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.
Friday, 19 July 2019
Friday, 31 August 2018
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, 18 August 2018
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.
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.
Sunday, 8 April 2018
beneath makeup: mica
one reason for me starting this blog was to alert my peers to the secrets in the makeup industry. although many people might look at the products with a smiling bunny rabbit saying 'cruelty free', and think they are investing in a morally produced product, the ingredients in these products, specifically minerals which have been mined, can be produced in appalling conditions. mica is one of these of which there is a huge problem with.
what is mica?
mica is, by the google definition "a shiny silicate mineral with a layered structure, found as minute scales in granite and other rocks, or as crystals." there are many different forms of mica, such as sheet or wet mica, and so mica is used for many different purposes. these include mica being an ingredient in paint, cosmetics, car paint, roofing, filler and insulator. mica can also be listed in cosmetic ingredients lists under names such as: glimmer, kaliglimmer, muskovite or CI77019.
how do we get mica?
mica is found in igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary regimes and mined by employees.
where is mica from?
mica can be found in many different locations around the world. the largest producer of mica in 2017 was finland, producing 65,000 tonnes of mica in 2017. turkey, the us, china, canada, france, south korea and madagascar were the following biggest producers of mica in 2017, in order. after these countries comes india, where 14,000 tonnes of mica was reported to have been produced in 2017.
however, this is where the issue lies, as the statistics for production of mica and the amount of mica exported in India do not add up. according to the indian bureau of mines, india legally produced 1,255 tonnes of mica in 2012 to 2013, yet the quantity exported was 127,629 tonnes. similarly, in 2015, india's official production of mica was recorded at 19,000 tonnes, but 140,000 tonnes were exported. this surplus in mica production has not been documented as it is mined illegally, and it is estimated that 70% of india's mica output is mined illegally. the regions of bihar, jharkhand, rajasthan and andhra pradesh are all mica producing areas which have been caught with mines using child labour. a lot of mica produced in india is supplied to makeup companies, with estee lauder admitting to supplying 10% of their mica from india.
when did mica become popular?
although the use of mica dates back to the prehistoric times in many areas across the globe, mica became popular after the rise of colonialism and globalised capitalism. before the nineteenth century, mica in europe was very rare and in short supply. after the colonisation of asia and africa by european powers, mica was discovered in these areas, and the supply subsequently rose. capitalism and colonialism brought this product into our everyday lives, in car paint, cosmetics and in many other ordinary products which we use. this makes the problem of mica very difficult to solve, as it is a key element to so many different businesses, and the cheap price of it makes it a desirable choice for businesses. additionally, as the mineral has so many different uses, we need to ensure that the supply of mica does not drop, as it would hurt the global economy and decrease the supply of so many different products.
what's wrong and why should we care?
the illegal production of mica is very dangerous and in many cases, illegal mines employ children. although indian law forbids for people under 18 year to work on mines, poverty pushes people to mine illegally to find an income and they are a cheaper form of labour for illegal mines than adults. the guardian has estimated there are 20,000 child labourers mining for mica in the indian states of bihar and jharkand alone. the relationship between child labour and poverty is clear, with 13 million out of a population of 33 million in jharkhand suffering form poverty, and 36% of people in bihar suffering from poverty.
additionally, there are high numbers of injuries casualties occurring in the mines, and infections and respiratory diseases are common amongst miners. in june 2016, 16 year old madan was killed alongside two adult workers in jharkland, whilst mining for mica, and an estimated 5-10 children die in mines each month. sarita devi, told wired that she was 12 when she started mining, and that her leg was injured from an accident in the mine, and is now "held together by a metal rod". devi went on to say that the mine closed in on her and she didn't have time to escape, though these incidents happen frequently and she normally escapes. devi also mentioned that her family earns less than 70p a day.
what's even worse than this is that supposedly fewer than 10% of deaths in mica mines are reported to police, because they are in illegal mines and people are given money to stay silent and not let out the secret of the illegal mines.
as consumers, there are traces of mica which has been produced illegally in the everyday products we use, with 10% of mica going to cosmetic industry. the extremely low wages, poor working conditions and danger of these mines is not something which we can be complicit towards.
what can we do?
since there has been raised awareness of the problems in illegal mica mining, some companies have started to take action. lush are looking for synthetic mica alternatives, and trying to remove illegal mica from their products. though this would help to close mines, it would leave the workers of the mines without employment and worse off economically, and would also probably take a long time for synthetic mica to be created that could replace the current global mica supply. similarly, aidan mcquaide, director of anti-slavery international, contested that boycotts of mica and similar products with issues in the supply line are not successful, as they harm the livelihoods of the workers.
estee lauder, l'oreal, yves rocher and others have been involved in creating "child-friendly villages" in support of the national resources stewardship council and bachpan bachao andolan. additionally, in 2017, the responsible mica initiative was launched, backed by the indian government and mica-using brands like chanel and l'oreal to remove child labour from mica mining. we can support campaigns like this, looking to change the supply of mica to a more ethical supply, but we need to ensure that the supply of mica does not decrease, and tackle the origin of the problems, poverty.
we need to support action against poverty, including the introduction of secure employment opportunities for areas with high levels of poverty. we also need to spread the awareness of illegal mica in the supply chain, support campaigns like the responsible mica initiative, and look for current alternatives to prevent the over-mining of this mineral.
sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mica
http://www.bizvibe.com/blog/mica-industry-india/
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/jul/28/cosmetics-companies-mica-child-labour-beauty-industry-india-
https://www.statista.com/statistics/569630/mica-production-worldwide-by-country/
http://www.wired.co.uk/article/mica-illegal-mining-india
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/781181467989480762/Bihar-Poverty-growth-and-inequality
what is mica?
how do we get mica?
mica is found in igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary regimes and mined by employees.
where is mica from?
mica can be found in many different locations around the world. the largest producer of mica in 2017 was finland, producing 65,000 tonnes of mica in 2017. turkey, the us, china, canada, france, south korea and madagascar were the following biggest producers of mica in 2017, in order. after these countries comes india, where 14,000 tonnes of mica was reported to have been produced in 2017.
however, this is where the issue lies, as the statistics for production of mica and the amount of mica exported in India do not add up. according to the indian bureau of mines, india legally produced 1,255 tonnes of mica in 2012 to 2013, yet the quantity exported was 127,629 tonnes. similarly, in 2015, india's official production of mica was recorded at 19,000 tonnes, but 140,000 tonnes were exported. this surplus in mica production has not been documented as it is mined illegally, and it is estimated that 70% of india's mica output is mined illegally. the regions of bihar, jharkhand, rajasthan and andhra pradesh are all mica producing areas which have been caught with mines using child labour. a lot of mica produced in india is supplied to makeup companies, with estee lauder admitting to supplying 10% of their mica from india.
when did mica become popular?
although the use of mica dates back to the prehistoric times in many areas across the globe, mica became popular after the rise of colonialism and globalised capitalism. before the nineteenth century, mica in europe was very rare and in short supply. after the colonisation of asia and africa by european powers, mica was discovered in these areas, and the supply subsequently rose. capitalism and colonialism brought this product into our everyday lives, in car paint, cosmetics and in many other ordinary products which we use. this makes the problem of mica very difficult to solve, as it is a key element to so many different businesses, and the cheap price of it makes it a desirable choice for businesses. additionally, as the mineral has so many different uses, we need to ensure that the supply of mica does not drop, as it would hurt the global economy and decrease the supply of so many different products.
what's wrong and why should we care?
the illegal production of mica is very dangerous and in many cases, illegal mines employ children. although indian law forbids for people under 18 year to work on mines, poverty pushes people to mine illegally to find an income and they are a cheaper form of labour for illegal mines than adults. the guardian has estimated there are 20,000 child labourers mining for mica in the indian states of bihar and jharkand alone. the relationship between child labour and poverty is clear, with 13 million out of a population of 33 million in jharkhand suffering form poverty, and 36% of people in bihar suffering from poverty.
additionally, there are high numbers of injuries casualties occurring in the mines, and infections and respiratory diseases are common amongst miners. in june 2016, 16 year old madan was killed alongside two adult workers in jharkland, whilst mining for mica, and an estimated 5-10 children die in mines each month. sarita devi, told wired that she was 12 when she started mining, and that her leg was injured from an accident in the mine, and is now "held together by a metal rod". devi went on to say that the mine closed in on her and she didn't have time to escape, though these incidents happen frequently and she normally escapes. devi also mentioned that her family earns less than 70p a day.
what's even worse than this is that supposedly fewer than 10% of deaths in mica mines are reported to police, because they are in illegal mines and people are given money to stay silent and not let out the secret of the illegal mines.
as consumers, there are traces of mica which has been produced illegally in the everyday products we use, with 10% of mica going to cosmetic industry. the extremely low wages, poor working conditions and danger of these mines is not something which we can be complicit towards.
what can we do?
since there has been raised awareness of the problems in illegal mica mining, some companies have started to take action. lush are looking for synthetic mica alternatives, and trying to remove illegal mica from their products. though this would help to close mines, it would leave the workers of the mines without employment and worse off economically, and would also probably take a long time for synthetic mica to be created that could replace the current global mica supply. similarly, aidan mcquaide, director of anti-slavery international, contested that boycotts of mica and similar products with issues in the supply line are not successful, as they harm the livelihoods of the workers.
estee lauder, l'oreal, yves rocher and others have been involved in creating "child-friendly villages" in support of the national resources stewardship council and bachpan bachao andolan. additionally, in 2017, the responsible mica initiative was launched, backed by the indian government and mica-using brands like chanel and l'oreal to remove child labour from mica mining. we can support campaigns like this, looking to change the supply of mica to a more ethical supply, but we need to ensure that the supply of mica does not decrease, and tackle the origin of the problems, poverty.
we need to support action against poverty, including the introduction of secure employment opportunities for areas with high levels of poverty. we also need to spread the awareness of illegal mica in the supply chain, support campaigns like the responsible mica initiative, and look for current alternatives to prevent the over-mining of this mineral.
sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mica
http://www.bizvibe.com/blog/mica-industry-india/
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/jul/28/cosmetics-companies-mica-child-labour-beauty-industry-india-
https://www.statista.com/statistics/569630/mica-production-worldwide-by-country/
http://www.wired.co.uk/article/mica-illegal-mining-india
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/781181467989480762/Bihar-Poverty-growth-and-inequality
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
one reason for me starting this blog was to alert my peers to the secrets in the makeup industry. although many people might look at the pro...
-
Sustainable clothes are having a moment in the sun at present, which is something that has needed to happen for years. However, the emphasis...
-
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, ...
