EngL1401W - Spring 2007: Introduction to "Third World" Literature

wow there was a lot going on in ths movie. I enjoyed it although it was pretty heavy.

THis movie & the book really make me take a look at tourism critically. It seemed like the worst thing about tourism is the attitudes of the tourists. and their seeming ignorance about the whole situation of the people in jamaica.

the film showed the lack of humanity in economics and the selectiveness of ethics on the part of some nations, organizations (imf) and companies.
I would have liked to learn more about the specs surrounding the departure of the british and how the economy before that unravelled like it did after they were gone. The brits liberated other colonies without this happening, what circumstances made this different? Why didn't the brits help them get their feet on the ground? Weren't there any contacts or apparatus in existance for the jamaicans to sort of 'take the helm' after the brits left?

why weren't the brits attacked as much as the IMF? I would blame them for occupying my country and then leaving it without helping. Ethically they should be more involved in making sure that jamaicans can be successfull and not just ditch them. the history seems to obligate the brits. I'd be interested in more about this stuff.

This movie really put me off the world bank and the IMF. I used to be so receptive to its ideals, and I really believed what it was trying to achieve, but this movie has turned my views upside down. The fact that the IMF was created for first world economies, but then described itself as being an international provider shows me that they're only out there to help a few select countries. Along with this, I never knew how closely tied big companies and governments were to each other. The movie mentioned how chiquita and dole had the US petition the EU about it's policy with former colonies. I just never knew companies had so much power over what is suppose to be a sovereign state.

This film reminded me a bit of Douloti in that the Jamaican government has nowhere else to turn except for the IMF, and the IMF gives a loan that can never be paid back with its insurmountable amount of interest.

Karl: I think Stephanie Black wanted to look at the current situation, rather than at the past. Perhaps that's a weakness of the film, (its relative lack of historical context) although I suppose one film can't do everything.

The British (and other nations) generally used colonies as part of their own economic apparatus, and places where raw materials were harvested, so there wasn't much "need" for local economic structures for the hundreds of years of colonial rule.

Shiyao: Yes, that is why "debt forgiveness" is such a large political issue. Two perspectives on debt forgiveness: Chomsky and Capitalism Magazine.

I am not familiiar with these issues so I am wondering if the ethical and historical responsibility of something like the british gov. to a place like jamaica ever enters the debate. I figured that if the brits pulled out but left "economic advisors" then people would likely accuse them of controlling things still. in any case there will be villians.

but I think that leaving jamaica in that condition is no different then when americam slaves were freed after the civil war and nothing was done to set them up or create new ideas/opportunities for them resulting in that basically all of them became slaves again as sharecroppers. The brits did this by abandoning them and the IMF did it by shackling them with debts. Ethics seem to be disregarded either way.

the ideas that i hinted at in class about "presentism' relates to the fact that what is happening now always shares a relation ship to the past. the film did focus on the present more.
there are probably good aspects to the IMF and Shiyao may not have to toss out everything about them but these practices do illustrate the ethos of the world economy, the world powers, commercial powers and the like.

I have been chewing on some quetions about hierarchy and capitolism. are there ever going to be no people at the bottom? there are good things about hierrachy and capitolism amist the evils. isn't that inexcapable in any facet of life? does imporving one effect another in a negative ways? What actually drives economy? guys like Mr. IMF in the film or people like you an I? This boils down to me a question of humanity, human ethics, human nature etc. the "system" is like a phantom, the invisible hand of economics, the agreement to perpetuate the castes, the hierarchy, the way we interact.

this is deep stuff, it always brings me back to philosophy. I have discovered this semseter that I have much more to learn before I can comfortably attempt answereing these questions. there is so much more to read! who has the time! lol

Karl: I think a lot depends on the way we ask the question. (Perhaps that's even a "philosophy" thing to say.)

We can ask the question: Will there ever be no one at the "bottom"? Or we can ask: What kind of "bottom" is acceptable? Or we can ask: How does it change/warp both those as the "bottom" and the "top" to have such a large gap between the two, and how might we all benefit from a smaller gap, fewer people starving, etc.?

There is so much to read, but fortunately we're all still at the beginning of the journey....

After reading A Small Place, Life & Debt had a much stronger meaning. Although Kincaid did use great descriptions, actually seeing the tourists and their view of their vacation really made Kincaid's argument come to life. (I guess since I saw real people acting like she described) I also enjoyed Stephanie Black's mix of real live footage, news, official documents, interviews, and snips of press conferences. She utilized numerous media sources and put forth a great film. She made the difference between what a tourist and native Jamaican so obvious to the viewer and at the same time made the tourist's blindspots so huge.

