Khat/Miraa

With a focus on debunking the myth that khat has some historical significance within Somalia, Klein takes to addressing the mixed view on khat use with the UK by diasporic Somali communities. While he addresses the 1970s as the year khat use became popularized in Somalia, this relative newness doesn’t seem to translate in Europe. Instead, khat is seen as a tradition to which the culture is strongly attached, and thus a central part of ones identity, and that of their nation. Nevertheless, there appears to be disparities amongst Somali’s with regards to whether the substance should be banned or not in the UK. Part of this is based on a gender divide, where the Somali women have come and established themselves, and the newly arrived men are finding employment hard to come by and in turn spend time and money on khat. In this way, the social structuring in the UK can be seen as ill equipped for khat use in comparison to Somalia. The colonial distortion of this substance can be dated back to before diasporic communities had been established in the UK, and Klein addresses a number of instances of these.

The Carrier article in contrast focused less on the ways in which khat has affected its users, and more so on the values which khat adopts depending on situation, consumer, country, and a whole bunch of other reasons. Calling it a heterogeneous substance, Carrier breaks down the various ways in which (miraa) can acquire value. I found that this article provided an extremely thorough examination of miraa, and gave me a sense of why it has become such a controversial substance. By breaking down the value systems, and drawing out how they were associated with different parties, I was able to get a better sense of the complexity behind it. Miraa (as opposed to the khat addressed in Kleins article), appears to be a thing of beauty, and something to be approached at, almost as if an art form (its in manner of cultivation, distribution, and consumption).

These two readings, while addressing the conflicts brought about by khat use abroad, seem to differ in their approaches as to presenting the costs and benefits of this substance. In reading the Klein article first, I hadn't realized how much information was lacking about the substance itself. Well the article does a good job at providing a history on khat introduction to Somali, and its subsequent use in the UK, it lacked in providing reason for its popularity. In isolation, this article would seem to present good reasoning behind why khat use is bad. It seems to present both side of the table, but upon further studies, it becomes apparent that we are being misinformed about some of the details. I think that this articles particular focus on Somali culture allows Klein to make a good case against khat, as much of the counter argument seems to be based on its historical significance, of which he debunks. However, after reading the Carrier article, I realized that the history behind khat use is long and winding, and that despite lacking history within Somalia, it is by no means a new trend.

The Carrier article, in its keen eye for details, provided a real sense of the culture of miraa. While it was linked to its use in Kenya, by highlighting the various alterations and adaptions that exist, I finished the article with a sense of how miraa has garnered interest universally. Differentially it presented the range in knowledge that surrounds the substance, from those who are connoisseurs to users who will chew anything considered "fresh" (despite being barehe)

My question then would be if anyone else experienced this contrast in the Klein and Carrier article. Which I guess is really to ask, whether you found the Carrier article to illuminate the potential beauty and attractiveness of miraa?
While Klein argues that a lack of history within the Somali culture should be reason to stop its use within the diaspora, do you think that this is so? In my reading of the article, I found that khat use maintains a culture of itself, and that ones background should not affect whether or not they should be users? Perhaps a greater knowledge base would account for better use amongst the diaspora and other communities who have been removed from its origins.