Xenophobia

[beccatoria]

It seems that the moral panic regarding foreigners that is currently gripping the nation (oh, okay, let's face it, the panic that's always gripped the nation) takes hold in one of two ways:

1) ZOMG all the foreigners are STEALING OUR JOBS!

2) ZOMG all the foreigners are moving here and loafing off the welfare state and REFUSING TO GET JOBS!

It's funniest when you hear both viewpoints from the same person within minutes of each other, but I admit, it also makes me weep for stupidity.

Is it too much to ask for internal consistancy in our bigotry?!

Comments

Ooh, do you get these, too?

[hmpf.livejournal.com]

These are the dominant flavours of xenophobia in Germany:

1.) Foreigners = muslims.
2.) Islam is not a religion but a fascist ideology; hence muslim foreigners are trying to take over our country and destroy our democracy (by building mosques and breeding like rabbits). They'll introduce the sharia in a little while.

Yes, it makes me want to weep, too. *sigh* One of the most annoying little details of current German xenophobia is the newfangled dirty word "Gutmensch" (= "good person"). This is used by the xenophobes to deride anyone who doesn't panic at the thought of there being a significant muslim minority in Germany - in the eyes of the xenophobes, such "Gutmenschen" are dangerously and inexcusably naive, of course, and frequently compared to pre-WW2 politicians who didn't take Hitler seriously enough.

(As for foreigners stealing British jobs... well... that's kind of true, in my case! At least I have every intention to try. Mwahahaha!)

Re: Ooh, do you get these, too?

[beccatoria.livejournal.com]

In Britain we have the islamophobia too, but we also have a massive, massive moral panic brewing about eastern europeans due to the new EU member countries. And it's true; there's a massive influx of Eastern European people especially from Poland and I suppose there are immigration and employment issues but the fear and xenophobia that goes with it are...worrying.

I can't think of the exact english equivalent but your talk of 'gutmensch' really resonates. It's...horrible really, the way words like 'good' and 'liberal' get compromised to be derogatory. It's ludicrous. And scary.

(As for foreigners stealing British jobs... well... that's kind of true, in my case! At least I have every intention to try. Mwahahaha!)

Hooray!

And it's certainly true of my mother, she's not British and even I'm technically an immigrant. But it seems that my mother, being educated, middle-class and american, doesn't count in this sort of situation...

[spiralsheep.livejournal.com]

Logical fallacies 1, intelligent thought 0.

I had one this morning: "Foreigners are coming here to work and stealing our NHS thus putting an unbearable strain on the NHS."

To which I replied: "The NHS employs an unusually high percentage of foreign workers because British people won't do those jobs for that pay. If you prevent foreign workers from coming here to work in the NHS then we wouldn't have an NHS any more."

I note that "foreigners" are also "coming over here" and "stealing" "our" women in Sarah Jane Adventures cos Maria's unforgivable-because-she-has-a-sex-life mum dates Ivan and Carlos.

[beccatoria.livejournal.com]

Do you work for the NHS too? Cool.

A colleague was complaining that she couldn't understand what her doctor was saying the other day. To an extent I sympathise because this is her health and perhaps in that sort of worrying situation she may not be inclined to spare the extra attention necessary to understand someone who's accent she finds difficult.

But as you say, without foreign workers the NHS couldn't function. Not just in terms of manual labour but also the extremely high percentage of foreign doctors who work for the NHS. And without massive extra funding and recruitment drives and training, that's not a situation that will change.

The whole thing is...self-defeating because we create our own underclass (or super-class in the case of highly trained individuals who we'll still resent just as much) who we're dependent on and hate at the same time. And I think that's what I hate most about the situation. Not that someone's noticing the increased amount of foreign labour, or commenting on the changes in demographics or employment practices it may bring, but the utter lack of sane discussion. The lack of an attempt to even try to put aside prejudices or fears and take a look at things rationally.

The lack of any self-awareness and the acceptance of two-bit rhetoric and cheesy soundbites as fact. We always seem to need scapegoats, right?

