Bro'town

Critical Response

Does the humour in Bro'town work as a form of subversion, or does it perpetuate racial stereotypes?

Ethnic jokes have always been a way of 'owning' your cultural stereotypes. Being able to laugh at ourselves is an important developmental process and can be empowering. However there is a fine line between humor and bad taste and it became clear in the discussion in class that many people see bro'town as crossing that line.

Knightly said that "brown academics" (the people most vocally offended by the show) "are the enemies of fun". I thought that this was a cop out response to very real concerns academics may be raising about the place that humour has in perpetuating stereotypes. I often feel offended at racial jokes if they do not come from a person of that race. In my eyes the Bro'town stereotypes and humour is often believed by people outside of the culture as somewhat true. The fact that it may be laughing at these stereotypes is easily missed. Although I do not think extreme racism is prominent in NZ society, there is often a notion of superiority displayed by majorities. Bro'town displayed racial humour on a public stage and in my experience was then mimicked by many of my Pakeha friends thinking it was okay for them to make these kind of jokes too.

I think the Pacific Island representation in prime time television was a positive experience for New Zealand, but it would have been more empowering had the characters moved away from stereotypes. I also think there are aspects other than racial depiction which lead to its very split audience opinion. Some people not finding it funny because the jokes are repetitive or relying to much on toilet humour and slapstick comedy.

Sons for the Return Home

“The boy experiences two cultures and two lifestyles. He both suffers and survives the misunderstandings and discriminations which recur between white and brown, among Maoris and Samoans and other Islanders. He is neither assimilated nor integrated into NZ society. Nor is he content in the reality of Samoa. He is a man forever divided.”

Do you agree with this critic?

I agree that the protagonist is divided between his NZ lifestyle and his Samoan lifestyle. His mother seems particularly intent on the children keeping their Samoan culture alive and not adopting to "Papalagi way". Especially in issues regarding faith, family, and sexuality.

However I don't feel that he is 'forever divided'.  I do not feel that culture is synonymous with identity but is a part of identity. Identity can have other factors such as personality and faith and is something which we can choose.

 Part of his identity is his education, intelligence, and his unique way of seeing things clearly- as his father describes. He can accept he is a Samoan New Zealander and does not have to do things the Papalagi or Samoan way, but his way. In this sense his links to Maui are evident, as Maui was very much a rebel carving out his identity. I think Wendt is clever with his use of this mythology in the novel.

I think the third part of the book is interesting as he is trying to both come to terms with the death of his grandfather, has ancestor, and the abortion, which could be seen as the death of his would be descendant. This ties that he has the dead seem to be something he needs to acknowledge and talk about with his parents, but ultimately, in acknowledging them, he feels a sense of freedom and is able to make peace with his past 'He was alive; at a new beginning'. I think this freedom also empowers him to define himself.

 Do you think the hero is sympathetic? The heroine? Is she more sympathetic?

I don't really find the main character particularly sympathetic. Especially because he twice displays violence towards women and I think at times he is arrogant. I think he is quite self absorbed, negative, and overly concerned with the fact that other people may have racial prejudice even though he is at times racist himself. I feel that he sees racism everywhere partly because he dwells on it. I am not sure if he really does love the girl. Although it is a small detail, the fact that he buys her Camus essays for Christmas even though she seems to have no expressed interest in philosophy or literature, seems like he is thinking about himself, or even showing off his intellectualism.

The heroine I found more sympathetic but I think that she quite cliché and sort of an unrealistic male fantasy. Good-looking, rebellious, larger than life and always randy, she seems to be put in the novel to serve the purpose of invigorating the male lead and breathe some mystery and adventure into the book.  I think one of the reasons she is with him is to break away from her conservative middle class upbringing, as initially I can't see how she is woo'd by his silence. As it goes on I think she should leave him as I think he treats her cruelly, such as in the scene where he brings her to his meet his Samoan community and does not look after her, or when he goes off drinking and doesn't apologize.This also made me less sympathetic about the abortion as I do not think they would be ready for a child anyway.

I also think that naming the characters would have made them sympathetic as it is more personable. As would more description of their physical appearance. I wondered in Albert Wendt wanted them to be sympathetic, to me, this did not seem the intent as leaving them with out names seems to be a technique to develop objectivity.

What do you think is the best hope for a Pacific person in NZ society today?

Auckland seems to have a big pacific community and I do not think it is as racially charged as it is depicted in the novel Sons for the Return Home, although I can imagine it was at the time of publication. Common wisdom dictates that one must know their roots to know themselves. I am not a big believer in this sort of thinking. Certainly it helps some people to find their identity and many people like to hold on to cultural practice and language, but I do not think it is absolutely necessary, but perhaps this because I have not struggled greatly with identity. I always felt that I fit in with my Pakeha friends at school and with other Polynesians. Most Maori people would say that I am like a white girl and I am fine with that because I think that these labels are so subjective that it doesn't matter what other people say and that I am still Maori. I can imagine some Pacific Islanders would like to adapt to Pakeha ways, for example if you were atheist like the protagonist in the novel, the tradition of the church, which has become a integral part of Samoan culture, could be unappealing. However going against tradition can be strong assertion of personal identity because it is going against the crowd (What can be more self affirming than marching to the beat of your own drum).

Charles Darwin said that the species that survives is not the strongest nor the most intelligent, but the most adaptable to change. I think this is true of people too. Adaptability, I think, is the most important quality to have in migration. I think, realistically, to succeed in NZ there needs to be an acceptance of New Zealand culture. I think the mother in Sons for the Return Home really hinders her sons in her unwillingness to adapt and by looking back to the past with rose tinted glasses. In saying that many of my Pacific friends have held on to particular customs, such as dance, language, and song, and it is a delight when they share and express that. I think Auckland is on its way to become a more accepting and multicultural city.