The White Woman's Burden: Sweatshops and Contemporary Colonialism

Sustainable clothes are having a moment in the sun at present, which is something that has needed to happen for years. However, the emphasis has remained mainly on the environmental and ecological impact of fast fashion, with companies like H&M and New Look green-washing some of their lines to use less dye, and organic produce. Nevertheless, these companies are still perpetuating disgusting models of work in their use of sweat shops, and we need to fight against this use of sweated labour. White feminism's justification that the women working in sweat shops are better off because of this employment than they would be without it was created to justify enslavement and colonialism. Without an anti-colonial, anti-capitalist critique of the modern world, feminsim on a day like International Women's Day largely focuses on the wants of white women in the Western world. Though it's nice to dress all cute and feel good on a day that celebrates women and how far we have come in the past century, posting pics of the beautiful women in our life, whilst we are dressed in clothes, wearing makeup and using technology that has a clear line of racist and sexist exploitation of women in developing countries in Asia and Africa, is not productive and is the height of White Feminism.

 I have used the term the White Woman's Burden. Unlike Kipling's poem which shows the harsh, masculine world of colonialism and enforced governmental control (which also still continues today), the White Woman's Burden in the contemporary world is the justification of this exploitation in the fast fashion industry that the female workers in sweat shops are better off with this form of employment. This inherently undermines any agency to these women of colour, and perpetuates the myth that European, modern people are better at controlling economies and governments.

And I do see the line of thought here. Any job is better than no job. However, this argument has been produced for centuries, and was seen as one of the rebuttals produced by pro-slavery advocates against abolition. The idea was, without the institution of slavery, the enslaved people of African descent, thousands of miles from their homeland, would not have a place to work, and so were better off enslaved in an American plantation. And the idea today, is that without the system of sweated labour to produce disposable items for the enjoyment of Westerners, people in these developing countries would have no work. The chance of people working to fulfill their own needs and desires, rather than the desires of the capitalist Western world? Impossible.

In reality, people are not better off because you bought into the capitalist advertisement for a one pound bikini, or some luxury good. In case you didn't know, places outside of the Western world ruled themselves pretty well before European colonial powers came and started exploiting everyone everywhere. Pre-colonial African and Asian history is filled with cases of great civilizations with beautiful architecture, brilliant academics and religious teachers - with trade across the Sahara, across the Indian ocean and across the Mediterranean. News flash: People of colour do not need the help of white people to run a country successfully! In fact, the intervention of Europeans into the economies and politics of other countries has actually caused much more damage than benefit.

In Walter Rodney's brilliant work How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, he articulates the history of Africa prior to European exploitation, and how the intervention of European colonial powers stunted African development. In forcing subsistence agricultural economies to switch towards a capitalist cash-crop model, European colonial powers helped to create more instances of famine, and hinder indigenous economic growth in favour of European financial gain. Though we often read a work like this in the context of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, it is necessary to view the contemporary world through this history. European underdevelopment of other nations is still happening across the world today. The laptop I am currently writing on has a high probability of being related to underdevelopment, child slavery and sweat shops, from the mining of the minerals needed to create it, to its construction in a factory. The same with my phone, my makeup and my jewellery.

The fast fashion industry is also inherently a part of this system of underdevelopment and exploitation. And the justification that the workers in sweat shops need this form of employment is a derogatory statement, borne out of the white supremacist beliefs that justified the development of European Empires. Though most countries have been granted political independence from these empires, the economic system is still booming, and we cannot continue to justify this mistreatment of people around the world in favour of a white supremacist economic system.

This International Womens's Day, please think less of the needs of White Feminism, like treating yourself to a cute bodycon, or a nice necklace, and rather, integrate socialist, anti-colonial and anti-racist thinking into your worldview. It is a hard task to fight the lure of capitalist advertisement and completely change your buying habits so that you are not harming anyone in the process. Even if you shopped solely in charity shops, the scandal of the sexual exploitation by Oxfam workers demonstrates that this is not a morally pure act. I am not asking you to be perfect in your purchasing habits, because by all means, I am not. However, we need to continue to resist the white supremacist beliefs that fill contemporary justifications for the global economic system which places colonial, white powers like Western Europe and the U.S. at the top. This International Women's day, look at your shopping habits, your political mindset, and focus on the word international. We live in an inter-connected world, and we live in an exploitative, capitalist world. So though your purchasing habits might seem like a self-care treat, try to remember that you are not the only woman affected in this process. From a utilitarian philosophical model, you are probably doing more harm than good if you are buying from a fast-fashion business.

I really do not think wearing the sweat and tears of a woman of colour who is struggling to feed her family is a good look. Fight against capitalism, resist colonialism and educate others this International Woman's Day. We can change this abominable system of sweated labour. And we will.

Britishness, Alienation and Discrimination: The Jamaica50 and the War on Drugs

A year and a half ago, I was sat in a car, in North Dublin, with my family, discussing the so-called "Windrush Scandal" of 2018. Disbelief was the main feeling, how could Britain be deporting people of colour, who have spent their whole adult, and most of their adolescent lives in the UK, back to countries in which they are strangers? Luckily, there was huge outrage and criticism of these actions, yet in the years since, we have continually seen the Conservative governments attempt to alienate people of colour in order to continue the Hostile Environment policy. In recent years, I've also become more aware of the inherent racism and white supremacy within the British state, every day becoming more normalised to this form of discrimination. Nevertheless, the recent representation of the Jamaica50 as a group of hard criminals with no reason to be in the UK is the most recent case of clear racism and stereotyping of a group of people with Caribbean heritage, and made me furious. Johnson has been making statements all his life. We know he is scared of black people, and now, he is using his power to continue the unjust, discriminatory Hostile Environment, and appoint advisors who are advocates of eugenics. Unfortunately, in 2020, people are still viewing Britishness as Whiteness.

