http://bnp.org.uk/
http://www.jobbik.com/
Lyon, D, (2009), Identifying Citizens; ID Cards as Surveillence, Cambridge, Polity Press
http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.frontnational.com/&ei=Hu8XS-egHIGD4QbXg6HfAg&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBkQ7gEwAg&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dfront%2Bnational%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1R2ACPW_en
http://www.groepwilders.com/website/default.aspx?ID=4
Trilling, D, (2009), Who do you think you are kidding…?, New Statesman, London, Spencer Neal
Thursday 3 December 2009
Wednesday 2 December 2009
Assignment 4: The Essay
Although I do intend to read the entire book over the Christmas period, I chose for this assignment to only look at the first chapter: “Demanding Documents”, (Lyon, D, (2009), Identifying Citizens; ID Cards as Surveillance, Cambridge, Polity Press) as it was the control factor and idea of an authority figure having to the power to request identification from you at any given moment, that interested me in this subject in the first place. The chapter opens with Lyon looking at ‘slave tags’, which was a tin tag that a slave was required to carry at all times, and which stated their occupation and an ID number so that suspects could be distinguished from runaways, and goes on to document various methods of identification throughout history, right up to the present day. It looks at passports and how they have become commonplace, but by definition are for those who wish to cross borders and travel to foreign soil, whereas the intent of ID cards is to include the entire population.
Lyon goes to onto examine the “legibility of citizens,” starting with the first national census in New France, which was to become Canada, in 1666, and its purpose being for taxation, as well as an initiate to encourage citizens to have larger families. He then moves onto looking at ‘internal passports’ which were used in Stalinist Russia and their purpose; to regulate the “movements of certain groups” and the consequences they brought to the successor states that formed after the fall of communism. The example given is that of the Mayor of Moscow, who in 1995 was ordered to clear the city of unregistered habitants from the Caucasus and Central Asia using the passport system. Almost one million Chechens, who had been stamped as “enemy of the people” and had been deported by Stalin back in the 1940s, had gradually filtered back into Russia, but they were faced with the same situation as they were ‘unregistered’ and it was their children who fought for Chechnya during the mid 1990s. (page 26)
The next section; “Identification and Colonial Administration” goes onto study the differences between American slavery identification methods and British colonial identification methods, going into more detail about the slave tags mentioned at the beginning of the chapter, and the first use of fingerprints in India in the 19th century. The Belgian system of “ethnic classification” practised in Rwanda in the 1930s, and its negative effects of segregation between the main indigenous groups; Hutu and Tutsi, who populated the country, resulted in mass genocide in 1994, is also discussed.
“Identification and Crime Control,” as the name suggests, looks at perhaps the most popular argument for ID cards in our time; the prevention of terrorism. It would seem that methods of identification to protect law abiding citizens have been around since the earliest historical times, and Lyon begins this section by looking at branding; the act of burning a stamp or mark into the skin of a human being, with the intent of making it permanent, as a way to separate the criminals from the innocent. Fingerprinting is examined in more detail, looking at how it was chosen over Bertillonage; “a system, named after its inventor, Alphonse Bertillon, of body measurements, photos and a detailed description (portrait parlé)”, as well as other methods. Lyon then discusses the racial implications, as he looks at Juan Vucetich who was in charge of the statistical bureau of the La Plata police force in Argentina and his system of categorising immigrants. He then ends the section stating that whilst the methods have been updated and modernised, the same old prejudices and discriminatory means have been proven difficult to completely expel. (page 31)
War creates the need for ever more identification systems to come into play. The government needs to source prospective military material; those willing to defend King and country, as well as ousting potential hostiles and illegal aliens. After the beginning of the second world war in 1914, the General Register Office (GRO) harvested mass data on a variety of groups including military recruitment, mining and agricultural workers. A catalogue of war refugees was kept in order to protect against fifth columnists, and any necessary information was sent to the intelligence services; MI5. The driving force behind the first national ID card in Britain was the fierce debate going on between those who supported conscription to the army and those who supported voluntary methods. The National Registration Bill by July of 1915 proved that almost 1.5 million men were still available for national service.
