Indigenous Representation in Australian Media Essay

Indigenous Representation in Australian Media Essay.

In this essay I will argue that the media representation of Indigenous Australian’s is stereotypical and distorted. Far from a true reflection of Aboriginal life and practice, the media manipulates the interpretation of what white Australia view as the life of an Indigenous Australian. I aim to show that cultural stereotyping, and cultural sensationalist reporting exists within the media, and therefore the general public. I will provide a basis for this argument starting with the views and cultures prevalent in the origins of Australian media.

In conjunction with my argument, I will draw on examples taken from specific stories published by media provider ‘The Australian,” to use them as an example of Indigenous portrayal in mainstream media. The analysis of these stories will display evidence of stereotypical representation of Indigenous Australians. My argument will also incorporate scholarly views on the Aboriginal communities own view on their representation, and show an example of what steps they have taken within their communities to counteract such treatment.

Meadows (2001, p.1) refers to colonial literature perpetrating racial stereotyping and racist treatment of native Australians. This is a concept also approached by Hall (cited in Ewart, 1997, p. 109) showing how media is part of the formation of race and cultural identity in the Australian landscape. This shows that the very fabric of indigenous representation in the creation of Australian media has been influencing the country’s views from day one. If this is the case, and has been since the creation of Australian media, how does the average Australian recognise stereotyping when reading a story or watching the news? , they won’t.

People generally place their faith in the media, and believe what they are viewing to be free of prejudice. This belief works in unison with the view that in the modern politically correct world, racism no longer has an influence on the media, and racial stereotyping is a thing of the past. This belief does have merit with the extinction of blatant racism, but the undertones are still influencing the media. Jakubowicz (cited in Bullimore, 1999, p. 73) refers to the point that overt racism may not be as prevalent as it previously was, but covert racism in stereotypical representation of the Indigenous still exists.

These covertly racist influences were exposed in 1991 in a National Inquiry into racism, and the Human Rights Commission (cited in Bullimore, 1999, p. 73) found that the Australian media has a tendency for the fuelling and promotion of racial stereotyping, not to mention sensationalism reporting on the issues of race. A perfect example of this stereotyping is a recent article by The Australian in March 2010 titled, ‘Parents stopping kids going to school. ’ This article offers a 26 photo picture gallery with text below.

The story is based around Indigenous kids not wanting to attend school; apparently some parents say this is due to schoolyard violence. The story offers no insight or analysis into the violence or even any explanation of the children’s issues; it simply stereotypes Indigenous families and communities via the visual and written content. Initial pictures show barefoot children playing in a park with text making it very clear that it is 11:10am on a school day, and the children are not at school. The next set show children at 11:20am on a school day sitting around on dirty mattresses in squalor.

The text continually drives in here that the children are at home, and the pictures show family members sitting around in a circle not seeming to care. The story then moves on to children on a school bus, and eventually sitting on the floor in class. So are they at school or not? Is it the children that don’t want to go or is it the parents not wanting them to. Here is my point regarding this story. There are no facts, just a focus on Indigenous children not at school, and a focus on their families sitting around doing nothing also.

The story ends with photos of children running around kicking a football, throwing up gang signs, and sticking their middle finger up at the camera. With no clear structure or evidence, the story whether directly or indirectly, sets out to show Indigenous children having a great time missing school while their families sit around in squalor. As King (2009, p. 21) deliberates, with this sort of pre-empted vision of an Aboriginal family, how can such a family actually be portrayed as ordinary within the media?

Did the journalist set out to capture such cliches, or was it this societal view that this is how an indigenous family is best portrayed within the media? I believe it to be the latter. The issue surrounding this article can be explained by Gandy (cited in Meadows, 2001, p. 7) who refers to the media playing a role in providing simplistic and commonsense explanations for questions and events. It is then common sense for this routing being the basis for reinforcing and reproducing racial structures.

This may explain why the article shows such cliche images of Aboriginal children, and families with no information regarding the story itself. This can be a reference to how the media and in this case “The Australian,” portray Indigenous people to the Australian public via their print and visual media. The stereotypical undertone is clearly prevalent. To develop a proper understanding of the stereotyping issue within the Australian media, one has to incorporate the first hand views of the Indigenous people. How do they view their representation? Waller (2010, p. 19) refers to a telephone meeting involving Walpiri elders from Yuendumu.

The elders consider that because journalists don’t listen or take an interest in Indigenous issues then their ideas must not be heard in public discussion or indigenous affairs. Meadows (1994, p. 64) refers to elders from Torres Strait Island communities aiming to restrict the involvement of non-Islander journalists in the area. He goes on to explain that the ideal outcome for the Elders would be to control incoming and outgoing information via journalists, due to the disillusionment surrounding mainstream representation.