Though the UK has a problem with wrongful deportations, causing many people to face danger, human trafficking and violence, the planned deportations of the Jamaica 50 were not only wrong in this respect. The rhetoric surrounding the deportees painted them all as evil criminals, who were a threat to the British way of life. In a somewhat similar manner to the treatment of Shamima Begum (though she had committed worse offences than these people, so it's not all that similar), the Home Office has continued to alienate people of colour. Further, the UK is using the War on Drugs to perpetuate the racist criminalisation and alienation of people of colour.

The police strategy of Stop and Search is one way in which the British state perpetuates this system of oppression, with black people 8.4 times more likely to be stopped and searched than their white counterparts. Similarly, black people are 11.8 times and Asian people 2.4 times more likely to be convicted for cannabis possession than white people. In Tanzil Chowdhury's study of the War on Drugs in the UK, he discussed how the policing of drugs places much more focus on the policing of people of colour, than it does middle-class white people, seen through the difference in policing of Notting Hill Carnival, compared to the Secret Garden Party, despite much more drugs, and probably drugs of a higher class, being consumed at the Secret Garden Party. Thus, this demonstrates that the policing of the War on Drugs discriminates against people of colour. The War on Drugs and the deportation of the Jamaica 50 is part of this discriminatory practice, to present people of colour as criminal aliens who are unwelcome in the white state of the UK.

In an attempt to distance the deportees from British values, Rishi Sunak, at the time chief secretary to the treasury, now Chancellor of the Exchequer, told Sky News: “The people on this plane are people who have committed very serious crimes, whether it’s rape, manslaughter, murder." Yet, if we look at some of the people who were planned to be deported, it becomes clear that these people are not dangerous criminals, but rather, people of colour who have made mistakes, served their time, and are being given extra punishment.

Tajay Thompson, one of the victims of the planned deportation, who arrived in the UK at 5 years old, was convicted at 17 of a drugs offence, and has already served his sentence. He told Sky News, "It's not like I'm a rapist or a murderer, I've made a mistake when I was 17 and now it's going to affect my whole life". Yet, a Junior Home Office Minister has argued that "It is criminality which matter, not nationality". This in itself demonstrates the inherent problem: criminality is crucial to the maintenance of the race-class discrimination, and the current British system favours rich white people whilst penalising people of colour, like Tajay Thompson, much more than it would a white middle-class guy selling pills on the dark web.

Pick any day in the past 500 years, and you will probably find some prevalence of this stereotyping of people of colour. Presenting black men as dangerous criminals or drug dealers, with a rampant sexuality that threatens the vulnerable white British women has been a strategy for upholding Britain's system of white supremacy for centuries. Fortunately, there are some changes, but we need them to happen a lot faster than the current pace to ensure this racist discrimination is finally put to bed.

Over 170 MPs and Peers signed a letter Nadia Whittome MP wrote to the government, addressing the issues with the deportation of the Jamaica50, and some of the deportations have been halted due to a legal issue, showing that there is some hope. Despite the resistance to the Home Office discrimination growing, we simultaneously are experiencing a rise in apathy towards these issues. The Prime Minister was elected, either because of, or despite, his discriminatory comments, painting black men as something to be scared of at night, and using racist language. Despite some liberal acceptance of people of colour, we need to radically change our understanding of the UK as an isolated island that is inherently white.

Jem Wharton: Black British Boxer

Despite the country being so proud of the Empire, Britain still needs to come to terms with it's history of exploitation. In some respects, I do see this changing, with David Olusoga's documentaries on Black Britain that are shown on the BBC highlighting the long history and relationship Britain has had with Africa and people of African descent. Raising awareness about this history, and showing how in the eighteenth century, historians estimate there were between 10,000-15,000 black people living in England, could help to change people's views. Additionally, other aspects of public history are changing, with many London museums accommodating spaces for people of colour.

Yinka Shonibare Showcase

Despite many London museums remaining ignorant to the appropriation and exploitation inherent in many of their objects, a display by Yinka Shonibare CBE in the Tate Modern portraying the large cultural developments of first and second generation immigrants into Britain through a large bookcase with all of their literary works demonstrates the growth of acceptance of people of colour in Britain. These works were covered in Dutch fabric that was created to imitate Indonesian fabrics, thus showing the long history of cultural syncretism and appropriation that European cultures often ignore. Additionally, the National Potrait Gallery has displays of great black people crucial to British history and culture, including Zadie Smith, Sir Bill Morris, Jem Wharton and Mary Sea Cole. Yet, the display of Stormzy, almost haphazardly placed next to two white statues, was bittersweet. In 2017, the rapper's house was raided after his neighbours thought he did not belong there. Has British society changed that much in three years that we have come from raiding a popular musician's yard to having him accepted into the pantheon of great British people? In some circles, maybe. But, we need this change to happen faster. The people being deported to the Caribbean, a land in which they are strangers, cannot wait for sixty million Brits to watch a documentary or read a book by Olusoga or Akala, or for the Home Office to take a work trip to the National Portrait Gallery to assess the role which people of colour play in shaping British history and culture to stop alienating them in state policies.

