Political Correctness aims to make people examine the words they use and show them they have an effect on people, that they’re never just words, they can change the way people think and can lead us into patterns of thinking that are in contest with peaceful coexistence.
For example, the term ‘Black People’ is a much better term than just ‘Blacks’ or any of the many historical terms because it has in it the essence of the thing it describes. ‘People’ is the key word. ‘Blacks’ and ‘Whites’ can oversimplify the groups, turning them into almost like teams in a sports match, creating an ‘Us verses Them’ dynamic.
‘Black People’ and ‘White People’ are better words because they focus on the fact that they are all people. They are not ideal as ‘Black’ and ‘White’ are not binary variables; the line between them is blurred and is becoming more so with the growth of multiculturalism.
On the topic of immigration, those opposed to immigration and who want to shut out immigrants in all forms use terms like ‘Foreigners’ and ‘Aliens’ which focus on that they are coming from an unfamiliar place and it’s not clear if they can be trusted. However, those people often overlook refugees with a genuine fear of persecution and the desperate need for asylum. The term ‘Refugee’ is avoided and it is too easy to empathize with a person seeking refuge from danger. Catchall terms like ‘Foreigners’ lump together economic migrants with refugees and again oversimplify the issue by making it too easy to unconsciously associate the negatives aspects of one with the other.
Political Correctness has gone too far in some cases, but the most popularly cited examples of cases are exaggerated and circulated by those who are opposed to Political Correctness for it’s desire to promote peaceful coexistence. They hunt for excuses to overthrow it and then broadcast extremely localized, specific cases of misapplications, in a context that would lead people to believe that the impact of the misapplications is larger than it actually is. Everyone associates ‘Baa Baa Rainbow sheep’ or ‘Green Sheep’ or ‘Happy Sheep’ with the whole Political Correctness movement, when in actual fact they have affected only a handful of schools that have completely missed the point of Political Correctness.
The movement is not universally successful, it is often ridiculed for its heavy-handedness and some people see it as a contravention of our freedom of speech. But it must be worth something that it is simply trying to improve social cohesion and help people get along smoothly. The heavy-handed are in a minority and it is a voluntary restraint enforced by social pressure, not law. It causes less harm than the benefit it produces, but people’s perception of it hinders the success of its application.
Thursday 19 November 2009
Wednesday 18 November 2009
Terms Used in the US
“Calls for stopping the use of “illegals” as a noun, curbing the phrase “illegal alien””
““Aliens” is a bureaucratic term that should be avoided unless used in a quote.”
There are various terms used both in legislation and in the day to day vernacular of the United States, that could be construed as politically incorrect. One particular term that is used in reference to immigration is the word ‘alien’. This is a word that dates back to the 14th Century AD and comes from the Latin, alienus, meaning ‘foreign’ or ‘strange’. However, more recently, in around 1944 it began to be used in terms of extra-terrestrial beings and has now become a very prominent definition of the word. The National Association of Hispanic Journalists have deemed the term alien, and particularly ‘illegal alien’ as “offensive and dehumanizing”. In place of ‘alien’, they suggest the use of ‘immigrant’, and rather than ‘illegal alien’, ‘undocumented immigrant’ or ‘worker’. This is something that could either be a necessary step to prevent people being offended, or it could be an oversensitive reaction to a term that is not meant in an offensive way.
While for some people this clearly is an offensive term, it depends greatly on your interpretation of the word itself. As it is a word with such a long history of being used to mean someone who is not native to a country with no offensive overtones to it, it seems reasonable that it should remain a politically correct term as this should be the more widely recognised definition. This is particularly true in the US, as it has been used for centuries and is a common word to be used by all people usually not as a derogatory term, more an official government term that is used within legislation to specify immigrants. Its use in conjunction with the word ‘illegal’ then would seem to be similarly suitable governmental terminology, as opposed to a phrase that aims to dehumanise people by labelling them with a negative term.
However, as the more recent definition of the word ‘alien’ is used very commonly, especially in sci-fi films and books, it is becoming at least as recognised as the previous definition and this places it in question. Thinking about how aliens are portrayed in films and other such media, they are shown as being non-humanoid characters with strange features, incomprehensible methods of communication and often as a threat to human civilisation. With this as a meaning that is becoming ever more apparent, it is necessary to understand how this affects its use as a term for people, as it begins to make it sound like anyone who is not a native citizen of that country is strange, unnatural and potentially threatening which is negative and promotes ideas of segregation and not harmonious coexistence.
The terms ‘illegal alien’ and ‘illegals’ then accentuates this idea of the person being a foreigner that is outside the law and ergo someone who poses a huge threat to the native population of the country. They also immediately paint an image of a dangerous criminal, when statistics show that approximately two fifths of illegal immigrants are people who have overstayed their visa rather than people who illegally crossed the border to obtain access to the country. In this sense, the word ‘illegal’ is somewhat unhelpful, as while they are illegitimately staying in the country, they were at one time permitted entry and have been living legally in the country for some time.
Another thing that seemingly compounds this idea of an inhuman outsider is that in order to gain US citizenship, one must take a ‘Naturalization test’ that requires knowledge of the country, things such as civics and the governmental structure. The word natural means ordinary, native, established, and an antonym of this is abnormal which makes it seem as though the people who have not taken the test are unnatural and again, foreign. Upon the successful completion of this test, the person will gain permanent citizenship and a ‘Green Card’ complete with a unique ‘alien number’ as proof of this. Until relatively recently (approximately 1989) this card was called a ‘Resident Alien Card’ which subsequently became the ‘United States Permanent Citizen Card’. This may too have been a move in the spirit of political correctness as the altered name is one that has a feeling of inclusion and involvement in the US society, whereas ‘resident alien’ sounds as though the person is still unnatural and abnormal and they have merely been granted permission to live alongside the US culture rather than be involved in it.
In order to assess whether this seems like a reasonable change in terms or an oversensitive remark, I feel it is necessary to refer back to the idea of political correctness as a whole. If we take the definition of ‘political correctness’ to be, at least in part, “avoiding vocabulary that is considered offensive, discriminatory, or judgmental” then this is a necessary step that would prevent people from being labelled with a term that portrays them in a negative or unfounded light. Based on this it seems that it is necessary to find whether it is a term that others find offensive too or whether it is confined to the National Association of Hispanic Journalists (NAHJ). I have found that it is something that is more widely spread than just this one group. The NAHJ released a statement in conjunction with the Asian American Journalists Association, Native American Journalists Association and National Association of Black Journalists saying, "Except in direct quotations, do not use the phrase illegal alien or the word alien... to refer to citizens of a foreign country who have come to the U.S. with no documents.” In addition to this a state legislator, Sen. Frederica Wilson, has been quoted as saying “I personally find the word 'alien' offensive when applied to individuals, especially to children... An alien to me is someone from out of space.” This goes to show that it is not simply that we are looking at these terms from a culture external to the US where the word alien is not used in quite the same way and thusly the word takes on a different significance. Instead it is an issue that is very real and demands that people take care over the words they use to describe immigrants.
I feel in this case that is unfortunate that the word has these two interpretations, one which is very suitable as a way of referring to immigrants in legislative material amongst other circumstances and one which, though similar, gives a completely different and much more negative impression. Due to these circumstances, I do not feel that it is unreasonable that people might think that it projects an unfortunate image of immigrants and thusly wish for people to avoid it as a term where possible
““Aliens” is a bureaucratic term that should be avoided unless used in a quote.”
There are various terms used both in legislation and in the day to day vernacular of the United States, that could be construed as politically incorrect. One particular term that is used in reference to immigration is the word ‘alien’. This is a word that dates back to the 14th Century AD and comes from the Latin, alienus, meaning ‘foreign’ or ‘strange’. However, more recently, in around 1944 it began to be used in terms of extra-terrestrial beings and has now become a very prominent definition of the word. The National Association of Hispanic Journalists have deemed the term alien, and particularly ‘illegal alien’ as “offensive and dehumanizing”. In place of ‘alien’, they suggest the use of ‘immigrant’, and rather than ‘illegal alien’, ‘undocumented immigrant’ or ‘worker’. This is something that could either be a necessary step to prevent people being offended, or it could be an oversensitive reaction to a term that is not meant in an offensive way.
While for some people this clearly is an offensive term, it depends greatly on your interpretation of the word itself. As it is a word with such a long history of being used to mean someone who is not native to a country with no offensive overtones to it, it seems reasonable that it should remain a politically correct term as this should be the more widely recognised definition. This is particularly true in the US, as it has been used for centuries and is a common word to be used by all people usually not as a derogatory term, more an official government term that is used within legislation to specify immigrants. Its use in conjunction with the word ‘illegal’ then would seem to be similarly suitable governmental terminology, as opposed to a phrase that aims to dehumanise people by labelling them with a negative term.
However, as the more recent definition of the word ‘alien’ is used very commonly, especially in sci-fi films and books, it is becoming at least as recognised as the previous definition and this places it in question. Thinking about how aliens are portrayed in films and other such media, they are shown as being non-humanoid characters with strange features, incomprehensible methods of communication and often as a threat to human civilisation. With this as a meaning that is becoming ever more apparent, it is necessary to understand how this affects its use as a term for people, as it begins to make it sound like anyone who is not a native citizen of that country is strange, unnatural and potentially threatening which is negative and promotes ideas of segregation and not harmonious coexistence.
