Analysis Of Aziz Ansari's 'Master Of None'

After observing the rhetoric of Master of None’s fourth episode and reading Aziz Ansari’s article from New York Times, one can see the elaborate ways the author of these two different types of media has used in terms of describing the perspective of an Indian American. Master of None’s “Indian’s on TV” predominantly used a verbal rhetorical device to showcase racism towards Indians that offend Indian Americans. On the other hand, Ansari’s article used narrating to describe his experience in entering the country of his ancestral roots. By discussing the verbal strategy of Master of None’s fourth episode and the narrative device utilized by Ansari in his New York Times article, one can understand the point of view of an Indian American. Master …show more content…
It regarded the event when Dev (Aziz Ansari) was asked to give an Indian accent rather than his normal speaking voice for his desired acting role. In examining this scene, one can notice the racist implications when the audition interviewer did not accept Dev’s initial acting for the role with his usual speech. She stated after Dev expressed being uncomfortable in giving an Indian accent for the role, “You know, Ben Kinglsey did an accent in Gandhi and he won the Oscar for it” (Master of None). However, Dev cleverly retorted back by stating that her example was irrelevant in that Kinglsey did not win the award for giving the accent but for another piece of criteria in his acting his skills. By giving this conversation to the viewer, it allowed one to relate to Dev as an Indian American in that he and the Indian American population are treated unfairly due to a stereotype. It demonstrates that the typical Indian accent should not be used excessively each time a form of media is portraying his culture. In essence, this conversation expressed that stereotypes do not sufficiently represent an ethnicity. …show more content…
Specifically, his narration regards his experience of stepping into his root country of India although he grew up in America. According to Ansari, “But in India, it was because the locals could tell I wasn’t from around those parts. Sure, I appear Indian, but my clothes and sneakers were clearly American. Even in India, I was kind of an outsider” (Ansari). By stating this, Ansari wanted to communicate that being an American native in contrast to having foreign roots makes one have a split identity. He expresses that he lives with two cultures: an American lifestyle and language and Indian roots and customs. In living with two cultures, he allows his audience to understand the expected flexibility of being an American Indian to adjust to either an American crowd or a pure Indian community, in which one would either speak English to causally speak with the individual or Tamil to politely communicate with the Indian gentleman or women to show respect. Giving this experience by narrating it, thus, allows any reader to experience Ansari’s life as an Indian