Stormzy

The displays I have seen in London were beautiful, and maybe were the start of something great. But, we cannot wait for this long cultural change. Despite the Conservatives priding themselves on having a multicultural cabinet, it does not mean anything if those people continue to alienate black people, and perpetuate racist stereotypes of people of colour being criminals with no place in the UK. Unfortunately, that is what Johnson's rhetoric, and the rhetoric of the Home Office regarding the deportation of the Jamaica 50 does. In order to stop seeing Britishness as Whiteness, we need to stop deportations of people who made small mistakes and stop the discriminatory policing of the war on drugs.

'Treason to Whiteness is Loyalty to Humanity': Race and Identity

"You don't have to look black to be black". The title of a video from the Guardian studying the racial make-up of a family in a town in Ohio, who have African descent but appear white. The mother proudly states that she is a black woman, despite many people and medical officials contesting this statement. Her ancestry somewhat reminded me of my own: mostly European, with some African ancestry, resulting in what looks like a white woman. However, this video vexed me to the extreme.


I am proud of my African ancestry - I recently found out, from my dad doing a DNA test that my ancestors came from Mali, making the story of Mansa Musa and the architecture of the library in Timbuktu even greater than previously. I'm also proud of my Irish ancestry, of my family who fought against oppression by the English, and of my English ancestry, my hard-working, Northern family. The way I look (extremely pale) and the way I sound (Queen's English with a Watford twang) means that no one would expect me to feel a sense of connection to African history, yet I do have that, and so does the woman from The Guardian's video. However, ancestry and race are two, extremely related, but separate things.


Race is a social construct, with real life consequences. Ancestry is basically biology, but tied in with culture. I have been racialised as a white woman. In other words, everyone ever to have met me (I'm pretty certain in saying this) has viewed me, and treated me as a white woman. I have never experienced discrimination for being black - because I am not. And I am not black, because I do not have black skin, or darker skin of any sort, or any features that people identify as being black. I have blue eyes, brown wavy/curly hair, and skin that burns in ten minutes or less. Yet, when I study history, when I read about continued racist discrimination and violence, I feel the fury that arises from knowing how disgustingly brutal white people have been towards black people, despite being white myself. I will never know if it is the same fury, the same level of anger, that a person of colour would feel. I will never know the psychological consequences of living in a racist, white supremacist world. I am a white woman, and thus benefit from the world.



This has always been a problem for me. Sometimes I look at myself like I am a character in a Zadie Smith novel. A white girl with a bit of Caribbean descent who has decided she feels an affinity to Caribbean culture and moves to Barbados for a year, but sticks with the exchange students because she has the freedom and the financial ability to 'explore' the Caribbean. She thinks, in writing academic work against racism, and learning history from a Caribbean perspective, rather than a Eurocentric one on her year abroad, that she is a groundbreaking, revolutionary and 'woke' human. In reading How Europe Underdeveloped Africa on the beach and shouting at white Bajans for their stereotypical remarks about black penis size, that she is a great human. When a black Barbadian man compliments her for her blue eyes and pale skin, and she recommends Black Skin, White Masks, and The Bluest Eye, she believes that she is doing her bit against colourism. But really, she is still a white girl in Barbados, enjoying all the things that a white girl in Barbados gets to enjoy.



And in a way, that is me. I, in meditating every morning, reading Buddhist mantras and only buying second hand clothes, am a stereotype of a 'woke' white girl. And, to be honest, being a woke white girl is better than being a dumb white girl/ignorant white girl/racist white girl, etc, etc. But, I really do not want to be this stereotype. I want to write anti-colonial history, I want to help tackle inequality and I want to destroy racism and white supremacy. But I don't want to be some kind of cringey ally who listens to Young, Gifted and Black and wears t-shirts saying 'Black is Beautiful'. And, I definitely do not want to be like Rachel Ann Dolezal or the mother from Ohio. I know I can’t comment much on discussions of anti-racism or bring anything to the table of black empowerment. I have had a weird relationship with Pan-Africanism (Q: can I support Garvey’s vision of the Back-to-Africa movement as a white person? [A: not really - the KKK also supported it]); with Gal-Dem (Q: can I support a WOC-written media form? [A: yes, but I cannot attempt to have a leading role in discussions]) and with my identity (Q: should I identify myself as a white woman, because of my lack of racial discrimination, or does that mean I am shunning my African heritage? [A: ?]).

So this leaves me in a weird place. I want to tackle racism and dismantle white supremacy, but I know that I don't want to invade safe spaces for people of colour, or commit cultural appropriation. I would hate to be a historian of Black British History, and take place over an actual person of colour. However, I do have an advantage (unfortunately) of being palatable to white audiences. My role in anti-racist movements is a question I ponder over a lot. However, I feel I have recently reached a conclusion. 

