Monthly Archives: May 2020

Has the music we listen to, and why we listen, changed during the coronavirus pandemic?

Beyond the well-documented evidence of pandemic music-making at a distance and over social media, music critics have suggested there is an increased preference for music that is comforting, familiar and nostalgic.

Data from major streaming services and companies that analyze them may support this view.

On Spotify, the popularity of chart hits dropped 28 per cent between March 12 and April 16. Instead, Spotify listeners are searching for instrumental and chill music. In the first week of April on Spotify, there was a 54 per cent increase in listeners making nostalgia-themed playlists, as well as an uptick in the popularity of music from the 50s, '60s, '70s and '80s.

More than half of those participating in a survey conducted by Nielsen Music/MRC Data at the end of March 2020 said they were seeking comfort in familiar, nostalgic content in their TV viewing and music listening. The survey was based on responses by 945 consumers in the U.S. aged 13 and older, plus online responses.

As a researcher who has examined musics power in times of crisis most recently, exploring the music of people who were refugees from civil war El Salvador during the 1980s I believe such work can help us understand our apparent desire to use familiar music for psychological support during this challenging period.

In a time when many are confronting both increased solitude and increased anxiety, familiar music provides reassurance because it reminds us who we are as people. Whether it is a hit we danced to with our teenage friends, or a haunting orchestral piece our grandmother played, music lights up memories of our past selves.

Music allows us to create an emotional narrative between the past and present when we struggle to articulate such a narrative in words. Its familiarity comforts us when the future seems unclear.

Music helps to reconnect us to our identities. It also helps us, as all the arts do, to pursue an otherwise inexpressible search for meaning. In so doing, it helps bolster our resilience in the face of difficulty.

People have used music to such philosophical and psychological ends even in times and places where one would think music would be the last thing on peoples minds.

In one of the most extreme among many examples, survivors of Nazi concentration camps report having sung familiar songs to reinforce their sense of self and their religious identity, when both were gravely threatened.

My current research considers musics use for such purposes during the 1980s by refugees from the civil war in El Salvador. Subsistence farmers (campesinos/campesinas), who fled government oppression for refugee camps in Honduras, have told me they considered music essential to their psychological survival.

In a sometimes-dangerous new land, away from their war-stricken home, campesinos and campesinas performed, listened and danced to old and new folk songs to help sustain a connection to their pre-war identities in the nation they had left behind. Traditional folk songs were sometimes given new words to document the refugees persecution.

Songs thus provided both a means to maintain identity and an emotional narrative for traumatic events that were hard to describe in words. This helped the refugees manage the challenges of the present and face an uncertain future.

In 2019, I helped conduct research for a short documentary about one leading refugee singer-songwriter in El Salvador, Norberto Amaya. Amayas story shows how Salvadoran musicians harnessed music to help their refugee compatriots manage the psychological challenges of their situation. The film was a collaboration between Western University and Juan Bello of Triana Media, with support from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

The songs of El Salvadors civil war refugees make clear that music, whether old or new, serves a vital function for humans facing hardship, both on personal and cultural levels.

The COVID-19 pandemic has hit some communities much harder than others, and demonstrated how existing inequalities are thrown into even greater relief in times of crisis. Yet in all affected communities, the pandemic has the capacity to trigger anxious feelings about earlier traumas and current separations.

Listening to music we know well reminds us of the friends and family that have made us who we are. In our current situation, different as it is from that faced by Salvadoran civil war refugees, familiar music is similarly permitting reconnection both to personal identity and to a much larger community of family, friends and strangers who also love these familiar songs. This helps us better manage our isolation and anxiety.

This apparent human instinct to seek out mechanisms that enable cultural reconnection is a smart one. Trauma scholars believe that, for some people, familiar cultural practices may actually be more effective than psychiatric treatment in helping people deal with potentially traumatic events.

American poet and activist Maya Angelou once movingly wrote:

Music was my refuge. I could crawl into the space between the notes and curl my back to loneliness.

