Turner and Kayapo

It states that there are problems with Indigenous television channels because it relies heavily on the government because their channels are subsidized by the government, the satellites they have to use are owned by Western companies. This makes you wonder whether or not these people who are producing now have control over what they are actually creating. In the past the role of the anthropologist was to go to places where he had the power and authority, monetary and also publishing-wise. The anthropologist was the one giving them money which these people could use, but also he was the one who edited the film or the book and chose to include and exclude what he wanted, so these people he was studying never played a role or had a say in how they were being portrayed, with a few minor exceptions like Nanook of the North where he and Flaherty worked together to create the movie). One of the great things about them having their own camera, therefore, was to be able to finally be able to show their story from their perspective. However, if they have to depend on the government for money and then they have the their channels on Western broadcasting networks, there has to be some kind of censorship or regulation. They can't just show whatever they want to show, so in the end the question is are they still able to show exactly what they want to show and how they want to show it.

They point out that often indigenous cultures look to use visual media "for self-determniation and resistance" which I think is very true for the most part. We see this with the movie Kanehsatake: 270 Years of Resistance because the Mohawks who live in Canada looked to put this film out to make other people aware of what was going, the messed up things that happened to them each time the govermnent tried to some of their land from them, and then finally their resistance and protest that occurred when they government tried to take it all away to build a golf course. They see it as their most powerful weapon. Indigenous cultures therefore have not really turned to it for recreational or artistic purposes.

This article was really interesting because it pointed out the effects the camera might have on a culture. It could affect the social dynamic because then one has to decide who is going to be the caretaker of the camera. The person who has this camera is therefore very important because they are the only one in that community who has one and holds it. This creates a new power dynamic. Similar social effects occur with the introduction of paper money. In Nai!, she gets into a fight with other people in the community because she makes her own money and is a star of the money. These fights/conflict and tension in the community occur because of this new sense of power. It could effect hierarchical structures as well. He points out that a lot of people agree that it is is important that these Indigenous groups do receive cameras so they can document their own cultures and themselves, but that "few discuss who ends up owning or controlling access to the films or videos at the community level." For the Kayapo, becoming the cameraperson or video editor is both a "prestigious role within the community" and also a culturally and politically important form of mediation of relations with Western society. In this respect and new hierarchy is created on a new basis separate from the dynamic they have within their culture. Ultimately, he states that giving a camera to these people seem like a good idea on the surface, but we often don't think of the implications of this action and how it can greatly effect that community (sometimes negatively).

The issue of whether an anthropologist's ethnography about another culture or one done by someone within that community or by that community about that community (Indigenous films about their indigenous culture) is better was also brought up. The anthropologist's ethnography can lead to "inaccurate" portrayals (voice- over narrations, text, or editing) of that culture, however, it is done from an outsider's perspective and often an outsider is best at noticing things that seem normal within that culture and something that someone within that culture might overlook. On the other hand, someone who is a part of that culture might be able to portray a more "accurate" portrayal of that culture because he understands and it and knows about it more than an outsider can because they experience the everyday life that the anthropologist is trying to show. However, he shows that the introduction of this new technology can have different consequences that can change their culture, like social aspects of every day life. When trying to see which one is better or more accurate, one cannot really compare the two in my opinion. They both offer something and show the culture from two different perspectives and the best would be for them to both be viewed as well as with supplementary texts. For Turner however, I think that he would ultimately say that the introduction of the camera to Indigenous cultures is because it gives them away to communicate within their own society and to record their present and their history and to communicate with other cultures to get their opinions and view across from their own perspective, but there are implications from that, but can be really bad if not done or introduced in the right way.

The issue of accuracy also makes me wonder if we can even decide or judge whether something is more accurate than the other. We would naturally say that the man from within the Indigenous culture's film is more accurate than that of the anthropologist's, however, it can be just as biased. Also, who says that once the camera is introduced they will make films that show us different aspects of their culture? They may just make films that are merely recreational, just as members of Western society do. There isn't a rule stating that they have to make educational films about themselves once they receive it, therefore, the role of an ethnographic film maker is just as important post-introduction as it is pre-introduciton of the camera. They are just different roles that they each play and important in their own respects.