Noel Ignatiev recently passed away, and one of his most famous (and maybe infamous?) quotes was 'treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity'. And when I saw this in an obituary, it resonated with me like nothing has ever before. I immediately took out How the Irish Became White, from the library. Though it wasn't the best book I have ever read, I feel it has helped me to become clearer over my potential role. There are a few examples of actual good white people - John Brown, Vron Ware, Noel Ignatiev, for example - who have successfully criticised white supremacy and racism and done their bit in acting against these systems of discrimination. Though each having their flaws, none of them have pretended to be black, or appropriate other cultures, or believe that they have all the answers to racism. I feel some form of inspiration from these people. And I feel they can serve as examples to other people like me, who are visibly white, but have a genuine desire to act against racism. In W.E.B. Du Bois's work on John Brown, he spoke a lot about his socialisation in early life that led him to be the radical abolitionist he was. This has also helped me to become clearer. I don't have to solely look towards my Afro-Caribbean heritage to feel like I have a place in acting against racism.  I feel like it's really dumb it's taken me this long to accept my place, I feel comfortable knowing that I can act against racism, write against racism, fascism and white supremacy, and be involved in anti-racist movements, whilst not taking the role of Dolezal or the white Ohio family in claiming or appropriating blackness. I don't want to have a passive role in the world, when I can clearly see that racism and colonialism is wrong. I also don't want to take the place of actual people of colour, when the academic and professional world continually discriminates against them. And that is okay. In fact, that's actually bloody brilliant.

Initial Impressions: A Year Abroad in Barbados

A week and a bit before I left for my Year Abroad at the University of the West Indies, Cave Hill, I was stood at a stage named The Lion's Den, at Boomtown, one of the UK's biggest festivals. Rather intoxicated and looking around at the middle-class white people (myself included) dancing and performing hedonistic activities to the backdrop of symbols of Caribbean culture and the sound of jungle, reggae, ragga and other Afro-Caribbean inspired music, I could not help but think about Mimi Sheller's theory of the Western imagined geography of the Caribbean. (I know, I'm really lame). Though I was having a great time (I saw Sister Nancy man!), I couldn't help but think about the way in which Westerners use the Caribbean and Caribbean cultural forms as a vehicle for hedonism.

Mimi Sheller's Consuming the Caribbean: From Arawaks to Zombies identified two main ways in which Westerners perceive the Caribbean: through the imagined geographies of Hedonism and Edenism. Similar to Edward Said's imagined geography of Orientalism, Sheller argued that people view the Caribbean as an Eden: a place untouched by human activity, and as a site for Hedonism: of increased sexual activity, alcohol and drug use. Though I completely agreed with Sheller's point after reading her book, the past few weeks have really shown me the extent to which these imagined geographies are real.

Since deciding to go to UWI for my year abroad, I have consistently encountered problematic views of the Caribbean. From people asking me whether I was going abroad for a volunteering activity, and people outright denying the existence of an tertiary education institution outside of the West, I would say three out of four responses to my plan to study in the Caribbean were problematic. Furthermore, after telling people I would be studying History, specifically the history of the Caribbean, and of Africa and African Americans (what I would call a Pan-African syllabus), I was met with remarks that this would be a fun time for me. How is studying the brutal exploitation of 12 million people who were forced to migrate across the Atlantic and enslaved by rich white Europeans a fun activity? It's one of the most important things to study, and I'm extremely passionate and interested in this field of study, but never would I attempt to say that it is fun? Have white people still not learned the lesson that everything they did from 1492 onwards was awful? Their comments felt like they went even deeper than a misunderstanding of the extent of the brutality committed by Westerners in the Black Atlantic. It was almost impossible for people to see the Caribbean as anything other than a site for Western enjoyment and hedonism.

Let me make some things clear. The Caribbean is a beautiful region, with amazing plants and trees and birds and lizards. Carnival is brilliant and soca is great genre, and rum is fun! The Caribbean tourist industry capitalizes upon these features of the Caribbean, and though some might disagree with this, I don't see anything inherently wrong with displaying an amazing, fun culture (if you do it correctly). People can, and people should come to the Caribbean and leave feeling satisfied and knowing they have had fun and visited one of the most beautiful regions in the world. However, the inability to see beyond the tourist poster view of the Caribbean, of a natural, untouched region, with wild, sexual music and dance and loads of rum is very problematic, and has been built upon long-standing Western concepts of the Caribbean, as being a place filled with wild and uncivilised Amerindians and Africans.

A year spent studying in Barbados is a great opportunity, not only for the beautiful scenery, the potential adventures and the rum punch, but also for the chance to study the history of the Black Atlantic from professors, most of whom are people of colour, in a country that did not benefit from this exploitation. This is a chance almost impossible in the Western world, especially in the UK, which has an extremely low percentage of professors of colour. Though this is relatively specific to the study of History, or other subjects from the Humanities or Social Sciences disciplines, the aspect of studying should be somewhat important and relevant for anyone who is studying abroad. Nevertheless, I have encountered several people who have claimed that studying whilst in Barbados feels wrong, perpetuating the idea that the Caribbean region should only be used as a site for Western enjoyment; for the health vacations of the British to West Indian colonies in the nineteenth century, for the American vacations to the Caribbean in the twentieth century, and as the destination of North American students on Spring Break, eager to drink prior to their nation's legal drinking age. Somehow, in the post-emancipation period, white Westerners have forgotten the brutal enslavement and exploitation of people of African descent in the Caribbean, and suddenly see the region as a site for their enjoyment only.

Cuban tourism poster, displaying the Western amnesia of enslavement, through citing "Havana's Glamorous Past" (presumably different from the Havana where slavery was legal until 1886?)

