I am curious why there is a difference between "indigenous nudity" and nudity of modern peoples. It seems to me that since both indigenous and modern people are human and have all the same parts, there ought not to be any reason to distinguish the two. So if they are going to censor Bruce they should also censor everyone else or, conversely, not censor anybody. I'd like to hear other people's opinion on this subject. It will probably require one to define what "indigenous nudity" really means.
Admittedly, I feel that if I saw Bruce doing full-frontal nudity I would be shocked and might change the channel. I don't feel like I'm alone on this. And obviously this is a concern of the network. However, seeing indigenous nudity doesn't seem like a big deal to me, in fact censoring it would seem weird and unnecessary. I think this question might also require one to look internally to understand why even an open-minded person would think this. It should be noted that I don’t intend to attack the show in anyway. I think it’s great! And I don’t think the show or the network is in a position to change our culture’s thoughts about nudity and sexuality after centuries of ingraining, they are only able to cooperate.
My concern is that modern and indigenous nudity is considered different because indigenous people are thought of as innocent since they have not been corrupted by the modern god-fearing world. I hope this is not the case since this belief might place indigenous people somewhere between modern humans and animals. Also, if there were a White European tribe still in existence would their nudity be censored? Or is darker skin easier to categorize as an "other."
Please give your thoughts.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: hootenanny03,
Obviously the phrase "indigenous nudity" is being used as shorthand for "These people walk around naked as a matter of course and in their culture it is no big deal."
As you say, though, all of us have the same parts, and the differentiation between "indigenous nudity" and... well, what would be a similar term for "These people don't walk around naked as a matter of course, and for them, dropping trou in public would really be embarrassing" ? ...is somewhat insulting.
I think the depiction of naked people should be uniform. If the people Bruce is visiting are shown on screen naked, then by golly if Bruce is naked, let him appear on screen exactly as the other folks do. If Bruce's naughty bits are going to be edited out, then the same should apply to the other naked people on screen.
What we need is a closeup of the tattoo on Bruce's fanny.
I personally think it is all based on our social acceptance, which really makes one question evident. Isn’t the only difference what was taught to be accepting. That “tribal” nudity seems to be what the common American sees and has been taught to accept. With this thought it changes the question to if we were taught to accept nudity in general, then would there be a difference.
If I understand you correctly it would seem that the network does not censor the nudity, but instead what that nudity represents culturally. For example, they censor a westerner’s privates because we have been taught that the nudity of westerners is a symbol for sex. Since nudity is not a symbol for sex in an indigenous culture there is no need to censor. This is easy to understand. Although, I find it interesting that even in the context of the show, Bruce’s nudity, because he is a westerner, is still a symbol of sex. But this makes sense because although he is trying to immerse himself completely in the culture, he doesn’t have to lose his western morals.
However, my major qualm with this concept is a racial matter. If a group with European ancestry were to break from society and form a colony in which people “walked around naked as a matter of course and in their culture it is no big deal,” (we’ll call such a thing a “nudist colony”), western media would still censor them. This is because they look too similar to westerners. Since indigenous people look different enough they don’t suggest the same symbols. Is this justifiable? Is this still distinguishing nudity from what nudity represents?
And what about indigenous people who have adopted western morals? How does/should the network approach this?
This message has been edited. Last edited by: hootenanny03,
I have posted on another area of the Disc. Channel site on this topic. My belief is that the Disc. Channel should blurr out all the frontal nudity. I have seen the Disc. Ch. show full frontal, center screen for minute after minute with false pretenses, for example, "see the man make the bow & arrow". OK, that is interesting how they make the bow & arrow & shoot the monkey and eat it, BUT DID I NEED TO SEE THE PRIVATES? Is this a show about the privates? (Note: Can not say Pen** or Va*ina without being edited, so just writing "privates")(Ironic that you can see it on the Disc. Ch., but can not say it on their board!). If this is NOT a show about the privates, then the DECENT thing to do would be to blurr it.
To simply say "this is their culture" and show everything is a cheap excuse to show the nudity for ratings.
