Author Archives: LeralSmith

In his episode of the Patriot Act, titled “Saudi Arabia”, Hasan Minhaj analyzes the role of Saudi Crown Prince, Muhammad bin Salman (MBS) in the murder of Washington Post Journalist, Jamal Khashoggi. The power that MBS once had over Islam, being labelled as “the reformer [that] the Arab world needed”, was soon destroyed by the revelations surrounding his killing of Khashoggi. More interesting than the details of Khashoggi’s killing itself, however, is the discussion on the various comedic techniques that Minhaj employs in order to narrate this news effectively. In his episode, Minhaj handles the fusion of real news (and other non-fiction) video clips and the comparison of Western and Muslim etiquette, particularly well. These are features that contribute to his engagement with, and advocacy against, the common trope that the “Muslim mind” is irrational.

Minhaj’s initial framing of MBS empathizes with those (mostly in the West) that supported him, but later goes on to demonstrate how, in reality, this praise and recognition is harmful to the representation and values of all other Muslims. The mention of one of MBS’s early accomplishments – lifting the ban on women driving – is evidence of the former, kind-hearted and principled, portrayal – one that may have fooled non-Muslims. However, the subsequent news headline clip, revealing his bizarre ways – namely holding his mother on house arrest so that she couldn’t interfere with his rise to power – proves just how far he would go to maintain his position. MBS’s role in the murder of Khashoggi comes as no surprise to nationals – his nickname literally means “Father of the bullet” – and yet the West is only just learning of his criminality. Through the incorporation of real news footage, Minhaj comments on how contrary the western perception of MBS is, compared to the Muslim experience of his control.

Minhaj continues to compare the West to Islam, but instead of framing Islam as irrational, he criticizes the choices of the West. The anecdote that comes to mind and best captures this pattern is the joke that spawns from his conversation on lotas. Minhaj jokes that so many people find this method (using water and your hands) gross, and yet toilet paper (the western method) is far grosser. He draws a comparison between how one typically handles removing dog feces from their expensive shoes and how they clean their body after using the toilet (both situations, where toilet paper is insufficient), and begs the question: “why don’t we treat our butts with the same respect as we treat our Air Jordans?” Minhaj makes very intelligent comedic decisions that seamlessly weave together aspects of Western and Islamic cultures in order to frame his target audience, but also to support his active engagement and fluency in both cultures.

Minhaj’s use of comedy effectively distances himself from the trope that the “Muslim mind” is irrational and instead flips this stigma entirely. Islam’s affiliation with Saudi Arabia, unlike America’s, is not a choice. Thus, framing an entire religion based on the judgement of such a small percentage of its people, is foolish, but when MBS extends the most basic human rights and suddenly he’s in Oprah’s book club, receiving tremendous praise; that is irrational.

Works Cited

Minhaj, Hasan. “Saudi Arabia.” Patriot Act, Netflix, 28 Oct. 2018.

Bone Box is an abstract installation, made in 2007, that now rests in the Great Hall of the Museum of Anthropology amongst other, much less colourful, pieces. It was crafted by Michael Nicoll Yahgulanaas – visual contemporary artist, author and speaker – using plywood sheets as panels that rotate from a vertical and dominant position to a horizontal position, revealing the words: “A STACK OF PLYWOOD TRAYS BUILT TO CONTAIN FRAGMENTS OF EVERYONE’S CULTURE”. The frontal view of the 12 panels together make up an abstract, collective image, yet each individual panel is an independent story of its own. The binding of these two worlds – the smaller, more defined one, and the larger, wholistic one – embodies an association between indigenous and contemporary cultures that Yahgulanaas makes through his piece. The fragmented art work represents the many cultural fragments that exist in today’s world, however the paintings overlap and come together to create a singular image. This shows how cultural differences are inevitable, but should not restrict our coexistence.

Bone Box is the only colourful piece in a room that is dominated by brown and red tones. For this reason, it stands out in stark contrast to the rest. The other exhibits that surround this piece include canoes, 19^th century Haida poles, woven work, and date back to as early as 1984 (Canoe, Bill Reid), further accentuating this piece as the most modern and contemporary work. The piece’s modernity and colourful nature is a celebration of the marriage of these two worlds.

