As I sit here at my window
desk, basking in the sunshine of a cold Wellington morning during tea break, I
am taking a moment to reflect on how much pleasure I am getting from my work in
this New Zealand sabbatical. I have so far had four months simply to find and
read research, conduct research, analyse policies, compare policies,
brainstorm, search for information, and write. Some weeks I was struggling to
find the specific details of US refugee resettlement policies. Other times I
was uncovering the history of migration and the history of prejudicial acts and
laws in NZ and the US. I have gotten to read about the connections between
health, employment, and education. I have gotten to examine policies and
procedures for teaching English in the US and NZ. Last week I attended an
all-day workshop on critical discourse analysis. Currently I am reading
expert advice on attending to refugees' immediate needs post conflict and
comparing that to NZ's immediate goals for resettlement. I get to talk to
policymakers and to those for whom the policies are written to determine if
they make sense. I get to learn, and learn, and learn some more. In my
learning, I constantly need to revise my own perceptions as new evidence
contradicts what I formerly believed. Maybe "fun" isn't quite the
word for it, but great satisfaction would be, along with gratitude for this
opportunity.
I contrast it with the daily discourse of my US connections to conversation and opinion, in which belief and behaviour are more frequently based on no research or both right and left biased media stories. And I think, no wonder there is such little progress in the world towards positive development and peace. The amount of ignorance prancing around as truth is stunning. The other day, Dick placed a post on his FaceBook page about cognitive dissonance, the struggle we face when our belief is brought into question by new evidence. We can go on to explore the contrasting beliefs, and perhaps change our own belief. Or we can insist that our opinion is correct, even when faced with evidence to the contrary. Therein lies the joy of research, and it needn't be the kind of in-depth academic research I do; simple fact-checking would be nice. But surprisingly huge proportions of people believe what they read or hear or get in a chain email, without ever taking the time to check it out. The baseless stories get perpetuated, sent on to countless email addresses, and spewed on hundreds of FB pages to feed the endless appetites craving whatever will support their own biases. Without minds open to new knowledge and possibilities, people grow more defensive and angry. You see it from individual disagreements through local-international politics and policies and so much more. What can we do to overcome it?
This evening I attended a discussion on working with refugee and migrant populations. Not surprisingly, attendance was sparse, but I got to meet a researcher and the new general manager for Changemakers, a refugee advocacy in Wellington. To my disappointment, there was not a single staff member from Immigration New Zealand in attendance. There were, however, three employees from other ministries who stated that they did not have direct work with refugee and migrant populations but they wanted to learn more about them. In our discussions, I told them that this is exactly what is needed. Too many policymakers - typically middle to upper middle class White people with little to no direct daily experience working with refugees and migrants - create policies for them without giving sufficient respect to the experts in the field and to the refugees and migrants themselves. It is actually better here than in the US. At least I attend some meetings in which government workers and refugee advocates are in the same room together.
Based on overwhelming research evidence, I will be suggesting that the NZ government reprioritise its goals for resettlement. Currently it has moved in the direction of the longstanding and unfortunate US policy - to get a job, any job, as soon as possible. For so many reasons, this policy is wrong-minded and borders on breaking its agreement to follow the 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees and its 1967 protocol. Resettling refugees is a choice nations make, and it is based on humanitarian, not economical agreements. If people had a whisper of knowledge of the multiple horrific traumas refugees experience, sometimes for years - violent physical beatings and attacks, rapes, torture, murder of loved ones, lack of basic survival needs, and more and more - how could they possibly say to them, You are expected to get a job in this country where you don't know the language or the culture in three months - six months at the outset? Never mind your grief, illnesses, and trauma - employment is your priority, no matter if you were a doctor or lawyer or teacher and now have to clean fish for a low wage. Even though research indicates prejudice on the part of employers to hire you, we will blame you for not having a job. Even though there are waiting queues for English language classes or you cannot afford to take the classes, we will blame you for not learning English. Even though you are a gentle, law-abiding Muslim, we will blame you for Al-Qaeda. Even though your girls are stolen, we will blame you for believing in Islam. We will hate you for taking our jobs, even though the only jobs you can get are ones no one in this country wants. These biased mass media/social media suggestions contribute to the ignorance and bias towards refugees and migrants, and somehow evidence to the contrary must find its way to the general public.
In my 12 years working with refugees in the US, this has been my experience through news, some websites, and social media, in spite of the many wonderful, generous Americans who work overtime to support refugees in the US. Not all Americans have such negative, uninformed opinions of refugees and those of particular ethnicities or religions. However, public opinion is shaded by fear of the Other, particularly in conservative agendas. In New Zealand, ignorance around refugee populations has resulted more in annoyance that new cultures are gaining in numbers than in loathing and hate. New Zealand has the advantage of being a bicultural/bilingual country, in that it has chosen to give Maori language and culture equal standing with that of European immigration, at least in terms of recognising that Maori people have equal rights. Formal speeches (including my own) begin with a Maori mihi. I believe that this has tempered Pakeha (European White) opinion towards multiculturalism. Just imagine that kind of recognition for American Indian language and culture!
I do wonder if the difference in attitudes and support between the two countries results from the longstanding concepts of manifest destiny and American exceptionalism in the US. These dogmas come with the corollaries that the US is the gatekeeper of international morality, whereas one would never confront this concept in New Zealand. The largest budget item of the US government is for weaponry and the military; in New Zealand, it is for social services, health, and education.
I don't have answers, only observations of these problems, and lots of sadness. I see my own tendency to be angry at my whole country when there are millions of wonderful, kind-hearted, and welcoming Americans. But Republicans and Democrats alike must stop funding policies solely for the reason that they may benefit the US economically and politically - policies that, for instance, sold military helicopters to Egypt after its despotic government just sentenced and killed 800 civilians. We need to be led by an ethical and humanitarian, and not a capitalist centre that can label needless civilian death as "collateral damage."