Though in some cases, a white Westerner enjoying the Caribbean space is not problematic, the involvement, and in some cases encouragement, of hedonistic activities is an issue. Several people I have met whilst being on nights out in Barbados, have told me that in their week spent in Barbados, they have experienced things they never would in England: going to a strip club, drinking double or triple the amount they would normally, or smoking cannabis. Though I have nothing against people doing these things, it is the fact that they believe it would be unacceptable to participate in such hedonistic activities whilst in the UK, or Canada, but it is perfectly acceptable in Barbados, the relaxed, laid-back island. It is worse in other places, with the hotel Hedonism II in Jamaica literally playing upon these expectations of the Caribbean and Caribbean culture. Fyre Festival also, despite being a complete failure, represented the epitome of how Westerners view the Caribbean, as a place where you can exploit locals, exploit the environment with the simple aim of providing an enjoyable experience to the mostly white, middle class of the Western world. These ideas developed from colonialism. The idea that the Caribbean is a place for rampant sexual activity is developed from the notion that Amerindians or Africans were 'uncivilised', and therefore were in need of European rule.

Tourism poster for the Bahamas, presenting the idea that the Caribbean region is an untouched Eden - "Walk in the footsteps of Christopher Columbus"

Even worse than people merely viewing the Caribbean through the Tourist Lens, are those who argue that studying the history of the Caribbean would be fun, showing a complete ignorance of the brutal history of the Black Atlantic. This is why the need for a museum of slavery in Barbados is so great. Though most tourists would come to the Caribbean as a place for fun and enjoyment, it is not beyond expectation that these wealthy tourists could also attend a museum of the history of Barbados, to show how it is not an untouched Eden that the tourist posters would have you believe. Michael Manley's vision of tourism in the Caribbean included cultural activities, visiting art galleries and museums, yet the market for this has barely been reached. People prefer to engage in the activities that represent their imagined idea of the Eden of the Caribbean: visiting the national botanic gardens, or interesting and newly discovered caves, furthering the lie that the Caribbean is an untouched Eden. In encouraging engagement with historico-cultural tourist activities, and explaining to people on their tour of rum distilleries that one way in which people manage to get their delicious drink is through the boiling process which scarred so many enslaved people and boiled and burned their skin, tourists will leave less ignorant of the Caribbean, and the history which is so vital in understanding the wealth of the UK, and the worldwide economic disparity and economic systems.


Deconstructing these long-standing perceptions of the Caribbean is an immense task - these perceptions have been around since Columbus's arrival in 1492, and probably even before then. That's over five centuries of a problematic imagined geography to break down. However, with the encouragement of more cultural activities, and the development of a museum of slavery in Barbados, tourists will start to leave the Caribbean less ignorant from when they arrived. It only takes a second for someone's perception of something to be changed. For someone to learn that a third of the European armies in the Napoleonic wars were stationed in the Caribbean, due to the importance of these colonies to European powers.  For someone to learn that Rastafari, at it's centre is an anti-colonial religion, rather than a faith based on the consumption of cannabis. For someone to look at the government building in Bridgetown and acknowledge that Barbados was a part of the British Empire before Ireland, before Scotland (officially, anyway). For someone to realise that the rum they are drinking was one export that made Britain rich, and funded the industrial revolution. For someone to realise that every row of palm trees in Barbados symbolizes the site of an old plantation (and there are a lot of rows of palm trees).  There is so much to Caribbean history and culture that the Western world is ignorant to, and in doing tourism right, we can begin to change the problematic and ignorant ideas and notions regarding the region and deconstruct the imagined geographies of Edenism and Hedonism.

'Go Home': The Otherization of Non-Whites in the Occident

From Theresa May's anti-immigration vans in 2013, to Donald Trump's statement on the four congresswomen of colour, and to the millions of examples of verbal abuse on the streets, "Go Home" has been a phrase used continuously throughout history by racists and xenophobes to tell other people they are not welcome. Despite this phrase, especially when used by politicians, having significant consequences for people of colour as it encourages and perpetuates racism, the phrase "Go Home" is the epitome of a Western cultural tradition of Otherizing people of colour. Without acknowledging the links between the statement of "Go Home" and examples of Otherization, such as The Black and White Minstrel Show, and also the lack of representation in the fashion and beauty industry, we cannot truly create a world without racism and the Otherization of people of colour. In focussing on British culture and society, I will show how despite widespread outrage towards Trump's recent comments against Ayanna Pressley, Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocascio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib, British culture and society similarly Otherizes people of colour on a day-to-day basis.

Firstly, I will describe what I mean by Otherization, which is, put plainly, things people or a society does to make a group of people with certain characteristics feel unwelcome. Otherization is somewhat similar to people with braces being made fun of in schools, but with a much more violent racist history. Otherization in practice is highly linked and related to the concept of race. Despite scientists having discovered no biological grounding to the concept of race, the belief that people who look a certain way have certain traits and characteristics is still widely held in Britain and across the world today. In the Western world, Otherization comes out of people believing that being white is the norm, and that anyone non-White is therefore different. I should note here that I am using the phrases "white" and "non-white" to easily differentiate between the ruling group in British and Western societies, and the people who are being Otherized. However, the grounds of Otherization are not necessarily as clear as White and Non-White as Jewish, Muslim people, and people who identify as LGBT+ can also be affected by Otherization. Nevertheless, in this article, I will be pointing out the examples in Western (mainly British) society and culture that Otherize people based on the grounds of "race" and skin colour, which can be seen as the context of Trump's "Go Home" sentiment.