The chapter concludes with Lyon stating that racism plays a major role in terms of identification with its tragic consequences, segregation, discrimination and alienation and his example is that of the Gaza conflict; Palestine versus Israel. He questions whether or not modern methods will be able to escape the “negative histories that have dogged such documents in the past.” (page 38)
As the title of this chapter suggests, Lyon is going to examine identification as a method of control and practised using force, and all of his examples back up this idea; genocide in Rwanda, persecution of the Chechens under Stalin, treatment of slaves and criminals, all have a bleak backdrop. He goes over how different time periods and countries have enforced various forms of ID, and how they have evolved, and often, their consequences of mass murder and maltreatment. He has obviously researched the area in much detail and his pages are laden with references, and his bibliography and notes are extensive. Very little of what he writes appears to be of his own opinion and what is, is backed by facts, but from the austere tone of the chapter, I would suggest he has manipulated the information given and presented a case which argues an anti ID case.
The government has always kept registers of various groups including births, deaths and stillbirths, marriages, voters, sufferers of tuberculosis, the mentally deficient and primary/secondary school pupils, and Lyon indirectly asks the reader why we accept this method of identification, but not in the form of ID cards. I agree with this type of information being on file somewhere, as to me it seems necessary, but as for carrying identification? I am yet to be persuaded, and from the negative implications put forward by Lyon, the government will have a hard time convincing the general public to rise to the idea of ID cards. From the examples he has given, racism appears to have a major influence, and in the already unsteady global relationship between the East and the West and the prejudices that are now commonplace, due to the level of hatred towards Islam that has been inspired by the events of 9/11, then it is not possible to escape the “negative histories” that plagued identification in the past, so what makes us think we can escape it now and produce a system which is entirely unbiased and is created purely to protect its citizens?
The journal article I chose to look at in more depth is from ‘The New Statesman’; a magazine I’ve read for quite a few months now, particularly in the lead up to the European elections. It was written by Daniel Trilling as he documents his trip to Strasbourg, France on the trail of Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons; members of the far right political party, the BNP, as they make their first appearance at the European Parliament.
The title of the article immediately gives away the tone of the report; “Who do you think you are kidding...?” which is a play on the popular British sitcom ‘Dad’s Army’ which was about the National Guard in the Second World War, and the artwork in the article is reminiscent of the opening titles of the programme, in which arrows with swastikas representing Hilter’s Nazi party are chased back across to Europe by arrows bearing the Union Jack, whilst the song “Who do you think you are kidding Mr Hilter?” plays. This time the arrows which once bore the Nazi swastika now represent the European Union. This play on the arrows can be read a number of ways but the once that stuck out most to me was that the British National Party are often described as “Nazi” and indeed their policies of segregation and purification of British soil by ridding the country of any who are not of white, Caucasian descend are in keeping with Hilter’s persecution of the Jews in the Second World War. Yet, now the so called Nazi’s have reached power in Britain and the invasion of Europe has come from the opposite side as the BNP reach out to other fanaticals in the EU.
Trilling’s report could best be described as scathing. He begins with waiting at the Louise Weiss Building for the politicians to arrive, and compares it with the stuffy atmosphere of Westminster, whereas here it is “open and collegiate”. He depicts the various fascist, far right MEPs with venom, including Krisztina Morvai of Jobbik; “the gypsy hating Hungarian party”, Jean Marie Le Pen of Front National and various members of Netherland’s Party for Freedom, both of which share the BNP’s views on Holocaust denial and anti Islam policies.
Trilling’s article tells of the victory that Griffin and his comrades have won, but describes it as being “decidedly hollow” due to the fact that they have failed to form an official coalition with any MEPs. And whereas I completely and wholeheartedly agree with Trilling’s depiction and disgust of the BNP and their sympathisers, I cannot help but feel that he at no point questions why the BNP have gained these seats in the EU, and I feel this is a critical point to make. His article is based for the majority of his own primary research and is mostly his opinion, with statistics and facts to back up his points.
He also examines the relationship between the BNP and the Conservatives, a fellow, but not nearly as extremist, or indeed, racist, right wing party. Trilling talks of how actions by the Conservatives to quit the European People’s Party, thus allowing some “ultranationalist elements” into the mainstream, which I take to mean that by the Conservatives joining the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), they have allowed the BNP to associate themselves into mainstream politics with similar policies.
Both of the sources I chose to look at focus on two different, but interwoven subjects: identification and racism on identity within politics. Originally I studied ID cards; a subject which I’d already had my views formed on, without really knowing why. Within ID, I have looked at identity theft and misrepresentation, something which I have experienced through a fanatical right wing webzine known as ‘Redwatch’ which targets socialist and communist sympathisers and anyone who disagrees with the BNPs policies. I chose to look at the two areas which interested me most which was the BNP and the racism and their recent rise to power in the EU, whilst still investigating ID cards.