One wouldn’t call this a perfect example of figurative repatriation, as it is defined by Kramer, however the artists’ desire to reclaim, or ‘repatriate’, his own Haida culture through similarly characterized art – round, thick, and textured strokes – is undoubtedly made clear through this piece. It is his way of “colonizing the colonizers” through art – through outlining similarities between first nation and all other peoples, but still maintaining the style and practice of his own Haida culture.

Additionally, the fact that each plywood sheet was once used by the Archaeology Department at UBC to store objects shows how Yahgulanaas is able to repurpose objects that are used currently to depict events and realizations that are reoccurring. He obtains this unique power; the power to transcends time and space – a power that is unique to art.

The first thing I noticed as I saw this piece was its imperfect symmetry. The whole installation seems to be symmetrical in shape and size, but the details of each side are not the same. My take on the significance of this is that it again portrays how cultural differences (the fine details) shouldn’t limit to one’s place in society (symmetry); equal treatment does not depend on equal appearance.

References:

“Museum of Anthropology at UBC.” Collection Online | Museum of Anthropology at UBC, collection-online.moa.ubc.ca/home.

Maintaining a conscious approach is not always easy when discussing something as colossal as social media. It feels as though every claim made about its ability to contribute to society can be countered by ways in which it is seen working against society. Indeed my perspective on both Castell’s and Dean’s chapters, as well as the relationship between social media and sociopolitical change, has changed.

In preparation for our debate, I was assigned Castell’s chapter on The Egyptian Revolution. What stood out most to me was Castell’s argument that social media, mostly Twitter and Facebook, provided the event space to host planned protests and give voice to otherwise silenced individuals during the Egyptian Revolution (60). Thus, my belief in social media as a positive tool that benefits sociopolitical challenges through their increased attention, was satisfied. However, following the debate and specifically my role as an assessor, I gravitated more towards the potential that the same promotional capacity of social media can be a negative attribute. Naturally, as a reader I was captivated by the structure of Castell’s argument, highlighting the importance more than the danger of social media’s role in the Egyptian Revolution. Conclusively, the debate allowed me to move in a liberated mental space and visualize multiple perspectives and contexts.

Being actively involved in a debate allowed me to obtain a relatively balanced outlook on the relationship between social media and sociopolitical change given the context of the Egyptian Revolution. However, not being an active participator in the debate on Dean’s chapter led me to an even more developed intellectual stance. There is a certain benefit in listening, but not being able to contribute to an argument, which enhanced my sense of awareness and critical capacity. Furthermore, only having read one of the chapters – Castell’s – made me feel a certain foreignness that was comforting.

A notable difference between Castell and Dean’s perspectives is the audience that Dean’s text targets. Perhaps this effect derives from the fact that his text has a broader focus on “Technology and Communicative Capital” using many examples to support his thesis, as opposed to Castell’s focus a particular occurrence – The Egyptian Revolution – which is equally, if not more, important. This gives Dean’s argument more flexibility and the opportunity for reader to draw on their own personal experiences on Social Media. While both texts assume a certain cultural context of their readers, they both dominate a certain perspective – Dean looking predominantly at how social media can hinder sociopolitical change and Castell at how it helps. Ultimately, my lack of positional bias throughout the duration of this activity shaped my ultimate conscious outlook. It is true – Social Media can be an asset and a barrier to Sociopolitical change.

In the discussion on social media, as one of the many ways we interact with one another, what is often overlooked is the contribution of music media platforms. SoundCloud is an example of this kind of medium, being an online audio distribution platform that enables users to upload and promote their work. More simply, SoundCloud is a place where musicians can share their own music with a fanbase that the application generates based on a social-media-like following. Essentially, its purpose is to marry the idea of social media with the concept of music artistry. This is a bold gesture, and for that, SoundCloud received its praise, gaining much popularity in today’s age, especially during 2016, as more independent musicians are searching for a place to publish their artwork freely.

