- monthly subscription or
- one time payment
- cancelable any time
"Tell the chef, the beer is on me."
Selon le (CRA) à #Oran : Rapatriement de plus de 490 Nigériens
Larbi BenMoussa, chef du bureau de wilaya du Croissant-Rouge algérien (CRA), a confirmé, avant-hier que « plus de 491 ressortissants nigériens ont été conduits, dimanche matin, d’Oran vers le centre de transit de #Tamanrasset en prévision de leur retour au pays d’origine.
12 jours dans la peau d’un réfugié, reportage d’Omar Ouahmane
Durant 12 jours, Omar Ouahmane, envoyé spécial permanent de Radio France à Beyrouth, a suivi une famille syrienne, de la frontière du pays avec la Turquie jusqu’à Vienne, en passant par la Turquie, la mer Méditerranée, la Grèce, la Macédoine, la Serbie, la Croatie, la Hongrie et enfin l’Autriche.
Hier läuft viel für die Flüchtlinge
Seit im Dorf 100 Flüchtlinge untergebracht sind, übertreffen sich Freiwillige mit Angeboten für sie. «Es ist faszinierend, zu sehen, wie rasch sich die Leute für die Hilfe begeistern», sagt der Freiwilligenkoordinator Andreas Gutweniger.
Upcoming UNITED Conference 2016 | UNITED for Intercultural Action
Moving Stories: Narratives of Migration Crossing Europe.
This conference takes place from 22-27 April and will focus on the current negative narrative around migration.
Deadline for nominations is 28 February.
They take our jobs. They put pressure on our social services. They bring war, disease and uncivilised social practices. They degrade our culture and threaten our societies. Everything was better before they arrived…
These are just a few of the myths on migrants and refugees that are routinely spread by the mainstream media and politicians in Europe. Depicting migrants, refugees and asylum seekers as a burden on national economies and a danger to social cohesion, these myths combine to build a specific “narrative” on migration that leads to fear and anxiety among the public and oppressive reactions from governments.❞
swissinfo.ch | La Suisse défend l’accord de Dublin et ce n’est pas un hasard
Quel accueil pour les migrants en Europe ? Alors que l’Italie demande l’abolition de l’accord de Dublin, la Suisse et d’autres Etats européens continuent imperturbablement de défendre l’importance de cet accord. Et ce n’est pas un hasard : depuis 2009, la Suisse est en effet le pays qui a transféré le plus grand nombre de réfugiés, principalement […]
Une vague de migration sans précédent allait déferler sur l’Europe : c’est ce qu’on pouvait entendre et lire à l’automne 2015 dans tous les médias et dans les discours des hommes politiques. Mais qu’en est-il vraiment en France ? Où sont ces réfugiés syriens qui préoccupent tant l’Union européenne ? Entre les inquiets face à une vague migratoire qui devait déstabiliser tout le pays, et les partisans d’une approche humanitaire, on avait juste oublié un élément du puzzle : les réfugiés syriens ne veulent pas venir chez nous !
When I first wrote about linguistic self-defense (discussed in Liav Orgad’s book pp. 198-200) I had a conception of languages in danger, The most visible potential victim were the French in Quebec. But with the help of Charles de Gaulle, the Quebecois have held on well to their culture (majority at home, minority at large, but supported by a large nation in Europe). One form of linguistic self-defense I proposed at the time was insisting on speaking your language in commercial transactions. For the sake of profit, store keepers would play along. Also, public advertising is a critical mode of making a language seem like the background state of normalcy. The key case in Quebec, as I recall, was called Chaussures Brown Shoes. That was the way they wanted their sign to read. The Anglophones objected and lost.
It is hard to know how important linguistic self-defense is these days. We used to have a theory about how many languages there are in the world, but even that number is open to question. The more we problem isolated jungles the more we discover. But the number should not matter. Each language represents a distinct cultural heritage. As the number of living organic species concern, we want to avoid the avoid the contraction of organic diversity – of living beings and living cultures.
The question today is whether it is worth fighting for a language on the verge of distinction in the fact of an aggressive dominant language like English. The quandary of the Navajos provides a good example. Within the last few years there has been a dispute about whether the new chief of the tribe should speak fluent Navajo. However that was resolved, the conflict highlights a question of fact and one of principle. The fact is that a language like Navajo is a unique culture heritage. Because of its complexity, it played a unique role in World War II. The enemy could not comprehend spoken Navajo and there was no time for code-breaking in person to person communication. Therefore, native Navajos played a key military role as agents of communication. It is also a fact that today in the face of English all around them, the locals are losing their core culture. For that reason, I think it made sense to insist that the chief of he tribe speak the language fluently. After all, the policies of all politicians are dubious but their role as figureheads to inspire the young is a critical culture force. Insisting that the chief speak the language fluently is a form of linguistic self-defense.
There is a similar issue built into the United States Constitution. There is no explicit requirement that the president speak English, indeed English has no official status as the country’s lingua franca. The outdated requirement that the president be native born was simply a hedge against the British reclaiming power in the new world. Beyond that limited point, Americans are suspicious of presidential candidates with foreign ties. Jeb Bush speaks fluent Spanish but it does not help him, as Mitt Romney’s presumably fluent French was irrelevant to his campaign. No president since the Civil Wars has spoken a foreign language fluently. This prejudice is surely one of the weakest aspects of the American personality. Angela Merkel speaks Russian fluently and it only adds to her attractive set of skills.
