Irini Picolou

Race has no scientific foundation, as proved by the emergence of Social Darwinism and the existence of later theories in 1911. However, despite the challenges that science imposed to the subjective belief in the plurality of races existent in mankind, heinous racial discourse, activity and genocidal regimes such as that of Nazi Germany, continued to prevail. Is history repeating itself? It might be worth looking into the dubious case of Treasure Richards, an 16 year old African American teenager who identifies herself as Caucasian and white, ‘with a body like Kim Kardashian’.

Poising on the chair on Dr. Phil’s studio, Treasure becomes the performative object of ridicule and comedic entertainment. Her views are underscored by the media, characterising her as a racist villain who does not deserve a supporting and loving family. Ultimately, her racist identity has created her into a problem for society, but also a necessary form of entertainment for the public.
Personally, I condone this treatment towards her. It is understandable, on the one hand, that there would be a profound expression of disgust in her public reception. On the other hand, however, not a ‘racist sympathiser’ myself, it is important to delve into the potential sociological and environmental implications that this case inaugurates.

Her mother told her she was not an African American, something that was criticized in a show hosted by an African American psychologist. This is not the pinnacle of the blame that should prevail, however, it does create a veritable confusion in one’s identity as well as a discursive confirmation of a desirable self-identification. I am not going to make assumptions about this individual and insist she has some sort of mental disorder, but objectively speaking, how far should we go about shaming her views in public on a global spectacle?

It is, without doubt, important to prevent the spread of extremist ideas and to show one that it is wrong. However, the extent to which this girl has been publicly shamed for her factual distortion within her self-identification could be considered counterproductive. We could make the argument that it gives her, in a way, more agency to inflate her egotistical form of expressing her outlandish ideas, or if we make presumptions about her emotional hidden state, it may reinforce her ‘self-hating’ if this is the case already. It is important to consider where these ideas came from since the renowned scholar who wrote the Oxford very short introduction on race, Ali Rattansi, considers racist beliefs not to be ‘natural’ as such. So where did these emerge from?

Without pointing the finger at solely one factor i.e. her mother’s role in reinforcing the distortion of her daughter’s self-perception, it is important to bear on the wider contexts of racism and self-identification, as well as the legitimacy of discursive agency in order to understand where these heinous-sounding ideas originate from. In other words, it is crucial to understand what constitutes our understanding of difference, why this girl views African-Americanism as a platform of difference and to what extent she truly self-identifies as Caucasian. It is thus necessary to delve deeper into these issues of self-identification and fear of difference by trying to perceive what shapes her view of difference, what role society plays in her apparent distortion or why she is afraid of being ‘different’, if profound studies show that to be the case. It is crucial to examine her true intentions through survey and academic study, instead of public shaming and to test environmental theories before publicising such statements and assumptions in the media.

Of course, it is not an immediate instinct to view this from an academic lens, because it is categorised as a form of entertainment and perhaps what we would call ‘television trash’. However, it is important to take a sociological standpoint on the issue which may help us to decipher the origins of extremism in groups such as the 

With a longstanding history of the Jews being oppressed in the 1492 expulsion of Late Medieval Spain, the Eurocentric Christian attitudes associating Jews with filth and disease during the years of the plague to the Modern terror of the Holocaust, there is surely much to say on the historical front of Anti-Semitism. However, recently there has been an erroneous conflation of Anti-Zionism with Anti-Semitism, which is the danger in the arguments of Israeli supporters in the world-famous conflict violently encountered with the Palestinians.
​
Let us first examine the etymological origins of the two words to demarcate where the confusion may lie. Objectively speaking, when you type ‘Zionism’ into Google, the first definition which appears reads ‘a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel’. Anti-Zionism is thus a political movement denouncing the promotion of the settlement of Jews in Israel. Surely, the danger can lie in manipulating the wording as ‘Anti-protection,’ thus making it seem that there are Anti-Semitic beliefs involved with this political movement. Anti-Semitism, on the other hand, is predominantly a racial movement, and the two do not necessarily intertwine depending on the context due to the fact they refer to separate concepts, let alone are synonymous with one another. If we phrase it as such, we are taking it out of the current political context in which it is being used and have to face the negative implications of conflating the two terms.

It is important to remember that Palestine was previously a British colony before Britain allowed Israeli rule to dominate the Palestinian nation on the grounds of religious justification, claiming it was a promised land to which they now want to return. If I disassociate my own personal views from the matter, which may or may not be Pro-Israeli in the case of the conflict, Zionism is thus a justification for Jewish settlement in Palestine. Granted the justification was morally and ethically right or wrong in its political and biblical context, it is important to remember that the conflict has equally led to the slaughter of a nation, almost as what we could term as a present-day genocide. So effectively, Zionism is being utilised to justify the oppressive actions of the Israeli population towards the Palestinians, and labeling this threatening settlement to Palestinians is ‘Anti-Semitism?’

I would not be writing this article if there was a somewhat peaceful cohabitation existing in certain areas of Palestine or even a political compromise between the two countries. I have friends who have lost cousins in Palestine in bloody gun episodes with the intervention of Israeli soldiers. While I do not actually overtly oppose Jewish settlement within a certain country or even dare to question governmental choice based on Biblical and legal terms to grant Palestine to the Jewish nation, my stance being limited and thus neutral until I read more on the matter, I certainly do oppose terming Anti-Zionism as Anti-Semitism within this specific political context which indirectly serves as a justification for the murder, oppression and hatred towards the Palestinian people.
 

Irini Picolou

Set the scene: a blue 1960s bus precariously hanging off the edge of the road in the Italian Alps. One tilt in the wrong direction and the bus will plunge down into the valley in a spectacular crash. The only positive outcome is survival.

Of course, this is the final scene of the Italian Job, a must watch (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZCaSyid4m0). This Michael Cane classic encapsulates the predicament of the 3rd largest Eurozone economy. Teetering on the edge of collapse with survival as the only tangible route out. We must question how Italy has got itself into this mess and how it could find a solution.
Long term trends of high debt, an ageing population, deindustrialisation and fragmentation between the growing north and declining South highlight the fractured nature of Italy. Though somewhat surprising to outsiders, the formation of an Italian coalition government in May 2018 led by the Five Star Movement is the epitome of the divisions in Italy.

But is it Italy’s fault that the country is on the edge of collapse? The answer is multifaceted and depends completely on who you talk to.

The levels of debt to GDP per capita in Italy are the highest in Europe (excluding our Greek maverick Stravos whose debt has been restructured). Why is this bad though? Japan has had the highest debt to GDP ratio in the world for the last ten years, but it is not complaining about debt, disfunction or degradation. This debt burden is so heavy on Italy, as the Italian economy is tied to the Eurozone. The outperformance of other Eurozone nations such as Germany and France have stressed a weak economy in Italy (and notably other Mediterranean countries, e.g. Greece). Is there a solution to this? For Italy, it needs to either restructure its debt or untie itself for the Eurozone to let the internal strains balance. The possible return to the Italian Lira as its currency would allow turbulent devaluing which the country needs to rebalance the economy. Economically sound, politically disastrous. The Five Start Movement is a populist party so the idea of putting your nation to the sword is rather unpopular, even if it may be a solution.

Chronic underinvestment, especially in the South and public services, has led to unemployment and underemployment, with the unemployment rate at 9.7% (has been pretty constant for the past 6 years) and youth unemployment recovering from 2014 highs of 43% to a current 31% (hardly happy reading). Hence, ending unemployment, ending poverty and improving public services are major political issues in Italy. In the Five Star Movement’s budget to the EU commission, it highlights that increases in spending would help repair these issues. These are fair grievances for the Italian people and, whilst economically dubious, political and social necessities for a functioning state. In the 8th largest economy in the world, on 27th October, 8000 protestors gathered in Rome to complain about the lack of rubbish removal. Other cities such as Naples have gained a reputation for having no dustbin men with the city full of rubbish. Underinvestment has taken a nastier tone in the South, which has become a haven for criminal activity with 80% of Europe’s cocaine traffic flowing through the south of the country. (Another must watch is Simon Reeves’ Mediterranean which highlights this in scary detail). This is the Italy that the Five Star Movement is fighting to improve.

The European commission wants debt managed, to avoid contagion of Italian risk to the remaining parts of the Eurozone. The Italian government wants to appease the anger of its people and increase spending in basic areas of the economy. For the European Commission, Italy is a fiasco with potential risk to cause serious damage to the Eurozone, especially at the height of the Brexit negotiations. For Italy, this is a fair fiscal fight for a country on the verge of collapse.

Hence on 23rd October, the EU commission rejected the Italian budget in an unprecedented move, which highlighted the deepening rifts between the European Commission and the Italian government. Italian leaders said the government would “not give up” on its plans. “We know that, if we were to surrender, we would quickly return to the pro-bank and pro-austerity ‘experts’,” Luigi Di Maio, deputy prime minister and leader of the Five Star Movement, wrote on Facebook. “And so we will not give up. We know that we are on the right track. And so we will not stop.”