Many can surely relate to such a sentiment. We may not yet have the words to articulate our response to the situation in which humanity currently finds itself. But engaging with music soothes us in these difficult times, providing a means to begin to process our emotions, to stay connected to our pre-pandemic identities and to participate in something larger than ourselves, even while we live apart.

Read this article:

Music helps us remember who we are and how we belong during difficult and traumatic times - The Conversation CA

Do you believe coronavirus is caused by 5G? Are you afraid that Bill Gates wants to control your mind remotely using a 5G nano chip? Do you find yourself wanting to say wake up sheeple, to those claiming the coronavirus is dangerous?

If so, you may be experiencing symptoms of covidspiracy, a highly infectious outbreak of misinformation which has spread to thousands of internet users in recent weeks. Fear and uncertainty caused by coronavirus and compounded by social isolation has proved the ideal breeding ground for outlandish conspiracy theories implicating Covid-19 and 5G in a nefarious plot.

Even in an era defined by fake news, 5G conspiracy theories stand out for their ability to capture peoples imagination despite a lack of credible evidence. In June, opposition MPs held a debate on the adverse health effects of 5G in Parliament. Celebrities including Amanda Holden, Eamonn Holmes and Amir Khan have endorsed the idea that 5G is dangerous; and just last week more than 50 network masts were damaged in a spate of arson attacks across the UK.

Neither the fact that 5G radio waves are unable to penetrate cells, nor affect the spread of coronavirus to countries lacking 5G infrastructure, has been able to deter conspiracists. From the claim that 5G radio waves suppress the immune system, aiding the transmission of coronavirus, to the belief that Covid-19 is a media hoax designed to distract the public while the government rolls out dangerous 5G technology, its clear that public mistrust runs deep.

But who does the twitterati hold responsible? Well, by far the most popular theory online exposes a plan by Bill Gates to develop a coronavirus vaccine which will implant microchips into unsuspecting sheeple allowing him to turn humanity into a remote-controlled toy colony with the help of 5G command signals. To give a sense of the scale and tone of this particular theory, a recent YouTube video labelling Bill Gates the anti-Christ quickly racked up 1.8 million views before being taken down.

Pinpointing the origin and development of a conspiracy theory is a murky business. Nonetheless, it is likely that the present hysteria over 5G has its roots in older and more credible geopolitical concerns. Just to be clear: this is not to say that there is any basis to the belief that 5G technology is inherently dangerous. Rather, the current explosion of conspiracy theories is linked to longstanding government concerns that 5G infrastructure provided by Huawei, a Chinese telecommunications company, threatens UK security.

In 2019 British Telecoms removed infrastructure provided by Huawei from its 4G network over concerns that the company could pose a threat to UK cybersecurity. In January 2020, the government debated the role Huawei should play in the UKs 5G network deciding that Huaweis market share will be capped at 35 per cent and its equipment should not be used in sensitive parts of the UKs communications networks, including on nuclear and military sites.

While MI5 has determined that the threat to UK security remains low, ministers in the UK have been heavily lobbied by Washington to prohibit Huaweis involvement altogether, with one US official comparing Huawei to the mafia. President Trump, already a hero in alt-right internet circles where 5G conspiracies are now flourishing, has been the most forthright opponent of Chinese involvement in 5G and it doesnt take a genius to guess why. Trump has repeatedly stated that the US need to win the race to become the worlds leading provider of 5G infrastructure, even going so far as to blacklist Huawei in America late last year.

There are strong parallels between the high-level government concerns over 5G and the more speculative concerns to be found in shady internet forums. They both have a deep mistrust of a powerful institution at their core. Both recognise the potential of technology to facilitate intrusion and assert authoritarian control. Both channel their anxieties into aggressive mistrust, and seek to re-assert control over inalienable rights. The language of suspicion used by politicians regarding 5G lends credibility to the more fanciful theories circulating online.

The recent surge in covidspiracy theories is likely a reaction against the seizure of unprecedented powers by governments worldwide in response to the coronavirus pandemic. Civil liberties, so often taken for granted, have been called into question by the lockdown of some 3.9 billion people. Meanwhile, the growth in surveillance technologies used to trace the virus are a demonstration in government power casting doubt on whether former freedoms will be returned.