To further enforce Aboriginal views on their representation, Meadows (1994, p. 64) advises that certain Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory established a visitor permit system that require community-generated guidelines and rulings be followed. This clearly show’s that the indigenous communities view their representation as stereotypical and racially underlined. They feel their issues and thoughts are ignored. These concerns formed the basis for the implementation of larger Indigenous run media outlets to take precedence in the media landscape.

An article in The Australian on April 26th 2010 titled ‘Indigenous media goes under the microscope,’ explores Indigenous media in regards to government funding. The story explains that the government will be reviewing all directly funded Indigenous Media organisations. The apparent focus of the review is to ascertain whether public funding was providing the best possible outcomes for the Indigenous. From reading the story, I can identify the racial stereotyping not only from the content, but from the story structure also.

The heading advising that Indigenous media will go under the microscope screams to the reader, before even reading the story that things may not be completely above board. The content focuses on government and public funding which stereotypes the Aboriginal community as needing their hand help and continually wanting handouts to get ahead. This approach I believe displays the ‘Australians,’ covert approach to racial stereotyping. This stereotyping, and approach to this particular story can perhaps be explained.

According to Forde, Meadows & Foxwell-Norton (2001, p. 1) the Australian media Sector has held long term concerns regarding the governments support for smaller, independent or even alternative media organisations. As this is the case, it’s no surprise the Australian focussed their funding story in such a manner. The Australian is part of the News Limited Media Group, the largest media group in the country. The Australian media appears to segregate Indigenous figures within the Australian Government.

To build on the view of content within the ‘Australian,’ a story titled “Labor anger over Warren Mundine Senate push,” focuses on painting an “us and them,” mentality. Mundine’s interest over a vacated senate seat apparently had the media in frenzy, resulting in him being involved in a number of interviews. The article underlies Mundine’s Aboriginality as opposed to simply being a candidate. Other candidates weren’t pursued for interviews at such length, are we assuming the interest surrounding Mundine is purely generated by his cultural standing?

Racial stereotyping in the pursuit of a commercial story bought about an undoing of Mundine’s aspirations for the vacant senate seat. Labor was angered by Mundine’s overt involvement with the media, one party spokesman even labelling the interviews the “dumbest thing possible” I assume then that the media jumped on the Warren Mundine story to stick with the idealism of Indigenous sensationalism reporting. I believe this type of reporting was what Mckee (1999, p. 451) was referring to when looking into how indigeneity is formulated, and circulated throughout the Australian media channels.

In conclusion it is clear from my presented evidence that the Australian media’s and in my example the ‘Australians,’ representation of the Indigenous people is based on cultural stereotype and sensationalism. My argument draws on evidence to portray views from the standpoint of the media, views from the perspective of Indigenous Australians, and what the media feels should drive content in relation to indigenous issues. As stated, Indigenous communities are taking more and more control over their incoming and outgoing content.

This represents a significant cog in changing the landscape of the Australian media and ultimately, the stereotypical reporting of Indigenous affairs. REFERENCES Bullimore, K 1999, ‘Media Dreaming: Representation of Aboriginality in modern Australian media’, Asia Pacific Media Educator, vol 1 no. 6, pp. 72-81, viewed 09 May 2012, <http://ro. uow. edu. au/apme/vol1/iss6/7> Ewart, J 1997, ‘The Scabsuckers: Regional Journalists’ Representation Of Indigenous Australians’, Asia Pacific Media Educator, no. 3, pp. 108-117, viewed 09 May 2012, <http://ro. uow.

edu. au/apme/vol1/iss3/7> Forde, S, Meadows, M & Foxwell-Norton, K 2011. ‘Independent Media Inquiry into Media and Media Regulation’, Griffith Centre Fr Cultural Research. <http://www. dbcde. gov. au/_data/assets/pdf_file/0008/142919/Susan_Forde_Michael_Meadows_Kerrie_Foxwell_-_Griffith_Centre_For_Cultural_Research. pdf> Jackson, S 2010, ‘Indigenous media goes under the microscope’, The Australian, April 26 2010, viewed 10 May 2012, <http://www. theaustralian. com. au/business/indigenous-media-goes-under-the-microscope/story-e6frg8zx-1225858120973>.

King, A 2009, ‘Relative Justice: Indigenous families in Australian lifestyle media’, Australian Journal of Communication, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 17-33, viewed 09 May 2012, <http://search. proquest. com. libraryproxy. griffith. edu. au/docview/884025479> Mckee, A 1999, ‘Researching the reception of indigenous affairs in Australia’, Screen Oxford Journals, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 451-454, viewed 10 May 2012, <http://screen. oxfordjournals. org. libraryproxy. griffith. edu. au/content/40/4/451. full. pdf+html>.

