Thursday, January 29, 2015

Group C response to questions

1-29-15
  1. Why did Cuban nationalists have to strip race of its ideological hold on the Cuban population?According to the article, “Rethinking Race and Nation in Cuba,” by Ada Ferrer Cuban nationalists stripped race of its ideological hold as a way to unite the people and develop a national identity rather than exclusion and separation. It was a nationalistic approach to identify Cuban people as Cubans, a way to form a unified identity in a place that needed unity. Unity was important at this time in order to win the war for independence. It was a way to assert the nonexistence of discrimination and the irrelevance of race. Martí said, “always to dwell on the divisions or differences between the races…was to raise barriers to the attainment of… national well-being.”
2. What does the author mean when she says the silence (referring to the
silence of race) is audible, and can even echo loudly at times? Where
did this silence originate from?
As racial references disappeared, the traceable-audible-silence appeared. This silence refers to the stripping of the idea of race from Cuba and to identify Cubans as Cubans. However, this silence was challenged and at times was audible and at other times it was not. According to Ada Ferrer, in the article “Rethinking Race and Nation in Cuba,” “The silence of race in Cuban nationalism of the 1890’s emerged out of a long attempt to reconcile the categories of race and nation.” As the nation was struggling for independence from Spain. Many white army insurgents protested the extent and character of black involvement. By “the Little War” there were many black leaders, which some feared would cause a race war. Although, they didn't win the war, “ the nationalist movement had failed to reconcile the categories of race and nation” (Ferrer 64). From this failure the Cubans believed by stripping the nation of race they could attempt to overthrow the Spanish rule. The silence of race was prevalent: no mention of race in hospital records, but at the same time it wasn’t silent when journalistic essays spoke about the “ideal black insurgents” as desirable for the Cuban nationhood struggle. With blacks and mulattos involved in the war there were less claims of it being a “race war,” rather it was a war for Cuba. At the same time, the new racial silence was challenged by the rise of black political activism, which called for reciprocity between former slaves and masters as a call for democracy. The idea of race was silent and audible at the same time.

3.  What were Marti’s views on race relations in Cuba and what was the problem with his writing and commentaries?
Martí’s take on race relations was to promote a dissolution of race in favor of the more nationally-supportive ‘Cuban’ self-identification. Martí apparently “denied the existence of races” (Ferrer, 61), which, at first may seem like a positive progression of race relations, but later reveals itself to be problematic considering the relative freshness of the black Cubans’ wounds, both physical and metaphorical. The problem with Martí’s racially-muting view was that it comes off more as a tactical response to the racially-dependent colonial control rather than a genuine and well-developed view on race. To brush racial realities under the rug in such a manner produces a series of issues, the most unjust being the implicit denial of any reason for black Cubans to advocate for themselves in the form of a civil rights movement. If race doesn’t exist, and this view is posed as the view of a nation, then the black Cuban should be expected to not only forget their tortured past but also be perfectly content with how race relations shaped the entire social structuring before it ‘ceased to exist’. This expectation is ignorant, produces more problems, and yet is constructed as a tool for the country’s liberation.
4. How is the production of sugar in Cuba different from the production of tobacco? (Stevie)
Fernando Ortiz author of The Cuban Counterpoint refers to the production of sugar in Cuba as a question of power. Tobacco, however, is described as a matter of intelligence. This is because sugar “… was always a capitalistic venture because… of its size and long term investments” (240). While Tobacco is described as “…a free being… 
The production of Tobacco can be done on a small piece of land that is usually family owned. It requires cyclical work from skilled persons who have specialized in the art of growing tobacco. Usually the farmer and his family who own the land do the work. On rare occasions when the work becomes unnamable, the farmer may hire a small group of workers to help.  
Sugar on the other hand required a great deal of help that was often done by imported black slaves.  Unlike Tobacco, the sugar cane plant does not grow all year round.  This required farmers to live the rest of the year on the money they made in just a few months.  Sugar also requires a much larger investment of capital than tobacco making it much more expensive to grow. 
Ortiz states at the end of his article how  “Tobacco has always been more Cuban than sugar…tobacco is native to the New World, while sugar was brought in from the old world”(242).    

5. How do the race relations in Cuba, as outlined in the Moore text, compare
with race relations in the United States during this time period?  
As Moore mentions in the article “Afrocubans and National Culture” race relations in the time period where Cuba was fighting for independence race varied. The Afrocuban connection to Cuban culture was perceived as a threat by white colonialists or just simply white Cubans. Afrocubans were beginning to take on and influence cultural areas like music and even had their own black societies in which they organized and discussed how to help newly brought slaves to adapt to a new environment. As mentioned above, Afrocubans began to have influence in music, and white conservatives began their constant attempt to erase the African influence in the National culture, due to the fact that they thought this would create a more barbaric than bourgeois /European-based culture. The emancipation of slaves in the United States gave way to racial reaction to differences and opened a door for “violence of “redemption” (Moore, 61) however, in Cuba the emancipation of slaves “saw consolidation of a movement supported by former slave owners and former slaves , led by white and nonwhite officers, and committed to a powerful vision of racial inclusion.”