I note that "foreigners" are also "coming over here" and "stealing" "our" women in Sarah Jane Adventures cos Maria's unforgivable-because-she-has-a-sex-life mum dates Ivan and Carlos.

Ha! Good point. I'd be more inclined to say that Maria's mum's unforgiveable because she's self-centred and childish, but the point is probably that a major illustration of those character points is that she dares to have a sex life. Hadn't noticed the foreign-boyfriend connection, though.

Mind you, at first, I wondered if Ivan was a mangled version of Ifan, since RTD loves dropping welsh names these days. Realistically, though, probably not. He's probably tall, dark, handsome and stealing our jobs and women.

I'm behind on the SJAdventures though. Last one I saw was where Clyde and Luke where whisked off to Child Soldier land and SJ made it rain gold stuff. I keep meaning to watch part two...

[spiralsheep.livejournal.com]

I don't work for the NHS but that doesn't seem to prevent addle-pated Telegraph-readers repeating bullshit about the NHS at me. Woe.

without foreign workers the NHS couldn't function. Not just in terms of manual labour but also the extremely high percentage of foreign doctors who work for the NHS.

Which, of course, also means we're brain-draining countries with less healthy economies of their skilled workers who they (usually) paid to train.

Not that someone's noticing the increased amount of foreign labour, or commenting on the changes in demographics or employment practices it may bring, but the utter lack of sane discussion. The lack of an attempt to even try to put aside prejudices or fears and take a look at things rationally.

Because the people who own and run the media don't want sensible discussion because they don't want ordinary working Brits to stop being phobic (literally irrational and illogical) about "foreigners" and realise that ordinary working people the world over are being deliberately pitted against each other for the benefit of their already rich and privileged bosses because that's what capitalism does.

I'd be more inclined to say that Maria's mum's unforgiveable because she's self-centred and childish, but the point is probably that a major illustration of those character points is that she dares to have a sex life.

Yes, but WHY is she being depicted as selfish? Because she didn't stay in an unsatisfying relationship with a white male AND because he can only be made to look good by writing the woman who left him as an unreasonable baddie which, frankly, doesn't say much for him as a character were apparently supposed to admire and with whom white men are presumably supposed to identify [insert standard patriarchal stereotypes are bad for men too rant here].

[beccatoria.livejournal.com]

Icon <3!

Which, of course, also means we're brain-draining countries with less healthy economies of their skilled workers who they (usually) paid to train.

Nonsense! Don't you know that they're all terrorists who've come to the UK for the SOLE purpose of bombing our hospitals?!

(But yes, the NHS is untenable in an economically fair world which terrifies me because free health care is a massively important issue to me.)

Because the people who own and run the media don't want sensible discussion because they don't want ordinary working Brits to stop being phobic (literally irrational and illogical) about "foreigners" and realise that ordinary working people the world over are being deliberately pitted against each other for the benefit of their already rich and privileged bosses because that's what capitalism does.

1 - at least our media hasn't degenerated to the level of Fox News (though you're better placed to comment on that than me; I may be living in blissful ignorance)

2 - ANARCHY!!!

Yes, but WHY is she being depicted as selfish? Because she didn't stay in an unsatisfying relationship with a white male AND because he can only be made to look good by writing the woman who left him as an unreasonable baddie which, frankly, doesn't say much for him as a character were apparently supposed to admire and with whom white men are presumably supposed to identify [insert standard patriarchal stereotypes are bad for men too rant here].

Your points have merit; I'm certainly not going to dispute them in the context of Maria's dad versus Maria's mum. I'd add to that that I'm not sure if Maria's dad's character is progressive as a male caretaker or if we've now come to a point where the desireability of sensitive, domesticated man is acceptable to the point where it's another stereotype?

But to answer your question as to why I think Maria's mum is being depicted as selfish, from a perspective it has nothing to do with her leaving Maria's dad, or even the fact that Maria lives with her dad. It's got to do with how Maria's mum behaves towards Maria. There are sweet moments and I was quite affected by her speech to Maria's dad's statue about how she knows she screws things up. But she...doesn't pay attention to her daughter, she wants her daughter to give attention to her and I don't have a lot of sympathy for that sort of behaviour from parents. Especially when her daughter is crying out for attention.