The terms ‘illegal alien’ and ‘illegals’ then accentuates this idea of the person being a foreigner that is outside the law and ergo someone who poses a huge threat to the native population of the country. They also immediately paint an image of a dangerous criminal, when statistics show that approximately two fifths of illegal immigrants are people who have overstayed their visa rather than people who illegally crossed the border to obtain access to the country. In this sense, the word ‘illegal’ is somewhat unhelpful, as while they are illegitimately staying in the country, they were at one time permitted entry and have been living legally in the country for some time.
Another thing that seemingly compounds this idea of an inhuman outsider is that in order to gain US citizenship, one must take a ‘Naturalization test’ that requires knowledge of the country, things such as civics and the governmental structure. The word natural means ordinary, native, established, and an antonym of this is abnormal which makes it seem as though the people who have not taken the test are unnatural and again, foreign. Upon the successful completion of this test, the person will gain permanent citizenship and a ‘Green Card’ complete with a unique ‘alien number’ as proof of this. Until relatively recently (approximately 1989) this card was called a ‘Resident Alien Card’ which subsequently became the ‘United States Permanent Citizen Card’. This may too have been a move in the spirit of political correctness as the altered name is one that has a feeling of inclusion and involvement in the US society, whereas ‘resident alien’ sounds as though the person is still unnatural and abnormal and they have merely been granted permission to live alongside the US culture rather than be involved in it.
In order to assess whether this seems like a reasonable change in terms or an oversensitive remark, I feel it is necessary to refer back to the idea of political correctness as a whole. If we take the definition of ‘political correctness’ to be, at least in part, “avoiding vocabulary that is considered offensive, discriminatory, or judgmental” then this is a necessary step that would prevent people from being labelled with a term that portrays them in a negative or unfounded light. Based on this it seems that it is necessary to find whether it is a term that others find offensive too or whether it is confined to the National Association of Hispanic Journalists (NAHJ). I have found that it is something that is more widely spread than just this one group. The NAHJ released a statement in conjunction with the Asian American Journalists Association, Native American Journalists Association and National Association of Black Journalists saying, "Except in direct quotations, do not use the phrase illegal alien or the word alien... to refer to citizens of a foreign country who have come to the U.S. with no documents.” In addition to this a state legislator, Sen. Frederica Wilson, has been quoted as saying “I personally find the word 'alien' offensive when applied to individuals, especially to children... An alien to me is someone from out of space.” This goes to show that it is not simply that we are looking at these terms from a culture external to the US where the word alien is not used in quite the same way and thusly the word takes on a different significance. Instead it is an issue that is very real and demands that people take care over the words they use to describe immigrants.
I feel in this case that is unfortunate that the word has these two interpretations, one which is very suitable as a way of referring to immigrants in legislative material amongst other circumstances and one which, though similar, gives a completely different and much more negative impression. Due to these circumstances, I do not feel that it is unreasonable that people might think that it projects an unfortunate image of immigrants and thusly wish for people to avoid it as a term where possible
Student Immigration: 'The new points system'
The UK is facing in 45 years one of the biggest shake-ups in ‘Immigration’, the new ‘points-scheme’ system targets to strengthen its control on immigrants and international students coming into the country.
Originated from the Australian ‘points scheme’ system, where only the most skilled and beneficial migrants would be accepted into the Australian border with the intention of contributing to the growth in development of the, still young and new, country.
The ‘points-system’ in the UK is currently a new law that had been carried forward at the beginning of 2009. Its objective is to retain the existing UK migrants and welcoming immigrants that obtain valuable skills for the succession of maintaining Britain’s status on the succession ladder in Finance, Business and Technological innovation. It also intends to help target and the cut down on bogus institutions accepting illegal immigrants posing as students and targeting employers employing illegal immigrants, whom haven’t applied for a licence. The ‘points-scheme’ comes under Tier 4 ‘education department’ of the UK Border Agency; planning on only accepting students whom have undertaken certain regulations before admittance into the UK.
Students are required to have proceeded with the following:
· A certificate of sponsorship from their sponsors (intended place of University/college with a licence)
· Present a valid passport and a valid photograph
· Evidence of commitment of study
· Evidence of self support for a duration of 1 year
· Application form, obtained from Embassy/consulate
· Finger print Visa – this new system is 1st line of defence in stamping out illegal immigrants by identifying people before they cross the border. 1 fingerprint can be compared to 8,000 others on one system, allowing this procedure to be an efficient, successful device.
The fingerprint visa has been approved for the purpose of strengthening the population restrictions of the UK and it status/reputation against other countries.
Charles Clarke from the Labour Party states: “ The UK needs a world class system……while at the same time being more robust against abuse”.
In this statement it mentions the quality of the country being able to prepare itself to withstand stresses and pressures that might impose it. This suggests the necessity factor of which the new fingerprint visa will be enforcing.
The UK has had to face a high percentage of rejections from the vetting process of educational institutions; it has already seen from 2,100 applied licences, 460 applications were not accepted. This is due to bogus institutions allowing asylums into the UK posing as international students and having a place of study to get past going through the application for working Visa and strict regulations. Although it has its optimistic values for the country, it does bear some problems to the UK citizens, one of the regulations for immigrants and migrants requires ID cards do not only apply to them, but to UK citizens also. An argument has risen from this intention that the country not only controls a watchful eye on the border control, but has the ability to spy on UK citizens, in order, to run a country of long-lasting leadership and fair regime. This imposes a ludicrous regulation on the operations carried through by the government and its interaction with its society (a negative connotation on the ‘Points-system’).
“The current open-door policy and unrestricted, uncontrolled immigration…”
The BNP.
“ Extremely difficult process and very little support from the UBA (UK Border Agency). In the end you are forced to seek legal advice to get answers or assistance”.The ‘points-system’ states that immigrants coming into the UK are required to apply for a visa in the country from which they will be migrating. Its diligent administration on the numbers of people coming in and out of the country, allows a comfortable amount in, in which will imply beneficiaries to the country. Australia, America and other countries apply to this as they are developing at a rate of increased, constant development and necessitate prospering factors.
The link to student immigration and political correctness, which is in matter to our topic change, has a substantially small connection. Requiring valid image base sources were hard to come by and anything with a related value was not strong enough to link up with area of topic.
Relevant links to Summary
Hull local opinions forum
The Angry Black Woman Blog
Is Political Correctness good or bad?
Reference.com
Fuck me, you have to be careful what you say in there these days."
The Angry Black Woman Blog
Is Political Correctness good or bad?
Reference.com
Wikipedia:politically correct – marked by or adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy on issues involving esp. race, gender, sexual affinity, or ecology.
(Dictionary.com Unabridged)politically correct -
1. Of, relating to, or supporting broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation.
2. Being or perceived as being overconcerned with such change, often to the exclusion of other matters.
(The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)political correctness – avoidance of expressions or actions that can be perceived to exclude or marginalize or insult people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.
(WordNet)
Political correctness (often abbreviated to PC) is a term used to describe language or behavior which is intended, or said to be intended, to provide a minimum of offense, particularly to racial, cultural, or other identity groups. A text that conforms to the alleged ideals of political correctness is said to be politically correct.
The term “political correctness” is used almost exclusively in a pejorative sense. However, terms such as inclusive language and civility are often used to praise language that is seen by critics as “politically correct”. Those who use the term in a critical fashion often express a concern about the dilution of freedom of speech, intolerance of language, and the avoidance of a discussion of social problems.
Fuck me, you have to be careful what you say in there these days."
"I think that, amongst all the complaining, what we forget is that ten years ago political correctness itself was known as "Spastic Gay Talk""
Immigration PC TERMS
An Immigrant - a newcomer
Broken Home - Dysfunctional Family
Ghetto / Barrio - Ethnically Homogenous Area
Racist - genetically discriminating
Refugees - asylum seekers
Slum - Economic Oppression Zone
Vocal Minority - target equity group
White American - racially challenged
White - melanin-impoverished
White Boy - rhythmically challenged
White Trash - caucasian culturally-disadvantaged
Broken Home - Dysfunctional Family
Ghetto / Barrio - Ethnically Homogenous Area
Racist - genetically discriminating
Refugees - asylum seekers
Slum - Economic Oppression Zone
Vocal Minority - target equity group
White American - racially challenged
White - melanin-impoverished
White Boy - rhythmically challenged
White Trash - caucasian culturally-disadvantaged
Tuesday 17 November 2009
Immigration and the “Third Culture Kids”
My Dad left Lebanon in 1976. It was a year after the civil war had started, and the economic situation of the country had plummeted. What used to be internationally known as “the Paris of the Middle East” had turned into no mans land, and opportunity for financial success was fast becoming obsolete. Companies of the world were moving out fast, and so my Dad, an employee with Kodak at the time, chose to leave his home and family behind to follow his work to Athens, Greece. That was the last time he lived in Lebanon.
The majority of immigration occurs for financial and economic reasons; people who live in a poor or troubled country are given the opportunity for a higher standard of living in a developed, politically stable country. They can make wages that constitute to a fortune compared to what they would have made doing the same job back home. And it works both ways. Poorer citizens of Britain often choose to retire in less developed places like Spain and Portugal (also referred to as ‘Chav land’) where the cost of living is cheaper and therefore easier to live more luxuriously.