I especially enjoyed when Black had the banana, dairy, and onion farmers tell their stories and how the IMF has hurt them. I also thought the assembly lines making Tommy Hilfiger and Hanes were interesting, especially how it was explained how all of the materials were made in the USA and it is only assembled in Jamaica. This movie really shows the injustice and power that a few countries hold.

It was a pretty intense movie. The way Black brought out the 'tourist' as mentioned by Kincaid made me view this whole tourist thing exactly the way Kincaid viewed in her book. A picture is worth a thousand words and this movie just proved that for me. While reading Kincaid's book, one can take a defensive stance and almost say 'That is not true'; but the movie leaves no scope for either defence or outrage at being accused of being the kind of tourist Kincaid wrote about in her book. We see with our own eyes the reality and come to realise that Kincaid did have a very strong point afterall. The workers getting paid an equivalant of just 30 U.S dollars for a week's work just points out the effect the industrial exploitation has on such countries. I agree with Shiyao on the Douloti aspect. The subaltern is becoming more and more universal as we go through the semester. Its not just about a caste or a class of people anymore; its more about the third world countries as a whole; like Jamaica, as seen in this case. One thing which struck out to me were the words that were used towards the end of the movie; about Britain dumping the slaves in Jamaica and about the people being exotic. Its been quite sometime since Jamaica gained her independance but still the rest of the world consider them as exotic and not like any other normal mundane human being.

This movie definitely had a huge affect on how I view tourism. I think it affected me more than “a small place” just because I could see the way people lived and suffered with my own eyes, I could see how commercialism and monopolies have adversely affected this country. While reading a small place one feels bad but at the same time our instinct is to retract from her arguments because she is so brash and rude. The clips of “a small place” that were read throughout the movie were really interesting and well-chosen. They got the message across without being mean. It was really interesting because the movie had clips of tourist doing touristy things and you would watch them being entertained with their crab races and think “what idiots gosh”….the tourist was really portrayed just as in “a small place” but without the direct statements of “a tourist is a bad person”.

I had a lot of mixed emotions about tourism after watching this movie. The tourists they chose to show in this movie didn't have a voice, they were just bodies that seemed in awe of Jamaica. This may sound really bad, but many of them had rediculous clothes on (when was this movie made?) so their clothes and awe-struck faces just made them look totally aloof and slightly humorous. They were doing really trivial things like having beer drinking contests and they were in their own little world relaxing while pictures of Jamaicans working hard and impoverished covered the screens. It was hard for me to watch because the tourists were spending their money so they could just lay around while Jamaicans were being laid off of work. A different perspective of tourism is that Jamaicans are neutral to the tourism, even fascinated because these people were taking such an interest at their "everyday, mundain (that's what the narrator, I'm not personally saying Jamaica is mundain) home and lifestyle. The tourism aspect of this movie was very interesting for me as my parents just got back from a trip to Jamaica a month ago. HA HA

I enjoyed watching this movie. It was interesting to see the words written by Kincaid in a real-life situation. This movie really opened my eyes, to what really goes on in these countries that I travel to. I had no idea about their lifestyle, their economy, the ways in which they make the little money that they do. Its amazing how much of an effect the US and UK have on these countries and their economy.

I really noticed the music. I noticed how the music was mostly Jamaican music, the type you hear when you are sitting by the pool and reading a book. This music was played while showing tourists, but also playing as images of poverty and women sewing clothes for very little money were shown.

Although I do not know much about the IMF and the world bank, it makes me want to learn about it and truly understand it. These people are not happy, and why are they livng and working under such bad conditions. I feel that the US and UK put them in this position, and wont help them out.

This was an intense movie, one in which I will most definatley remember when I travel again.

I liked the music a lot. I really thought that the songs added to the film and my whole interpretation of the scenes. The “Banana Boat Scene” was definitely my favorite by far.

I really enjoyed the movie… I think seeing Kincaid’s words in action made it easier to digest. The movie seemed like less of an attack than the book did. The book had a constant tone of “I hate you!!!” but the movie was a lot less intense. I still got that guilty feeling from the movie, but it was a lot less severe.

I was definitely more affective towards my tourism attitude than A Small Place. Seeing real, live footage of such poverty and determination hit me harder than reading about it, however the novel did do its fair share of making me think twice. I feel so guilty when I eat bananas now! I never realized how big of an impact the U.S. had/has on Jamaican life…I’m a bit ashamed. I know there is probably a little more to everything that we didn’t see on film, but I do feel a little more educated about the situation in Jamaica and why it’s difficult for the natives to make ends-meet.

The footage of the Jamaican people watching news footage drives home the importance of certain trade agreements. People in high places in leading countries do not realize the effects of their policies have on the little people. The U.S. government is basically ran by large companies that pay to have these policies put into place because is will create more competition among labor intensive countries. The Jamaican people are destroyed by these policies and that is why they are so into hear what the U.S. is doing, it is their life that is on the line.
The music in the film brings out the rich culture of the local people. The beat of the music is uplifting but a lot of the lyrics are about the struggle the local people face. The music is sort of ironic part of the movie, it is played when the tourist are having a good time. This symbolizes how the locals feel used and then left with nothing when the tourist leave.

More than anything, this movie made me think of my vacationing and times as a tourist. I would like to think that I have been to foreign places with open eyes than I really have. This movie really made me think on how the next time I vacation, I will be more aware of my surrondings and the people that are in this place that is so forein to me. It is something that we Americans don't need to or want to think about, but we should! Knowing how people live in their homes is important to one vacationing there just like you want tourists in your town to understand your culture.

I liked the way that while the film was pretty densely packed with information, it was broken up well with some passages from A Small Place. This, and the laughable scenes of a very stereotypical menagerie of fat, sunburnt, drunken americans help to both ease into some of the more sobering difficulties of the film, and give the viewer a little breathing room from the density of the film. I had some trouble keeping up with the accents of some of the featured individuals, which is kind of a shame, but I suppose it would be compromising yet another part of their culture to provide subtitling or something so that americans can be at yet another advantage.

To say the least, this film made me feel pretty sick about my desires to travel because no matter where I go, I'll inevitably be a tourist: someone who can always go home. It made me think about college kids who go to south america for a year to help villages establish themselves, and come back with this completely different paradigm. In a lot of ways, that's a really great thing, but it also makes me a little uncomfortable because we can come and go to these places as we please, and although it's awesome to help other people out, I feel really weird about benefiting personally from an experience like that. I don't know...

Stephanie Black's Life and Debt is a very interesting outlook on tourism. it provides a lot of information that we've been sheltered too and i'm glad someone had the courage and boldness to bring it to our attention.

Her strong points of her arguments are showing the "pretty" side of tourism versus the background of touring. it's self-explanatory of what i mean by pretty (i.e. pretty water, sunset, attractions, etc).

her weak points stemmed from her biasness of picking individuals to support her argument. what i mean by this is that she only seems to have one aim in purpose which is to degrade tourism... (i'm not sure if anyone else felt this way!)

I agree with Kiera's last comment about the comfortness of watching Americans visiting these places and attaining the accents of these native citizens. It captures the essence of visiting a new place because you're welcoming yourself to another scene, another life, etc. you get to experience things such as new food, social events, fashion, artifacts, history, etc.

The part that I don't necessary agree with Kiera's statement is visiting a place for personal reasons. I understand that visiting abroad can be a personal gain such as just living somewhere else and gaining that experience. I think that no matter where I've visited if it's in the united states or another country, i've never felt like i was a tourist. i always wanted a gain knowledge or something. Yes, we always returned home, but we know that once we returned home, we've gain something that can be integrated in our lives. this is supported because those whom visited for charity reasons or what not, have been able to implement the values/outlook/etc. they've learned into their everyday lives. **Don't think I'm attacking you Kiera!***

general question: why does different films like this have the most arbituary music ever?

After watching the film, I was so overwhelmed with guilt that I could not easily forget about it. The Jamaicans were such hard workers and received so little credit for it. I feel guilty because I know that I have it made unlike them. It seems so unfair that so many are born into poverty and do not ever get to know any other life outside of it, yet I live luxurious and worry about having the next coolest cd or ipod or whatever it may be. They have near nothing and have to worry so much about how they are going to survive. Not only that but our rich lifestyles here in America are only enabling poverty in Jamaica. It’s as if we are stealing their hard work, their money, and their lives. They are like slaves to us indirectly because they are not directly serving us as slaves for cheap but they are doing it across seas in their own country. It’s not fair. We are not really equal at all in this world. We’re selfish and only care about personal gain and how to make the most money even if it hurts someone else. Whether conscious or unconscious, it’s called greed.