Meadows, M 2001, Voices in the Wilderness: Images of Aboriginal People in the Australian Media, Greenwood Press, Westport. Meadows, M 1994, ‘The Way People Want to Talk: Indigenous Media Production in Australia and Canada’, Media Information Australia, no. 73, pp. 64-73, viewed 09 May 2012, <http://search. informi. com. au. libraryproxy. griffith. edu. au/documentSummary:dn=150132517231472:res=IELLCC> Nowytarger, R 2012, ‘Parents stopping kids going to school’, The Australian, 13 March 2010, viewed 09 May 2012, <http://www. theaustralian. com.au/news/nation/gallery-e6frg6nf-1225840347955>.

Packham, B 2012, ‘Labor anger over Warren Mundine Senate push’, The Australian, February 29 2012, viewed 09 May 2012, <http://www. theaustralian. com. au/national-affairs/labor-anger-over-warren-mundine-senate-push/story-fn59niix-1226284854206> Waller, L, 2010, ‘Indigenous research ethics: new modes of information gathering and storytelling in journalism’, Australian Journalism Review, no. 2, pp. 19-31, viewed 11 May 2012, <http://search. informit. com. au. libraryproxy. griffith. edu. au/fullText:dn=201102773;res=APAFT>.

Indigenous Representation in Australian Media Essay

Indigenous Tribes of Latin America Essay

Indigenous Tribes of Latin America Essay.

Throughout the world, when new lands were conquered, old customs would be lost. However, in Latin America, a great deal of their indigenous tribes not only survived being conquered, they are still around today. Different regions of Latin America are home to different peoples and many tribes are part of ancient full-fledged kingdoms. Some of these kingdoms are among the most well-known in the world. The Meso-American native peoples make Latin America famous. These peoples include the Aztecs and Mayans. The Aztecs are most famous for their mathematical prowess and their calendars are exceptionally accurate.

Meanwhile, the Mayans are known for creating a fully-written language and making amazing advancements in the fields or mathematics, astronomy, art and architecture. Their calendar is also well-known. The development of the Aztec language, or Nahuatl played an important role in their civilization. Pictographs were used to represent their written language. The language, both written and spoken, was important in completing business arrangements and in keeping track of family and cultural histories.

The Aztec language was also used to create beautiful poetry used in rituals and ceremonies.

Many Aztec customs relied on the use of their language, as did the passing down of their legends and beliefs from one generation to the next. Maya culture developed in three regions in Mesoamerica. By far the most important and most complete urban development occurred in the lowlands in the central region of southern Guatemala. The southernmost Mayan city was Copan in northern Honduras. The other major region of Mayan development was the Yucatan peninsula making up the southern and eastern portions of modern-day Mexico. The principal food of the Mayas was maize and maize production was the central economic activity.

The people indigenous to the Caribbean include a few groups. These groups include the Taino people, who live in what is now known as Puerto Rico. The Taino were seafaring people whose largest towns contained around 3,000 people each which were considered immense in those times. The Arawak people of South America began migrating northward along the many scattered islands located between South and North America, an area we now refer to as the Caribbean. For a thousand years their population grew and the people lived in harmony.

The people covered all the islands of the Caribbean, the major ones as they are now known: Cuba, Puerto Rico and Hispaniola as well as all the smaller ones: the Bahamas, Bimini, Jamaica etc. Certain groups of island people identified themselves as Lokono, Lucayan, Carib, Ciboney, Arawak, but most islands were primarily inhabited by people who called themselves Taino, which stood for “the good people” in their language. The different groups intermarried extensively to strengthen ties amongst themselves. They were aware of a Divine presence that they called Yocahu, and to worship and give thanks was a major part of their lives. They had a social order that provided the leaders and guidelines by which they all lived.

They hunted, fished, cultivated crops and ate the abundant fruits provided by nature. They were clever and ingenious and had everything they needed to survive. They had beautiful ceremonies that were held at various times – birth, death, marriage, harvest, naming and coming of age, to name a few. They had special reverence for the Earth Mother and had respect for all living things knowing that all living things are connected. There was little need for clothing due to the tropic heat, but upon reaching puberty both males and females would wear a small woven loincloth.

Puberty was also the time at which they were considered old enough to be married. The population estimates for the Taino people at the height of their culture are as high as 8,000,000. That was in 1492. The Indigenous people of the Andes include many different ethnic groups and were among the first groups discovered by Christopher Columbus who called them “indios. ” However, the most famous tribe in the Andes is the Incan tribe. Their language, Quechua is still in use today. The Incas of Cusco originally represented one of these small and relatively minor ethnic groups, the Quechuas.