General reasons for immigration are as follows:
My Dad says he gained a lot from his travels. His business knowledge is greatly enhances, and he has developed an understanding of many different cultures. But what about us? My sister and I were born outside of Lebanon, and have since been raised in a very eclectic mix of England, Singapore and Dubai. We carry two passports and have never been back to our ‘homeland’ for more than 2 months at a time. We’ve never lived in one property for more than 7 years and have had to let go of many precious things in our moves, including poor rosebud the cat. We are what one might call ‘Third Culture Kids’.
Sociologist David Pollock defines a TCK as "a person who has spent a significant part of his or her developmental years outside the parents' culture. The TCK builds relationships to all of the cultures, while not having full ownership of any. Although elements from each culture are assimilated into the TCK's life experience, the sense of belonging is in relationship to others of a similar background”.
I’m not complaining about my situation. I’ve loved every minute of my past. It’s a great conversation starter. I know that my family wouldn’t be able to afford half the things we have now if it weren’t for my dad’s choice to immigrate, and I’ve made some really strong connections with people who are in the same situation as I am. Being a third culture kid has its downfalls (for example I wish I spoke Arabic fluently) but in my case I think the pros outweigh the cons. Luckily a lot of my cousin’s are TCK’s and live in Dubai with me, so I’ve always had a strong sense of family around me, and the ones that aren’t have had to experience the political hardship that defines Lebanon all too often in the news.
Why did you immigrate?
Because of the civil war, and my company transferred me to another location which was Athens, Greece. At that time Lebanon was not safe to do business.
Benefit?
I gained a lot of international experience. Living in different countries of the world enhanced my business knowledge and my understanding of different cultures, and has brought me to where I am financially today.
Would you have stayed there if you could?
Had you asked me this 30 years ago I would have said yes, but now I see that what has happened to me has really enriched me. So No.
What about your family?
Well, my family became enriched because they where exposed to the world, and they have an enhanced tolerance to other cultures compared to young people back in Lebanon. But as a result of never living in their homeland, they have no roots, no real connection. We’ve tried to go back as much as possible but I can see that it’s not their home.
How was it leaving your family behind?
It wasn’t a pleasant experience. But then you get over it and move on. It’s not like I haven’t seen them, but it’s something I had to do to give myself a future.
My Dad left Lebanon in 1976. It was a year after the civil war had started, and the economic situation of the country had plummeted. What used to be internationally known as “the Paris of the Middle East” had turned into no mans land, and opportunity for financial success was fast becoming obsolete. Companies of the world were moving out fast, and so my Dad, an employee with Kodak at the time, chose to leave his home and family behind to follow his work to Athens, Greece. That was the last time he lived in Lebanon.
The majority of immigration occurs for financial and economic reasons; people who live in a poor or troubled country are given the opportunity for a higher standard of living in a developed, politically stable country. They can make wages that constitute to a fortune compared to what they would have made doing the same job back home. And it works both ways. Poorer citizens of Britain often choose to retire in less developed places like Spain and Portugal (also referred to as ‘Chav land’) where the cost of living is cheaper and therefore easier to live more luxuriously.
General reasons for immigration are as follows:
- Economic
- Professional
- Political
- Persecution and oppression, including genocide and ethnic cleansing
- Retirement
- Sentimental
- Personal
My Dad says he gained a lot from his travels. His business knowledge is greatly enhances, and he has developed an understanding of many different cultures. But what about us? My sister and I were born outside of Lebanon, and have since been raised in a very eclectic mix of England, Singapore and Dubai. We carry two passports and have never been back to our ‘homeland’ for more than 2 months at a time. We’ve never lived in one property for more than 7 years and have had to let go of many precious things in our moves, including poor rosebud the cat. We are what one might call ‘Third Culture Kids’.
Sociologist David Pollock defines a TCK as "a person who has spent a significant part of his or her developmental years outside the parents' culture. The TCK builds relationships to all of the cultures, while not having full ownership of any. Although elements from each culture are assimilated into the TCK's life experience, the sense of belonging is in relationship to others of a similar background”.
I’m not complaining about my situation. I’ve loved every minute of my past. It’s a great conversation starter. I know that my family wouldn’t be able to afford half the things we have now if it weren’t for my dad’s choice to immigrate, and I’ve made some really strong connections with people who are in the same situation as I am. Being a third culture kid has its downfalls (for example I wish I spoke Arabic fluently) but in my case I think the pros outweigh the cons. Luckily a lot of my cousin’s are TCK’s and live in Dubai with me, so I’ve always had a strong sense of family around me, and the ones that aren’t have had to experience the political hardship that defines Lebanon all too often in the news.
Why did you immigrate?
Because of the civil war, and my company transferred me to another location which was Athens, Greece. At that time Lebanon was not safe to do business.
Benefit?
I gained a lot of international experience. Living in different countries of the world enhanced my business knowledge and my understanding of different cultures, and has brought me to where I am financially today.
Would you have stayed there if you could?
Had you asked me this 30 years ago I would have said yes, but now I see that what has happened to me has really enriched me. So No.
What about your family?
Well, my family became enriched because they where exposed to the world, and they have an enhanced tolerance to other cultures compared to young people back in Lebanon. But as a result of never living in their homeland, they have no roots, no real connection. We’ve tried to go back as much as possible but I can see that it’s not their home.
How was it leaving your family behind?
It wasn’t a pleasant experience. But then you get over it and move on. It’s not like I haven’t seen them, but it’s something I had to do to give myself a future.
The Australian flag with union jack ensign
Australia
The 2009 Australian entry of the CIA World Factbook states the population of Australian being around 20 million, the ethnic group is recorded as 92% white whilst 7% are Asian and a mere 1% is other or aboriginal.
By looking at the range of languages and religions that make up Australia you can gather that Australia is a very diverse nation – made up of many different cultures and countries that have merged together to form Australia as we know it today. Whilst mainly British influences other countries include Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Croatia, Vietnam. In contrast France a country with 3 times the population of Australia speak 100% French as there language.
The country of Australia however was founded by aboriginal settlers who arrived from the continent from southeast Asia. According to sources these settlers arrived some “40,000” years before any European explorations which began in the 17th century. Then in 1770 James Cook took possession of the territory and claimed it in the name of Great Britain.
Six colonies where created and these federated in 1st January 1901 to become the Commonwealth of Australia.
At first the British sent there first migrants over to resolve prison spacing, as it was an island it was considered ideal as it gave little chance of escape. However soon many migrated to Australia as a new land it gave idea for a new life. To escape the hard times and religious persecution in Germany or communist governments in Vietnam, some early migrants came over as part of the gold rush too.
The aboriginal flag
The aboriginal flagThe new settlers however seemed to neglect the very people who founded the country in the beginning the indigenes people of Australia the Aboriginals.
On the 26th May marks Australia’s national sorry day. A day of forgiveness from the Aboriginals. Why? During 1869 and 1969 the Australian government and church missions under the act of their parliaments removed children of Aboriginal descent from their families in attempt to “attain white racial purity“, avoid Miscegenation and to protect the children. This is known as the stolen generation.
During 1992 and 1995 an inquiry into this act was reviewed marking the national sorry day. In the same month the Aboriginal flag along with the Islander strait flag where recognized as official flags of Australia under the flag act of 1953.
The flag was designed in 1971 by an Aborginal artist called Harold Thomas, it was oringnally used as a protest flag but has since been used to represent the Indegious people of Australia.
Harold Thomas has witnessed the stolen generation for himself at age 7 he was separated from his family, he explains that he only spent 7 years of his life living in his birth town before being separated and being forced to live in a, “segregated area called the Cottages where part-Aboriginals were to live in specially built houses.” He explains his disappointment of being 1 of 13 children but not being housed “under the same roof.”
He became an Aboringinal activities and artist. His flag represents strength and passion.
Harold had a job in the South Austrailian Museum there he saw the biggest collection of Aborginal art and artifacts in the world, he explains that he “gleaned over every artifact, every design” and felt “there was something powerful and strong here that should be expressed.”
From there he created the flag, he explains that it came from simplicity and power of Aboringnal art itself. He choice simple designs, simple colours that have a powerful meaning. The red ochre represents the “red soil – the country of Austrailia is red” The sun is commonoly used in Aboringanal art and is a “great symbol” the ocre yellow is often used too. He goes on to explain that the “black represents the pride of being black in Australia. Because, at the time, black pride came into Australian culture -- during the ‘60s and ‘70s -- influenced by Black American pride of their culture. If this is going to be an Aboriginal flag, it has to have black, because it represents the black people of the continent.”
He believes the flag helped give the Aboriginal people an identity, because of the suppression many Aboringnals where ashamed of who they where. Before the flag was given offical status, Cathy Freeman waved the flag alongside the Australian flag after winning the 1994 commonwealth games 400m. Flags have power. This is demonstrated with the Nazi flag.
The union black – proposed design in 2003
The Australian flag and other flags
In 1901 the commonwealth of Australian flag was flown, the flag was was designed to commemorate a new nation as the six colonies merged into one to form the 6th largest country in the world. A competition was administered to deiced the design for the flag. The finalized design included the ensign of Great Britain in the upper left corner. The large 7 pointed star known as the commonwealth star represented the federation of the colonies of Australia. The points of the star represent each colony the 7th representing all of Australia’s colonies. The remaining stars represent the Southern Cross Constellation.
Proposed design for Australian flag with
Aboriginal flag ensign (Fig 2.)
