Everyone should meet Tumwijuke
Mutambuka. She is a native Ugandan who authors a blog called Ugandan Insomniac.
On one hand, she is brutally honest. The words that scramble out of her unfiltered
mind paint her posts with vivid social commentary and humor. She depicts life
in Uganda with a satirical simplicity that elucidates larger societal issues.
In this way, her spontaneity and passion arouses laughter. On the other hand,
the heart of her words highlight deeper, serious issues. In fact, her witty
sarcasm can also evoke a sadness that comes from a true understanding of her
words.
For example In her post entitled “Mr. Museveni, Please Come toMy Wedding”, Tumwijuke utilizes extreme sarcasm that undertones her entire post. She is also writing as if she is talking to President Museveni. She writes in a submissive manner, but not because she is submissive. In fact, she is the opposite of submissive, as her sarcasm conveys a sense of feisty-ness. For example, she says:
“Mr. President, I don’t have a husband-in-waiting. I’m searching for one, but the hunt is hard. You understand, don’t you? You said, a few years ago, that you were looking for people with vision. I felt your pain when you admitted to being tormented because only you had the power of foresight for Uganda. I identify, Mr. President. I identify. There are no men who live up to my one and only requirement that they be men. Masculinity and vision are hard to find these days.”
Through these words, she
highlights an unrealistic oppression like attitude towards women that Museveni
encourages. She agrees with Museveni and his strife for “vision” and
acknowledges that only he has the “power of foresight for Uganda”. However, by
agreeing with him and somewhat idolizing his authority, she is actually
undermining him. She using irony, especially when she uses repeat words like “I
identify”. She doesn’t actually identify with Museveni. She is against his
“vision” and undermines him in this post. By using irony, she is humorously
tackling a larger issue.
This is especially apparent
when she says how her “one and only requirement” is that “they be men”.
Obviously, people aren’t that simple. The view that women don’t have needs or
expectations other than simply having a man is patronizing towards women and
their complex humanity. This sort of jaded oppression of women deprives them of
the empowerment, understanding, and respect they deserve. Nonetheless, she will
remain submissive, as a good woman must be. All she needs is masculinity and
her problems are solved. This is satirical, as she does not agree and is not
actually submissive. Instead, her post depicts Museveni’s ridiculous adherence
to traditional gender roles.
This humorous rejection of Museveni
and his beliefs is intensified when she keeps inviting him to her wedding. Her
wedding will be perfect because it is up to Museveni’s standards. She uses sarcasm when she says,
” A congregation full of people cheering me on, praising me
for my poor dress sense, clapping at my unwise decision to choose a five-time
divorcee as my marriage counselor. As we leave the church, smiling hoards bless
my man and I, ignoring the fact that he is a known thief and scoundrel. It’s
beautiful, Mr. President.”
Because
the only requirement is that he be a man, the quality of her husband’s
character doesn’t matter. Musveni would rather see traditional marriages (as he
is against homosexuality) than marriages of people with true love and upright character.
It is ironic and sad. It doesn’t matter that her husband is a “thief” and a
“scoundrel”, because he only needs to be a man. Here the author overstates the
situation with her imaginary husband to show how wrong Museveni is for focusing
solely on gender when defining the value of matrimony. But it’s okay, because
“it’s beautiful”. This is ironic because no one would agree that being married
to a thief and scoundrel is beautiful. Later she says, “I’ll laugh as you
misquote the Bible” as a direct address to Museveni and his hypocritical
adherence to conservative values in the bible.
Her humor is often a gateway to resolving unanswered questions and
complexities that life has to offer. Upon first glance, her humor might seem to
understate these questions and complexities. However, her understatements
actually act as a spotlight to draw attention to and magnify Ugandan issues. This
is precisely what makes her words genius-ly humorous. She has a profound
understanding and awareness of her environment, and she uses sarcasm and wit to
display this awareness.
She has a strong opinion, and she strives to stir yours in a conversation
that dives beyond surface humor. This unfiltered, boisterous personality
charged with wisdom and a true yearning for life makes Tumwijuke one of a kind.
She will engage you and tackle issues through both humor and deep reflection.
She is insightful and interesting.
Another example of this is found in her post entitled “Laughing at Our Own Absurdity”. Before she even tackles the absurdity mentioned in the title, she prefaces her post with saying that she has no constructive options to offer. Essentially, this means her post will be a funny rant. I have no constructive options to offer. I’m jus’ saying’ …
Her abbreviation of “just” with “jus’” creates a nonchalant
tone that is friendly and colloquial for the reader. However, even though this
is so nonchalant, there is a suspenseful use of punctuation with the “…”. What
does this mean?
When reading further into her post,
it is funny to see how ridiculous Ugandan society is that they would actually
market children for commercial value. However, the “…” shows that while one can
comment on this absurdity with humor, its also a problem. She uses a personification
when saying “Yes, Uganda knows how to sell its children.” The use of “yes” sets an encouraging tone that
encourages the selling children. It is this “yes he sure did eat his
vegetables, like a good boy” sort of attitude. Uganda ate its vegetables and
was good by selling children. This is sarcasm, as the author doesn’t actually
agree with selling children. However, she is recognizing a reality of the
market economy with her humor.