Gradually, as early as the thirteenth century, they began to expand and incorporate their neighbors. Inca expansion was slow until about the middle of the fifteenth century. The Inca were warriors with a strong and powerful army. Because of the fierceness of their army and their hierarchical organization, they became the largest Native American society. Quechua is the most widely spoken language and was the language of the Inca Empire. Tropical rainforests have long been home to indigenous peoples who have shaped civilizations and cultures based on the environment in which they live.

Great civilizations like the Mayas, Incas, and Aztecs developed complex societies and made great contributions to science. Living from nature and lacking the technology to dominate their environment, native peoples have learned to watch their surroundings and understand the intricacies of the rainforest. Over generations these people have learned the importance of living within their environment and have come to rely on the countless renewable benefits that forests can provide. In Peru, it is estimated that there are at least 15 uncontacted tribes living in remote areas of the Peruvian Amazon Rainforest.

These include the Tagaeri, Taromenane, uncontacted Matses, Cabellos Largos, Cashibo-Cacataibo, Isconahua, Murunahua, Mashco-Piro, Kugapakori, Nahua, Matsigenka, Mastanahua, Nanti and Yora tribes. Of an estimated 100 uncontacted tribes worldwide, about half of these people living in isolation from the rest of the world are thought to live in Peru and neighboring Brazil. After Brazil, Peru has the largest number of uncontacted tribes and people living in isolation in the world. There are nine principal areas in Peru where indigenous people are thought to be living in isolation.

Most of these uncontacted indigenous Amazonians are believed to live in the remote border region of Peru with Brazil. Recently, the Brazilian government released photographic evidence that uncontacted Amazonian natives still exist in the area of the Peruvian border with Brazil. These natives with long hair are called the Cabellos Largos. The Matses tribe has many hunting camps scattered in and around their lands in Peru and Brazil in the Javari River Valley. These hunting camps are only occupied for several months out of the year and usually have huts and cultivated gardens with indigenous crops such as plantains and cassava.

Recently, the Matses have reported several encounters of long-haired uncontacted natives who have been harvesting some of the Matses gardens at these isolated hunting camps in the southernmost range of their territory in Peru. None of the males of previously contacted tribes in the Javari Valley sport long hair. In fact, tribes such as the Matses, Matis, Korubos and Marubos are renowned for having very short hair. Hence, the Matses referring to this uncontacted tribe as the Cabellos Largos, or the “Long-Haired People.

” Uncontacted natives, related to the Cashibo-Cacataibo tribe, are thought to live in the area north of Tingo Maria in the foothills of the Andes Mountains. The Cashibo-Cacataibos speak a language in the Pano linguistic family and the word Cashibo means “bat”. A group of the Cashibo-Cacataibos has chosen to live apart from the outside world by voluntarily isolating themselves. They live in the headwaters of the Aguaytia, Pisqui and San Alejandro Rivers in and around the Cordillera Azul National Park. These indigenous Amazonians are sometimes referred to as the “Cacataibos in isolation” or the “Camanos.

” Cashibo-Cacataibo natives in isolation know about the outside world and have chosen to live apart from it voluntarily. Many indigenous tribes in South America have survived to this day, and most of their cultures are still intact. Their languages are still spoken and their customs are still practiced and passed down to their children and it’s even easy to find people from these tribes living very close to modern cities. They live without most modern conveniences and annoying hassles like criminal background checks and embrace their roots. ? References:

The Aztecs – Introduction to the Aztec Civilization and Cultures. Retrieved on October 3, 2010 from http://www. aztec-indians. com/ The Taino Indians – Native Americans of the Caribbean. Retrieved on October 2, 2010 from http://www. healing-arts. org/spider/tainoindians. htm Baniwa-Curripaco-Wakuenai – History and Cultural Relations. Retrieved on October 3, 2010 from http://www. everyculture. com/South-America/Baniwa-Curripaco-Wakuenai-History-and-Cultural-Relations. html Central and Southern Andes.

Retrieved on October 1, 2010 from http://www. metmuseum. org/toah/ht/?period=08®ion=sanc#/Overview Minnesota State University. Inca. Retrieved on October 3, 2010 from http://www. mnsu. edu/emuseum/prehistory/latinamerica/south/cultures/inca. html Pantone, Dan James. Welcome to Amazon-Indians. Retrieved on October 4, 2010 from http://www. amazon-indians. org Mariqueo, Reynaldo & Calbucura, Jorge. The Mapuche Nation. Retrieved October 2, 2010 http://www. mapuche-nation. org/english/main/feature/m_nation. htm USA People Search. Native Peoples of Latin America. Retrieved October 4, 2010 http://www. usa-people-search. com/content-native-peoples-of-latin-america. aspx.

Indigenous Tribes of Latin America Essay

Examine the Representation of the Encounter Between White Settler Essay

Examine the Representation of the Encounter Between White Settler Essay.