Figure 2 shows a flag proposal to incorporate the aboriginal flag into the Australian flag replacing the union jack ensign. What is interesting is that the Union flag is included into the design of the existing Australian flag to represent Australia’s history with Great Britain and her ties to the queen. Yet facts state that the original ties to the country where the Aboriginals. In contrast the union jack was given a proposed makeover in 2003 to include black stripes to represent the black people of the nation. The flag was considered racist and has since been scrapped. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2981038.stm). Many flags used black to represent hardships and the people of the nation. Examples include the south African flag with the black triangle as well as the Jamaican flag.
Figure 2 shows a flag proposal to incorporate the aboriginal flag into the Australian flag replacing the union jack ensign. What is interesting is that the Union flag is included into the design of the existing Australian flag to represent Australia’s history with Great Britain and her ties to the queen. Yet facts state that the original ties to the country where the Aboriginals. In contrast the union jack was given a proposed makeover in 2003 to include black stripes to represent the black people of the nation. The flag was considered racist and has since been scrapped. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2981038.stm). Many flags used black to represent hardships and the people of the nation. Examples include the south African flag with the black triangle as well as the Jamaican flag.
Australia the land for tomorrow
Once the Australia became a federation nation in 1901, a new white policy was introduced which meant that the country would allow only whites to enter – preventing especially the Japanese and Chinese who where considered a threat to the “newly formed federation.” Chinese people where oringnally excluded to prevent them from taking claim of gold during the gold rush in the1850’s. Australia wanted its country to be populated from British people. A scheme was introduced to encourage British people to come to the country. After all Australia considered a new life with land waiting to be plowed.
For the first time Australia decided to look outside Britain to other European countries to fill the population. In 1948 after the 2nd World War a shift in thinking was adopted and Australia’s view on immigration changed. Many migrated to Australia to escape the threat of a nuclear war, many came to escape there homeland. At a time when the Soviets where taking over many Eastern European countries. Between 1945 and 1965 more than 2 million people migrated to Australia. But this was not enough to sustain the country and with the threat of communism the government set up a campaign “populate or perish.”
In response to the scheme the poster “Australia – Land of Tomorrow” was a poster deigned to encourage Europeans to come to Australia– use of European colours, green blue and yellow where used to entice.
“The creator of this poster, Joe Greenberg, was told later by a Czech migrant that it had been displayed in all the migrant camps in Europe, and had influenced him to come to Australia1.The poster has historic value as evidence of post World War 2 mass migration and the attempt by the Australian government to build the nation’s population with European migrants at a time when the White Australia Policy was firmly enforced.The poster has social value as a reminder of the experience of thousands of post war migrants and the apartheid years under the White Australia Policy. The poster is well provenanced to Joe Greenberg and the Victoria Museum Collection. The poster represents a time when Australia saw itself as a predominantly European culture and assisted nearly 200,000 people from Europe to migrate while maintaining the White Australia Policy and the Immigration Restriction Act to keep Asian and Pacific Islanders out.The interpretive potential of the poster is considerable. The poster displays Australian Government promoting Australia as the land of prosperity and growth to prospective European migrants with the banners such as “Australia: Land of Tomorrows” and imagery of opportunity. The poster interprets the attempts by the Australian government to build up Australia’s population of European migrants at a time when the White Australia Policy was firmly enforced.
Many fled to leave behind hardships, in return they had to work in jobs given by the government. Some of these jobs included building bridges and Dams.”
Another era of immigration began in the 50s and 60’s, countries included Italy, Croatia, , Malta, Greece and Turkey. The people from these countries sought for better employment and better living conditions.
The programmes encourage people to immigrate to Australia where considered a huge success, “the origins of “new Australians” changed dramatically, with British migrants only making up half of the intake, and many migrants coming from southern, eastern and northern Europe.” Mass migration to Australia continued until the 1960s.
Time for change
Today migrating to Australia is no longer and a easy thing to do. There are now restrictions to enter the country and a Visa requirements given based on a points system. Aboringnals have now been given more rights and are recognized and have since been given more land. Australia have tried to rectify there wrongs by setting up National Sorry Day.
Monday 16 November 2009
Web design
Although not to do with our chosen specialism of language, I believe this is an interesting finding in our research.
But if the BNP are opposed to Obama, then why the graphical tribute on their website?
So by aligning themselves graphically with Obama, they hope to feed off his success, whilst being politically opposed to his policies. I believe this shows a distinct lack of professionalism in the graphic design of the BNP and of the BNP itself.
Barack Obama's Official Website
The British National Party's Official Website
The British National Party's Official WebsiteIts obvious how similar the layout and graphic style of the two websites are. This suggests that the BNP support Obama's presidency and his policies on immigration. However, the video below would strongly suggest not:
But if the BNP are opposed to Obama, then why the graphical tribute on their website?
So by aligning themselves graphically with Obama, they hope to feed off his success, whilst being politically opposed to his policies. I believe this shows a distinct lack of professionalism in the graphic design of the BNP and of the BNP itself.
Nick Griffin’s Use of Language on Question Time
By Luke Thompson
“If you put (getting rid of black people) as your primary aim, you won’t get very far. Instead talk about identity, we use sailable words: freedom, security, democracy – nobody can come and attack you on those terms.”
This quote reveals the BNP’s secretive technique of couching their words to gain an air of credibility and the votes of the majority, without changing their fundamental controversial party policies.
Instead of talking openly about the mass deportations and ethnic cleansing that they really want to perform, they talk about the positives of British society, something most people would agree on and support. By saying British national identity is being threatened, they get people on side while they can select a scapegoat to channel all the dissatisfaction onto. This scapegoat is of course racial minorities and immigrants, the people they want to get rid of not because they truly believe are damaging the British national identity, but because they are opposed to them racially. In short, they subtly spread their hate to other potential supporters and build their membership based on deception and the spread of hateful ideas.
When asked about his previous denial of the Holocaust, “I have changed my mind, mostly about figures, but I cannot explain why or how or the extent of the change as my freedom of speech is threatened"
In this quote, Nick Griffin plays the victim of censorship and a contravention of his right to freedom of speech. In actual fact, when the European Union wide anti-racism xenophobia law in 2001 was announced, the UK didn’t accept it, saying the voicing of racist views, although unpleasant, could not be banned in a country with freedom of speech. The reason for Nick Griffin’s refusal to answer the question was to avoid admitting he did and still does deny the Holocaust, an extremely controversial viewpoint bound to lose him many supporters and thus something he would not risk. By playing the victim in this area, he dodges revealing his views that would be detrimental to his party, deflects the conversation onto the nature of free speech and takes a stab at the current government for imposing this fictional contravention of free speech.
“In the Daily Mail I was misquoted saying black people walk like monkeys.” – In response to whether a quote attributed to him was true.
This is another attempt to deflect a question and get support by using terms nobody can disagree with. He cites an example where it is highly likely he has been misquoted in order to play the victim of regular misquotation. The above quote is an obvious over-the-top racist quote that is easy to deny because of its childish nature, but although he may not have said it, that doesn’t stop him from being correctly quoted a lot of the time. Just because he has been misquoted, doesn’t mean everything he has purportedly said is misquoted. In fact, this assumption of continuous misquotation allows him to say whatever he wants and if challenged on it later, he can chalk it up to a misquotation.
“If you put (getting rid of black people) as your primary aim, you won’t get very far. Instead talk about identity, we use sailable words: freedom, security, democracy – nobody can come and attack you on those terms.”
This quote reveals the BNP’s secretive technique of couching their words to gain an air of credibility and the votes of the majority, without changing their fundamental controversial party policies.
Instead of talking openly about the mass deportations and ethnic cleansing that they really want to perform, they talk about the positives of British society, something most people would agree on and support. By saying British national identity is being threatened, they get people on side while they can select a scapegoat to channel all the dissatisfaction onto. This scapegoat is of course racial minorities and immigrants, the people they want to get rid of not because they truly believe are damaging the British national identity, but because they are opposed to them racially. In short, they subtly spread their hate to other potential supporters and build their membership based on deception and the spread of hateful ideas.
When asked about his previous denial of the Holocaust, “I have changed my mind, mostly about figures, but I cannot explain why or how or the extent of the change as my freedom of speech is threatened"
In this quote, Nick Griffin plays the victim of censorship and a contravention of his right to freedom of speech. In actual fact, when the European Union wide anti-racism xenophobia law in 2001 was announced, the UK didn’t accept it, saying the voicing of racist views, although unpleasant, could not be banned in a country with freedom of speech. The reason for Nick Griffin’s refusal to answer the question was to avoid admitting he did and still does deny the Holocaust, an extremely controversial viewpoint bound to lose him many supporters and thus something he would not risk. By playing the victim in this area, he dodges revealing his views that would be detrimental to his party, deflects the conversation onto the nature of free speech and takes a stab at the current government for imposing this fictional contravention of free speech.
“In the Daily Mail I was misquoted saying black people walk like monkeys.” – In response to whether a quote attributed to him was true.
This is another attempt to deflect a question and get support by using terms nobody can disagree with. He cites an example where it is highly likely he has been misquoted in order to play the victim of regular misquotation. The above quote is an obvious over-the-top racist quote that is easy to deny because of its childish nature, but although he may not have said it, that doesn’t stop him from being correctly quoted a lot of the time. Just because he has been misquoted, doesn’t mean everything he has purportedly said is misquoted. In fact, this assumption of continuous misquotation allows him to say whatever he wants and if challenged on it later, he can chalk it up to a misquotation.
