The 'Savage Slot' in Journey of Man
In Journey of Man, Spencer Wells proposes the somewhat startling theory that we're all descended from the human tribe originating in Africa, and through further research, finds that early humans traveled along the coast lines, eventually hitting Australia. Though I agree with his ideas and admire his dedication to his research, I can't help but film that Journey of Man was produced, well, a bit Euro centric. Nothing against Wells here, for I'm sure his lines were scripted, but the overall tone of this made-for-TV documentary is rather condescending to the indigenous people Wells visits. When visiting the San (whom Wells actually calls Bushmen, a slightly derogatory term that's a throwback to old colonialism), he constantly reminds us that these people are much like early humans and how their religion, tools, and daily life "might give us a clue as to how our ancestors lived". In short, Wells does a very good job of avoiding the word 'primitive' while always implying it. Close ups of Sans men with commentary like "By looking into their faces, we can see the face of early man" subtlety lowers them to a sub-level of humanity, an early (primitive) stage of humanity. Its almost embarrassing to watch the scientist fumble in his explanation of familial ties to the Sans people, who look understandably bored. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's been this idea of the 'noble savage' starting around the Enlightenment and continuing still, as seen in Journey of Man. No interest is shown in if the indigenous people Wells interviews will benefit from the interaction. The relationship is established so that Westerner and his his science can gain more knowledge ("we have no song history anymore, we use science to figure it out"), and go on his way, with no positive impact left upon the people he visits. Shouldn't they too somehow gain something from this? I remember waiting to see a shot of Wells telling the Indian man his DNA was the answer needed, but no such shot ever came.---------------------------------------------------------------------
On a different note, I was going to do Bodies...The Exhibit that's showing at Southpoint as my presentation but a test held me over on Wednesday. I wonder if anyone else read the Chronicle article on the possibility that the bodies being used were actually political prisoners of the Chinese government? When I visited the exhibit, I couldn't keep it out of mind the possibility that these cadavers on display were being shown against their owner's (?) will. Also on display were infants in different stages of fetal development. One of the only things I found truly discomforting ended up not being one of the corpses, but a living young woman who upon seeing a 6 month-old fetus, most likely aborted, proceeded to ooh and aah over how 'cute' it and all the other fetuses were. It seems that a being that's had its life given up should be owed respect and solemnity, not the indifferent affection one might give to a puppy in a window.
(Sorry for the dashes used, enter isn't working for some reason.)
posted by Katie at 1:37 PM
3 Comments:
I agree with you that Wells was incredibly condescending in some of his interactions with the various indigenous people he talked to. If it wouldn't have been so offensive it would have been pretty funny listening to him talk about science to the aboriginal guy from Australia. Even though the guy spoke perfect English and seemed intelligent Wells talked about science like it was some fantastic invention from the magical land of the USA.
Aha! Speaking of Bodies...The Exhibit, that's basically all my writing 20 class last semester talked about. As we discussed the ethics of obtaining cadavers (whether through legal or illegal means), the question of how Van Hagens (the artist/scientist) got these bodies in the first place often popped up. Rumors are that they're the bodies of Chinese prisoners...
Spencer Wells is doing a great service to all of humanity in tracing back the roots of mankind. At least that’s what he thinks…
Not to underplay the importance of the discoveries he makes in the documentary, but how life changing will these discoveries be for the common human. I had never heard of this movie, and I assume that most of us had not. But if this were such a big innovation, wouldn’t we all have known about the journey early humans made from Africa to Australia? The documentary definitely over-dramatizes the work Wells is doing. For example, in the search for the base sequence CT (or maybe it was TC?) in the DNA of the Indian men, Wells’ made it seem like this discovery was very unlikely. Thus, when it was actually found and the camera zoomed in on the base sequence, we are supposed to view this as a magnificent discovery and accurate proof that mankind traveled from Africa to Australia. I do not know too much about the science behind it, but, as Wells says himself, human DNA is so long that there are numerous mistakes made in the coding for each person. Then is it not possible that this one base was a mutation in that man’s DNA sequence and has nothing to do with the evolution and journey of man?
Anyhow, I also saw Wells as demeaning to the ‘Bushmen’, often referring to himself as ‘European’ and how his ancestors took a different route that those who traveled to Australia. Wells is doing his best to be politically correct, but when he is spending time with the Bushmen, it is clear that he sees these people as primitive.
Post a Comment
<< Home