As for Bruce, that episode was a farce! He absolutely did not want to tackle the issue of the tribe beating their women, so he pretended to be late for the ceremony--BS! He lied to his viewers. The fact that there is a beating ceremony just will not be "PC" in our culture, so he craftly noted it, but then avoided it with little quips about it. If it is their culture to be naked and you can show that, then why can't you show the beating ceremony? (Of course, I don't care to see the beatings either, but I/m just noting the hypocrosy of the show.)
Hootenanny, thanks for this very interesting topic and your very good analysis/question.
So far it seems that there is agreement that both Bruce and the indigenous people ought share the same rules of censorship, although, your reaction, llobe, is to censor both. I am glad you have brought a unique opinion to this discussion, however, I don't entirely agree with it or maybe I just don't fully understand it.
What is the harm in showing nudity? It may make one feel uncomfortable but "this is their culture," or at least in part. I believe the purpose of the show is to represent the culture as best as they can by showing everything that Bruce sees, which includes nudity -- I don't feel the show is solely ABOUT nudity but nudity needs to be shown at least to seem that they are sincerely representing the cultures.
About the ritual whipping in the Hamar episode: I don't feel they completely ingored it. They did interview the men, the women, and women who disagreed with it. They also explained that whipping the sisters showed the devotion to their brother. Pretty powerful symbolism, although women’s rights seem to be lacking. One also must be careful about imposing our cultural values onto another culture even when it seems so against our beliefs. Also, maybe the reason Bruce showed up late to the ceremony was so he didn't have to risk that any women would be whipped for him. Although, he would probably have explained that to us.
Back to the previous issue: I feel that nudity is an important part of representing a culture accurately. However, since the show is not about Bruce's culture there is no need to keep him uncensored, since censoring Bruce's bits is what would happen in a normal show. I think it is important to note that Bruce is not losing his western culture but learning about another. So what lclarke said is a really good point.
I have no problem with a difference in censorship between Bruce and indigenous people as long as "indigenous" nudity is not a result of thinking that the indigenous are innocent of God or because they are uneducated. IT MAY REQUIRE ONE TO QUESTION OUR OWN CULTURE IN WHY WE VIEW NUDITY AS A FORBIDDEN THING.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: kim g,
Very good points, hootnanny. I am sure that my opinion is based on my upbringing and being "taught" that although a beautiful thing, sex is very private.
Anyway, I certainly do not have all the answers, but if Discovery is going to show everything, then that should mean EVERYTHING! Don't edit out childbirth or unflattering positions when women are involved. Broader thoughts: Don't bleep out Tim on "Grizzly" when he "shoots the bird" (middle finger) and curses at the camera, etc. (long story, hope you know what I am talking about)
Another issue I had was the nudity in "Walking with Cavemen". Do we need to see the pen** to understand the cavemen did not wear clothes?
Anyway, you have some good points, but my opinion is that the genitalia does not need to be shown.
Further, Discovery pretends to not want to censor nudity on some programs, but then censors this very board (e.g., your last post).
Hello. I read your post and it left me a little confused. I'm in Camada. and although we did not see a ful frontal view of Bruce we did see his genitals. Personal i see no difference between seing him naked or seing the others. We are all the same arent we? the only reason why you have a problem with it is because in our mordern society it is not confromity to be naked in public. We wear clothes which creates a barrier between eachother. If nakedness was a day to day view. maybe we would have less problem with accepting eachother's differences . But we are inprisoned by our closed mind and our clothes.
When i saw bruce naked i was not shocked at all it was like seing the others. And i dunno why there is any cencure at all. If they are to show a show about how secluded ppl live lets see it all. And if some ppl are shocked by what they see. They should ask themselves why and they just have to switch channel.
I love the show and i hope we get to see many more episodes. Goof Work Bruce!!
I would also like to make the point that maturity plays a large role in this. Because what may be suitable for one person is not for others. Which I know feeds the contradiction of a question of why there is a difference. But perhaps the main reason for this "editing" is really based on attractiveness and maturity. For example if the vision of a naked body is attractive it then it is a bad thing by most western standards. And if in a given example one is not mature enough to not see this subject in its non stimulating matter then it becomes an issue.