The sources were completely different in content, the style in which they were written and the way the author presented and manipulated their information. Lyon’s writing is mainly factual, but presented in a way which implies his opinion on the subject and Trilling’s writing is purely opinion, with little fact, but enough to back up his article in terms of what percentage of votes the BNP received at the European elections and the main policies of various other right wing groups within the EU. I found Trilling’s far easier to read and digest, whilst with Lyon, I had to reread and make notes in order to fully grasp his meaning.
Trilling’s work was of limited use as it is only one person’s opinion and is only an article describing one event, whilst Lyon’s book covers identification throughout history and from many different angles and perspectives, which results in me preferring it as a more valuable source.
Lyon goes to onto examine the “legibility of citizens,” starting with the first national census in New France, which was to become Canada, in 1666, and its purpose being for taxation, as well as an initiate to encourage citizens to have larger families. He then moves onto looking at ‘internal passports’ which were used in Stalinist Russia and their purpose; to regulate the “movements of certain groups” and the consequences they brought to the successor states that formed after the fall of communism. The example given is that of the Mayor of Moscow, who in 1995 was ordered to clear the city of unregistered habitants from the Caucasus and Central Asia using the passport system. Almost one million Chechens, who had been stamped as “enemy of the people” and had been deported by Stalin back in the 1940s, had gradually filtered back into Russia, but they were faced with the same situation as they were ‘unregistered’ and it was their children who fought for Chechnya during the mid 1990s. (page 26)
The next section; “Identification and Colonial Administration” goes onto study the differences between American slavery identification methods and British colonial identification methods, going into more detail about the slave tags mentioned at the beginning of the chapter, and the first use of fingerprints in India in the 19th century. The Belgian system of “ethnic classification” practised in Rwanda in the 1930s, and its negative effects of segregation between the main indigenous groups; Hutu and Tutsi, who populated the country, resulted in mass genocide in 1994, is also discussed.
“Identification and Crime Control,” as the name suggests, looks at perhaps the most popular argument for ID cards in our time; the prevention of terrorism. It would seem that methods of identification to protect law abiding citizens have been around since the earliest historical times, and Lyon begins this section by looking at branding; the act of burning a stamp or mark into the skin of a human being, with the intent of making it permanent, as a way to separate the criminals from the innocent. Fingerprinting is examined in more detail, looking at how it was chosen over Bertillonage; “a system, named after its inventor, Alphonse Bertillon, of body measurements, photos and a detailed description (portrait parlé)”, as well as other methods. Lyon then discusses the racial implications, as he looks at Juan Vucetich who was in charge of the statistical bureau of the La Plata police force in Argentina and his system of categorising immigrants. He then ends the section stating that whilst the methods have been updated and modernised, the same old prejudices and discriminatory means have been proven difficult to completely expel. (page 31)
War creates the need for ever more identification systems to come into play. The government needs to source prospective military material; those willing to defend King and country, as well as ousting potential hostiles and illegal aliens. After the beginning of the second world war in 1914, the General Register Office (GRO) harvested mass data on a variety of groups including military recruitment, mining and agricultural workers. A catalogue of war refugees was kept in order to protect against fifth columnists, and any necessary information was sent to the intelligence services; MI5. The driving force behind the first national ID card in Britain was the fierce debate going on between those who supported conscription to the army and those who supported voluntary methods. The National Registration Bill by July of 1915 proved that almost 1.5 million men were still available for national service.
The chapter concludes with Lyon stating that racism plays a major role in terms of identification with its tragic consequences, segregation, discrimination and alienation and his example is that of the Gaza conflict; Palestine versus Israel. He questions whether or not modern methods will be able to escape the “negative histories that have dogged such documents in the past.” (page 38)
As the title of this chapter suggests, Lyon is going to examine identification as a method of control and practised using force, and all of his examples back up this idea; genocide in Rwanda, persecution of the Chechens under Stalin, treatment of slaves and criminals, all have a bleak backdrop. He goes over how different time periods and countries have enforced various forms of ID, and how they have evolved, and often, their consequences of mass murder and maltreatment. He has obviously researched the area in much detail and his pages are laden with references, and his bibliography and notes are extensive. Very little of what he writes appears to be of his own opinion and what is, is backed by facts, but from the austere tone of the chapter, I would suggest he has manipulated the information given and presented a case which argues an anti ID case.