Anxiety over the rollout of 5G has the potential to separate itself from a troubling association with alt-right ideologies and become a signifier for concerns about government surveillance, monitoring and oppression. Setting network masts alight is misguided to say the least, but healthier forms of suspicion about the technology that will be introduced as we combat this crisis, alongside greater public scrutiny of government decision-making and increased vigilance in safeguarding civil liberties, may prove to be a vital check on power in the months ahead.

See the original post here:

Covidspiracy Uncovered: The truth about 5G - Shout Out UK

When I am asked about the land rights struggle in this country, I often liken the struggle to trying to build a sandcastle in a wind storm and how even when we get some foundational structure in comes the government to knock it down.

The struggle for land rights has been a long one and one that has been hard fought and continues to me so. One of the most pivotal protest chants is what do we want? Land Rights. When do we want them? Now! and this continues during protests to this day.

Why? Because the struggle continues.

Every step in the direction of meaningful reform to address the issue of theft of this land is then countered through government legislation and this mean spirited response to every small victory we have has become emblematic of the Australian government.

There are no shortage of examples of this greedy entitlement, but perhaps one of the most disgraceful examples is the government response to the case of TheWik Peoples v The State of Queensland in which, on this day in 1997, it announced its 10 point plan.

The Wik case was an incredibly important one not solely for the cultural importance of the Wik peoples being recognised but it was also important from a legal perspective in considering the discreet point of law regarding extinguishment because there had been so many cases where lands were being leased without regard to Indigenous people.

In summary, for those not across the detail of this case, the High Court rightly determined that the mere grant of a pastoral lease does not necessarily extinguish any remaining nativetitle rights. The High Court stopped short of stating that the leases were extinguished. They determined that if there was a conflict of rights, the native title holders came off second best. If there was noconflict, the rights of each co-exist.

Despite this nuanced legal decision, the government and its biggest constituents farming and mining scrambling for control. They set about on a propaganda campaign that vilified Aboriginal people and the response was devastating as reactionary behaviour showed the true nature of the greedy capitalist.

At all times the Wik people conducted themselves with dignity. They used the colonial legal structures to affirm what was known at a cultural level in order to make the government see and understand that the Indigenous peoples of this country are not interested in land grab or commoditisation of land we want the non-Indigenous community to understand the responsibility of caring for the land, of belonging to it and maintaining the synergistic relationship which gives life to our cultural, communities and ceremonies.

Instead, the government set out on a deliberate campaign to mislead the mainstream as they termed everyone other than Indigenous people. The Deputy Prime Minister, Tim Fisher, and Queensland Premier, Rob Bobridge, made claims that the High Court decision went beyond their duties and attacked the High Court for purported judicial activism against mainstream interests. Freshly elected Howard government went into battle for the mainstream and forged ahead with their 10 point plan to amend the Native Title Acta plan which led to one of the longest debates in the Australian Senates history.

The reason for the outcry from the political heavyweights was not the decision itself because the cost was nought. It was no great victory for Indigenous people, it was no civil rights victory, but merely a decision that the grant of a pastoral lease did not necessarily extinguish Native Title and in fact,wouldextinguish Native Title to the extent of any inconsistency. There was no loss in a capitalist sense, but this was an extraordinary loss of face for the government who were used to being in the drivers seat steering public opinion with respect to Indigenous people. The Indigenous people using the system in this manner for a moral victory with no interest in finance did not fit the narrative being pedalled since invasion.

Howard and his cohort spoke about the government fighting for the mainstream and trying to to protect land owners. Yes he said that. He then announced the Wik 10 point plan with full support from the mainstream public who believed the nonsense being circulated by the government and media that had no factual or legal basis.

The Wik 10 point plan undermined the nature of the native title legislation enacted under the Keating government. Although imperfect, the intent of the Keating enacted native title legislation was to confer a benefit whereas the Howard 10 point plan cut across this and acted more as a sanction or tool to extinguish.

In fact, those within the ranks of the Howard government were spruiking that the 10 point plan would bring bucketloads of extinguishment with the intent to undermine Indigenous people apparent from the outset.

