I missed the summit last year but I’m definitely not passing up on the chance to join MBS 2. Nevermind if the host city is a 3 or 4 hour ride away from Davao. Can’t wait to see General Santos again.

MBS 2 or Mindanao Bloggers Summit is a venue for Mindanao based bloggers to meet up, eat good food, and most of all, share insights about blogging and everything that comes with it.

Last year it was held here in Davao City but I didn’t get a chance to join because of a journ-related workshop. For this year, the summit will be hosted by the Tuna Capital of the Philippines, General Santos City. I’ve been to this city once, for a frat-soro leadership training with Atty. Dan Calica though I never got to explore what the city has to offer.

The tour comes in second place to the discussions at the summit of course. I’m raring to know what are the views of other bloggers regarding the role of the blogging community in the Philippines. Specifically, I would like to hear more about the potential of blogging as a tool for peace, social awareness, and advocacy campaigns.

Now if only I can find a way to fix the schedule so the summit and my trip to Baguio won’t clash. Yoohoo, PS, please cooperate. hehehe.

Thank you to the following for making 2nd Mindanao Bloggers Summit possible:

CO-PRESENTERS:
City Mayor Pedro B. Acharon, Jr.
Congresswoman Darlene Antonino-Custodio
NOKIA
Department of Tourism XII
ABS-CBN Regional Network Group
Bariles Republic
Gen. Santos City Tourism Association
SOCCSKSARGEN Blogers

GOLD SPONSORS:
Friendster
Globe
AMA Computer Learning Center
Grab A Crab Restaurant and Coffee Club 101
Gregoria Printing Press

SILVER SPONSORS:
Nokiahost.Com
Asia United Bank
Family Country Hotel & Convention Center
East Asia Royale Hotel
Fine Pixel Advertising
IDEAS

BRONZE SPONSORS
GenSan Sale.Com
Blogging from Home Book
Pacific Seas Seafood Market
Generals Logimark Exponent
Prints and You
Writing Edge.Com
Forest Lake San Carlos Park
Rolee Bakery & Cafe
Jehzlau Concepts
Techykid.Com
Jaypee Online.Net
Blue Media Communications
International Container Terminal Services, Inc
Shalom Wizard Academy
Dreamworld Travel and Tours
Sta. Cruz Seafoods, Inc.
Dellosa Design Build Services
Kristan Bookstore
DOLE Philippines
Husky Bus Lines
Shakey’s Pizza
Family Brand Sardines
Gaisano Mall of GenSan
Chowking – KCC
Jollibee National Highway
Procter & Gamble Philis., Inc
Mega Sardinesc

.

Thanks kuya avel, for the heads up.

It’s an interesting read. I’m not fond of mathematics but there are times when I do find the numbers quite interesting. This is one of those moments. I got this pdf file from the folks at Microsoft research, thanks to Dana Boyd’s blog.

Here’s the abstract:

A well-known result in game theory known as “the Folk Theorem” suggests that finding Nash equilibria in repeated games should be easier than in one-shot games. In contrast, we show that the problem of finding any (approximate) Nash equilibrium for a three-player infinitely repeated game is computationally intractable (even when all payoffs are in {?1, 0,?1}), unless all of PPAD can be solved in randomized polynomial time. This is done by showing that finding Nash equilibria of (k + 1)-player infinitely-repeated games is as hard as finding Nash equilibria of k-player one-shot games, for which PPAD-hardness is known (Daskalakis, Goldberg and Papadimitriou, 2006; Chen, Deng and Teng, 2006; Chen, Teng and Valiant, 2007). This also explains why no computationally-efficient learning dynamics, such as the “no regret” algorithms, can be rational (in general games with three or more players) in the sense that, when one’s opponents use such a strategy, it is not in general a best reply to follow suit.

If you’re from the social sciences and interested in learning more about the game theory then this might help. It’s not an easy reading because of the terminologies and the complex mathematical concepts involved… so be warned.

Download:The myth of Folk theorem

This was taken a few steps away from the entrance of Mintal’s public cemetery. Contrary to what most people think, this public cemetery wasn’t too bad. The place was clean and the trees lent a beautiful shade to mourners who stay here.

The acacia trees were planted by Japanese Guerillas back in the 1940s when Mintal was occuppied by the Japanese. Several tombs at the center of the cemetery hold the remains of the Japanese soldiers who died here. The locals, being a suspicious lot, have raided the tombs and the trees in the cemetery looking for buried treasures. The local baranggay have put a stop to the treasure hunting activities especially as it has angered the relatives of the Japanese people who flock here every August to pay their respects. As for the treasure, some still believe that it exists, though some have given up the search.

The cemetery, since it’s a public one, is filled to the brim. According to the sepulturero, there have been cases of sapawan or space grabbing and take overs. Space here is no longer free too. A new ordinance demands that people who want to be buried here have to pay a fee for the space. It’s not much, but some families still have a hard time coming up with the amount.

Even in the cemetery where the dead rests, the triangle still exists. The wealthier ones get to choose and buy the better spaces while the less fortunate ones will have to settle for paid public spaces. And for the poorest of the poor, a crude wooden cross with a wooden ‘lapida’ will have to suffice.

We filipinos put a lot of stock in death. The dead must be treated well and so the endless bouts of ceremonies. To honor the dead, some families will not hesitate to borrow money from loan sharks, all for the sake of giving the dead a proper burial, an honorable send off. It’s that important.

Methinks we spend too much money for our dead when we could use the money on other things. The Filipino culture dictates we honor the dead. But things are rapidly changing and  space is becoming a problem.  I wonder how we’ll cope when the time comes. Perhaps we’ll have a condo for the dead? or will we adopt the practice of cremation to save space?

What do you think?