Now, if the question is why the writers chose to make Maria's mum that sort of character, I'm on shakier ground and it may well be to make various other characters look good/the writers succumbing to all sorts of stereotypes.

But I'm reasonably secure in stating that my reasons for 'disliking' her (in quotation marks because I quite enjoy the character I just don't think she's a good parent) rest squarely with her treatment of Maria and not her decision to leave Alan, shack up with someone new, or not assume joint custody of her kid.

[spiralsheep.livejournal.com]

chronographia made me the F.O. (facist oppressors, natch ;-) ) icon after a conversation in her lj.

Nonsense! Don't you know that they're all terrorists who've come to the UK for the SOLE purpose of bombing our hospitals?!

I'd be more inclined towards being impressed by the 'brown people r ebil bommers' rhetoric if I was unaware of the three decades long white racist bombing campaign against brown people in Britain which the police resolutely insist isn't terrorism and the government don't devote any resources to preventing and the media never discuss at great length (blaming the white community because someone must've known in advance, and the police have found hate literature in places where white people gather, and it's part of white culture to be intolerant etc etc etc).

But yes, the NHS is untenable in an economically fair world which terrifies me because free health care is a massively important issue to me.

I disagree. I would also claim it's impossible to have an economically fair world without health care for all. :-)

Now, if the question is why the writers chose to make Maria's mum that sort of character, I'm on shakier ground and it may well be to make various other characters look good/the writers succumbing to all sorts of stereotypes.

Hmm, I almost never analyse characters from an in-story perspective because they have no agency so it seems pointless to me. The characters do whatever the writers make them do. When I live in an egalitarian world where women and non-white characters are routinely treated as well/badly as white male characters in the popular fiction of my place of residence then I'll consider trying a non-meta perspective. Until then I'll merely roll my eyes at in-story justifications of why we're supposed to hate the non-white and/or women characters (duh, because the writers chose to write them that way). ::shrugs::

Part 1!

[beccatoria.livejournal.com]

Curse you for making me think! There's two parts to this. I've put the part about textual interpretation and external intent in a separate comment as I exceeded the character limit!

I'd be more inclined towards being impressed by the 'brown people r ebil bommers' rhetoric if I was unaware of the three decades long white racist bombing campaign against brown people

This sounds horrifying. What's worse is that I'm not even sure what you're talking about - though I assume it's to do with the nazi-by-any-other-name BNP and their various violences?

Either way, do you have any educational links to this subject?

I disagree. I would also claim it's impossible to have an economically fair world without health care for all. :-)

Ugh - failed to explain myself!

I also believe that it's possible to have an economically fair world and that a key part of that would be health care for all. I have to believe that or I might go mad. What I don't believe is that our current model of health care and economics can provide that; and we seem to be either claiming it's not our responsibility (political right) or claiming that it can and beating their head against a brick wall trying (political left).

1a

[spiralsheep.livejournal.com]

This sounds horrifying. What's worse is that I'm not even sure what you're talking about - though I assume it's to do with the nazi-by-any-other-name BNP and their various violences? Either way, do you have any educational links to this subject?

I'm not sure I can have this conversation intelligently because I find it difficult to condense three decades of information into a manageable introduction, especially as even merely thinking about writing this comment makes me veer wildly between being extremely upset, feeling physically sick, futile flailing and absolute rage. So, let's try some random googling and see what's easily verifiable.

1. As far as I know, there isn't a website or a group of sites which cover this. Which doesn't surprise me at all. What would be the point? Most non-white people already know the realities of racist violence and most white people don't want to know (I have to assume that because I don't see any other way these things could be removed from the collective British memory and history).

2. You have to understand that there have always been some white British people who're violently racist. I'm only talking about bombing because the society I live in seems obsessed at the moment with trying to use bombing as an excuse for its violent hatred of non-white people (and therefore a justification for pre-emptive white racist violence).