I feel so helpless to make a difference. I often think that nothing short of a revolution will bring needed change. And then I look at attempted revolutions like the Wall Street movement and the fast food workers walk-outs, and I wonder if revolution is possible. I grew up in the 60s when revolution was not only possible, but it brought about major social and political change. Have we allowed corporate and political institutions to become so strong that citizens cannot only be manipulated, but also always oppressed? What a frightening thought.
I contrast it with the daily discourse of my US connections to conversation and opinion, in which belief and behaviour are more frequently based on no research or both right and left biased media stories. And I think, no wonder there is such little progress in the world towards positive development and peace. The amount of ignorance prancing around as truth is stunning. The other day, Dick placed a post on his FaceBook page about cognitive dissonance, the struggle we face when our belief is brought into question by new evidence. We can go on to explore the contrasting beliefs, and perhaps change our own belief. Or we can insist that our opinion is correct, even when faced with evidence to the contrary. Therein lies the joy of research, and it needn't be the kind of in-depth academic research I do; simple fact-checking would be nice. But surprisingly huge proportions of people believe what they read or hear or get in a chain email, without ever taking the time to check it out. The baseless stories get perpetuated, sent on to countless email addresses, and spewed on hundreds of FB pages to feed the endless appetites craving whatever will support their own biases. Without minds open to new knowledge and possibilities, people grow more defensive and angry. You see it from individual disagreements through local-international politics and policies and so much more. What can we do to overcome it?
This evening I attended a discussion on working with refugee and migrant populations. Not surprisingly, attendance was sparse, but I got to meet a researcher and the new general manager for Changemakers, a refugee advocacy in Wellington. To my disappointment, there was not a single staff member from Immigration New Zealand in attendance. There were, however, three employees from other ministries who stated that they did not have direct work with refugee and migrant populations but they wanted to learn more about them. In our discussions, I told them that this is exactly what is needed. Too many policymakers - typically middle to upper middle class White people with little to no direct daily experience working with refugees and migrants - create policies for them without giving sufficient respect to the experts in the field and to the refugees and migrants themselves. It is actually better here than in the US. At least I attend some meetings in which government workers and refugee advocates are in the same room together.
Based on overwhelming research evidence, I will be suggesting that the NZ government reprioritise its goals for resettlement. Currently it has moved in the direction of the longstanding and unfortunate US policy - to get a job, any job, as soon as possible. For so many reasons, this policy is wrong-minded and borders on breaking its agreement to follow the 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees and its 1967 protocol. Resettling refugees is a choice nations make, and it is based on humanitarian, not economical agreements. If people had a whisper of knowledge of the multiple horrific traumas refugees experience, sometimes for years - violent physical beatings and attacks, rapes, torture, murder of loved ones, lack of basic survival needs, and more and more - how could they possibly say to them, You are expected to get a job in this country where you don't know the language or the culture in three months - six months at the outset? Never mind your grief, illnesses, and trauma - employment is your priority, no matter if you were a doctor or lawyer or teacher and now have to clean fish for a low wage. Even though research indicates prejudice on the part of employers to hire you, we will blame you for not having a job. Even though there are waiting queues for English language classes or you cannot afford to take the classes, we will blame you for not learning English. Even though you are a gentle, law-abiding Muslim, we will blame you for Al-Qaeda. Even though your girls are stolen, we will blame you for believing in Islam. We will hate you for taking our jobs, even though the only jobs you can get are ones no one in this country wants. These biased mass media/social media suggestions contribute to the ignorance and bias towards refugees and migrants, and somehow evidence to the contrary must find its way to the general public.
In my 12 years working with refugees in the US, this has been my experience through news, some websites, and social media, in spite of the many wonderful, generous Americans who work overtime to support refugees in the US. Not all Americans have such negative, uninformed opinions of refugees and those of particular ethnicities or religions. However, public opinion is shaded by fear of the Other, particularly in conservative agendas. In New Zealand, ignorance around refugee populations has resulted more in annoyance that new cultures are gaining in numbers than in loathing and hate. New Zealand has the advantage of being a bicultural/bilingual country, in that it has chosen to give Maori language and culture equal standing with that of European immigration, at least in terms of recognising that Maori people have equal rights. Formal speeches (including my own) begin with a Maori mihi. I believe that this has tempered Pakeha (European White) opinion towards multiculturalism. Just imagine that kind of recognition for American Indian language and culture!
I do wonder if the difference in attitudes and support between the two countries results from the longstanding concepts of manifest destiny and American exceptionalism in the US. These dogmas come with the corollaries that the US is the gatekeeper of international morality, whereas one would never confront this concept in New Zealand. The largest budget item of the US government is for weaponry and the military; in New Zealand, it is for social services, health, and education.
I don't have answers, only observations of these problems, and lots of sadness. I see my own tendency to be angry at my whole country when there are millions of wonderful, kind-hearted, and welcoming Americans. But Republicans and Democrats alike must stop funding policies solely for the reason that they may benefit the US economically and politically - policies that, for instance, sold military helicopters to Egypt after its despotic government just sentenced and killed 800 civilians. We need to be led by an ethical and humanitarian, and not a capitalist centre that can label needless civilian death as "collateral damage."
I feel so helpless to make a difference. I often think that nothing short of a revolution will bring needed change. And then I look at attempted revolutions like the Wall Street movement and the fast food workers walk-outs, and I wonder if revolution is possible. I grew up in the 60s when revolution was not only possible, but it brought about major social and political change. Have we allowed corporate and political institutions to become so strong that citizens cannot only be manipulated, but also always oppressed? What a frightening thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment