tracing– (second take)
i remember when i first heard about the project “traces of the trade” and realized that the film-makers name was katrina– this was some time after the hurricane named katrina tore apart the city of new orleans and the surrounding areas– it was the hurricane katrina that first drew forth my out-rage and disbelief as america complacently sat back and watched via the flat screens as a major part of our nation’s citizenry was left to survive on their own– quite honestly, one thing that scares old whitey the most is the black race rising up in revolution and as i swore at bush and the bureaucracy that displaced thousands from their homes forever, i silently wished for such a revolution to occur– in retrospect, thank god that it didn’t but i can’t help but wonder when it will–
i have always felt, growing up and living the majority of my life within white society that there must be many people like myself that view the daily discrimination which occurs between the many different races yet even though this is witnessed, feels so powerless in attempting to acknowledge it, let alone utter the thoughts of possibly taking action to bring about a change– i have always felt that there are always so many in our society that deny racism and in doing so create even more boundaries and borders that eventually must be crossed and taken down–
in the previous post i stated that i was impressed with the effort that all the family members put forth to participate in the project– i do feel this and simultaneously realize that i am only a critic throwing peanuts from the peanut gallery–
however, after watching the film a second time there are a couple of things which continue to gnaw at the back of my throat– the strongest is of course the sexism that continues to be the norm for the family members– deference given (in my opinion) to the males of the family and the way the two different sexes are portrayed– although there appear to be several powerful women within the group it is the males that are shown making the more clinical questions and observations, and the women that are shown as the more emotional– this is of course normal for this group, yet the appearance remains a constant–
another instance that i find particularly disturbing and makes me question the film-makers thoughts is the scene where the family goes into the kakum rainforest park– the family is led by a guide up a steep incline and one of the perry brothers assists keila who appears to have a slight physical disability–
the guide tells the family some of the history of the native creatures and plants and tells the family of the custom of naming the newborns by the days of the week that they are born– the family also realizes that the name for monday is the same as the name of one of the children given to james dewolf’s personal slaves that he gave to his wife as a christmas gift–
horrific enough as this is, the following scene shows the family descending the steep incline with keila being assisted by a young black man as the children’s nursery rhyme about adjua and pauledore is recited in the background– is the implication of the servant even considered here?
edit– 062708 interesting post at
A couple of thoughts, John, from one of the DeWolf family members in the film:
You’re quite right that there are issues of gender and sexism in what is happening onscreen. While Katrina couldn’t get into those issues in the film, due to time constraints, we talked a lot about sexism, and the parallels between race and gender.
Interestingly, though, all of the key members of the film’s creative team, from the director on down, were women. So this certainly isn’t a simple matter of how discussions were structured and run, or about choices made in the editing room.
I think you’re on to something when you note that the men in the family often speak in clinical or analytical ways, while the women are more likely to discuss issues in emotional terms. This is, of course, how our society pressures men and women to think and to speak, and no doubt our family reflects that reality. It’s also true, however, that our society isn’t always like this anymore: A number of my friends, male and female, have been surprised that the women in the film seem uniformly focused on emotions, leaving the analysis to the men; they aren’t used to seeing such stark gender divisions anymore.
As for the scene in which Keila is assisted in walking by a Ghanaian teenager, I can’t tell you what was on the minds of Katrina, the director, and Alla, the film’s editor, when they put that material together. But I strongly suspect they were aware of the implications, that a black person — admittedly, a citizen of Ghana and not a black American — was acting as a personal assistant to a white person. I wouldn’t be at all surprised, in fact, if they didn’t choose deliberately to juxtapose that moment of footage with the audio of the children’s nursery rhyme about the family’s slaves.
One unfortunately reality of our visit to Ghana is that today, Ghana is an underdeveloped nation. As a result, much of our visit involved Ghanaians eager to assist us in any way that we could, because we were Americans and, by their standards, all Americans are wealthy.
This was also true for the many black Americans visiting Ghana for PANAFEST. They were welcomed by the Ghanaian people as long-lost Ghanaians — but also, and primarily, as Americans who are privileged to live in a wealthy nation and who might be able to assist the impoverished people of another land. Needless to say, this was quite a surprise, and a disappointment, for many of the black Americans who had journeyed to Africa to explore their roots.
james– thanks for the comments–
John, thanks for reading my post on this book. I agree with much of what you say. Perhaps the greatest value of this book, is the thoughts and contemplation it stimulates.
Best,
Linda
katknit– thank you–