Luigi couldn’t have expressed his government’s view better. The explosion of the Italian 10Y bonds to 3.45% from around 2.7% in the last month also couldn’t explain European Commission President Juncker’s position better.
So will the Italian bus fall of the edge? Either way, the story will not have a happy ending.

Written by Benjamin Hughes

As the wrath of Hurricane Maria drifts from public consciousness, we must remember that her devastating effects linger long on the beaches, fields, streets and hills. Puerto Rico continues to struggle back to its feet amidst destroyed infrastructure and limited access to electricity and clean water. As the storm clouds part, we must question this response and ask why Hurricane Maria hit Puerto Rico so disproportionately hard. 

Five days after the hurricane hit, Donald Trump tweeted that “Texas & Florida are doing great but Puerto Rico, which was already suffering from broken infrastructure & massive debt, is in deep trouble…”. This was his first response to the crisis, managing to be both insensitive and callous. This contrasts to Texas and Florida, who received immediate presidential response: a portent for the ensuing handling of the crisis.  

The federal response to the hurricane has been slow and disorganised. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is yet to access much of the island, partly due to the challenging terrain, and half of the island remains without electricity. Congress is also still to pass a relief fund, providing billions of dollars for much-needed repair works. The federal mismanagement in the immediate aftermath was compounded by PREPA – the Puerto Rico Power Company. PREPA signed a $300,000,000 repair contract with a company called Whitefish. This contract has since been terminated after outrage at the contract terms –audit was prohibited and aviation fuel, for example, was billed at three times the normal rate.

Blame for Puerto Rico's state of devastation can be partially apportioned to long-term financial mismanagement, for which both the local government and the US federal government are at fault. Puerto Rico has for the last decade struggled under a mountain of public debt. Prior to the 2007 financial crisis, the government of Puerto Rico borrowed heavily and enjoyed federal tax cuts. The combination of the expiry of these tax cuts and the financial crash hit the island’s finances hard and since 2007 the island has had just one year of financial growth - the necessary infrastructure maintenance and upgrades required to protect against natural disaster have been unaffordable.

The US response has been reflective of the attitudes of many Americans towards their territories: out of sight and out of mind. Only 53% of America's recently surveyed realised that the people of Puerto Rico are US citizens and historically, US behaviour regarding their territories has been less than stellar: in the 1950s, nuclear weapons’ tests were carried on Bikini Atoll – one of the Marshall Islands. The then inhabited Marshall Islands are now widely inhospitable and thick with nuclear fallout.
​
Puerto Rico finds itself at the epicentre of long-term mismanagement, federal disregard, and local ineptitude. Hurricane season is over, but Puerto Rico’s problems are yet to retreat over the horizon.  

By Tobias Rankin

​

While most of the world’s attention remains fixed on the political ongoings in the United States, wondering what calamity President Trump will instigate next, back on our side of the pond the government of Europe’s most powerful country rests in an atmosphere of uncertainty. After the German elections in September Angela Merkel, Chancellor and leading representative of Germany on the world stage since 2005, faced the biggest challenge to her leadership yet when the emerging far right party Alternative for Germany (AfD) won 13% of the vote and became the third largest party in the Bundestag. Her own party, the Christian Democratic Union, were able to hold onto their majority, but have suffered disappointment in the past month as coalition talks with the liberal party and the Greens have broken down. If current negotiations with the Social Democrats fail, then she may be forced to form a minority government.


This year the CDU suffered their worst election result since 1949, receiving only 33% of the vote. Although it seems likely that Merkel will continue to hold onto power, the rise to prominence of a party such as the AfD is undoubtedly a cause for concern. Originally founded as an anti-euro party, in recent months they have been increasingly targeting immigration and the Islamic presence in Europe as part of a wave of nationalistic rhetoric currently sweeping the continent. Similar to the National Front in France or the Austrian Freedom Party, their protests against the ‘Islamisation of the West’ has been welcomed by those in fear of the ever-changing multicultural landscape of Europe. Björn Höcke, leader of the AfD in the east German state of Thuringia has been quoted as saying of the Holocaust memorial in Berlin: “We Germans are the only nation in the world to have planted a monument of shame in the heart of their capital”. The popularisation of such nationalist sentiments seems even more disturbing when considering that this is a country in which the horrors of Nazism echo in its living memory.
While the Socialist Democrats have voted to allow leader Martin Schulz to begin talks with Merkel, it could be as late as February or March before any kind of agreement is reached.  This continuation of their previous coalition was initially ruled out by Schulz, however the combination of their poor electoral performance and the threat from ever expanding extremist parties may mean he has little choice if he wants to prevent a lurch to the right in parliament.

By Cathy Meyer-Funnell

​