The Representation of the encounter between white settlers-invaders and indigenous peoples in Jeannette Armstrong’s “History Lesson” and Susanna Moodie’s Roughing it in the Bush differ greatly in a number of ways. Writing at different times, for conflicting purposes, from opposing points of view as well as utilizing different literary mediums- the resulting representation of the encounter between the white and indigenous groups are inherently contrasting.

Depicted as a lesser, more savage race in Roughing it in the Bush as well as the victims of savagery and ‘civilisation’ in “History Lesson”, Native representation in the two works are particularly unalike, however settler attitudes in both are based upon discriminatory and racist ideals of the time, and this can be seen in their encounter.

The role of religion also helped shape the natives’ encounter with the settlers, it is presented in a farcical way in “History Lesson” as well as in a somewhat ignorant fashion in Roughing it in the bush.

Despite her at times belittling language, Moodie does express some respect and appreciation of the Natives’ characteristics, an interest that is non-existent in “History Lesson”, however despite her fair mindedness, her opinions are still tinged with racism and an overbearing white –supremacist sentiment. Writing about her experiences in the 1830’s in Canada, Susanna Moodie’s Roughing it in the Bush is an account of life as a female settler at the time.

Published as a guide to Britons considering emigrating, her writing is ethnographic, analysing various groups such as those immigrating to Canada, the settlers in Canada as well as the indigenous Natives. In the Chapter “The Wilderness & our Indian Friends”, Moodie is confronted for the first time with Native Americans, whom she describes as “a people whose beauty, talents, and good qualities have been somewhat overrated, and invested with a poetical interest which they scarcely deserve.

” As her first utterance relating to the Natives, this opinion serves to be rather disparaging and surprising. As she believes they have received too much “poetical interest”, and their apparent positive qualities “overrated”. Moodie goes on to write, “Their honesty and love of truth are the finest traits in characters otherwise dark and unlovely. ” Despite an attempt at complimentary writing, her Language here is highly belittling toward the Natives, and in their encounter it is clear she sees herself superior to them.

Her use of “dark” refers to their mysterious personality as well potentially their complexion. The air of white settler superiority present in Roughing it in the bush is drastically magnified in Jeannette Armstrong’s poem “History Lesson”, however the Whites are portrayed as inferior in terms of actions. In contrast to Moodie, Armstrong is writing from the Native’s point of view, recounting the invasion of the white invaders following Christopher Columbus’s initial expedition to the Americas.

Her writing serves as a counter-history, providing a version of events from the Natives view that have throughout history been seen as savage enemies of civilization. It is argued, “Throughout recorded time, empowered groups have been able to define history and provide an explanation of the present. A good example of this is the portrayal of wars between Indians and White by Canadian historians. ” It is this notion of white dominating history that Armstrong challenges in “History Lesson”. In the first stanza, Armstrong writes;

Out of the belly of Christopher’s ship a mob bursts Running in all directions Pulling furs off animals Shooting buffalo Shooting each other left and right Armstrong ironically depicts the white invaders as savages in this stanza, with little to tell between them and animals such as the buffalo referred to in line 5. Christopher Columbus’s “discovery” of the Americas is whittled down to one line. Using very informal language, “belly” and “Christopher’s ship” denotes a particularly non-impressive image unlike most depictions of his voyage in white histories.

The use of the word “mob” conjures brutish connotations again often attributed to Native Americans. As well as depicting the encounter between Natives and white invaders, Armstrong also indicates the oncoming results of colonizing on the Natives’ land. “Pulling off furs” as well as literally graphically depicting the savage nature of the whites when hunting animals, also refers to the fur trade set up following colonization of Canada. The senseless barbarism continues with the shooting of buffalo as well as shooting of each other.

The lack of definition between the two, and the casual nature of the lines highlights the whites animalistic and savage nature, as well as the lack of unity between the European settlers. In this stanza “Jeannette Armstrong conveys the violence of abstraction of “Colonialism” by telescoping it into a vivid caricature of mad physical activity”. In contrast to “History Lesson” where the whites are judged on their actions, in Roughing it in the Bush Moodie initially analyses the Natives appearance and common traits. Moodie states, “The men of this tribe are generally small of stature, with very coarse and repulsive features.

” Following this wholly belittling description, there is a continuation of animal like comparisons “the observing faculties large, the intellectual ones scarcely developed; the ears large, and standing off from the face; the eyes looking towards the temples, keen, snake-like” In both literary texts, the opposing group is represented as animalistic, albeit metaphorically in “History Lesson” and much more literally in Roughing it in the Bush. Using authoritative language throughout, Moodie seems to be talking down to the Native peoples.