3. The worst year I can think of is 1981. I can remember, without googling, 18 people killed in three separate racist bombings. In January, 13 black young people were killed in a firebombing in New Cross. The police denied it was a racist attack even though several other homes and a black community centre in the same area had also recently been attacked (still no convictions). At least 15,000 people marched ten miles through London to protest, including down Fleet Street (where the newspaper offices were at the time). Their slogan was "13 dead, nothing said". In July, Parveen Khan and her three children were killed in a racist firebombing in Walthamstow. In the same year a disabled Sikh woman was also murdered when her home in Leeds was firebombed.

It makes me angry to note that Parveen Khan has 3 google hits, and one of those is a clone page, while Blair Peach (white man killed a day later in anti-racist protests) has 1660 google hits. Yes, Blair Peach deserves to be remembered and, yes, he was killed by the police but I bet if I googled for any non-white Brit killed by the police they'd have far fewer remembrances (I exclude Jean Charles de Menezes because he was Brazilian so there is international pressure).

4. 2006 was a distinct improvement although unfortunately NOT because there were fewer racist bombings but because contemporary security and fire-safety technology has made it more difficult to kill people with homemade firebombs. The demographics of racist bombing have changed though, almost all the victims are now of Asian origin and one of the perpetrators was black. This change is imo mostly caused by Islamophobia (literally unreasonable and illogical fear) promoted in the British media. In June, Khizar Hyat and Hamidullah Hamidi were killed by a firebomb attack on a shop in London. The first page of google results (ten results) also brought up, within a few weeks, 3 more shop bombings around the UK, a car bomb in Carshalton, and the racist bombing of a dairy in Windsor.

1b

[spiralsheep.livejournal.com]

5. When I used the word "campaign" in my above comment I was parodying the media attempts to attack British Muslim communities. There isn't, in either case imo, an organised campaign. I was mostly using parody to point out that everything the media says about Muslims can equally truly be said about white people and/or Christians. That having been said, however, there are some obvious connections between racist politics in Britain and racist violence, including racist bombings. The first page of google hits (ten results) searching for BNP bombers brings up:

5a. BNP supporter Stuart Kerr was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment for the racist firebombing of a shop in Chichester.

5b. Former BNP member David Copeland was sentenced to six life sentences after planting bombs which killed people in London in 1999. He claimed he was trying to start a race war.

5c. BNP activist, Mark Bulman, was sentenced to 5 years in January 2007 for attempting to firebomb a mosque using a BNP leaflet as a fuse.

5d. Robert Cottage, three times BNP candidate, was imprisoned in 2007 for having stockpiled chemicals, bomb-making equipment, and rocket launchers.

The police vehemently deny that Copeland and Cottage are terrorists. The same police have, of course, repeatedly falsely claimed that innocent British Muslims are terrorists.

....

What I don't believe is that our current model of health care and economics can provide that

I did actually guess you meant that and was sort of poking you with internet sticks, heh.

Re: 1b

[beccatoria.livejournal.com]

Thank you for taking the time to try and explain something so difficult and emotionally charged for you.

I also know a little bit more about what you're talking about now that I understand you're discussing a non-centralised 'campaign' (though I do think that campaign is an appropriate descriptor because the end result is the same even if the architect is racist cultural pressure from disparate sources rather than a single organisation or individual) and the general media blackout on such things, rather than some named campaign I hadn't heard of.

That said, while I had some vague understanding that there was a media blackout on a lot of racial violence, your catalogue is a real eye opener as to the extent. In particular I'm shocked by the disparity in google hits between Khan and Peach.

Similarly, I do have vague memories of reading articles this year about the arrests regarding the BNP members making bombs, but had no idea anyone was actually contesting this wasn't terrorism.

But...I'm just repeating things at you now. So I guess while I'm in the business of repetition; thanks again for your time and thought in providing this information.

It's always good to be informed and this issue will certainly be much higher on my radar in future.

I hope I didn't cause your blood pressure to rise too much by having to think about it. Fury, while in this instance utterly justified, is an exhausting emotion.

Part 2!

[beccatoria.livejournal.com]

As promised!