All things considered, however, the story of the last half century has been one of linguistic offense. The English-speakers have manages to replace French as the language of diplomacy and of international law. The Rome statute is written in English. Although there are six official languages in the UN, the dominant one is English. This means that unique words in the English legal vocabulary like ‘fairness,’ and ‘reasonableness’ have become essential in international legal discourse. At Davos, I assume, the international leaders speak to each other in English. This makes the world a little more efficent – a value presumably respected more by the majority culture of the United States than by, say, the Navajos.
Is there a downside to these trends? Well, there is a long-standing dispute about whether the language we speak influences the way we think. This might be true for our native languages but the evidence is hard to muster. I don’t think the gender differences – and the different alignment of genders say, in German and French – make any difference. Whether ‘la guere’ or ‘der Krieg’, war is just as brutal. Peace is better whether it is ‘la paix’ or ‘der Frieden.’ Yet there is another side to this argument, one advanced by Benjamin Lee Whorf and recently by Guy Deutscher, that in some cases syntax and perhaps some semantic differences do affect the way we think. Whorf focussed on the way some Indian languages (with which this whole field of inquiry would suffer!) describe actions and concluded that the conception of action was different. This, unfortunately, is not subject to any proof that I can think of. Deutscher’s example of some cases of locating object relative to the place of the sun might be more convincing. When we say ‘left’ or ‘right’ we are not interested in the place of the sun. These propositions remind us of claims about the relative impact of legal doctrines and the behavior of judges. We know that the law has some impact of judicial decisions but we do not know how much.
In the final analysis, linguistic differences – like other cultural differences – add to the richness of our lives. Should we struggle, then, to hold onto to dying languages? Yes. as much as we care about dying organic species. In the spirit of Orgad’s work, however, we should not ignore the importance of ‘majority’ or ‘plurality’ languages Not only English, but Chinese, Spanish, Indonesian, and many more – too numerous to name – are indispensable to the unified infrastructure of the world.
Viaggio a fumetti nei campi profughi dell’Europa dell’est
Nell’ottobre del 2015, dopo essere stato ospite del festival di Internazionale a Ferrara, il disegnatore australiano Sam Wallman si è unito a un collettivo di attivisti tedeschi e polacchi che andavano a cucinare pasti caldi per i profughi nei campi allestiti ai confini dell’Europa dell’est. Voleva vedere con i suoi occhi la crisi dei profughi in corso.
Se “migrante” e “rifugiato” non spiegano le nuove diaspore
È necessario ampliare ad altri contesti la protezione dei «profughi». Non è solo la guerra la ragione per cui avvengono le espulsioni di massa di popoli dalle loro terre. Carenza d’acqua, inquinamento, cambiamento climatico causano milioni di nuove vittime. Lo sguardo della grande sociologa sulle migrazioni contemporanee
What’s the Difference Between a Refugee and a Deportee? A Lawyer.
Prompted by the ongoing crisis of child migrants from Central American, Senate Democrats are trying to get due process for “vulnerable” asylum seekers.
17 years in a refugee camp: on the trail of a dodgy statistic
You find the same figure being quoted all over the world, by all sorts of different sources, and not just in English and French: in this Turkish news article from just two weeks ago, ‘Angelina Jolie stated that the average period for which refugees live in refugee camps was 17 years’ [Angelina Jolie, mülteci kampında mültecilerin yaşadıkları sürenin ortalama 17 yıl olduğunu belirtti]. Any statistic that’s so freely quoted by so many different people deserves a bit of critical attention, especially when no-one ever gives the source. And as it happens, my friend Eleanor Davey and I did a bit of digging around about this one last year.
The point of this post isn’t to downplay the seriousness of protracted refugee situations, whether the people caught up in them are encamped or not. Nor is it driven by a desire for accuracy. (Well, okay, a little. “Factual Inaccuracy Found On Internet!”) The problem with this untrustworthy figure—bandied around endlessly despite being deeply problematic, over a decade out of date, and not actually about refugee camps—is what it does to refugees themselves. Like the image of ‘the refugee’, like the identikit photos of refugee camps (subject of a future post, as mentioned in the caption to the one at the top of the page), this figure reduces the enormous complexity of protracted refugee situations, and the much greater complexity, richness, and difficulty of the lives of the people living through them, to a mere cipher. It gives those of us who aren’t refugees a sorry little fact to wring our hands over—one of those things we can feel good about feeling bad about—then set aside. When people use it, they’re not really talking about refugees at all.
#manipulation #fact-checking #asile #migrations #chiffres #statistiques #réfugiés #camps_de_réfugiés #médias #journalisme
"Tell the chef, the beer is on me."
"Basically the price of a night on the town!"
"I'd love to help kickstart continued development! And 0 EUR/month really does make fiscal sense too... maybe I'll even get a shirt?" (there will be limited edition shirts for two and other goodies for each supporter as soon as we sold the 200)