Monday, September 27, 2010

The Color of Your Skin

“Well if you do, tell me why you do. A black man isn’t an object to be liked or disliked like an orange or a pear or a piece of furniture. So why should you say, “ I like them”?  The simple question perplexed Isnard.  He had never thought of Negroes as anything but children –often contrary children, but easily enough managed if you knew how. He sought for a subterfuge. “Negroes are men, just like white men and just as capable-sometimes more so.” “Then why don’t we have the same advantages?”
            The above passage is taken from a book I am reading in my African literature class titled “God’s Bits of Wood” by Sembene Ousmane. The book is about Africans residing in French West Africa in the late 1940s who after fighting for the French in WWII went on a strike as they rightfully believed that they should be given all the rights white workers received. During the strike their community vastly changes as the reversal of gender and age-related roles commences and as starvation rattles people into committing outlandish actions. In my class I was assigned to find a passage and analyze it. I chose this passage as it illuminates the ignorance of the white man and demonstrates the African’s struggle in proving their worth as human beings.
            In the passage Doudou, the secretary of the union that is supporting the strike, is pointing out to Isnard, the supervisor of the factory many of the Africans who are on strike worked in, that he is lying when he said earlier “I like the Negroes”.  He does so at the very beginning of the passage as he throws Isnard this question, “Well if you do, tell me why you do”. Doudou’s question which can not be answered demonstrates how ridiculous Isnard’s statement was.  By saying that he likes the “Negroes” Isnard is bunching up all the Africans as if they were one body. A group of people as diverse as the African race or any group that has hundreds of millions of people can not be referred to as one body. Therefore, one can see the little regard he has for Africans. He could have referred to them as people of a certain nation or he could have said I like my factory workers those could have been labels he could have come up with reasons for liking. But just simply referring to them under a label that just represents the color of their skin is ridiculous because in reality that could be all the African people have in common.
            Isnard’s statement also dehumanizes the African people. Doudou points that out to him as he says in the following two sentences of the passage that, “ A black man isn’t an object to be liked or disliked like an orange or a pear or a piece of furniture. So why should you say, “ I like them”?  Africans are not one entity that one can uniformly define. They are people who have different characteristics, aspirations, and emotions. To say you “like” them is putting them at the level of fruit which one has no problem saying they like today and hate tomorrow. How can you like every individual of a race that contains hundreds of millions of people? It is impossible and degrading that Isnard does not even see it that way.
            In the next sentence it is seen that Isnard is astounded by Doudou’ rebuttal, “ The simple question perplexed Isnard”. When reading this one thinks is Isnard “perplexed” because an African made an intelligent rebuttal and he thought them incapable? Can he actually be that ignorant or did Isnard really not see how offensive his statement was and was simply feeling guilty? I thought that he did know how offensive his words were and was simply surprised that Doudou did?
            I feel this way as he explains what his idea of the African is in the following sentence, “He had never thought of Negroes as anything but children –often contrary children, but easily enough managed if you knew how”. Children? These are men who are responsible for wives and kids. These men get up every morning and put in long hours of work and have to worry about how they are going to pay their bills and provide. Yet, Isnard thinks of them as children. To make matters worse Isnard does not see them as normal children but as “contrary children”. When I think of children I think of little people who if guided right will turn out ok. However, to say “contrary children” I think that Isnard sees Africans as so incapable that even with the proper guidance they are never going to amount to anything.  
            However, with Doudou’s intelligent question and his argument that dismantled the idiotic statement that Isnard made one could see how Isnard would as is stated in the next sentence of the passage seek a “subterfuge.” Could it be that an African had just out done a white man so much so that he has to think up a ploy to catch up? I find this statement amazing as it demonstrated that a lowly African had overwhelmed Isnard in a manner where he had to really think up an action and at that not a very good one.
Therefore, Isnard responds, “Negroes are men, just like white men and just as capable-sometimes more so.” Isnard is being really heartless when he says this. He knows this is what Doudou wants to hear. Is it so wrong that one would want to be acknowledged for what he is and for his potential. However, thankfully Isnard’s ploy does not work. Doudou does not take the bait for he intelligently says, “Then why don’t we have the same advantages?”   Doudou sees right through Isnard’s statement. He knows that if Isnard would of really meant what he said there would not have been a strike to begin with. Isnard does not answer his question but if he would have been a man of character he would have at least given Doudou the ugly truth and told him it was because of the color of his skin.
            Doudou demonstrated himself in this passage to be strong of character and mind. Those are the characteristics one should be judged by and not the color of their skin. The white men in this novel did not understand that and malevolently played with the African’s hope that one day they would be treated fairly. The way of thinking illustrated in this passage is really what set the strike in motion and caused the cultural revolution in the African community that was the core of the Sembene’ Ousmane’s “God’s Bits of Wood.”

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

Sia and Editing

In watching Sia, a movie about a young African virgin woman chosen to be sacrificed by the oracles of the village in hopes that doing so would stop the immense poverty occurring in the village. I found the editing to be very helpful in portraying the overall feel and message of the movie. The editing effectively reflected the chaos that was happening in Koumbi and the underlying evil that was creating such a troubled village.


The movie had a very disconnected feel to it. It often just jumped from one scene to another. However, I think that was the feeling the editors hoped their audience would feel for as author of A Short Guide To Writing About Film Timothy Corrigan says editing is often done to “make a statement of some sort” (69). An example of the disconnected feel can bee seen right at the beginning as the movie jumps from the ceremony the oracles were performing to Kerfa , the village madman, rambling at the women in the river. Due to the lack of transition I initially had no idea what was happening or what the movie was about. However, looking back now the choppy editing really did help illuminate the extent of disarray the village of Koumbi was experiencing. The choppy editing also reflects how divided the village is over the decision to kill Sia. Some villagers like Sia’s father think that “ Customs should be protected”, and others such as a townswoman sing “ sacrificing human beings how appalling”. There is really no cohesion and that is mirrored in the editing.

Toward the end of the movie the editing really does make a significant impact. When Sia is brought over to the oracles for her supposed delivery to the snake god the editing makes it seem that there was a significant time gap between the moment the oracles received her and when her fiancée comes to supposedly save her from the snake god. When they find Sia she is withdrawn and discovered to have been rape. Not showing the violent rape scene makes it seem as though it was not important enough to be shown. I felt that skipping all that reflected real life as the fact that Sia was raped is not really acknowledged by the men who rescued her. They think it was no big deal. Lastly, another important edit happened at the end when Sia refuses to be the Queen as she finally sees the truth. She is awakened and realizes how ridiculous all of society’s customs really are. The edit happens as she is seeing leaving her fiancée practically nude in front of the whole village cutting to her raving as a madwoman in the city. She is now Kerfa the madman who no one could understand. Therefore, it plays at the message that because one speaks the truth that they are considered crazy. In this scene, she is all decked out in village clothing and raving as a madwoman in the city greatly contrasting the mundane village life she was once content with. This edit really does play at the idea of how quickly things can change and how crazy society’s parameters really are. So crazy that if you speak against them you are considered a madman or madwoman.