Throughout British society and culture, there is perpetual and continual Otherization of non-white non-Christian peoples. This can be seen most clearly in shows such as The Black and White Minstrel Show, which clearly humiliated and mocked black people. However, there is a more subtle Otherization of certain groups in society in news reports, cartoons, music and even the range of foundation shades supplied in drugstores. The Otherization of people of colour and non-Anglican peoples is clear throughout British culture and society, and the phrase "Go Home" is the epitome of this wider trend. These more covert forms of discrimination and Otherization have a symbiotic relationship with more overt forms of racial or religious discrimination, and inform people living in Britain's understanding of who is British and therefore influencing everything from immigration controls to forms of verbal and physical racist abuse, and the development of groups like Britain First, with a clear idea of who makes up "Britain". Without overturning the Otherization of certain groups of people in British culture and society, and increasing multi-racial and multi-religious representation in British cultural forms and the media, we are aligning ourselves with the "Go Home" sentiment.

My first, somewhat historical example of Otherization is in the now notorious, but popular-of-the-time show The Black and White Minstrel Show. In having white characters put on blackface makeup, the show clearly humiliated and mocked people of colour and developed out of a history of minstrelsy from white American culture that developed in the post-emancipation period, mocking formerly enslaved people of colour. In doing so, the show Otherized the people they were mimicking, and this led to feelings of anger amongst people of colour because the show had a clear message: that people of colour were unwelcome and inherently different to white British society. Though the show no longer plays on British TV, the YouTube comments on clips from the show are filled with support for the discontinued "comedy", and in a documentary made by the BBC reflecting on the show, many people involved in the show did not seem that sorry or disgusted by what went on in the show.

However, Otherization does not have to be as explicit as this. If we look at examples from contemporary children's entertainment in Britain, white is seen to be the norm, and non-British people of colour are seen to be different. Take the films of Paddington the bear. Despite me loving the films and knowing they were made really well and are extremely entertaining, films like Paddington have some issues. Paddington does not represent bears in Britain and their plight living in the London Zoo, he represents migrants from the Commonwealth. In using this animalistic representation, the films perpetuate an idea that people with heritage in the Commonwealth, or rather outside of the West, are inherently different, despite Paddington being a charming, kind and caring character. In the first film, there is a scene where Paddington tries to teach Henry Brown, the father of the family who take in Paddington, his name, in bear language. The father responds by trying to sound Paddington's name, and failing to do so, mimicking British inability to learn the pronunciation of non-British sounding names, clearly parodying the tales of migrants from the Commonwealth, but through the representation of a bear. Though Paddington on the face of it, is a film and book series about a cute Peruvian bear bumbling about London loving marmalade, there are elements of the character which Otherize people with heritage in the Commonwealth, as at the base of the story, a bear is representing Commonwealth migrants. Similar tales run throughout children's shows and films, like Zootopia, which tells the tale of a predators and prey making it work in the city together. Though the film never makes any link between who is the predator and who is the prey, the film still plays on racial ideas, by showing inherent cultural or biological differences between people in mirroring contemporary society through a city made up of different species of animals with varying skills. Though the message at the end is lovely (that we can all get along despite stereotypes and perceptions of difference), the way in which the film describes this is somewhat problematic, and plays on the idea of race, which, as I said already, has no biological grounding.

If we expand from children's entertainment to the wider category of animation and cartoons, the extent to which people developing entertainment in the Western world view whiteness as the norm. If you asked 100 people on the street to name a black, brown or Jewish cartoon character, they would probably name Apu and Dr. Hibbert from The Simpsons and maybe Cleveland from Family Guy/The Cleveland Show. Though there are cartoons such as The Boondocks and Fillmore that have black representation, these are not the norm in the animation genre. If we take a look at The Simpsons, one of my all time favourite shows, it clearly Otherizes people who aren't white. Despite most of the characters having a non-human yellow skin tone, a decision was made to draw others with human skin colours, mainly black and brown, with occasionally some extra-pale characters drawn in a white shade to show their nerdiness. If the Simpsons and the other yellow characters were drawn in the shade of white skin, this would not be an issue. There would be mainly white characters, with representation for people of colour. However, once you make the norm of skin colour in this fantasy world yellow, and then paint other characters in human skin colours of darker shades, the show clearly presents difference between the "norm" of yellow-ness and the difference of other characters. The Simspons could have clearly altered this, and had an all-yellow show, or a show with some purple or blue characters. But in assigning some characters a fantasy skin colour and others a real-life darker skin colour, the show highlights difference. In addition to this, the shows' representation of people of colour, with characters played on racial stereotypes, the show presents a clear message of Otherization. Yellow (white) is the norm, and then there's the others mainly played by white actors (Apu by Hanz Sharia and Dr. Hibbert by Harry Shearer), playing upon stereotypes of people from non-white backgrounds. Though a hilarious show and a focal point of my childhood, The Simpsons clearly Otherizes certain groups in society, and sends a subliminal message that white is the norm, and people outside of this are different.

