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.

Web design

Although not to do with our chosen specialism of language, I believe this is an interesting finding in our research.

Barack Obama's Official Website

The British National Party's Official Website

Its 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?

Obama - The Expected Victory

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

Question Time - Thursday 22nd October 2009

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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

• 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

http://www.visaportal.com/images/resident_alien_card.jpg

• Since 1989 - (US Permanent Resident Card) expiration date, renew every 10 years, more secure card (presumably reason for reissue)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/GC_Altered.JPG

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 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.

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?