Original method vs original meaning

This week our editorial was prompted by some interesting posts in social media which we thought worth sharing, with the hope of reaching the people who are not on Face Book. It certainly can add depth to the discussion started by the Cultural Foundation in a bid to find the authenticity behind the mas we play.  Recently, we have even heard of a different spelling and meaning from Dr Angus Martin for what we have come to know as Vieux Corps. We are tempted to ask -Is that mas in reference to old body as in human corpse? or a military body as in VI Corps in reference to a French Military Unit? Our Carnival came from France. But sadly, -Go to France is still synonymous to –Go to hell; and Africa remains the sole point of reference for research.

Following the many discussions, the Manager of one of our leading Insurance Companies, has stepped in to help provoke more thought on the truthfulness of the history of the mas which seems to change according to just who is in the driving seat.

Mr Richard Strachan posted, “Lately I have been reading and hearing a lot about “authenticity” in Mas, particularly as it relates to Jab Jab. I claim no expertise in our cultural traditions, but perhaps the time has come for our cultural historians, practitioners and scholars to identify the essential elements of authenticity and help guide the rest of us. For example, if our ancestors blackened their bodies with whatever was affordable and available, whether stale molasses, tar or old engine oil -does authenticity require us to continue using substances that we now know may be harmful to our skin, health and the environment, when safer alternatives can preserve exactly the same symbolism?

If dirtying buildings with Jab oil once symbolised resistance, defiance and the challenging of established power, does that symbolism carry the same meaning today when many of our buildings are owned by ordinary Grenadians, public shareholders, pension funds, and in some cases by the very people participating in J’ouvert themselves? If animals became part of the tradition to express a particular symbolism, does authenticity require those practices to continue unchanged, even where modern laws, international commitments and evolving standards of animal welfare may point us in a different direction? These are not questions of right or wrong. They are questions about how a living culture honours its roots while remaining relevant to its time.”

Mr Strachan’s questions that should take everyone back to the drawing board are – What exactly did our ancestors do?” rather “What were our ancestors trying to say? In other words, is authenticity found in preserving the original methods, or in preserving the original meaning? Many people supported his post; but we have chosen to share a long one which spoke from the perspective which shows how careless behaviour can be at the heart of the confusion.

He posted –“Well for me, authenticity is staying close and true to the original as much as possible. But what jab choose to ‘black’ themselves with should be personal preference. We know the oil is carcinogenic which can cause harm to the skin based on skin type and sensitivity; but there are so many carcinogenic substances that we interact with or consume on a daily basis, from foods to effluents, products, radiation, etcetera; but no one cares about that. We do what we want anyway as personal choices. A good example is cigarettes. We know the danger of it which is often printed on the label, but it’s sold everywhere. So whatever someone chooses to ‘black’ themselves with -it’s their choice. However, the ole oil should be used responsibly and disposed of safely since it can harm the environment. Why do people go to the beach to remove the poisonous stuff? Maybe its lack of information which can show alternative ways of removal from the skin.

Does dirtying buildings really symbolise resistance? Dirtying someone’s property, possession or vehicle in the name of mas or ‘jab’ -that’s wrong!  It’s a costly thing to deal with after Carnival. The ole oil spoils most things it makes contact with, if it ain’t spoil, it’s laborious to remove; so, that’s inconsiderate and wrong I must agree!

The animals in the J’ouvert, often times they’re dead with probably the exception of the serpents and Crapo. The swine, frogs and serpents have famously become a ‘thing’ with the jab, often times used for theatrics, goriness and shock value. People complain about animal cruelty when live serpents and frogs are used; but those same people -if they were to encounter same round their homes, inside their houses, in the yard, near their vehicle, or place of work -their first instinct often times is to kill instead of relocating them. That’s animal cruelty if you ask me!

Not saying playing with the live animals is okay, but let’s not be hypocritical. Often time people who play with them are people that are not afraid of them. So, they’re released back into their environment. Again I am not saying that it’s right, but also not saying that it’s wrong. If you getting involved in a mas edify yourself!

In my opinion -over the years all our traditional mas have lost their authenticity a long time ago, with the exception of probably the vieux corps in Saint Marks. There’s so much we could do to keep it authentic and preserve the lovely traditional mas that we have, but are people really concerned about that? All we seem to care about is thong costume and money from the commercialisation of our ‘Carnival product’!”

As Grenadians interested in documenting the correct information let’s keep the conversation going.

Thank you Mr Strachan for coming onboard!

The post Original method vs original meaning appeared first on Grenadian Voice.