Her incessant insistence on referring to the Native peoples, within which there were fifty-five different languages and numerous tribes, as “Indians” also shows a clear lack of desire in learning the culture, a white attitude typical of “History lesson” as well. Although being an advocate of peace, her understanding of the nature of white- native relations seems somewhat off. Representing the taking of Native land as being “Passed into the hands of strangers”, suggests it was peaceful and not questioned, due to the passive verb “passed”.

However this is wholly contrasting with “History Lesson” in which the truer nature of the conflict is depicted. Religion plays a crucial role in both depictions of the encounter between white settlers and the natives. Christianity, and the way in which it was thrust upon the Natives is mocked in “History Lesson”, whilst Moodie finds the Natives’ understanding of the religion lacking, despite her total lack of knowledge of the Natives’ spirituality. Armstrong writes, “Father mean well? waves his makeshift wand forgives saucer-eyed Indians”.

Referring to a Priest as “Father mean well” is a sarcastic simplification of English terms, suggesting his intentions are good but little else. “Waves his makeshift wand” is a particularly strange way of describing a crucifix, with “wand” suggesting its magical as opposed to religious. Writing from a Native point of view however it is clear meaning given to such objects mean little to those that do not connote such meanings, and Armstrong instills in the reader the understanding that Christianity in the eye of the Natives is almost farcical.

In the self-deprecating line “forgives saucer-eyed Indians” Armstrong twists racism around, with her fellow Natives the abused in order to show its true ignorance. Moodie in comparison, writing for her home countrymen, reacts angrily in what she perceives as too much of a fascination with a man made sword, “For several days they continued to visit the house, bringing along with them some fresh companion to look at Mrs. Moodie’s god! –until, vexed and annoyed by the delight they manifested at the sight of the eagle-beaked monster, I refused to gratify their curiosity by not producing him again.

” Moodie represents the natives as ignorant and naive, however her anger at their interest shows her close-mindedness in terms of faith. This can be seen again when Moodie writes “Their ideas of Christianity appeared to me vague and unsatisfactory. They will tell you that Christ died for men, and that He is the Saviour of the World, but they do not seem to comprehend the spiritual character of Christianity, nor the full extent of the requirements and application of the law of Christian love.

” Both literary texts are alike in that Native comprehension of Christianity is lacking, however it is of course not they’re chosen faith and so this is understandable. References to the Garden of Eden can be found in both texts, as Armstrong writes “Somewhere among the remains of skinless animals is the termination? to a long journey and unholy search for the power glimpsed in a garden forever closed forever lost” Armstrong likens the new world to the Garden of Eden, another form of Utopia disturbed by human action.

Despite clear attempts at bringing Christianity to the Natives, she refers to the whole ordeal as “unholy”, owing to the terrible actions of the settlers. Moodie’s discovery of the areas natural beauty and naming of already known rocks and other objects is also similar to the biblical story. Yet Moodie sees herself as Eve, as opposed to the destroyer of it. In “History Lesson” there are several acknowledgements of the failings of Colonization and Capitalism that are to come following the encounter between whites and Natives. As Armstrong writes “Pioneers and traders bring gifts Smallpox, Seagrams and rice krispies”.

She again references the Bible, with the likeliness to the birth of Christ and the three Kings. However the gifts are terrible, illness, alcoholism and particularly unsubstantial modern food that of no use and no need to the Native with their established diet. Typifying her argument, she states “Civilization has reached the promised land” like the unashamed nature of advertising, Armstrong ironically includes the tagline “snap, crackle and pop” to illustrate the uselessness to Natives White/US culture has become.

The devastation continues as in stanza 7 she writes “The colossi? in which they trust while burying breathing forests and fields beneath concrete and steel stand shaking fists waiting to mutilate whole civilizations ten generations at a blow” The encounter between the whites and Natives is represented as doomed, for the natural wonder of the nation is buried “beneath concrete and steel”, with “whole civilizations, ten generations at a blow” ready to be mutilated.

Despite instances of lacking understanding and acceptance on Susanna Moodie’s part in Roughing it in the Bush of the Natives and their beliefs and characters, she does exhibit some tolerance and acknowledgement of their many skills and positive qualities.

As Moodie states, “The affection of Indian parents to their children, and the deference which they pay to the aged, is another beautiful and touching trait in their character. ” Her encounters with them are represented as peaceful and humbling, as she notes their humility in receiving food “The Indians are great imitators, and possess a nice tact in adopting the customs and manners of those with whom they associate. ” However despite her kind rhetoric, her superior racist attitude often prevails, “During better times we had treated these poor savages with kindness and liberality”.

Often too happy to return to the use of “savages”, she certainly does not give the Natives much respect as is due, much like the encounter in “History Lesson”. As J R Miller writes, “the ethnographic approach to the study of indigenous peoples was problematic because it was a descriptive portrayal that rendered Natives static and unchanging. ” This is the case with Moodie’s portrayal of the natives, as it is clear their way of life is seen as backward in her writing. Much of this however is to do with the provenance surrounding Roughing it in the Bush.

