One particularly
interesting aspect of the reading was the discussion of Carnival costumes as
evidence of an amalgamation of cultures. Influences from both European cultures
and colonized countries were obvious throughout Carnival costumes. Nunley
mentions the idea that Carnival brought unity and identity to Trinidad,
although it was a country that was previously characterized by “racial tension,
cultural bias, and religious bigotry.” (p 85) This inclusion of aspects
relevant to European identity, as well as aspects relevant to Caribbean
identity in Carnival costumes results in many questions regarding identity of
Trinidad citizens. It reminds me of the idea of double consciousness that
Gilroy discussed. The black citizens of Trinidad obviously have an
understanding of and relation to European culture and identity, yet are they
also affording themselves some level of agency in defining their own identity
as it relates to their African heritage? Because of the inclusion of European
and African influences, are Carnival costumes one example of Gilroy’s idea that
there is no way to explicitly define an identity specifically linked to only one
culture? Considering colonization and Europe’s influence of Trinidad, could
Carnival reveal an example of Gilroy’s argument that identity cannot be
succinctly and simply separated by country or culture? Is this idea also
relevant when discussing Chinese and East Indian influences, in addition to
other influences mentioned in the reading, such as images brought back to
Trinidad from Yucatan, Mexico?
It appears that
Carnival reveals, through its costumes, numerous influences from different
cultures and countries. I’m curious to understand how the performers interpret
the general idea of incorporating multiple influences, rather than attempting
to define a singular Trinidad identity. Additionally, the country has become
more unified through Carnival. How has the combination of influences created
that new level of unity?
No comments:
Post a Comment