $147 million worth of American food to Malawi as emergency relief since 2002, but only $53 million to help Malawi grow its own food, has not provided any financial support for the subsidy program, excephttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gift for helping pay for the evaluation of it. Over the years, the United States Agency for International Development has focused on promoting the role of the private sector in delivering fertilizer and seed, and saw subsidies as undermining that effort."
Everything you ever wanted to know about globalization but were afraid to ask.
Lots of bias!
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Race, Gender and Labels
Here's an article about Obama versus Hillary as far as progressive/ feminist values go-- which apparently aren't the same thing, as the article notes-- some woman had to trade in her "feminist" ideals in favor of her "progressive" ones in deciding on Obama rather than Hillary. Not only does the article treat "feminism" like it's the man-hating plague, but acts shocked that Obama, as a man, may actually be a more "feminist" figure than Hillary. Didn't know we were still stuck in the 60s.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)