Uganda is a country, not a person. However, it seems like
everyone in Uganda does not question or think twice about the wrongfulness of
marketing children for money. Good job Uganda! By interjecting with phrases
like “Eeeeeh? Aaaaaah!” she
magnifies the absurdity of marketing children like animals on display. But then
she says “But who are we to point fingers? After all, we are the country that
has profited from the marketing of children.” By asking this question and using
“we” she identifies with the reader and groups herself as part of the society
with the problem. This is an address to the reader, and by saying “we” she
incorporates a relationship with that reader in this shared Ugandan problem
they must tackle.
“ What is wrong with this? They are doing a good job! They are raising good money for the underprivileged in Uganda. What are you doing? Their mission is higher than any because it is a mission directed by God”
she is overstating in order to highlight the issue. She is echoing common sentiments of children marketing advocates, and ironically labeling this exploitation of children a “mission directed by God”.
This is sarcasm that depicts ignorance. Does the morality suggested by God in the bible aim to exploit children? In one sense, they really are raising money for Uganda. However, her commentary shows that this fundraising and attempts to justify selling children in a skewed moral way is ridiculous. Selling children is immoral, and there’s no way to squeak by in justifications for it. She then echoes the same words from the beginning:
“I said it at the beginning. I have no constructive options to offer. I’m jus’ sayin’.”
Her use of repetition reemphasizes her point, and her roundabout analysis of the issue. She doesn’t have a solution, but this is obviously a problem. She uses examples of different children choirs and how pretty children are more successful in an erratic exaggeration. The fact that pretty children are more successful is obviously an issue that highlights superficiality that stifles the morality of society. Her exaggerations demand reader attention to the absurdity of this entire concept. Thus, she has mastered humor as a means of exploring complex issues.
She uses emotions of excitement and happy agreement to convey the opposite. Her blog posts are a slap in the face that wake Ugandan’s up to bitter realities. Her fluid, enticing nature draws readers in to these topics that should be taken seriously. Her good humor and positive tone may account for this because less people would read her blog if it was simply angry rantings. People love her ideas and her voice because it is witty and well constructed displays of societal problems.
Through your friendship with Tumwijuke, you will succumb to an
inescapable attraction as she mesmerizes you with her intelligent charm. She
will hold your attention for hours through either lighthearted laughter or
relevant conversation. After knowing her for a long time, you will find
yourself both laughing and contemplating the world around you. These factors
will culminate into a critical understanding of the world in which you live.
Overall, Tumwijuke will captivate you with her passion in an invaluable
encounter you will NEVER forget.
By the way, I have never met or spoken to Tumwijuke Mutambuka...
Okay, so what’s the catch? Why did I market a complete stranger to you? Well, the answer is simple: READ HER BLOG.
I was not able to create such a vivid character description of her because I am a stalker. Rather, her complex personality is beautifully transparent through her artfully crafted words. She has a very strong voice that shines in every blog post she writes. She voices her personality so clearly that I feel as if she is talking to me directly. Thus, with each post, our relationship strengthens.
Without reading any of her posts, one can easily detect her humorous personality. She unveils herself with no shame as she introduces herself as:
“30-something journalist, writer and quack psychoanalyst (un) successfully pondering the complexities of herself, her people, her country and her world”. In her other blog that she links to, she identifies as a “30-something, overweight journalist”.
Her
indifference to provide a specific age sets a nonchalant tone for her blog. She
calls herself a “quack”, using a colloquial slang term that instantly
establishes a friendly relationship with the reader. The word “quack” is
generally used to show how something is artificial. According to Wikipedia,
“quackery” is a fraudulent or unproven medical skill. By calling herself a
quack, she establishes that she isn’t a “professional”.
However, the word quack serves as a double
entendre because the general public is well aware of the harsh criticisms of psychoanalysis
and its risks of being inaccurate and unreliable. This double entendre sets the
stage for her blog as one of opinion. It is up to the reader to agree or
disagree with her observances of her world. She doesn’t pretend to know
everything, as her blog is psychoanalysis of the world that may or may not be
successful. Her use of (un) before “successful” echoes this sentiment, but by
using “un” in parentheses, it reinforces her humor. She would like to say her
analysis is amazing and successful, but knows her ranting’s might be wrong.
This is a space for opinion that works through a complex web of thoughts and
sheds light on true understanding.
Because
her blog is very opinionated, it wont contribute to the factual health
information that I strive to incorporate into my blog. However, her opinion and
first-hand knowledge of her own country is a wonderful insight for health
professionals to use in analyzing the community. Her pondering of Uganda and
brave journey to reconcile societal issues is a wonderful foundation for health
research and understanding.