This is not an issue constrained in children's entertainment and animation. In rom-coms and other blockbuster films, dark-skinned women are rarely chosen to play main roles, and almost never cast as a romantic interest. Furthermore, the lack of response by the make-up industry to include larger shade ranges to cater for non-white skin colours demonstrates the extent to which cultural Otherization plagues Western society. Though this particular issue is getting better (shoutout to Fenty) accessible, drug-store brands have failed to take an opportunity to expand their shade ranges. Though there are improvements continually happening, the response to some changes shows how far we still need to go. The recent casting of Lashana Lynch as the new 007 has created backlash from white male supporters of the James Bond film series, and Halle Bailey has faced a similar backlash after her casting in the live action remake of Disney's Ariel. Though Ian Fleming's novels are chock-a-block with sexism and racism, and therefore I believe it would be better to create a new, even better black female spy rather than replace the misogynistic capitalist figure of Bond with a black woman, the backlash over Ariel, especially amongst white mothers, shows the fragility white people have when their system of cultural Otherization is contested. People can accept some films like Black Panther  and The Princess and the Frog, as they are, to some extent, part of a black sub-culture in entertainment, and people can accept Aladdin, which plays on Orientalising concepts of Asia. However, when a black female is cast in a role in a Hollywood film aimed at all young audiences and ethnicities, it contests the Otherization that has been built up in the entertainment industry for decades. For today's children, who will watch Halle Bailey as Ariel, they will not be informed with the same Otherizing values as their parents generations were, thus radically changing cultural values and hopefully transforming society from a xenophobic society towards an accepting, anti-racist society. It is this opportunity for a socio-cultural transformation of values, as well as people's own racism, that caused such a backlash against Halle Bailey. 

The Western Otherization of certain people through the means of culture has caused the acceptance of different xenophobic values within politics.  From Enoch Powell's Rivers of Blood speech in 1968, to Boris Johnson calling black people "picaninnies", there is a clear thread of racism and Otherization throughout British mainstream politics that was made acceptable by British culture. In making Western TV and film more representative, we are challenging the xenophobic world we live in, and allowing children to grow up being informed by accepting values, rather than Otherizing ones. Despite widespread outrage towards Trump's calls for congresswomen to "go back to where they came from", most people do not see an issue with white-washed media and entertainment industries. Only in changing the representation in films, TV, the news and advertisement industries will we wholly cancel out the Otherization of people of colour in Western society, and prevent the "Go Home" sentiment from continuing through to another generation.

the myth of austerity

we hear, again and again, by politicians, journalists and ordinary people, that we have to go through the tough time of austerity (despite ruining the welfare state and the quality of life for the majority of the nation) in order to sort out the nation's debt, but does the policy of austerity actually work?

austerity is the policy of reducing spending in order to decrease the debt. the debt is the money the uk has spent that it didn't have - as of the first quarter of 2018, uk debt stood at £1.78 trillion, or 86.58% of gdp. the deficit is the gap between what the government's income and spending, and whenever there is a deficit, debt increases. debt increased because of deficit in 2017 by £46 million. so, we need to make the deficit into a surplus in order to pay back the debt owed. but is are there other, less destructive and more efficient ways to pay back debt?

in short - yes.

currently, austerity isn't really doing great for itself. in the uk, homelessness has doubled since 2010, 100,000 more children are in poverty since last year, and the nhs, as we regularly hear, is in crisis. the welfare of the people, and the welfare state itself are not the pride of the uk at the moment. as well as this, people are not getting what they used to out of their wages. life is not great for most people. but, it's all in the name of austerity, right? we have to go through this, for however long it'll be (10, 20, 30 years??) in order to sort out the country's ginormous accumulation of debt, don't we?

well, after nearly a decade since the first austerity policies were put in place, the economy still isn't doing great. the tories say they are handling the economy successfully because they are cutting down the deficit, though really what they are doing is cutting necessary services. though we need to make the deficit fall, the manner in which this is being carried out is destroying our country.

borrowing has decreased from 9.9% of gdp in 2010 to 2.6% - a decrease of 3/4, an important step which needed to happen. however, when we look at where cuts have been made the picture seems not so great... for instance, the nhs is not being given the money it needs to survive, with the nhs finishing 2017/18 with £960 million deficit. spending by councils on adult social care has fallen by £1.3 billion since 2010, with 425,000 fewer adults receiving social care between 2009/10 and 2013/14. between 2010 and 2017, 500 children centres and 1,200 sure start centres were closed. funding per student has also fallen in real terms since 2015/16. austerity is stretching public services and many services not have the money they need to provide their services to the people who need them. social services are necessary for the well-being of the people, and the well-being of the people is necessary for a good economy.

increasing poverty together with stagnating wages, falling funding for education and the under-funding of the nhs means that there are children growing up in the uk today, one of the richest countries in the world, are facing acute malnutrition, without medical help. there are children, 30% of children in fact, in poverty, with a lack of opportunities because of poor education facilities. austerity is increasing poverty and not providing a way out. whilst this is happening, mp's wages have increased 1.8%. defence spending remains at 2%, one of the highest in the world when taken as a percentage of gdp. and, let's not forget, may's deal with the dup, giving northern ireland £1 billion spending money to prop up her 'money-saving' government.

the imf said back in 2012 that austerity measures have probably worsened the debt crisis because they slow economic growth. this is what we are seeing currently. the uk economy is growing at a slower rate than the average for eurozone countries. uk economic growth has been overall falling since 2014, from 2.8% to 1.3% in the most recent quarter of 2018, whereas since 2014, both the eurozone and the eu have been overall growing. austerity is making the lives for hardworking people who cannot afford luxuries like private healthcare and education, harder, and ruining our economy in the long term whilst not even helping it in the short term.

austerity prevents growth, increases poverty, causes worse qualities of life and puts strain on the economy. what we need instead is for the economy to grow. the way to help get us out of this mess is to increase gdp, encourage wage increases from corporations and cut some more unnecessary services.