6. How did the topic of race apply to the fight for independance?
When discussing the fight for independence in Cuba, it is important to mention the two sides that were fighting against the Spanish while at the same time having conflict between one another. The Afrocubans played a central role in the fight against Spain for independence, most of the mulatos that participated in the rebellion went from being enslaved, to be part of free labor, and from colonial to national status. The side that was against the involvement of Afrocubans in the fight for independence were the colonial conservatives, who as mentioned before, were trying to be protective of whiteness and were afraid of giving the Afrocubans the power to become actual “Cuban citizens” and the liberty to expand their culture. By having these differing sides, the Cuban racial identifications influenced the way Cubans fought for independence.

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

GROUP B RESPONSES AND QUESTIONS

Answers to Questions for Martí Reading

1. In Jose Marti's Our America how are the American Republics described? How are they differentiated?

Our America is a place governed by the creative (125), in which knowledge and art are crafted locally by natives. Marti very much seems to want "Our America" to be a place in which "the wine is made from plantain, but even if it is sour, it is our own wine!" (126). There is very little delineation between the "Republics" referred to above - there is a scant mention of the North and South, and the fact that the south is a Spanish America and the North a European one, besides the comparison of North America as a tiger ready to leap onto South America. Marti spends more time differentiating Our America from Europe in general, chastising the Europeans as unmanly and those Americans who imitate them and scorn their own mothers as the worst of all.

2. How does the author perceive government, specifically it's interactions within a given population as a mechanism for control?


3. What does the author consider to be the Americas greatest danger?

According to Marti, “The scorn of our formidable neighbor, who does not know us, is our America’s greatest danger” (126-127). He is referring to the European imitators of North America, who he fears will use their power and dominance to control and defeat Marti’s America. He believes that “once it does know us, it will remove its hands out of respect” (127). Marti believes that if their neighbor truly knew them, they would not be able to scorn them. Getting to know one another’s land and origin is imperative in order to attain peace between the nations.

-Marilyn Head

4. How does Marti broadly depict nationalism and ways in which countries try to differentiate from one another?

Martí depicts nationalism throughout his essay through praising the success of America during its difficult times, while simultaneously denouncing Americans who do not take pride in their country. He believes that government and success of America should be self-made, and should not be reliant on the countries who preceded us. Americans should be knowledgeable about their own country in order to help the country progress and free itself from tyranny. However, he also believes that other countries attempt to differentiate themselves through their government and culture, but in actuality all countries are very similar; conflict is unnecessary and harmful. - Margo Friedland

5. What does Robert Sklar mention about the attraction and cultural appeal of Spanish-American war and film production?

Robert Sklar and his fellow scholars believe the the Spanish-American War only support the general arguments concerning the attraction, cultural appeal, and ontological lure of early films. He believes that the war brought the filmmakers their first prime opportunity for spectacle. The war raised patriotism within the audience in America and they became more receptive to films, even if the films looked very fabricated. Also, the filmmakers successfully recreated the extreme moments during the war and gave the audiences an unique experience in a safe environment.


6. What remains unexplored in Spanish-American war films and what does the author suggest is the result of this?

According to the author, it is yet to be explored how individual spectators responded to the Spanish American war films they witnessed and how this affected cultural production. There is also a lack of information on the cultural and ideological functions the film medium served for Cuba during the war. This leaves us with questions such as where and who witnessed these films, how did people make sense of what they saw on screen, what types of Spanish American war films were shown and how did reactions vary across different regions. The author explains that the lack of ideological commentary is largely the result of practical decisions involved in one's methodological and critical priorities.  


New Questions for Ferrer & Moore & Ortiz Readings

  1. Why did Cuban nationalists have to strip race of its ideological hold on the Cuban population?
  2. What does the author mean when she says the silence (referring to the silence of race) is audible, and can even echo loudly at times? Where did this silence originate from?
  3. What were Marti’s views on race relations in Cuba and what was the problem with his writing and commentaries?
  4. How is the production of sugar in Cuba different from the production of tobacco?
  5. How do the race relations in Cuba, as outlined in the Moore text, compare with race relations in the United States during this time period?
  6. How did the topic of race apply to the fight for independance?

