I wanted to clarify my stance of identifying with the "native" as opposed to the "tourist" in reference to the excerpt we spoke of in class from A Small Place.
I would agree with Kenya in questioning the position of those who genuinely go to places to learn. however, i think there is a strong distinction between those that go to certain places to learn, and those that go simply for vacation as tourists. Tourists are (and i think Kincaid would agree with this) are people that go to a place outside their country, who mindlessly and obliviously consume and partake in things, for the sole purpose of having fun and getting away from their boring and mundane lives. the people participating in drinking contests, sitting on the beach all day, who get their hair braided and only stay at hotels with a beach-front view...are tourists. They don't think about the people serving them, playing music for them, they don't have much interest in learning about the local experience outside that of molded and entertaining stereotypes, they eat American/European foods while on these vacations, who want to take pictures of everything (and everyone) and do so without feeling any responsibility or questioning of the larger schemes and hierarchies of power. race, capitalism, imperialism, etc. in those interactions and relationships. I've spoken with people who talk about touring a remote area or a rural village, and when asked about what tourism has done or is doing or can do for this community or nation, the response is along the lines of "tourism helps this nation. these women making _______ and these men doing ______ for tourists is a main source of income for a lot of them. they wouldn't have jobs if it weren't for us [tourists]". but when asked WHY it is that these nations and communities have had to resort to dancing/making baskets, jewelry, masks/performing/hosting/entertaining/etc. in order to make a living, they draw a blank. digging deeper into histories concerning colonialism, imperialism, exploitative importing and exporting practices, embargoes, and the like are altogether ignored and/or prioritized somewhere below their need to get away and have fun.
In contrast, someone who goes to a place to genuinely learn is not going to be going to those touristy spots. if one goes to New York city to learn about the experience, the cultures and communities that live there, etcetera etcetera...they don't need to go to the statue of liberty or the brooklyn bridge or whatever. they need to go to Flatbush and Crown Heights and Washington Heights, and corner store bodegas and take the subway or dollar cab (as opposed to a yellow cab). and i'm sure the same is for anywhere in the Caribbean. If i go to Jamaica, i'm not going to get my hair braided, drink for 3 hours straight, sit on the beach for 5 hours, and then retreat to the party hosted my my hotel (which has nothing but other people from my country in it). this is in stark contrast to someone who goes to learn. yes, there are some touristy things one can do, even if they are going to learn and i'm not saying there is a concrete line between tourist and a "learner" (it's more of a spectrum, i would say), but there are some things that are done mindlessly and there are some things done with genuine interest for knowledge, and more often than not, they don't overlap.
maybe this has to do with me being in the area of anthropology, and the subject/object; emic/etic positions are constantly being discussed that i'm maybe hyper aware of them. and given the highly problematic history of anthropology, i think most present-day anthropologists are more aware of the average traveller on these issues. but i most definitely identify with the native and that position as opposed to the tourist because i'm constantly critical of it - as someone who is (subjectively) "American", and as an (amateur) anthropologist.
additionally, i also identified with the native in that i think Kincaid is largely talking about the white tourist (in the excerpt, it was something along the lines of "You don't look like us"). and in general, i identify with the Native, the person of color, the "Black Jamaicans" who are working as custodians and cooks and entertainers in these restaurants, because that is what i have done and have felt sometimes (although not in the same context). For example, i remember maybe seeing a documentary in the works about gentrification in Harlem, and a young woman spoke about how Harlem, her home, has been turned into a tourist destination. she mentioned bus-loads of white people driving by on the street she and her mother walked to church on sunday mornings (the tours are on Sundays, specifically, and have to do with....the Harlem Renaissance, i suppose, and showing people the "Black Church" experience - Harlem style). she said that sometimes they would stop and would take pictures of her. when her mother asked them to stop or turned down their requests for photos, she would see them behind mushed and cars still taking her photo. it just shows how not so far removed from the past of colonialism in which we [Black people/Africans/indigenous peoples/non-Europeans] were seen as spectacles. and of course, there are Black Americans who go to the Caribbean with these same mindless mentalities, but i think the overwhelming majority are white people, and if we are understanding this from a historical perspective - with colonialism, human zoos, human exhibitions of "natives" - the "tourist" would simply be a euphemism for "white people". even when Black people are the travellers, we're still not in the category of "tourist". i recall my best friend telling me of when she took her ex-boyfriend to Mexico (she's Mexican, he's African-American with locs). she told me that people were trying to get photos with him, touching his hair, asking her questions about him like she was his trainer or something and generally treating him like a spectacle (he's tall and has shoulder-length locs, regular clothes, sight-seeing like everyone else). James Baldwin also wrote about his travels to Sweden (and other European countries) in which he also mentioned being looked out as if he was from Mars. my point is that i identify with the native because i associate the native with the Black person, regardless of class, gender, or geographic homleand or place of origin.
No comments:
Post a Comment