Hmm, I almost never analyse characters from an in-story perspective because they have no agency so it seems pointless to me.

This isn't a point of view I disagree with or one I can really argue against. But I'll try to explain my POV because it's an integral part of how I interact with stories, though I never seem to be able to explain it satisfactorally. *frustration*

I think what I'd say is that I read texts in two ways. There's the out-of-universe-reflection-of-society-intentions-of-writers way and the in-the-story-what-it-means-to-me-and-damn-the-writers'-intentions way.

And these two ways sort of co-exist as I'm reading through a text and which one has dominance at any time depends on a lot of complex issues; like how attached I am to my reading of the situation; how utterly blatant and fourth-wall-breaking real-world biases are; whether I think factoring in the intentions of the author will increase my enjoyment, or whether I think factoring in the intentions of the author will lead to an important observation about the show's biases that is deserving of commentary.

The two ways of reading aren't exclusive of each other but they do represent two warring sides of my relationship with stories.

There's the side that, like you, recognises that a character has no agency and really is merely an extension of the author's conscious or subconscious desires. Then there's the side that denies the author has any agency in the story once it's been handed to me because then I'm the one doing the reading and the creating and there's more power to that than is commonly accepted.

I think I might have developed my love of 'screw authorial intent' from Star Wars fandom. Because there you have to learn that, or you'd go insane. But if you master it, it's full of some of the most beautiful stories I've ever read, watched or listened to.

Which isn't to say I'm blind to the fact that the Star Wars and its expanded universe have lashings of sexism and racism, or to say I haven't started long and nearly uncontrollable threads re: some of these issues in the forum I go to. (Though this is something I'm sure I don't need to explain to you as you're far more on the ball than I am regarding these sorts of things but you still really enjoy parts of shows that may include these issues, i.e. Doctor Who).

As perhaps the clearest example I can currently think of of ignoring authorial intent, I'll choose modern BSG. I think that the show is trying to tell me that Adama is an awesome commander and father figure and head of Teh Patriarchy, but I can't buy it because everything I see (and am, I'm sure, reading 'wrong'), tells me he's a douchebag who fucked up his family once and is now doing it again and is constantly enabled by his surrogate daughter who'd die for him because she was abused as a child as is desperate for parental love. Which he'll offer her - encourage her to regard him as a parent - but then shy away from the harder parts of parental responsibility and actually helping her heal.

But as a story of Starbuck the broken kid and Adama the incapable parent, I think it works brilliantly and heartbreakingly and coherently and so I figure, who really gives a shit what the writer meant.

But then in SW at the moment - where I'm usually great at the above sort of thing - I've yet to find an explaination for where the brown people are that doesn't smack of unignorable racism. Or a satisfactory explaination for why pretty much every non-extra and major victim of horrific violence, murder or mutilation in the latest book series has been a woman.

Which, to get back to Maria's mum, leaves me in a shaky no-man's land as I haven't decided from which end of this spectrum to approach her.

Perhaps what I'm really doing is deciding if the author's intentions are stupid, I'll go with my own? Because that's the most empowering way I can think of to fight the situation? To go back to the text, and just the text, and say, hey, you realise that's not what's there at all, right? You realise that in the story you wrote, Clyde is teh awesome and it's only SJ that's uncomfortable with that?

Re: Part 2!

[spiralsheep.livejournal.com]

There's the out-of-universe-reflection-of-society-intentions-of-writers way and the in-the-story-what-it-means-to-me-and-damn-the-writers'-intentions way.

AKA Doylist and Watsonian (terms which have escaped from Sherlock Holmes criticism).

I'm the one doing the reading and the creating and there's more power to that than is commonly accepted.

As I always point out to the slashers, I can pretend a straight character is gay but I can't make a woman be a man or a white person be a person of colour (or vice versa).

Perhaps what I'm really doing is deciding if the author's intentions are stupid, I'll go with my own? Because that's the most empowering way I can think of to fight the situation? To go back to the text, and just the text, and say, hey, you realise that's not what's there at all, right? You realise that in the story you wrote, Clyde is teh awesome and it's only SJ that's uncomfortable with that?