The government has always kept registers of various groups including births, deaths and stillbirths, marriages, voters, sufferers of tuberculosis, the mentally deficient and primary/secondary school pupils, and Lyon indirectly asks the reader why we accept this method of identification, but not in the form of ID cards. I agree with this type of information being on file somewhere, as to me it seems necessary, but as for carrying identification? I am yet to be persuaded, and from the negative implications put forward by Lyon, the government will have a hard time convincing the general public to rise to the idea of ID cards. From the examples he has given, racism appears to have a major influence, and in the already unsteady global relationship between the East and the West and the prejudices that are now commonplace, due to the level of hatred towards Islam that has been inspired by the events of 9/11, then it is not possible to escape the “negative histories” that plagued identification in the past, so what makes us think we can escape it now and produce a system which is entirely unbiased and is created purely to protect its citizens?
The journal article I chose to look at in more depth is from ‘The New Statesman’; a magazine I’ve read for quite a few months now, particularly in the lead up to the European elections. It was written by Daniel Trilling as he documents his trip to Strasbourg, France on the trail of Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons; members of the far right political party, the BNP, as they make their first appearance at the European Parliament.
The title of the article immediately gives away the tone of the report; “Who do you think you are kidding...?” which is a play on the popular British sitcom ‘Dad’s Army’ which was about the National Guard in the Second World War, and the artwork in the article is reminiscent of the opening titles of the programme, in which arrows with swastikas representing Hilter’s Nazi party are chased back across to Europe by arrows bearing the Union Jack, whilst the song “Who do you think you are kidding Mr Hilter?” plays. This time the arrows which once bore the Nazi swastika now represent the European Union. This play on the arrows can be read a number of ways but the once that stuck out most to me was that the British National Party are often described as “Nazi” and indeed their policies of segregation and purification of British soil by ridding the country of any who are not of white, Caucasian descend are in keeping with Hilter’s persecution of the Jews in the Second World War. Yet, now the so called Nazi’s have reached power in Britain and the invasion of Europe has come from the opposite side as the BNP reach out to other fanaticals in the EU.
Trilling’s report could best be described as scathing. He begins with waiting at the Louise Weiss Building for the politicians to arrive, and compares it with the stuffy atmosphere of Westminster, whereas here it is “open and collegiate”. He depicts the various fascist, far right MEPs with venom, including Krisztina Morvai of Jobbik; “the gypsy hating Hungarian party”, Jean Marie Le Pen of Front National and various members of Netherland’s Party for Freedom, both of which share the BNP’s views on Holocaust denial and anti Islam policies.
Trilling’s article tells of the victory that Griffin and his comrades have won, but describes it as being “decidedly hollow” due to the fact that they have failed to form an official coalition with any MEPs. And whereas I completely and wholeheartedly agree with Trilling’s depiction and disgust of the BNP and their sympathisers, I cannot help but feel that he at no point questions why the BNP have gained these seats in the EU, and I feel this is a critical point to make. His article is based for the majority of his own primary research and is mostly his opinion, with statistics and facts to back up his points.
He also examines the relationship between the BNP and the Conservatives, a fellow, but not nearly as extremist, or indeed, racist, right wing party. Trilling talks of how actions by the Conservatives to quit the European People’s Party, thus allowing some “ultranationalist elements” into the mainstream, which I take to mean that by the Conservatives joining the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), they have allowed the BNP to associate themselves into mainstream politics with similar policies.
Both of the sources I chose to look at focus on two different, but interwoven subjects: identification and racism on identity within politics. Originally I studied ID cards; a subject which I’d already had my views formed on, without really knowing why. Within ID, I have looked at identity theft and misrepresentation, something which I have experienced through a fanatical right wing webzine known as ‘Redwatch’ which targets socialist and communist sympathisers and anyone who disagrees with the BNPs policies. I chose to look at the two areas which interested me most which was the BNP and the racism and their recent rise to power in the EU, whilst still investigating ID cards.
The sources were completely different in content, the style in which they were written and the way the author presented and manipulated their information. Lyon’s writing is mainly factual, but presented in a way which implies his opinion on the subject and Trilling’s writing is purely opinion, with little fact, but enough to back up his article in terms of what percentage of votes the BNP received at the European elections and the main policies of various other right wing groups within the EU. I found Trilling’s far easier to read and digest, whilst with Lyon, I had to reread and make notes in order to fully grasp his meaning.
Trilling’s work was of limited use as it is only one person’s opinion and is only an article describing one event, whilst Lyon’s book covers identification throughout history and from many different angles and perspectives, which results in me preferring it as a more valuable source.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)