•  implementing activist industrial policies, where the government funds certain sectors such as civil aircraft, and eco-friendly industries like the electric car or tidal power industries, helps to grow the economy and provides training, skills and employment for people working in that sector. 
• cutting some benefits that the most wealthy in society also recieve, such as free bus passes for better off pensioners, would be a more worthwhile spending cut than those that are being carried out currently. 
• increase the minimum wage, or implement wage ratios, in order to raise salaries for the lowest paid workers, which will then feed back into the economy through increased personal spending and increased disposable income. helping increase people's salaries would also help to decrease the number of people in working poverty and some people's reliance on council services. 

with more people earning higher salaries, paying more tax and requiring less social benefits, these policies help to decrease government spending and increase government income. growing the economy also helps to decrease the deficit as the gdp is higher and thus the figure is a lower percentage of gdp. the economy needs to start growing at a better rate to help tackle the debt issue, and increasing industrial spending can only be good when facing the tough post-brexit trade world.

portugal is one example of how socialist alternatives to austerity can help the economy and society hugely. portugal was one of the worst hit by the economic crisis, and had to be bailed out by the imf. the first thing that the country jumped to, as we did, was to implement austerity measures. poverty increased, unemployment increased, there was an increase in bankruptcies, salaries had decreased 30% - portugal was not in the best state, to say the least. then the socialist government, led by antonia costa, of 2015 overturned the policy of austerity with socialist alternatives. by 2016, there was a 13% increase in corporate industries, the economy has been growing for 13 successive quarters, the defecit has halved and the country is booming!

the strain which debt and austerity are causing on our economy, the increase in poverty and wage stagnation can have dangerous consequences. as history has told us, when there is an economic crisis, extremism brews. with tommy robinson supporters around every next corner the concept of extremism becoming the norm in britain is an unusual but very real prospect for our futures. we need to sort out the economy, and more importantly, the impact it is having on every day people to make sure this doesn't happen!

austerity is killing everything we love about britain and literally putting people's lives at risk due to the dramatic increase in poverty we have seen. we need a change.

20:1 wage ratios are the solution we need

the news, if you can call it that, as we are all already blatantly aware of the extreme inequality and working poverty in the uk this week, that the median annual pay of a ftse 100 boss is on average 167 times more than a worker on a median salary, only further demonstrates the disgusting nature of this version of capitalism. one of the reforms we need to help solve this solution we need comes in the form of 20:1 wage ratios.

let's start here - why is this a problem first of all?

looking at the gini coefficient, which measures inequality, where a score of 0 means everyone has an equal income, and a score of 1 means one person has all the money, the uk scored 0.62 in 2017, which really isn't great. as well as this, the top 1% has 21% of all income, and the top 10% has over 50% of income. but saying this doesn't really mean anything - in nearly every society there is going to be an income hierarchy. this inequality is an issue in the uk because the people at the bottom are suffering - poverty is rising, with it being predicted that 5 million children will be entering 2020 in poverty. additionally, in-work poverty is increasing, with even 55% of homeless people being in work and 60% of people in poverty being in work. so this inequality is not just a wage hierarchy, it is one that is causing extreme levels of poverty and suffering, levels which we should not be seeing in the 21st century in the 9th richest country in the world.

as well as the damaging consequences of this level of inequality, it is also abhorrent ideologically. wage hierarchies give people ambition and inspiration, though the level of inequality in the uk means that the wage hierarchies are causing exploitation and poverty.

additionally, companies cannot function without their lowest paid workers. whether they are cleaners, sales assistants, waiters and waitresses or truck drivers, these roles are all vital to the running of a business. saying this, the top positions of companies are also vital - where would a company be, for instance, without a ceo or founder of said company?

though a ceo probably deserves their income, a production worker also deserves an income high enough to keep them and their dependants out of poverty.

this level of inequality is completely unjust and unfair. we need to make wages fair - not equal, fair.

and that is where the 20:1 wage ratio comes in.

20:1 wage ratios are quite simple - all it means is that the highest paid worker of a company cannot be paid any more than 20 times the salary of the lowest paid worker of said company. they used to be used in the 1920s, and even the famous lefty, trade union championist david cameron supported them!

portugese prime minister antonia costa has made a brilliant example which all eu nations should follow - that where if you give workers rights and good wages, the rest will follow. in his words, “we devised an alternative to the austerity policy: focusing on higher growth, more and better jobs, and greater equality. the rise in earnings made economic operators more confident, resulting in the fastest economic growth since the beginning of the century and it has produced a sustained rise in private investment, exports, and growth.”

20:1 wage ratios would solve so many socio-economic issues we see in the uk today. minimum wage increases are great, but businesses often look to cut down their spending elsewhere, leading to buying worse-quality, unsustainable and even more unethically sourced goods to solve this. whereas, the 20:1 wage ratio supports balancing out the incomes themselves to make the system fairer.

when income inequality is causing the catastrophic levels of poverty we are seeing in the uk today, it is not creating inspiration, aspiration or encouraging social mobility. it is causing children to be malnourished and unable to concentrate in schools. it is causing the exploitation of workers who are unable to heat their homes. this level of inequality and its consequences on the lowest paid workers is absolutely disgusting, and unfortunately, the greed of capitalism means that we have to implement policy to allow everyone to live and not survive.