Wednesday 11 November 2009
Miscegenation - to mix or not to mix, why is it still a question?
The language used towards mixed race people throughout history.
by Rhea Babla
Excuse me
standing on one leg
I’m half-caste.
Over the centuries, the question as to whether people of different races should marry and bear children has long been unanswered. Even today, in the 21st Century, people cannot agree on whether it is an acceptable or wise decision. However, whilst there is no universal agreement, there has been a rise in multicultural societies and mixed race families. They symbolise hope for a world without prejudice – but is this a reality or just a dream?
Since this is such a huge topic, and (sadly) there are so many examples of different forms of racism today and throughout history, I have chosen to concentrate on three key areas; a historical example – mixed race people in an era of slavery (particularly concentrating in America); a modern example – Barack Obama; the future – a personal account and how the attitude towards mixed race people will affect me and my (potential) children.
From an article written in 1899, written by the ‘coal black negro of unmixed blood’, Rev. J. C. Collins. Quite often, when we read historical accounts during the era when slavery was predominant in North America, we expect them to be written by rich, white folk against Negroes. However, interestingly, this article written by a black man speaks against miscegenation also.
At this time interracial marriage was against the law. Therefore, mixed race children were ‘doomed from berth’. Collins rightly observed that ‘the law forbidding the intermarriage of the races renders every child so born illegitimate… the child must go through the world with the brand upon its brow’. That brand he spoke of included his skin colour; an unchangeable trait which stated ‘I am a bastard’.
Collins speaks against miscegenation mainly because of this, and partly because mixed race slaves were given better tasks than darker pure bloods. To Collins, this seems advantageous but the dilemma of the mixed race person was that he/she was favoured by nobody- to white men, they were slaves, and to black men, they were the reason that the black-skinned negro was ‘put off to more menial labours, which require nothing but sinew and muscle.’
The language that is used in this article was probably not written to offend or encourage racism due to hate, because Collins is mainly observing what is actually happening, but his stance against miscegenation influences the language in his argument.
Mixed race children were referred to as ‘mulattoes’ – the product of mixed white and coloured blood. This word was derived from the Portuguese and Spanish word mulato, which is derived from mula, or mule – the hybrid offspring of a horse and donkey. Clearly this term was derogatory.
Phrases such as ‘dreaded amalgamation’ would not have served to help mixed race children be encouraged and this article fails to recognise that they are people just as well. Whilst Collins passionate view against illegitimacy may be admirable, he forgets that the children themselves need love and affection as much as any other child.
Today, it seems that the attitudes towards mixed race people have changed dramatically – America celebrate the inauguration of their first mixed race president, Barack Obama. Interestingly, however, in most headlines he is noted as America’s first black president. It seems that a trace of the ‘one drop rule’ that Booker T. Washington observed in the 19th Century is still evident now.
It is a fact that, if a person is known to have one percent of African blood in his veins, he ceases to be a white man. The ninety-nine percent of Caucasian blood does not weigh by the side of the one percent of African blood. The white blood counts for nothing. The person is a Negro every time.
However, I do think that the view of him being the first black president was not supposed to be degrading his white heritage. He has both African American and Caucasian heritage.
But in most cases, he is either referred to as half-white, or half-black. Although these terms may not always be used in a derogatory way, this language has caused discussion as to what is ‘politically correct’. Firstly, to be simplified to a colour seems to be too basic; this is merely the average colour of a person’s skin and not a description of anything else (and may I note, Barack Obama would then be coffee coloured). If one wants to speak culture, they’d have to do more than look at a picture.
The use of halves also proves difficult - if he is called half-white, his African heritage is being discounted, and if he is called half-black, his white heritage is being discounted. So he can be ‘proved’ to be racist by either community. But then many have noted, is he half of one and half of the other? Is he wholly both? Or is he something altogether new? To me, the fractions are just to explain the history of his heritage; by saying half this and half that, it is describing that one parent is from this background, and the other is from that.
It surprises me that there are people today who still believe that interracial marriages and children are wrong; Nick Griffin from the BNP described mixed race children as ‘destructive and unnatural’. As a mixed race person, I am no more or less destructive than any other person, unless I chose to be (which isn’t determined by my Anglo-Indian heritage). Nor am I unnatural – I have eyes and ears and skin… and they’re definitely not synthetic!
This made me think, if I had children, there is no hope for them being ‘pure bred’ (not that I consider either better). There is no way to undo the mixed racedness – my children will be mixed too. It seems ridiculous that I will have to carefully explain to them where they are from, because if they repeat it to others it could cause all kinds of upheaval. Do I tell them that they are multiracial, with Indian and English heritage (and whatever else, depending on their father’s heritage)? Do I use halves and quarters? Do I intricately explain the strands of their DNA; the percentage of homozygous genes and heterozygous genes that go into their genetic makeup?
It just goes to show that these things really shouldn’t matter so much. My heritage is only a part of the description of myself; it does not define who I am as a person. And that is what I am.
by Rhea Babla
Excuse me
standing on one leg
I’m half-caste.
John Agard – Half Caste (extract)
Over the centuries, the question as to whether people of different races should marry and bear children has long been unanswered. Even today, in the 21st Century, people cannot agree on whether it is an acceptable or wise decision. However, whilst there is no universal agreement, there has been a rise in multicultural societies and mixed race families. They symbolise hope for a world without prejudice – but is this a reality or just a dream?
Since this is such a huge topic, and (sadly) there are so many examples of different forms of racism today and throughout history, I have chosen to concentrate on three key areas; a historical example – mixed race people in an era of slavery (particularly concentrating in America); a modern example – Barack Obama; the future – a personal account and how the attitude towards mixed race people will affect me and my (potential) children.
From an article written in 1899, written by the ‘coal black negro of unmixed blood’, Rev. J. C. Collins. Quite often, when we read historical accounts during the era when slavery was predominant in North America, we expect them to be written by rich, white folk against Negroes. However, interestingly, this article written by a black man speaks against miscegenation also.
At this time interracial marriage was against the law. Therefore, mixed race children were ‘doomed from berth’. Collins rightly observed that ‘the law forbidding the intermarriage of the races renders every child so born illegitimate… the child must go through the world with the brand upon its brow’. That brand he spoke of included his skin colour; an unchangeable trait which stated ‘I am a bastard’.
Collins speaks against miscegenation mainly because of this, and partly because mixed race slaves were given better tasks than darker pure bloods. To Collins, this seems advantageous but the dilemma of the mixed race person was that he/she was favoured by nobody- to white men, they were slaves, and to black men, they were the reason that the black-skinned negro was ‘put off to more menial labours, which require nothing but sinew and muscle.’
The language that is used in this article was probably not written to offend or encourage racism due to hate, because Collins is mainly observing what is actually happening, but his stance against miscegenation influences the language in his argument.
Mixed race children were referred to as ‘mulattoes’ – the product of mixed white and coloured blood. This word was derived from the Portuguese and Spanish word mulato, which is derived from mula, or mule – the hybrid offspring of a horse and donkey. Clearly this term was derogatory.
Phrases such as ‘dreaded amalgamation’ would not have served to help mixed race children be encouraged and this article fails to recognise that they are people just as well. Whilst Collins passionate view against illegitimacy may be admirable, he forgets that the children themselves need love and affection as much as any other child.
Today, it seems that the attitudes towards mixed race people have changed dramatically – America celebrate the inauguration of their first mixed race president, Barack Obama. Interestingly, however, in most headlines he is noted as America’s first black president. It seems that a trace of the ‘one drop rule’ that Booker T. Washington observed in the 19th Century is still evident now.
It is a fact that, if a person is known to have one percent of African blood in his veins, he ceases to be a white man. The ninety-nine percent of Caucasian blood does not weigh by the side of the one percent of African blood. The white blood counts for nothing. The person is a Negro every time.
However, I do think that the view of him being the first black president was not supposed to be degrading his white heritage. He has both African American and Caucasian heritage.
But in most cases, he is either referred to as half-white, or half-black. Although these terms may not always be used in a derogatory way, this language has caused discussion as to what is ‘politically correct’. Firstly, to be simplified to a colour seems to be too basic; this is merely the average colour of a person’s skin and not a description of anything else (and may I note, Barack Obama would then be coffee coloured). If one wants to speak culture, they’d have to do more than look at a picture.
The use of halves also proves difficult - if he is called half-white, his African heritage is being discounted, and if he is called half-black, his white heritage is being discounted. So he can be ‘proved’ to be racist by either community. But then many have noted, is he half of one and half of the other? Is he wholly both? Or is he something altogether new? To me, the fractions are just to explain the history of his heritage; by saying half this and half that, it is describing that one parent is from this background, and the other is from that.
It surprises me that there are people today who still believe that interracial marriages and children are wrong; Nick Griffin from the BNP described mixed race children as ‘destructive and unnatural’. As a mixed race person, I am no more or less destructive than any other person, unless I chose to be (which isn’t determined by my Anglo-Indian heritage). Nor am I unnatural – I have eyes and ears and skin… and they’re definitely not synthetic!
