My UWCSEA Learning Journey

How do we decide in our own lives who belongs and who doesn’t? How do cliques operate?

I think that deciding, in our own lives, who belongs and who doesn’t belong is entirely due to normalised societal views. Growing up in a society where there are normalised views, that are communal in a sense, we have subconscious viewpoints on who belongs, and who doesn’t belong in a particular group. For example, I know that many Singaporeans have the viewpoints that foreigners and expats, known locally as ‘Ang Mo’s’, don’t belong in Singapore – and as a result, some expats may experience first hand racism, in a sense, and may be treated differently because they don’t belong. This ultimately stems from the common societal viewpoint amongst Singaporeans, that AngMo’s don’t belong in Singapore, and therefore are treated slightly differently.

What potential violence is there in drawling lines between who belongs and who doesn’t?

Drawling lines between who belongs in groups and who doesn’t can create tension and potential conflict. Those classified into certain groups because they belong there (in the eyes of society) may not be satisfied with the group others see them belonging in. An example can be seen within the LGBTQ community, especially to do with the issue of gender. Some may perceive someone as belonging to the male gender because they, biologically, are male. But those who are being ‘placed’ into the group may think differently, and may very well feel like they belong to another group/category.

More broadly, who constitutes “we” especially when its so difficult to arrive at and locate a common voice, stance, or attitude on a given issue?

I think “we” constitutes the normalised viewpoint that society has. In all societies, there are viewpoints, or a way to look at things, which is normalised and deemed to be correct (or make the most sense). In Singapore, common voices may be easier to arrive at as generally, people have less freedom to speak their thoughts when compared to say, the United States, which emphasise on freedom of speech.

How does this relate to Home Fire or the poetry of Langston Hughes?

In Home Fire, Aneeka and Isma (who both identify as Muslims) are being judged as a result of their beliefs. Unfortunately, by being a muslims, the stereotypical view (which is sadly a norm in certain countries) is that muslims are terrorists, and that they ‘belong’ in the terrorist group, or can be classified as terrorists. A little irony here as we see Parvaiz ultimately become a terrorist and joining the ISIS terrorist group, yet we see first hand how being classified as a ‘terrorist’ by others can lead to distress for Aneeka and Isma themselves – having to navigate their way around dealing with these challenges.

Article 1 – Nesrine Malik: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/06/coronavirus-crisis-nhs-not-drained-migrants-sustained-died-frontline

Article 2 – Steve Doughty: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-185768/Sickly-immigrants-add-1bn-NHS-bill.html

 

The first article written by Nesrine Malik is largely focused on the positive roles that migrants play in the NHS in the UK. It highlights that migrants and immigrants of the UK make a large proportion of the NHS (specifically “44% of medical staff are BAME) and are vital to the control of the Coronavirus situation UK currently faces. The use of language is very emotive, expressing the stories of Amged El Hawrani and his death, risking his life for the good for the NHS, serving as a frontline doctor. Through the emotive language used by Malik, she purposely creates a sense of sympathy which is communicated throughout the article. Bias by omission is evidently used in the article as the article specifically focuses on the positive aspects of migrants, ignoring the negative costs of disease that migrants bring to the UK, which is explicitly stated in the other article by the daily mail. The second article written by Steve Doughty presents the migrant and refugee situation from a more negative standpoint. The use of statistical language is apparent throughout the text – Malik specifically states many shocking statistics of large values, for example “each years intake of asylum seekers and work permit holders could involve a potential cost to the NHS of £1290million”. The repetition and focus on these large statistics throughout the article makes the audience reflect on the large costs of these migrants for the NHS, rather than the benefits they bring to the UK and the NHS. Though both articles contrast heavily in their content, one focusing on the benefits of immigrants to the NHS and the other the costs, both articles are similar in the sense where they focus on one particular side of the story, and have apparent bias of omission. It is also important to evaluate the bias by source used in both article – both articles uses limited sources and have chosen sources specific to their view and perspective on the situation. When considering the authors, Nesrine Malik, though based in London, was born in Sudan and is an immigrant herself. She may have a vested interest in the topic, considering that her article solely reflects the advantages that migrants have brought to the UK.

Delving deeper into the cartoons of Huda Fahmy, it is clear that Fahmy challenges the stereotypical and traditional view of Muslim women. Muslim women are stereotypically perceived to be ‘accepting’ of their husbands wishes and wants and are seen typically to ‘not have a voice’. People often associate Muslim’s with Arabs and the Middle East – we know that Muslim women in the Middle East struggle for basic human rights, and sadly this may lead people to think that Muslim Women have less of a voice than others, and sole purpose in life is to serve their husbands. Through her cartoons, which often include humour, Fahmy challenges these stereotypes by expressing her thoughts and feelings on these stereotypes, being a Muslim women herself. Not only does humour serve as a connection in engaging the audience and building a larger audience, but it also provokes thought about the issue at the same time. Humour attracts the audience to her work, and serves as a great tool in keeping the audience interested in what she does, and the message she is trying to convey – ultimately that Muslim women do have their own identities and the falsehood in the common stereotypes associated with Muslim women. Fahmy has been able to reach a wide audience to create a global platform that serves as a connection for muslim women from all around the globe. This ‘connection’ that she has created amongst muslim women is a message of empowerment, in the sense that Muslim women now know that they are not alone in their fight for rights and combating those negative stereotypes associated with their identity, of which they are clearly affected by. In this sense, Fahmy’s artwork has clearly inspired muslim women to share their experiences, and to support one another in their fight equality and being treated equal to everyone else. Her artwork also inspires all women as gender inequality is a prevalent issue in our societies and most women, no matter the religion, can definitely relate to oppression or discrimination in one way, shape or form. Thus, it definitely engages all women no matter the race, culture or ethnicity. It also engages men, like myself, to reflect on these stereotypes that are clearly making women feel oppressed. It provokes us to think about issues like gender equality and racism, and how we can make our society more inclusive for minorities.