Mick Dodson said at the time, By purporting to confirm extinguishment by inconsistent grants, the Commonwealth is purposely pre-empting the development of the common law not allowing sufficient time to integrate the belated recognition of native title into Australias land management system. This does not require the obliteration of indigenous interests so as to favour non-indigenous interests.

Exactly! And yet, they did it any way. They set about to obliterate the chances of native title claims for so many by ensuring inconsistency and fixing the laws to make it so and this has been the devastation we have been trying to claw back from since.

This behaviour from Howard, he has since reflected upon and said that he could have handled better but that it had unnerved us and I dont think I handled that next six months all that well.

Understatement but important when you consider this is about as close to a mea culpa as you could get from a man famous for refusing to apologise and digging his heels in. So as Howard spent many years undermining us and teaching his successors how to do the same, we know our fight continues.

TheWik 10 point plan set us back, demonstrated the lengths that the power structures in this country will go to in order to ensure that their power remains along with our oppression. What they didnt count on was that this serves only to solidify our resolve to keep going.

More:

Land rights sand castle in a wind storm | - IndigenousX

When medical experts warned us that this virus was especially dangerous for patients with underlying medical conditions, I was scared, given that this nation suffers from multiple comorbidities. Will our weak and overburdened healthcare system be able to contain the shock? Our socioeconomic reality also merits concern. Many of us have no social safety nets, reside in slum communities unfamiliar with social distancing, lack access to basic sanitation, and can't eat if we don't work. While some claim that the virus does not discriminate, it has proven otherwise. The virus brought here by those who can afford to travel will first kill the poor.

I am more afraid, however, that this crisis will end without fostering change in us. We may overcome this disease but remain blind to the causes of this nations social pathology. Patricia Licuanan postulated that one weakness of the Filipino character is our lack of self-analysis and reflection. More than a century ago, Rizal also reproached our weaknesses (i.e. lethargy and subservience), and such criticism is still relevant today.

Before this crisis, most of us lived our lives with little or no help from the government. We were too preoccupied with our own survival that we saw politics not as our concern. This distance made us forget the true meaning of public service. When we exercised our right to suffrage, we voted not to effect change, but rather to just fulfil our civic duty and/or receive our share of the spoils. (READ: Robredo hits 'growing culture of apathy, impunity, lies')

But now that we are locked up in our houses, we can see that governance can actually be a matter of life and death. The crisis exposed the incompetence of many elected officials, and the long-standing bureaucratic pathologies that have compromised our development. The same problems were there: rampant corruption, red tape, nepotism, patronage, incompetence, lack of coordination from government offices, selective justice, and the weaponization of the law, etc.

Nothing much has actually changed: red tape and politicization caused delays in the delivery of aid; brain drain deprived us of important professionals; our justice system was more apt at prosecuting the powerless; and our history of marginalization left our cultural minorities more vulnerable to crises. We failed to realize that this insurgency is a result of our inability to solve historical grievances and structural problems.

Adding insult to injury is how we condone oppression and become perpetrators ourselves. Nepotism floods the bureaucracy with incompetents. Corruption is sugarcoated as diskarte lang, and our participation in it as pakikisama. We tolerate mediocrity: Puwede na yan, Bahala na. Mediocrity is also disguised as contentment, fear, and subservience in the guise of respect.

It is disturbing that we have normalized oppression. It has become a potent anaesthetic that makes us indifferent to our own suffering and the suffering of others. We tolerate inefficiency, irregularities, and incompetence, and then call ourselves resilient. (READ: 'Those in power have long abused the Filipino's resiliency')

I am more afraid that this lack of critical reflection will go on. We will continue to vindicate a dictator, exonerate traitors, reinstate plunderers to power, elect warlords, recycle trapos, applaud demagogues, depend on the patronage of the same people who cause our suffering, tolerate inefficiency, embrace mediocrity, and listen to rubbish yet suppress valid dissent.