For me the movie did give me a better and more accurate view of the effects that tourism can have on a country. When people think of going to Jamaica or any other small country that has a lot of tourism, you don’t really think much of what is happening outside of the resort wall. I sometimes would think that tourism was good for countries because it brought in money, however it is not good for everyone and a lot of people are left out. One part of the movie that was surprising was when they said that the citizens of the country could not go to some of their own beaches because of tourism. The movie looks past the resorts and focuses more on the effects it has on the citizens and how the citizens actually live. I think this movie affected my attitude a little more than A Small Place because in many parts I could see how people are living and what is happening. Seeing it in a documentary form gives more stimulation than reading and imagining. I can get a more accurate picture from actually hearing people speak about it. However both the book and the movie bring light to a situation that many people don’t, or at least try not to, think about.

The film "Life and Debt" was put together very well. I liked how some Jamaica Kincaid's words from "A Small Place" were in the movie. It really made the movie come to life. I seemed to be truly looking at tourists in a different way then when I was reading the book. I actually felt my stomach turn when I saw all the white people lounging by the pool and having beer drinking contests in one scene while it flashed to the Hanes factories being closed in the next scene. The thing that really surprised me was that when the Americans (or white people) noticed they were being filmed they were waving to the camera and smiling like idiots. Did they know why this film was being made? Wow, that really was the icing on the cake for me. It made me feel like the tourists were so ignorant about their surroundings. I have definately been a tourist before and this has challenged me to look at the places that I am visiting differently. I don't just want to see what I want to see, I want to see life without the lens of tourism. I want to see how people live and how I am playing a part in that.

She seems to be arguing against the notion that Jamaica and other impoverished nations are solely responsible for the state of their nations. The idea that hard work and determination is all anyone should need to climb out of poverty is a very limiting and unfair point of view seeing as the people of these countries are the lowest rungs of the corporate ladder. The system is built upon their exploitation and this flims does a great job showing that. I found the part in the banana fields to be really moving. The final image of it is a man spraying pesticides with only a small helmet to cover himself. It makes you think twice before picking up those chiquitas at the grocery store.
I wish we had read the book after watching the film. I found the narration form the text made the film almost corny because I knew what was going to be said next. I also think it would have helped give a better basic understandning of why the caribbean is in its current state.

The first thing I noticed about the film was that it almost word for word copied out portions of Kincaid's "Its a Small World" I thought this was very fitting and that the combination of the two works complemented each other very well. I also liked how in the movie, she kept going back to the tourists and showing how happy and oblivious they were. This tone was very much like the one Kincaid uses in her book. It was sharp and accusing while also being patronizing.

Wow there was sure a lot to absorb from this one. It was really eye opening to see how far reaching capitalism and globalization goes. Granted, I wouldn't be shocked to see a McDonalds anywhere on this planet, but at the same time, its hard to swallow images of this made up little consumer friendly dream land. Its so far removed from the reality of the situation. I found the tour guide scenes interesting because you just knew that the guides themselves knew they were telling fabrications that would make the tourists happy. Could anyone be that far removed from the environment they live in.

I NEVER travel so its pretty easy for me to sit and villanize tourists here. The ones in the film did seem a bit more ignorant than the usual depiction though. I can't blame people for wanting to go somewhere beautiful (and dear lord did it not look like God's kingdom!?) but how could someone be able to relax with all that corruption and suffering going on? I guess the answer is that resorts do such a good job at building an imaginary world, people don't even know what's going on around them. I really should look into the IMF moreso.

I don't really get what Vui is getting at with the "arbitrary" musical selections though. I thought the music was really effective in portraying the daily lives of the "real" Jamaicans. What did you think was odd about the selections?

I think that Stephanie Black's film doesn't have the motive of arguing something. It is a look at what colonialism has molded a society into: a powerless economy bearing the burden of unimaginable (well, for a small island nation) debt. They are deeply, approximately $4.5Bn, in debt but they do not have the resources to repay the loan, not only that, the film is a look at the manipulation of Jamaica, a post-colonial society, by these international loan sharks and of multi national corporations. She is not looking to argue, but to inform the viewer about the realities of this 'beautiful island getaway.'
In art, all things are subjective. There is no such thing as a 'least successful tool,' there can only be things that speak to the viewer more than others. In the entire film I think that the use of excerpts from Jamaica Kincaid's "A Small Place" were especially powerful images. There is a quality in Kincaid's writing that is truthful and raw yet there is a complexity that makes the reader think beyond, therefore matching this quality with visual images is very mentally stimulating.
I will end by saying, I don't think I can ever go to Jamaica now.