SoundCloud is a common starting point for emerging artists, because of how accessible it is in comparison to iTunes and Spotify’s legal process that requires a formal registration and payment to publish music. It is made very clear, though, that it is nothing more than that – a starting point. Much of SoundCloud’s popularity rests in the fact that it is accessible and free. Ironically then, this very quality earns SoundCloud its reputation as an illegitimate platform for real artists.

Stemming from this idea arose the microgenre, “SoundCloud rap”, or otherwise “mumble rap”, encompassing a certain calibre of artistry – one that is simple, incomprehensible and ultimately lame. Mumble rap puts little emphasis on quality and lyricism and much on sex, drugs, and money.

But isn’t that all rap?

Arguably, yes.

When discussing social media, the discussion on culture cannot be excluded. Social media is not only a useful tool to spread and share media. It is something that “hints at a cultural mindset” (Holmes) and has cultural implications – the ability to influence cultural and social dynamics. Born from this huge influx of mediocre artists trying to make money from songs that are anemic in content, is the unique persona, the “SoundCloud rapper”. More important than SoundCloud itself is the implications of this aesthetic, which all legitimate rappers despise. Their antagonism derives from their shame in the image that new “SoundCloud rappers” are painting for the genre itself. It is believed that “Soundcloud is home to an entire nation of rappers with colored dreads, melodies inspired by 2000s Emo and Pop Punk and the latest mutations of Atlanta’s Trap” (Holmes). And though it is still a social media phenomenon, SoundCloud has angered many qualified artists in the music industry and proved to be problematic. By introducing (or at least trying to introduce) a completely new the dynamic to the music industry, not only did SoundCloud and the “SoundCloud rapper” aesthetic cheapen the act of publishing music online, but it also cheapened the quality of that music, inviting almost anyone to the music industry – an industry that is highly, highly competitive.

Works Cited:

Holmes, Charles. “The Who’s Who Of SoundCloud Rap.” Complex, Complex, 28 Sept. 2018, www.complex.com/music/2018/09/soundcloud-rappers-you-should-know/.

Many of us are familiar with female rapper, Nicki Minaj, and even more so with her top-charting single, Anaconda, that sparked much controversy in 2014. The song was nominated for ‘best rap song’ at the 2015 Grammys and although it received immense appreciation from the public, it also sparked great controversy for its lewd and sexually provocative content. Minaj, being one of the few successful female rappers in the music industry, faces huge pressures from both the women that look up to her and her male counterparts. But even with all of these pressures, she never fails to draw attention from the media. Minaj is indeed an intelligent and deliberate artist who clearly understands the question: why does media spread? Her techniques and tactics for success can loosely be applied to Jenkins’ theory on “stickiness” and “spreadability”.

The term “stickiness” encompasses content that intends  to capture and keep its audience’s attention. It is generally motivated by monetary capital. “Spreadability”, on the other hand, focusses on the sharing of content for the audience’s own benefit. it is driven by a type of cultural capital. In Minaj’s case, the classification of  the nature of Anaconda varies depending on the analytical standpoint that you choose.

From a more conservative and surface-based perspective, her song and music video may easily be categorized under “stickiness”. It can be argued that Minaj’s intentions with her Anaconda music video boil down to shrewd marketing. She proves her keen understanding of her audience and her market,  and uses it to her advantage in every sense. Anaconda was a huge financial success. Minaj garnered enormous attention and publicity because of the video’s controversy. Her focus on controversy can thus be viewed as a genius marketing maneuver. Minaj understands the power of using sexuality and controversy to provoke a certain reaction. And because she did it so well, she pushed her career onto a stratospheric level.

While Anaconda does satisfy the “stickiness” theory, there is a greater purpose that Minaj’s song and music video serve. On the other hand, Anaconda could be seen as a great contribution to female empowerment and looked at through the “spreadability” theory. Nicki Minaj contributes to the empowerment of women by showing that they can use their own assets and talents to obtain success in a male dominated industry (just like she has). Within the song, she uses her sexuality to get things from men. The line, “and when we done, I make him buy me Balmain” is an example of her using her oppression in an intelligent way. Although the content of her lyrics is quite vulgar, Minaj is actually speaking to a more important issue – true female power, power that stands in the face of adversity.