This made me think, if I had children, there is no hope for them being ‘pure bred’ (not that I consider either better). There is no way to undo the mixed racedness – my children will be mixed too. It seems ridiculous that I will have to carefully explain to them where they are from, because if they repeat it to others it could cause all kinds of upheaval. Do I tell them that they are multiracial, with Indian and English heritage (and whatever else, depending on their father’s heritage)? Do I use halves and quarters? Do I intricately explain the strands of their DNA; the percentage of homozygous genes and heterozygous genes that go into their genetic makeup?
It just goes to show that these things really shouldn’t matter so much. My heritage is only a part of the description of myself; it does not define who I am as a person. And that is what I am.
Wednesday 4 November 2009
Suggestion of summary
This is in no way a masterpiece.
From these studies we have carried out into various areas of this topic, it is possible to see that there are strong views involved and that people seek an outlet for these views. This calls into question ideas of their ethical values, ownership and how willing they are to compromise the work they carry out in the future for what they believe in. We have found that there are people who have put there name to various beliefs and as such have made their own decisions about how much they value their principles and how much they value the money that the receive from doing certain projects. From carrying out in depth research we see what other designers have achieved by putting into practice their on views and it becomes more clear that in order to successfully manage our views in relation to our professional practice we must make certain decisions about our priorities. Do we create a ‘First Things First’ style manifesto to proclaim our intent to only take part in meaningful design? Or do we value money above the desire to only produce things for the greater good? These are all things we must consider in order to accomplish what we want within our careers.
From these studies we have carried out into various areas of this topic, it is possible to see that there are strong views involved and that people seek an outlet for these views. This calls into question ideas of their ethical values, ownership and how willing they are to compromise the work they carry out in the future for what they believe in. We have found that there are people who have put there name to various beliefs and as such have made their own decisions about how much they value their principles and how much they value the money that the receive from doing certain projects. From carrying out in depth research we see what other designers have achieved by putting into practice their on views and it becomes more clear that in order to successfully manage our views in relation to our professional practice we must make certain decisions about our priorities. Do we create a ‘First Things First’ style manifesto to proclaim our intent to only take part in meaningful design? Or do we value money above the desire to only produce things for the greater good? These are all things we must consider in order to accomplish what we want within our careers.
Immigration in the US
Research, Links and Notes on terms used in the US
‘Alien’ as a term for immigrants
Naturalization test
The words:
Naturalization:
“admit a foreigner to the citizenship of a country” alter a word so it conforms to the language it’s being brought into. Etymology - from the word natural - by birth (1559) admit (an alien) to rights of a citizen
(http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=naturalize)
Naturalize - “to introduce (organisms) into a region and cause them to flourish as if native”
Natural - normal, ordinary, everyday, established, customary, innate, native (antonym - abnormal, exceptional)
Alien
Used to have resident alien cards, now US Permanent Resident Card (Green Card)
Definition
Belonging to another person, place or thing: strange
Foreign
From another world
Extraterrestrial
Differing in nature or character
Foreign born resident who has not been naturalised
A person, animal or plant from another family, race or species
Etymology - 1300-50 - Latin alienus (foreign, strange) from alius (other, another, someone else) - similar to alias Meaning ‘of another planet’ first recorded in 1944 -> Though this is relatively recent, it is still the meaning that most people have in their mind. Politically correct?
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=alien
Save
Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (To see if immigrants can be granted benefits)
-> Advert for the system - sells it as a commodity
Various things
Alien registration number - on green cards
Motto inscripted on the Great Seal of the US... E Pluribus Unum - out of many, one
“Nearly 190 million people, about 3% of the world’s population, lived outside their country of birth in 2005” NY Times
E-verify - online process which verifies that people are legally allowed to work - database is full of inaccuracies which could lead to American citizens being denied jobs.
Green Cards
What Does the Law Say?
Section 264 of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides that, "Every alien in the United States … shall be issued a certificate of alien registration or an alien registration receipt card in such form and manner and at such time as shall be prescribed under regulations...." It also states, "Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him.... Any alien who fails to comply with [these] provisions shall be guilty of a misdemeanor" and may be subject to fine and/or imprisonment upon each conviction. The specific requirements and procedures for applying to replace a permanent resident card are included in the Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] at 8 CFR § 264.5.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=763fad861a41e010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=4f719c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD
Seems like quite a strict law - possible to be guilty of a misdemeanor for not carrying the card
Information contained on a Permanent Resident Card
LEGISLATION
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.f6da51a2342135be7e9d7a10e0dc91a0/?vgnextoid=fa7e539dc4bed010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=fa7e539dc4bed010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&CH=act
INA: ACT 222 - APPLICATIONS FOR VISAS
INA: ACT 232 - DETENTION OF ALIENS FOR PHYSICAL AND MENTAL EXAMINAITON 1/
INA: ACT 236 - APPREHENSION AND DETENTION OF ALIENS
INA: ACT 262 - REGISTRATION OF ALIENS IN THE UNITED STATES
I just heard the politically correct term for an illegal alien is an "undocumented immigrant", isn't that like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"?
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/557735
Be careful in using illegal or alien, because both are offensive and require certain knowledge of this fact [She gets half a point for that. “Illegal immigrant” is libellous where it’s untrue, and where there’s a law of libel.]. It is better to avoid these negative terms, but use undocumented and without a passport if necessary.
Alien
Do not use to describe someone who has entered the country illegally. [Because it might offend legal aliens?]
Illegals, illegal aliens
Offensive terms for people without a passport, visa, or other legal document that entitles them to visit, work, or live in this country.
But it must be heartbreakingly complicated to be politically correct: “It is important to remember that Spaniards are not Latinos.”
http://www.vdare.com/fulford/how_to_write.htm
How to Report Illegal Aliens and Still Be Politically Correct
Aren't aliens from outer space?
Illegal aliens is a term that most Americans use, but many prefer not to because of how it sounds. Frequently, when talking about illegal aliens people will say, "I hate that term." Well, there are several acceptable ways to discuss people who are in the U.S. illegally. Also, many illegal aliens eventually become U.S. citizens and we should treat these people with respect.
http://www.ehow.co.uk/how_4994918_illegal-aliens-still-politically-correct.html?cr=1
"Illegal alien" is a pejorative term that dehumanizes people. The National Hispanic Journalists Association has
urged media organizations to stop using the phrase:
Many find the term offensive and dehumanizing because it criminalizes the person rather than the actual act of illegally entering or residing in the United States. The term does not give an accurate description of a person's conditional U.S. status, but rather demeans an individual by describing them as an alien. At the 1994 Unity convention, the four minority journalism groups -- NAHJ, Asian American Journalists Association, Native American Journalists Association and National Association of Black Journalists -- issued the following statement on this term: "Except in direct quotations, do not use the phrase illegal alien or the word alien, in copy or in headlines, to refer to citizens of a foreign country who have come to the U.S. with no documents to show that they are legally entitled to visit, work or live here. Such terms are considered pejorative not only by those to whom they are applied but by many people of the same ethnic and national backgrounds who are in the U.S. legally."
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/143358/retailers_dump_offensive_%22illegal_alien%22_halloween_costume%3B_meanwhile_fox_calls_it_%22fantastic%22/
A state legislator whose district is home to thousands of Caribbean immigrants wants to ban the term "illegal alien" from the state's official documents.
"I personally find the word 'alien' offensive when applied to individuals, especially to children," said Sen. Frederica Wilson, D-Miami. "An alien to me is someone from out of space."
She has introduced a bill providing that: "A state agency or official may not use the term 'illegal alien' in an official document of the state." There would be no penalty for using the words.
In Miami-Dade County, Wilson said, "we don't say 'alien,' we say 'immigrant.'"
http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/02/banning_the_term_illegal_alien.php
National Association of Hispanic Journalists
Furthermore, an estimated 40 percent of all undocumented people living in the U.S. are visa overstayers, meaning they did not illegally cross the U.S. border.
In addition, the association has always denounced the use of the degrading terms “alien” and “illegal alien” to describe undocumented immigrants because it casts them as adverse, strange beings, inhuman outsiders who come to the U.S. with questionable motivations. “Aliens” is a bureaucratic term that should be avoided unless used in a quote.
While Webster's first definition of the term "alien" is in accordance with the government's interpretation, the dictionary also includes other, darker, meanings for the word, such as “a non-terrestrial being," "strange," "not belonging to one," "adverse," "hostile." And the Encyclopedia Britannica points out that "in early times, the tendency was to look upon the alien as an enemy and to treat him as a criminal or an outlaw." It is not surprising then that in 1798, in anticipation of a possible war with France, the U.S. Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which restricted "aliens" and curtailed press freedoms. By 1800 the laws had been repealed or had expired but they still cast a negative shadow over the word.
In modern times, with science-fiction growing in popularity, "alien" has come to mean a creature from outer space, and is considered pejorative by most immigrants.