I was just in the UK, and saw their version of this show, called Tribe (it's the same thing, except with a different name). In this show, they did not censor anything, not even Bruce's butt . After seeing this I had a totally different outlook on this show, because it made me truly believe that he was trying to be one with the people.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: kim g,
In the beginning of each show there is a section that clearly states about the nudity and/or violence that may be shown. Now, I choose to watch but if I was one that was offended in any nature, I know I have the right to go elsewhere. I do think that whomever is reponsible needs to be less inhibited about Bruces nudity on this series as he is clearly not being derogatory in any way by becoming "one" with these tribes. Who knows why they are allowed to let it all hang out and he not except for the title they are given. I have always given Bruce kudos for his braveness, strength and insatiable curiosity, but do think that if he is to enter within the indiginous, then so be it shown as well his conformity to their specifications. I, for one, would never be shocked nor be a leering cretin for seeing his nakedness on TV. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Conformity to any society if one is comfortable with it should be accepted. If not, you know how to click a button. If I could meet this man someday, it would be quite the deep conversation... Maybe it might become such, maybe not. But, you never can tell.. stranger things have occurred in my life.~smile~
Bruce is NOT "brave" or "strong". When confronted with a tribe's custom of beating the women, he very slyly barely covered the issue, then pretended to arrive too late at the ceremony to video it, then dismissed it summarily. HE JUST WOULD NOT CONFRONT THE SUBJECT! Why not? Not PC in "modern" civilization?
To start things off, I’ve never seen the show. I was simply looking through the Discovery Channel forums and this topic looked interesting and I thought I’d see what everyone had to say on it. My stance on the subject is that there should be no distinction. Either everyone is censored, or no one is. Nudity may be acceptable in the cultures of some indigenous people, however the show is being viewed in our culture. If it is decided that nudity is a bad thing in our culture, then we should be consistent. Personally though, I don’t have a problem with nudity, I see the concept of nudity being considered immoral is a fairly archaic point of view. I feel that as a society we should be willing to move forward, and continue to progress. Not just with our views on nudity, but with the human body as a whole, to list a few examples; child birth (which was mentioned by someone else), surgery, etc. Lastly, if you are the kind of person who is offended by those types of things… Well, if nothing else, that’s what the disclaimer is for. At the beginning of these kinds of shows they always say “this program contains violence, nudity, whatever, whatever, etc.” if you’re offended by those kinds of things, change the channel, read a book, go for a drive, or engage in any other activity of your choice. No one is putting a gun to your head and making you watch the show
same old, same old argument, "no one is making you watch it ...."
No one is making me watch the show, but I wish my children could watch the show. I will NOT let them as long as these shows are ladled with unnecessary nudity.
I am writing this EVEN IF IT IS NOT PC TO SAY/WRITE IT! It is my custom to be clothed, and maybe the tribal community needs to respect MY custom! Yeah, yeah, I have heard all the "you are a prude" comments---would you, would you honestly let your 6 yr. old daughter completely see your nudist neighbors b/c it is their custom? I would NOT, even if not PC, I WOULD NOT.
IMO, Blu_Vespa got the definition, at least the way I took it, of 'indigenous nudity' dead on.
And as far as my kid seeing the nudity? Well, my 4yr old watched it with me, and he didn't make any comments about it. (His most pressing questions were about hunting and herding, as he's at the age where livesotck are pretty fascinating, lol.) As long as the nudity isn't sexual, it's just people without clothing covering the same parts of their bodies that we normally cover. <shrug> Just doesnt' seem like a big deal to me.
Now, if it were sexual, no way in heck would he be watching, holy cow!! Yikes. (I doubt I'd watch either, ick.) But it isn't, so it's cool in my book and not even noteworthy in his.
Murder is a very bad thing, I think we all agree on that. Its ok to show a dead body on t.v. for all the young vewers to ess, its ok to say gun, bullet hole, blood, knife and to talk in full detail about it and even how to do it. Why do people cry and wine when some ego driven woman pops out her brest on stage at a football game? If seeing a naked person on t.v. is the most disturbing thing you see, i think youve had a pritty sheltered life. I can see murder every night, but you cant see the mirical of life . if it wernt for sex, we wouldnt be around.
The difference between indigenous nudity and regular nudity is profound. For the same reason that dogs don't wear pants, blacks don't either, in their natural state. They're not people, they're animals.