Nevertheless the encounter between the different groups in her writing is peaceful, intriguing and certainly not as disastrous as in “History Lesson”. In both texts the common themes of misunderstandings, religion and racism arise and help to shape the representation of the encounter between the white and native groups, with two very different depictions of the encounter and its consequences. Bibliography Susanna Moodie, Roughing it in the bush, The wilderness & Our Indian Friends, Canada, 1851.

James S Fridered, Native Peoples in Canada- Contemporary Conflicts, Canada, 1988 Jeannette C Armstrong & Lally Grauer, Native Poetry in Canada- A Contemporary Anthology, Canada, 2001 J R Miller, Reflections on Native Newcomer Relations-Selected Essays, 2004, Canada Jeannette C Armstrong, History Lesson Native Poetry in Canada- A Contemporary Anthology, Canada, 2001 I was able to gain further insight into the topic of white settler/Native relations using the book ‘Native peoples in Canada-contemporary conflicts”.

I was able to learn more of the way in which the history between these two groups has been documented, and this in turn enabled me to further understand the representation of the encounter between them in the two literary texts. I found this book in the library. Native poetry in Canada enabled me to better understand the meaning of Armstrong’s initial stanza, I found this using Google books. J R Miller’s book, Reflections on Native Newcomer Relations again enabled me to better understand the historical documentation of native/white relations in Canada.

Again I found this in the library. ——————————————– [ 1 ]. Susanna Moodie, Roughing it in the bush, The wilderness & Our Indian Friends, Canada, 1851 [ 2 ]. Susanna Moodie, Roughing it in the bush, The wilderness & Our Indian Friends, Canada, 1851 [ 3 ]. James S Fridered, Native Peoples in Canada- Contemporary Conflicts, Canada, 1988, p4 [ 4 ]. Jeannette C Armstrong & Lally Grauer, Native Poetry in Canada- A Contemporary Anthology, Canada, 2001, p 24 [ 5 ]. Susanna Moodie, Roughing it in the bush, The wilderness & Our Indian Friends, Canada, 1851 [ 6 ].

Susanna Moodie, Roughing it in the bush, The wilderness & Our Indian Friends, Canada, 1851 [ 7 ]. Susanna Moodie, Roughing it in the bush, The wilderness & Our Indian Friends, Canada, 1851 [ 8 ]. Susanna Moodie, Roughing it in the bush, The wilderness & Our Indian Friends, Canada, 1851 [ 9 ]. Jeannette C Armstrong, History Lesson Native Poetry in Canada- A Contemporary Anthology, Canada, 2001 [ 10 ]. Jeannette C Armstrong, History Lesson Native Poetry in Canada- A Contemporary Anthology, Canada, 2001 [ 11 ].

Jeannette C Armstrong, History Lesson Native Poetry in Canada- A Contemporary Anthology, Canada, 2001 [ 12 ]. Susanna Moodie, Roughing it in the bush, The wilderness & Our Indian Friends, Canada, 1851 [ 13 ]. Susanna Moodie, Roughing it in the bush, The wilderness & Our Indian Friends, Canada, 1851 [ 14 ]. Susanna Moodie, Roughing it in the bush, The wilderness & Our Indian Friends, Canada, 1851 [ 15 ]. J R Miller, Reflections on Native Newcomer Relations-Selected Essays, 2004, Canada, p16.

Examine the Representation of the Encounter Between White Settler Essay

“Authenticity” Indigenous Media Essay

“Authenticity” Indigenous Media Essay.

“Authentic” is a double-edged sword. Discuss this statement using at least 2 indigenous media examples. How can something be a double-edged sword? How can something be harmful and at the same time helpful? We are currently living in the 21st century; there have been many lives that lived on this earth before us. These lives have done a lot of work that have got us to where we are today. This being said it is so hard to think of something new to come up with when it has probably been done before in the past in one way or another.

According to dictionary. com authentic means “not copied, false, original. ” To the dominant culture being authentic means coming up with something new to show the world but because, often words have more than one definition, being authentic does not always mean inventing something new to show the world. In fact, to indigenous groups it means keeping their beliefs, everyday activities, culture, etc intact.

It is keeping everything they know their ancestors did and what their parents taught them to do without improvements or change.

In this essay I will be comparing different indigenous groups and how the meaning of” Authentic” can be a double-edged sword to these indigenous groups. For indigenous groups being authentic is critical. Not only because it is important for them to keep their culture intact but also because it is an effective political tool. This political tool can help them negotiate land, which is one of the most important things for them because it is the main tool of survival. Many critics argue that even though these tribes are isolated they are not untouched by outsiders therefore they are not indigenous, they are just isolated groups.