When this crisis ends, we need to treat governance as a matter of life and death. When we search for scapegoats, we have partly ourselves to blame. Rizal once said, after all, that there are no tyrants where there are no slaves. Rappler.com

Tobit P. Abao is a graduate of the AB Political Science program at Mindanao State University-Iligan Institute of Technology (MSU-IIT). He advocates for good governance, environmental protection, and youth engagement to effect social change.

More here:

[OPINION] Our lack of critical reflection is the real disease in our midst - Rappler

On March 15, with 62 confirmed cases of the Covid-19 coronavirus, President Cyril Ramaphosa declared a state of national disaster.

This marked the first vast government response to the virus. No one anticipated where this pronouncement would lead us towards. Its almost as if some were in a state of denial for what was to come, and some were in a state of readiness for a nationwide lockdown to follow suit because they saw what was happening around the world.

South Africa was conditioned to understand the gravity of the situation at hand. A week later, a 21-day national lockdown was declared. Meaning, the old was gone and a rather different South Africa was about to materialise.

This, of course, hit the vulnerable the hardest and the people in relevant industries. Jobs were affected leading to salary/wage cuts or no payment at all. Household incomes were and are still shifted, and this almost crushed those who took to the streets to perform the little they could to put food on the table.

Privilege is when you think that something is not a problem because its not a problem for you personally.

David Gaider

However, the governments prime approach was people first, the economy later. The aim was to flatten the curve, reduce the spread of the virus and keep the people of South Africa safe. The Batho Pele concept was shifted onto a different state of affairs and the people of South Africa were literally put first their health was put first.

The spirit of ubuntu was one of the first things to come into light during this plight. Society thought of the vulnerable who would go hungry and one began to see the beginning of positive initiatives such as food parcel drives taken by government, individuals and foundations.

A video also emerged and trended on social media platforms of a man from the Mamelodi hostel in Pretoria, who asked a SABC journalist on live TV for R20 because he was hungry and depended on collecting scrap metal to put food on his table. This led to an outpour of donations to him and many more who took to many platforms to share their pain.

Canadian writer David Gaider said: Privilege is when you think that something is not a problem because its not a problem for you personally.

This was the case when the scenes of the queues, on the first day of lockdown, ensued. Many criticised them, while sitting in their comfortable homes, filled with food in the fridge, as if those fellow citizens chose to be stuck in such difficult lives.

Even when the social grants were provided and the long queues prevailed, some said that those were the ignorant South Africans who wanted to contract the virus.

The purpose of the national lockdown is not to maltreat and victimise South Africans, but it is to protect them and others.

Andisiwe Kumbaca

They were called all sorts of names, some called for their arrest while others portrayed them as oblivious people who undermined the rules of government. However, that was not the case. Firstly, this exposed the asperity of inequality in our nation.

The majority congested in queues were from the township and rural areas. It was not because they wanted to be, but this was their only choice because of the vulnerability they have been subjected to due to by our history. However, to others, this seemed like a ignoramus actions.

Then we reached level 4, thats when the skyf battalion ascended. This also bred many more other pseudo-revolts, such as the surfers accord. Those who were throwing their toys around, conducting social media protests on the ban of cigarettes, those who staged their disapprovals on the banning of water sports and many others failed to realise that their place of comfort was making them utter words such as those they indicated.

Then there is the ignorant division who seem to think that the lockdown regulations are synonymous to the apartheid-era.

Now, why would anyone compare regulations meant to curb the spread of a deadly virus to the brutal oppression of millions of marginalised groups, which has still life-lasting effects on these groups today. The socio-economic impact of apartheid is the reality you see in many black lives.

The purpose of the national lockdown is not to maltreat and victimise South Africans, but it is to protect them and others.

The strict regulations are set in place to condition South Africans on the seriousness of what Covid-19 entails. So the nescient statements which come from a place of privilege are unfortunate when we were doing so well as country by spreading the spirit of ubuntu and kindness during this trying time. Every life is more than important and we are all equal in the Covid-19 context. This is the fight to make sure everyone lives.

*Andisiwe Kumbaca is a Bachelor of Social Science graduate, a public servant and community activist.

Excerpt from:

Ubuntu, privilege and sheer ignorance thrive in the midst of Covid-19 - News24