Illegal alien
Avoid. Alternative terms are "undocumented worker," or "undocumented immigrant."
http://www.nahj.org/nahjnews/articles/2006/March/immigrationcoverage.shtml
Immigration Cartoons
Various Satirical Cartoons Above
Kevin Kallaugher cartoon
These are satirical political cartoons and although they are out of context, it is fairly reasonable to assume that they were originally produced for a newspaper or political magazine. This, straight away, gives the work a context and thusly a suggestion of a general political alignment. This particular cartoon was produced by an artist named Kevin Kallaugher for ‘The Economist’ which is an international news magazine that has been deemed liberalist and supports ideas of globalisation and immigration. It is a cartoon that uses the building of the wall along the US/Mexico border to comment generally on the US immigration policy, shown by the heading “America’s attitude toward immigration in a nutshell”. The main aspect that they wish to put across is that the policy is confused and somewhat ineffective. It is confused as they wish to prevent illegal immigration and limit immigration as a whole by placing numeric values on the numbers of various types of people that are allowed into the country. However, at the same time they are demanding workers from all levels, more so than than the US can provide, and while this is the case they rely on immigrants to fill these positions. Moreover, the way the US tries to tackle the issue actually does quite the opposite. They assume that people are leaving their countries because they are disadvantaged and uninhabitable, so they invest money into their economies. This results in more jobs for women as they are more suitable for the jobs assembling small parts and so there are many men that become prime candidates for emigrating. Also, as the women begin to get older, they are replaced by younger women and so they too have more of an impetus for leaving. This collective of newly redundant people then naturally emigrate to places which have links to their countries, and they are countries within the US zone of influence, they are a likely target for these people. This cartoon makes light of how the US have these policies which mean that they want to reduce the amount of people moving there, but at the same time desperately want these immigrants to do various jobs that they don’t have the American workers for. This is made clear with a caricature of Uncle Sam, who is used here as a personification of the US government, telling the Mexican immigrants to stay out while requesting that they help build the wall to prevent them from emigrating.
Another area where the US has some fairly contradicting policies over immigration is in their positive approach to globalisation. They want to take part in a global exchange of trade, capital and technology amongst other things, but have a polar view of immigration as they are willing to lift border controls in the case of capital flow, but impose tighter and tighter restrictions on immigrants as it is a case of control and regulation.
A much more general reason that the American policy on immigration seems to be somewhat unreasonable is that they are a nation of immigrants. Their roots are rich and varied, but “each group of arrivals, once established, has fought to keep newcomers out”. So while they are a nation derived from many different groups, something they remain proud of, they do not want to see further immigration which in some respects seems to be hypocritical.
With this in mind, it is clear to see how it is possible to become quite passionate about the topic, and others like it, and it is natural to want to find an outlet for this view. Producing work such as this is making a clear statement of your political position which is interesting as making such a declaration is something that would potentially affect subsequent projects that you should choose to take part in. This is as such, as newspapers and magazines of a conservative persuasion may not want to employ a cartoonist who has made clearly liberal work in the past. Furthermore, a number of these cartoons are fairly negative in their critique of various governments which poses more issues over future employers as it would potentially alienate you from the possibility of carrying out any visual work for government bodies. However, in making this type of imagery, the artist is professing strong views and therefore is not likely to want to produce work that is against what they believe were they approached by a publication or body with opposing views.
This is a particularly necessary issue to give thought in such a case as work like this has clear ownership, and while it has been published by a separate body, usually these cartoons have the name of the author attached to it and often it will be a regular slot in a the publication. In this way, the artist will begin to accumulate a reputation for such work and it is difficult to move away from this.
The exception to this idea of an artist or designer deciding what work to do based on their principles is where their motivation is not values or ethics, it is their desire to create work and earn money, whatever the situation they are faced with. It is, therefore, extremely necessary to decide what your own guiding motivation is and to what extent you would abandon your own views to produce work and earn a living.
‘Alien’ as a term for immigrants
Naturalization test
The words:
Naturalization:
“admit a foreigner to the citizenship of a country” alter a word so it conforms to the language it’s being brought into. Etymology - from the word natural - by birth (1559) admit (an alien) to rights of a citizen
(http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=naturalize)
Naturalize - “to introduce (organisms) into a region and cause them to flourish as if native”
Natural - normal, ordinary, everyday, established, customary, innate, native (antonym - abnormal, exceptional)
Alien
Used to have resident alien cards, now US Permanent Resident Card (Green Card)
Definition
Belonging to another person, place or thing: strange
Foreign
From another world
Extraterrestrial
Differing in nature or character
Foreign born resident who has not been naturalised
A person, animal or plant from another family, race or species
Etymology - 1300-50 - Latin alienus (foreign, strange) from alius (other, another, someone else) - similar to alias Meaning ‘of another planet’ first recorded in 1944 -> Though this is relatively recent, it is still the meaning that most people have in their mind. Politically correct?
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=alien
Save
Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (To see if immigrants can be granted benefits)
-> Advert for the system - sells it as a commodity
Various things
Alien registration number - on green cards
Motto inscripted on the Great Seal of the US... E Pluribus Unum - out of many, one
“Nearly 190 million people, about 3% of the world’s population, lived outside their country of birth in 2005” NY Times
E-verify - online process which verifies that people are legally allowed to work - database is full of inaccuracies which could lead to American citizens being denied jobs.
Green Cards
What Does the Law Say?
Section 264 of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides that, "Every alien in the United States … shall be issued a certificate of alien registration or an alien registration receipt card in such form and manner and at such time as shall be prescribed under regulations...." It also states, "Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him.... Any alien who fails to comply with [these] provisions shall be guilty of a misdemeanor" and may be subject to fine and/or imprisonment upon each conviction. The specific requirements and procedures for applying to replace a permanent resident card are included in the Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] at 8 CFR § 264.5.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=763fad861a41e010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=4f719c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD
Seems like quite a strict law - possible to be guilty of a misdemeanor for not carrying the card
- Cards issued prior to 1977 - no expiration date (recalled)
- Cards issued between 1977 - (Resident Alien Card) 1989 also no expiration but only recently removed from circulation
- Since 1989 - (US Permanent Resident Card) expiration date, renew every 10 years, more secure card (presumably reason for reissue)
Information contained on a Permanent Resident Card
- Name
- Alien Number
- Date of Birth
- Category
- Sex
- Country of Birth
- Expiration Date
- Resident since
- Finger Print
- Photograph
LEGISLATION
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.f6da51a2342135be7e9d7a10e0dc91a0/?vgnextoid=fa7e539dc4bed010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=fa7e539dc4bed010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&CH=act
INA: ACT 222 - APPLICATIONS FOR VISAS
INA: ACT 232 - DETENTION OF ALIENS FOR PHYSICAL AND MENTAL EXAMINAITON 1/
INA: ACT 236 - APPREHENSION AND DETENTION OF ALIENS
INA: ACT 262 - REGISTRATION OF ALIENS IN THE UNITED STATES
I just heard the politically correct term for an illegal alien is an "undocumented immigrant", isn't that like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"?
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/557735
Be careful in using illegal or alien, because both are offensive and require certain knowledge of this fact [She gets half a point for that. “Illegal immigrant” is libellous where it’s untrue, and where there’s a law of libel.]. It is better to avoid these negative terms, but use undocumented and without a passport if necessary.
Alien
Do not use to describe someone who has entered the country illegally. [Because it might offend legal aliens?]
Illegals, illegal aliens
Offensive terms for people without a passport, visa, or other legal document that entitles them to visit, work, or live in this country.
But it must be heartbreakingly complicated to be politically correct: “It is important to remember that Spaniards are not Latinos.”
http://www.vdare.com/fulford/how_to_write.htm
How to Report Illegal Aliens and Still Be Politically Correct
Aren't aliens from outer space?
Illegal aliens is a term that most Americans use, but many prefer not to because of how it sounds. Frequently, when talking about illegal aliens people will say, "I hate that term." Well, there are several acceptable ways to discuss people who are in the U.S. illegally. Also, many illegal aliens eventually become U.S. citizens and we should treat these people with respect.
http://www.ehow.co.uk/how_4994918_illegal-aliens-still-politically-correct.html?cr=1
"Illegal alien" is a pejorative term that dehumanizes people. The National Hispanic Journalists Association has
urged media organizations to stop using the phrase:
Many find the term offensive and dehumanizing because it criminalizes the person rather than the actual act of illegally entering or residing in the United States. The term does not give an accurate description of a person's conditional U.S. status, but rather demeans an individual by describing them as an alien. At the 1994 Unity convention, the four minority journalism groups -- NAHJ, Asian American Journalists Association, Native American Journalists Association and National Association of Black Journalists -- issued the following statement on this term: "Except in direct quotations, do not use the phrase illegal alien or the word alien, in copy or in headlines, to refer to citizens of a foreign country who have come to the U.S. with no documents to show that they are legally entitled to visit, work or live here. Such terms are considered pejorative not only by those to whom they are applied but by many people of the same ethnic and national backgrounds who are in the U.S. legally."
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/143358/retailers_dump_offensive_%22illegal_alien%22_halloween_costume%3B_meanwhile_fox_calls_it_%22fantastic%22/
A state legislator whose district is home to thousands of Caribbean immigrants wants to ban the term "illegal alien" from the state's official documents.
"I personally find the word 'alien' offensive when applied to individuals, especially to children," said Sen. Frederica Wilson, D-Miami. "An alien to me is someone from out of space."
She has introduced a bill providing that: "A state agency or official may not use the term 'illegal alien' in an official document of the state." There would be no penalty for using the words.
In Miami-Dade County, Wilson said, "we don't say 'alien,' we say 'immigrant.'"
http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/02/banning_the_term_illegal_alien.php
National Association of Hispanic Journalists
Furthermore, an estimated 40 percent of all undocumented people living in the U.S. are visa overstayers, meaning they did not illegally cross the U.S. border.
In addition, the association has always denounced the use of the degrading terms “alien” and “illegal alien” to describe undocumented immigrants because it casts them as adverse, strange beings, inhuman outsiders who come to the U.S. with questionable motivations. “Aliens” is a bureaucratic term that should be avoided unless used in a quote.
