A new kids TV show has recently hit the airwaves.
Rastamouse is a programme designed to appeal primarily Jamaican-Caribbean children, after the creator suddenly realised that entertainment for this slice of our society was dramatically duller than that supplied for others.
Rastamouse premiered to controversy, and steeped in concern about the intelligibility of the language and connections with marijuana (particularly in reference to cheese) took the TV by storm. But it is not a controversial programme at heart.
Rastamouse - the Jamaican-Caribbean hero of a surprisingly British show.
In a very Britishly inspired, almost Enid Blyton style, Rastamouse and his friends Scratchy & Zoomer (together Da Easy Crew) take to the brightly coloured streets to solve problems and ‘make a bad ting good’. By promoting the value of friendship and the virtues of being the good guy as only children’s’ programming can, Rastamouse becomes a programme approaching issues to do with general citizenship but using a group of vibrant, ethnic characters that give Jamaican-Caribbean children something to relate to and children of other racial backgrounds something to start them understanding accents and racial origins.
The big question is, does Rastamouse deserve its controversial reputation?
I can only speak for myself, but I don’t think so. The only problem I found was that I read every newspaper to myself in a Jamaican accent for around an hour after I finished watching the show. Parents concerned that their young children could pick up new words that may have unusual meanings (e.g. ‘wagwan’ basically meaning ’what is going on with you?’) should brace themselves for the time of life when their kids start absorbing the language of popular culture, from the classic ‘cool’ to the very British-90′s ‘ace’ to the modern and primarily American ‘crunk’. If Prince Charles’ wife can proclaim her step-son’s impending nuptials to be ‘wicked’ in an interview with a journalist, then we are all at risk of assimilating popular vocabulary into our verbal inventories. Other parents who worry about the true meaning of ‘cheese’ (supposedly connected with marijuana via a tenuous link through Rastafari) should probably look at much of the innuendo-based humour found in the standard British pantomime that greatly amuses adults but goes straight over the heads of young children, and either give up on British humour completely OR relax a little. And that’s just if cheese is actually code for weed.
Overall Rastamouse seems to me to be a very creative, fun, positive and modern British animation. Without the accents there would be little controversy, racially motivated or otherwise; but to ignore accents and/or other cultures within the media would be tantamount to pretending that nothing beneficial can be learned from other cultures. We either face this controversy or pretend that people outside of the white-and-highly-assimilated-immigrants group do not exist for fear of causing offence. Personally I would love any children I might have to start asking questions about other cultures triggered by programs as well written & produced as Rastamouse.
So congratulations to the creators Genevieve Webster and Michael De Souza, the voice of Rastamouse Reggie Yates, and to the BBC and CBeebies – I genuinely feel that my license fee is being used to make quality programming, contribute to British culture and push boundaries.
Questions:
1) How is the language issue represented?
2) How does the author represent him/herself and others?
3) How does the author shape the readers response (audience positioning)
The author of this article compares Rastamouse
to other texts of a non-controversial nature, namely Enid Blyton, a well loved
and known children's writer. This may be an attempt to attach positive
connotations to the TV programme. This article is written in defence of the
complaints made about Rastamouse claiming that is promotes 'the value
of friendship and the virtues of being the good guy' . The author
acknowledges the concerns of parents, appealing to them as part of his
audience, but makes it clear that he does not feel Rastamouse is a
controversial programme as heart. This is supported by the fact that he does
not use any derogatory terms when referring to the dialect such as 'patios'. He
feels that the concern stemming from their children picking up 'slang' terms
should not be isolated to the Jamaican dialect, and that the blame cannot be
placed upon this show. He states that slang terms are merely a part of the
language of popular culture.
Arguably, it is not the terms taken from Jamaican Creole that are the problem,
but in fact the negative stigma that is attached to them. As Lexis that differs
from the standard is associated with lower classes, and below standard
education, as shown by Viv Edwards research. However, the author of this
article implies that Rastamouse addresses this issue rather than adding to the
controversy of it by giving Jamaican children a show they can relate to, and
aiding the understanding of children from other ethic backgrounds in regards to
difference accents and racial backgrounds.
The author of this article comes across as educated as he uses standard
English, only deviating from this in order to illustrate his points, for
example choosing words from the show 'wagwan' and examples of
slang accepted in daily life not from the show: 'cool'. The use of
standard English makes his article seem more credible, and therefore more
likely to persuade the audience to his way of thinking. He personalises the
article by expressing his own opinions directly through terms such as 'I can
only speak for myself...' 'personally I would love...' and 'I genuinely feel...' this
makes the text more accessible to the audience and more relatable as it lowers
the tenor and formality of the article. Generally the author uses low register
words in order to appeal to a wider audience, but occasionally uses higher
register words such as 'assimilated' and 'tantamount', perhaps
to reinforce his level of education.
The audience of this text is assumed to be parents, although he does not
address them directly and refers to them in third person. He does not appear to
want to appeal to their current views on the controversy of the show, and in
actual fact counter-argues many of them, claiming that by addressing the issue
of controversy actually helps to lessen it, rather than avoiding it and missing
out of the things we could learn from other cultures. It could be argued that
he is alienating the parents as he does not agree with their views.