I understand that and manage to do it myself sometimes (because if I didn't then I'd have to completely reject almost all the fiction my culture produces) but the two layers of difficulty increase my natural tendency to be Doylist. :-)

Re: Part 2!

[beccatoria.livejournal.com]

AKA Doylist and Watsonian (terms which have escaped from Sherlock Holmes criticism).

Haha! Awesome terms.

As I always point out to the slashers, I can pretend a straight character is gay but I can't make a woman be a man or a white person be a person of colour (or vice versa).

Which is a great point. Though while it's easier it's also not always possible when characters you're pretending are gay end up shacked up with people of the opposite gender. Still it's at least possible and it's easier to believe there are deliberate hints towards that. And it's not something you can do with gender and race.

I suppose my response would be that while you can't pretend a woman is a man or a white person is a person of colour, what our role as creators does allow us to do (in a limited capacity) is reinterpret the roles of the women and characters of colour that there are into more positive representations/more important roles.

Though I fully accept that this is a limited ability and is more limited than doing something similar for an oppressed group which does not have any visual distinctions, like gay people.

I also accept that it doesn't make it right or mean that it's not important to point it out and complain about it; as I said, there are times when the Doylist in me wins out and even when it doesn't, I'm aware of it and willing to acknowledge that there's importance in discussing the Doylist perspective even if it's not the one I'm primarily experiencing at the moment I'm reading the text.

But I do still think that there's more power given to the reader even in these situations than is commonly accepted.

I understand that and manage to do it myself sometimes (because if I didn't then I'd have to completely reject almost all the fiction my culture produces) but the two layers of difficulty increase my natural tendency to be Doylist. :-)

Yes. There comes a time when you have to reclaim or reject, and there comes a point when rejecting means there's...nearly nothing left.

And I appreciate your natural Doylist tendencies greatly; I'd miss a lot of great discussion if they weren't prevalent. :)

[madenglishbloke.livejournal.com]

the unfortunate thing here is when BOTH statements are simultaneously true - when all the available jobs are being taken by immigrants, AND there are shedloads of immigrants coming in and living on benefits with no intention of getting a job.

its got to the stage round here where the newly-arrived populace are going for jobs at a far lower wage than the natives - a lot of employers are employing cheap immigrant labour, and laying off the more expensive british workers - british, in this case meaning anyone who was demanding a fair wage, never mind ethnic origin or religion.
several of the buisnesses here are run by asian muslims - previously, it was rare for them to employ someone of a non-muslim background, now they are only employing eastern europeans who will accept far less than anyone else for doing the same job.

[beccatoria.livejournal.com]

It's certainly true that there's a huge increase in Eastern European workers moving to the UK. Heck, the fact that the local cinema shows Polish films, and the whole Polish prostitute living in the basement underneath my flat debacle prove that.

I think what worries me, though, is that everyone's so busy panicking about losing out on work or paying for the unemployed that a lot of the real and uncomfortable implications of the situation are lost.

For instance - as I touched on above - what I worry we're really dealing with is the emergence of a new underclass. People willing to work in poor conditions for poor pay without complaint - which reflects badly on our economy because it's not robust enough to either function without those workers or to pay them a fair wage - and said underclass is in a perfect position to remain that way indefinitely because it's already feared and blamed for its own position. So we neither fix our own economic situation nor prevent a rather nasty turn in our own social structure.

As I also said above it's not so much that people dare notice a major shift or comment on it or try to proactively work out the best course for future immigration policy (all of which are necessary), it's the increasing panic and the increasingly nasty undertones and the increasing acceptance of baldly racist and/or xenophobic comments that worries me. It's those things in place of discussion, or masquerading as discussion that frightens me.

At least, that's been my perception lately. Anything less than condemnation seems to be equated with absolute naivety and...I miss discussions where extremes weren't foregone conclusions?

I don't know. The world is awfully complicated. And I doubt that'll change.

[nightxade.livejournal.com]

Is it too much to ask for internal consistancy in our bigotry?!

true dat.