Thursday, January 22, 2015

GROUP A: RESPONSES & NEW QUESTIONS

RESPONSES 

1.  According to Higson, what are the four ways the concept of national cinema has been used/defined?

Higson begins by declaring a single universally accepted discourse of national cinema does not exist. He summarizes what the term has been used for in four bullets. He believes that national cinemas is often what it ought to be, not what is actually is, and asks: what makes a cinema national?1. economic terms - where are they made, by whom, who control the industrial infrastructure, production companies, distribution, circuits2. text-based approach - what are they about, do they share a common style or world view3. possibility of an exhibition-led or consumption based approach - which films audiences are watching, number of foreign to American, cultural imperialism 4. criticism led approach-quality art, elitist ideas rather an popular culture 

2.  How can we establish the coherence or specificity of a national cinema?

To establish the coherence or specificity of national cinema starts by identifying a stable set of meanings. This process involves production and assignation of a particular set of meanings, and an attempt to contain the potential proliferation of other meanings. It also entails resistance in the face of national domination (Hollywood.) In other words, national cinema must be the unique product of a single country. There are two methods: comparing and contrasting one cinema to another and exploring the cinema of a nation in relation to other pre-existing economies and cultures.
Question to Consider

According to Higson, national cinema must be non-Hollywood to embody the definition, but to what degree can a "national cinema" actually achieve that status? If so, what is an example?

3. Why is it important to consider the influence of Hollywood when discussing "national cinemas"?

It is important to consider the influence of Hollywood when discussing national cinema because of the uniformity that Hollywood cinema bring to each nation's films. This institutionalized set up of the hollywood films, allows for a standardization and blend of culture within each nation. The familiarity and relatability, or the exoticness of a film, depending on the origin of the cinema's creation versus where the film is being viewed, helps its viewers escape the reality for a few hours and view a different world. National cinema's help its natives construct a visual identity, and allow foreign viewers to construct an idea, and because of the Hollywood cinematic influence, the foreign audience can understand and relate to a foreign culture whether it be exotic or not. A great example of this would be American audiences and Bollywood cinema. Slumdog Millionaire shows a love story between a man and a woman, and the struggles of economy, class, love, youth, etc. Although the majority of American's cannot relate to many specifics, they do find a way to connect.

4. In order to consider film culture as a whole, it is important that a few issues are addressed. The first one is the range of films in circulation within a nation-state, including American and foreign films. It is important to look at how these films are circulated and exhibited. Second, he states that it is important to address the range of sociologically specific audiences for different types of film and how these audiences use these films in different circumstances. This includes reasons why certain audiences go to the cinema, how it makes them feel, the nature of a shared experience from going, and the different experiences offered by the various types of theatrical spaces. Third, we must also address the range of and relation between discourses about film circulating within that cultural and social formation. One thing that is crucial among these discourses is the tension between those intellectual discourses that insist that a "proper" national cinema is one that aspires to the status of art and the more populist discourses where the idea of "good entertainment" overrides questions of art or nationality. All in all, exploring national cinema in these terms requires putting a greater focus on the points of consumption and the use of film, rather than on the point of production.


NEW QUESTIONS:
1.In Jose Marti's Our America how are the American Republics described? How are they differentiated? 

2.How does the author perceive government, specifically it's interactions within a given population as a mechanism for control? 


3. What does the author consider to be the Americas greatest danger?


4. How does Marti broadly depict nationalism and ways in which countries try to differentiate from one another? 

5. What does Robert Sklar mention about the attraction and cultural appeal of Spanish-American war and film production?

6. What remains unexplored in Spanish-American war films and what does the author suggest is the result of this?

Questions for Jose Marti : Our America

In Jose Marti's Our America how are the American Republics described? How are they differentiated? 

How does the author perceive government, specifically it's interactions within a given population as a mechanism for control? 


What does the author consider to be the Americas greatest danger?


How does Marti broadly depict nationalism and ways in which countries try to differentiate from one another? 

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

1.  According to Higson, what are the four ways the concept of national cinema has been used/defined?


Higson begins by declaring a single universally accepted discourse of national cinema does not exist. He summarizes what the term has been used for in four bullets. He believes that national cinemas is often what it ought to be, not what is actually is, and asks: what makes a cinema national?1. economic terms - where are they made, by whom, who control the industrial infrastructure, production companies, distribution, circuits2. text-based approach - what are they about, do they share a common style or world view3. possibility of an exhibition-led or consumption based approach - which films audiences are watching, number of foreign to American, cultural imperialism 4. criticism led approach-quality art, elitist ideas rather an popular culture 


2.  How can we establish the coherence or specificity of a national cinema?


To establish the coherence or specificity of national cinema starts by identifying a stable set of meanings. This process involves production and assignation of a particular set of meanings, and an attempt to contain the potential proliferation of other meanings. It also entails resistance in the face of national domination (Hollywood.) In other words, national cinema must be the unique product of a single country. There are two methods: comparing and contrasting one cinema to another and exploring the cinema of a nation in relation to other pre-existing economies and cultures.

Question to Consider

According to Higson, national cinema must be non-Hollywood to embody the definition, but to what degree can a "national cinema" actually achieve that status? If so, what is an example?


-Rachel Brisgel 

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

Questions for Higson article.






Questions for Higson article:
1.  According to Higson, what are the four ways the concept of national cinema has been used/defined?
2.  How can we establish the coherence or specificity of a national cinema?
3.  Why is it important to consider the influence of Hollywood when discussing "national cinemas"?
4.  What are the issues that must be addressed if we are to consider the film culture of a nation state as a whole?