While Webster's first definition of the term "alien" is in accordance with the government's interpretation, the dictionary also includes other, darker, meanings for the word, such as “a non-terrestrial being," "strange," "not belonging to one," "adverse," "hostile." And the Encyclopedia Britannica points out that "in early times, the tendency was to look upon the alien as an enemy and to treat him as a criminal or an outlaw." It is not surprising then that in 1798, in anticipation of a possible war with France, the U.S. Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which restricted "aliens" and curtailed press freedoms. By 1800 the laws had been repealed or had expired but they still cast a negative shadow over the word.
In modern times, with science-fiction growing in popularity, "alien" has come to mean a creature from outer space, and is considered pejorative by most immigrants.
Illegal alien
Avoid. Alternative terms are "undocumented worker," or "undocumented immigrant."
http://www.nahj.org/nahjnews/articles/2006/March/immigrationcoverage.shtml
Immigration Cartoons
Various Satirical Cartoons Above
Kevin Kallaugher cartoonAnother area where the US has some fairly contradicting policies over immigration is in their positive approach to globalisation. They want to take part in a global exchange of trade, capital and technology amongst other things, but have a polar view of immigration as they are willing to lift border controls in the case of capital flow, but impose tighter and tighter restrictions on immigrants as it is a case of control and regulation.
A much more general reason that the American policy on immigration seems to be somewhat unreasonable is that they are a nation of immigrants. Their roots are rich and varied, but “each group of arrivals, once established, has fought to keep newcomers out”. So while they are a nation derived from many different groups, something they remain proud of, they do not want to see further immigration which in some respects seems to be hypocritical.
With this in mind, it is clear to see how it is possible to become quite passionate about the topic, and others like it, and it is natural to want to find an outlet for this view. Producing work such as this is making a clear statement of your political position which is interesting as making such a declaration is something that would potentially affect subsequent projects that you should choose to take part in. This is as such, as newspapers and magazines of a conservative persuasion may not want to employ a cartoonist who has made clearly liberal work in the past. Furthermore, a number of these cartoons are fairly negative in their critique of various governments which poses more issues over future employers as it would potentially alienate you from the possibility of carrying out any visual work for government bodies. However, in making this type of imagery, the artist is professing strong views and therefore is not likely to want to produce work that is against what they believe were they approached by a publication or body with opposing views.
This is a particularly necessary issue to give thought in such a case as work like this has clear ownership, and while it has been published by a separate body, usually these cartoons have the name of the author attached to it and often it will be a regular slot in a the publication. In this way, the artist will begin to accumulate a reputation for such work and it is difficult to move away from this.
The exception to this idea of an artist or designer deciding what work to do based on their principles is where their motivation is not values or ethics, it is their desire to create work and earn money, whatever the situation they are faced with. It is, therefore, extremely necessary to decide what your own guiding motivation is and to what extent you would abandon your own views to produce work and earn a living.
Vanessa Beecroft: Art or Exploitation?
By Rhea Babla
Vanessa Beecroft has used immigrants in her artwork and caused controversy over her provocative style of working. Her works, such as VB61 and VB65 seem quite harmless on the surface; the former, titled ‘Still Death! Darfur Still Deaf?’ was a performance to raise awareness of the genocide happening in Sudan and the latter was a performance to reveal prejudices against Africans, especially from the Milanese bourgeoisie.
VB61 Still Death! Darfur Still Deaf?
VB65
However, due to her self-indulgent attitude towards her artwork, her motives are questionable. She has admitted herself to being tormented, from an ethical point of view, as to whether or not she exploits her subjects. Her success seems to be more important to her than her dignity, “If an image has a higher purpose to communicate something, I will do anything. Then I have no shame.”
Her most controversial project was VBSouthSudan, which created outrage from the Black Artists Association and eventually led to the breakdown of her marriage. The most prominent piece of work was a photo where she posed in a Catholic church in Sudan like the Virgin Mary, breastfeeding Sudanese Twins.
White Madonna with Twins, 2006.
It began when Beecroft read an article in the newspaper on a plane to Italy and was deeply moved by the violent situation in Darfur. She had a plan to make a documentary, but ended up staying in South Sudan where she came across Madit and Mongor Akot; Sudanese twins who were severely malnourished. As she had been breastfeeding her own child prior to her visit, she offered her breast milk to them in the hope to help them. However, this apparent act of kindness became the beginning of a new art project and quickly spun out of control.
Her attachment for these children grew whilst she was nursing them, and she decided that she wanted to adopt them, in the hope to give them a better life. Pietra Brettkelly, the director of “The Art Star and the Sudanese Twins” said that Beecroft was an odd, interesting character, but it did seem that her love for the twins was genuine.
The adoption was made known to Beecroft’s husband after she found out that she could only adopt them with his consent. He disagreed because he believed it was not ethical to take a child away from their own culture, and that it spoke of the kind of adoption in the media – like Angelina Jolie and Madonna. Beecroft believed that this would really be a better way for them, and that she was creating a relationship with the community. But is it better for these children to be taken to a new country and offered a life with a wealthy white celebrity? Or, as Beecroft’s now ex-husband Greg Durkin felt, is it just a shortcut that misses the real, underlying problem? I personally agree with Durkin, that more long term aid needs to be offered to fight the poverty; saving two children may be a good thing for them, but it is the community as a whole that needs help. In the end, the adoption did not go through because the twins’ father turned up.
The film reveals the conflict between the Sudanese community and Beecroft’s artwork. In one scene, a Sudanese woman is angry that they are ‘collaborating with the whites’ to which Beecroft is left exasperated, asking, “What are you doing?...These people!”
It appears that Beecroft had a very simplistic way of looking at things- she wanted to help these children and claimed to love the community, yet her attitude towards the community suggests that her main purpose was for the sake of art; “I really enjoyed this criticism. It is what I work for. I want people to exercise their thoughts, and I provoke with this image… So I was happy with this reaction. That is part of my work. To create a little bit of irritation for the audience.”
It begs the question, if Beecroft's first priority is her artwork, does she really care about the issues she is dealing with? Does she want to shock so that her fame rises, or does she want to help the people she is using in her artwork?
Vanessa Beecroft has used immigrants in her artwork and caused controversy over her provocative style of working. Her works, such as VB61 and VB65 seem quite harmless on the surface; the former, titled ‘Still Death! Darfur Still Deaf?’ was a performance to raise awareness of the genocide happening in Sudan and the latter was a performance to reveal prejudices against Africans, especially from the Milanese bourgeoisie.
VB61 Still Death! Darfur Still Deaf?VB65However, due to her self-indulgent attitude towards her artwork, her motives are questionable. She has admitted herself to being tormented, from an ethical point of view, as to whether or not she exploits her subjects. Her success seems to be more important to her than her dignity, “If an image has a higher purpose to communicate something, I will do anything. Then I have no shame.”
Her most controversial project was VBSouthSudan, which created outrage from the Black Artists Association and eventually led to the breakdown of her marriage. The most prominent piece of work was a photo where she posed in a Catholic church in Sudan like the Virgin Mary, breastfeeding Sudanese Twins.
White Madonna with Twins, 2006.It began when Beecroft read an article in the newspaper on a plane to Italy and was deeply moved by the violent situation in Darfur. She had a plan to make a documentary, but ended up staying in South Sudan where she came across Madit and Mongor Akot; Sudanese twins who were severely malnourished. As she had been breastfeeding her own child prior to her visit, she offered her breast milk to them in the hope to help them. However, this apparent act of kindness became the beginning of a new art project and quickly spun out of control.
Her attachment for these children grew whilst she was nursing them, and she decided that she wanted to adopt them, in the hope to give them a better life. Pietra Brettkelly, the director of “The Art Star and the Sudanese Twins” said that Beecroft was an odd, interesting character, but it did seem that her love for the twins was genuine.
The adoption was made known to Beecroft’s husband after she found out that she could only adopt them with his consent. He disagreed because he believed it was not ethical to take a child away from their own culture, and that it spoke of the kind of adoption in the media – like Angelina Jolie and Madonna. Beecroft believed that this would really be a better way for them, and that she was creating a relationship with the community. But is it better for these children to be taken to a new country and offered a life with a wealthy white celebrity? Or, as Beecroft’s now ex-husband Greg Durkin felt, is it just a shortcut that misses the real, underlying problem? I personally agree with Durkin, that more long term aid needs to be offered to fight the poverty; saving two children may be a good thing for them, but it is the community as a whole that needs help. In the end, the adoption did not go through because the twins’ father turned up.
The film reveals the conflict between the Sudanese community and Beecroft’s artwork. In one scene, a Sudanese woman is angry that they are ‘collaborating with the whites’ to which Beecroft is left exasperated, asking, “What are you doing?...These people!”
It appears that Beecroft had a very simplistic way of looking at things- she wanted to help these children and claimed to love the community, yet her attitude towards the community suggests that her main purpose was for the sake of art; “I really enjoyed this criticism. It is what I work for. I want people to exercise their thoughts, and I provoke with this image… So I was happy with this reaction. That is part of my work. To create a little bit of irritation for the audience.”
It begs the question, if Beecroft's first priority is her artwork, does she really care about the issues she is dealing with? Does she want to shock so that her fame rises, or does she want to help the people she is using in her artwork?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)