]]> http://tiarara.com/photos-from-mintal-cemetery/feed/ 0 http://tiarara.com/ethnography-film-and-capital/ http://tiarara.com/ethnography-film-and-capital/#comments Sun, 21 Sep 2008 07:45:45 +0000 Tiara http://dabawenyangiska.com/?p=363

Ethnography, Film, and Capital

A Reflection Paper on the film Nanook of the North

The film Nanook of the North starts with a preface, an explanation of the author, or in this case the film maker, informing the audience his intent and the context of the film. Created by Robert Flaherty in 1960, the film showcases the everyday life of an Inuit family in the Arctic North with most of the scenes showing how Nanook and his people hunt for food in the Arctic wilderness. As a documentary it has earned both accolades and scathing criticisms- especially with the ‘staged feeling’ of the whole film which I’ll discuss towards the end of this paper.

The Big Aggie

Nanook of the North is now regarded as a classic. The film has been crowned as a pioneer of ethnographic film. Given the context of the film industry back in the 1960s, the accolades and the crown is well deserved by Nanook of the North. Flaherty’s methods, specifically the use of narratives in his film spurred revolutionary changes in the film. He lent his voice to the film and introduced the use of narratives in documentary making. This is something that most producers now use and something that we viewers tend to take for granted. Admittedly, I’ve been so used to hearing film makers use narratives in telling their stories that when I first saw Flaherty’s film I focused on how basic and sparse it was. Reading more about the background of the film however enabled me to appreciate Flaherty’s use of narratives and can only flinch at the thought of what Flaherty’s contemporaries presented to their audience.

Film and Capital

After several screens flashing Flaherty’s preface came quite an amusing if not surprising introduction to the main character of the film: Nanook. It was quite typical at first, Nanook landing his canoe, unloading his family. It was hilarious, because for the first 10 frames or so, Nanook’s family came out of the small boat, which amazing as it may be could surely not hold more than two individuals, how much more a wife, two kids, one infant, and a pet dog. This could only mean that camera tricks were used and that the homecoming was staged to a hilt. Flaherty might have sought to impress, to amuse, or exoticize life in the Arctic, but all he achieved in doing was cast a doubt on the integrity of the film.

This plot suggests of a need to make the film entertaining, unique, and exotic. The use of the camera fueled colonial expeditions, making the elites and conquistadors sit up and take notice of the other islands. How much more with moving pictures whose success could mean money in return? The equipment must have been horribly expensive which meant Flaherty had connections with big media outfits like Motion Pictures. Nothing comes for free which could only mean one thing: Flaherty had to think afterwards of the market value of his piece. To gain and please, the film must prove to be unique, entertaining, never mind if he had to disregard the practices of the people he claims to have a ‘deep regard’ for.

Most frames showed how Nanook hunted for game and what they do for a living—hunting fish, walruses, and trading at the “white man’s post”. What I noticed though is how the film managed to edit out the gory details involved in butchering the game, such as with the walrus and the fox pelts, presumably to avoid scaring the women back at his home. Women who would be ‘affronted’ at seeing how those damningly expensive furs they wear elegantly are obtained. Flaherty however does not shirk from showing how Nanook and his people eat aggressively after the hunt, saying, “They do not wait until the kill is transported, for they cannot restrain the pangs of hunger”.

The Uncle Sam syndrome

Throughout the film, I could see a recurring pattern of how Flaherty must have thought of Nanook and his people. I call it the Uncle Sam syndrome, reminiscent of that editorial cartoon showing a big white man changing the diapers of two small dark children.

Several frames showed Flaherty or another white man sitting next to Nanook or in between his family, as if to emphasize the difference, and quite similar to the way colonizers had their photos taken with indigenous people. In one particular scene, Uncle Sam points how ignorant Nanook was of the phonograph and its records, showing Nanook biting the disk. The whole scene reeks of the staged feeling however and one could only ask if the scene was borne out of Flaherty’s script or if it was the real thing.

Nanook and his people could have been ignorant of the phonograph record, yes, but the white man is also ignorant of the Inuit’s practices, so it can work both ways, right? Only difference is that the upper hand here belongs to Flaherty and he calls the shots, this after all is his film, as he so claims. No hint of partnership or recognition of Nanook, he saw them clearly as a bunch of people living an uncivilized life with Flaherty alluding at the start of the film that he finally came to civilized land after wintering in the Belcher Islands. If that is not a clear allusion to what he thought of Nanook’s people, I don’t know what is.

Another Uncle Sam moment is when one of Nanook’s kids overate and the white man supplied castor oil, a white man’s remedy to an upset stomach in those days. The scene started with a very upset child, holding his stomach followed by a white man offering the oil, and ends with a child grinning widely with no hint of paint. From a viewer’s point of view the white man did Nanook’s child a big favor and to a large extent needs Uncle Sam’s help to get civilized.

Conclusion

Like essays and photographs, film too, reflects the author’s biases and context. In Flaherty’s case it was reminiscent of salvage anthropology and at the same time is reflective of the colonial roots of anthropology. Nevertheless, I understand where Flaherty was coming from. He saw a community that only a few people knew about, an opportunity to show the world of their life, and make a name for himself and a few coins along the way. He was a victim of circumstances and the environment he was in, just as we are today. Projects are capital driven nowadays, even noble or pro-bono researches need funds to work on, and we sometimes succumb to accepting funds from the very people who could use the material to exploit the people whose stories we tell.

Flaherty, despite the criticisms, did revolutionize the methods used in documentary making. But the heavier lesson we should remember is to treat the community we study as more than mere subjects. They are our partners in creating knowledge and unlike lab rats; our partners can speak of their feelings, of what they want, just as we can.

*This essay was written for my Visual Anthropology Class. Read more about Nanook of the North here.