Video in the village’s project has been working with many tribes such as the Nambiquara, Caviao, Tikuna, Kijani Iakaha and Kaiapo. Their goal is to introduce them to the art of film so they can preserve their culture and find their identity within themselves. They have done this by giving cameras to various indigenous people themselves teaching them the basics of how to record. These people have been given the chance to record what they want to see about themselves and what they think is important to communicate to the world. Although it was a long process that took a lot of work and

patience, many villages have had success. For example the Kijani Iakaha group recorded a regular day in the village where in the beginning of the film the women are lined up so they could get pat in their backs and their stomachs with a wooden stick. This, to them, represents protection; it helps their women throughout their pregnancy. They also show some of the habits they have such as picking each other’s ticks out. They also follow the regular activities of other indigenous villages. They send the kids to fish, the women stay in cleaning, cooking and watching the smaller children and the men go out to hunt.

They make use of their land by planning and hunting so they can provide goods for themselves and their family. Even though these people are wearing items that belong to the dominant culture they still do what indigenous groups do. The only difference that can be taken out of the villagers is what they wear and some of their traditions; women are wearing skirts and men are wearing shorts. When indigenous groups decides to make a change to their culture it becomes harmful because it gives the government proof that these people have had contact with the dominant culture.

In the article by Beth A. Conklin, Body paint, feathers, and VCRs: aesthetics and authenticity in Amazonian activism, he states, “The first, obvious idea is that outsiders (anthropologists included) tend to see complex western technology as a corrupting force that undermines traditional cultures. “Real” natives don’t use VCRs. ” Many people argue that if indigenous people work with the camera their focus is no longer in trying to keep their culture and origin instead it is to try to look good for the camera that would potentially lead to a change in their culture.

The reason why it is a big deal if these tribes are up to date with the dominant world is because being indigenous gives them special rights, such as land right and political rights. When exposed to technology which essentially means they have been exposed to society they are no longer innocent and “original” they are now exposed and experienced. This, once again, creates doubts about their originality. To the eyes of the government if they are up to date with the dominant culture they are just taking up land that real indigenous people could use.

According to the government and the dominant society an authentic indigenous group is that which does what the typical stereotype of an indigenous group does. They use paint to paint their bodies in a way which they can express themselves; a lot of the groups do it for special occasions such as ceremonies and different rituals. They have different rituals that represent who they are becoming. This is not always true. In the film Signs don’t speak the people in the group are wearing regular clothes yet they still behave like other indigenous groups.

They still dislike white man because according to them these only bring harm. One of the villagers quotes “My father told me white man would come to take over our land. ” In this film the villagers talk about an encounter they had with the white man. They thought that they would only stay and work for a short time but they end it up staying longer, working hard and destroying their land. They are well aware of the stereotypes people have about them, they prefer to stay away from one of their biggest threat, white man.

In the other hand in the film video cannibalism the villagers are walking around naked, fulfilling the stereotypes, making vulgar jokes that to them have no vulgar intention and with paint all over their bodies. This group has no complications with the government because to the government these are the true indigenous people. At best, indigenous groups begin to understand how they are different from not only the dominant culture or other indigenous groups but themselves as well. It can also confirm the stereotypes many people believe making it almost impossible for these to be changed for future generation.

Being authentic can be harmful because it can limit indigenous groups from self-determination and development. Authenticity can be helpful because maybe in some cultures having a primitive way of life restores some of the good interactions between people. There is not as much drama and people’s views can be heard more easily. Stereotyping brings about hardship for certain cultures, however, a culture may learn to embrace stereotyping and not be hurt as much due to the fact that they are primitive and do not have to understand what media says about them.

Their portrayal is to people that they probably will never see. Technology could be what is saving these cultures from many hardships that are in modern society today. An authentic indigenous culture does not have to bear the economic difficulties that modern societies do. In the end, many cultures are indigenous, but according to what the modern society defines as authentic, modern society can have the power to say that a group is not original and therefore just aboriginal, meaning they still have the technologically advanced capabilities, but choose not to use them.

Work cited Dictionary. com. Dictionary. reference. com. LLC. 2012. Web. 14 March 2012 Video in the Villages. Dir. Vincent Carelli. Documentary Educational Resources. 1989. Film. Conklin, B. A. Body paint, feathers, and VCRs: aesthetics and authenticity in Amazonian activism. JSTOR. org. JSTOR. 1997. Web. 14 March 2012. Signs Don’t Speak. Dir. Vicent Carelli, Dominique Gallois. Documentary Education Resources. 1996. Film. Video Cannibalism. Dir. Vicent Carelli. Documentary Educational Resources. 1995. Film.

“Authenticity” Indigenous Media Essay