Eclipsed by the recent tensions between Iran and the US, events in Lebanon have been overlooked. This article overviews the current situation, and what can be expected in the future. 

On Sunday 13th October 2019, a series of 100 forest fires broke out in Lebanon, devastating both agricultural and residential communities of the Chouf District and areas of south Beirut. Fortunately, there were few civilian fatalities, however, this would not have been possible without the cooperation of the Cyprian and Greek emergency services. The Lebanese Civil Defence was forced to call upon foreign aid due to the inability of their own services to tame the fires. Their incapacity to independently resolve the blaze is indicative of the country’s failing public service sector and, on a larger-scale symptomatic of their fragile political situation. Tensions have long been brewing in Lebanon owing to persistent problems with governmental policy and on Thursday 17th October 2019, over 100 civilian activists took to the streets of Beirut. A growing dissatisfaction with the government as well as the poor handling of the forest fires and the imposition of new taxes on Tobacco and WhatsApp voice calls became the breaking point. Although the protests subsided over the holidays, this week they took a much more violent turn. Central banks in particular suffered great damage, with some burnt to the ground.
 
Lebanon’s political configuration is unusual - maintaining a sectarian government. For those unfamiliar with this concept of sectarianism in the political realm, it means that the 18 officially recognised religions in Lebanon must share power and each religion receives a specific number of seats in parliament. At the top of the hierarchy - the President must be a Maronite Christian; the Prime Minister a Sunni and, the speaker of the house a Shia. Whilst at surface-level the mass protests may seem to be about matters such as the WhatsApp tax, objecting sectarianism. This is particularly remarkable as the sectarian democracy has been in place since Lebanese independence in 1943, and the system runs deep in the country’s history.
 
It is not difficult to see how this sectarian system may prove controversial. Cooperation becomes increasingly difficult in a sectarian government as it entrenches religious differences, and with a two third majority needed for laws and motions to be passed, action becomes near impossible. Case in point - the presidential election took 2 years, and after this a further 3 years until a president could be decided. Public trust in the government has deteriorated exponentially and what is remarkable is that the population is crossing their own sectarian and political divisions in order to unite in the protest for a secular government. Breaking their sects in order to break the government.
 
Prime Minister Saad Hiriri has already announced his resignation only weeks into the protests. He claims that his resignation serves “the country’s dignity and safety”. However, this has only led to greater fear and uncertainty. If Lebanon does not suffer first from an economic collapse due to its intractable government debt, it will suffocate under the pressure of its environmental crisis. A lack in governmental authority has led to severe ecological issues in Lebanon, and environmental politics have become a national priority. State negligence has caused a complete dysfunction of Lebanon’s waste disposal system, and as journalist Sune Haugbolle writes “the environment has deteriorated apace with public trust in the government and hope for the future”.
 
There is a desperate need for a stable government who can provide long-term waste-management strategies, as stop-gap measures will no longer suffice. The call for a cleaner Lebanon reflects a call for fundamental human rights, as the gases emitted from landfills have rendered living conditions dire and cases of emphysema, heart conditions and asthma are increasing. Lebanon will remain a country paralysed by political dysfunction if it doesn’t address the certain shortcomings of its sectarian system and despite the obvious progress of the protests, whether they will be able to force a change of government is yet to be seen. One can only hope that change will come before the imminent economic and ecological crises.

​Tilly Campbell 

By Amana Moore

In English the word “gilet” may bring to mind made-in-Chelsea-esque characters sitting in the Ivy with a Bloody Mary, but this French activist group wear a very different kind of gilet, one which has become the recognised symbol of an anti-government movement who claim to protest for social and economic justice in France. Translated directly, Les Gilets Jaunes means “The Yellow Vests”, referring to the hi-vis vests that French law requires all drivers to keep in their vehicles.

Last month marked one year since around 280,000 people across France turned up to protest taxes introduced by President Emmanuel Macron in the first Gilets Jaunes demonstrations on 13th November 2018. Sparked by a rise in fuel prices which largely affected those living in more rural areas of France, over the subsequent months the movement became more concerned with other issues facing French society. The demands of the group spanned from raising the minimum wage to calling for Macron’s resignation, and its supporters were wide-ranging, both in views and approach. While some protesters insisted on peaceful action, others have turned to violence. Interestingly, their lack of official political orientation has meant their support ranges from the far-left to the far-right, making it difficult for the government to negotiate with them as an entity. Rather than addressing a singular leader, the French government have had to negotiate with a mix of political groups united under a common feeling of discontent, reminiscent of similar populist movements taking place across Europe. With no centralised leadership, their rise to prominence has been attributed to a timely exploitation of pertinent social and economic concerns and a tactical use of social media platforms such as Facebook, through which most of their demonstrations are organised.

After weeks of protest in Paris in 2018, Macron confronted this “economic and social emergency” in a special public address in December of that year and proceeded to freeze the price of electricity and gas until May 2019, to implement a €100-a-month increase in the minimum wage from 2019, and other significant changes. This turnaround in policy was delivered with a contrite tone, Macron accepting his “share of responsibility” for the uprisings. Macron then toured the country with a “grand national debate” as a way of enabling French people to express their economic and social views. The impact of the movement also stretched further afield, with other countries staging similar demonstrations in which protesters donned the same yellow vests.

As the government have responded to the anger demonstrated in Autumn 2018 over the last 12 months, popular support for the Gilets Jaunes has arguably dwindled, with a recent poll by Elabe for BFMTV suggesting that over half of the French population want the protests of the Gilets Jaunes to stop. The impact of the Gilets Jaunes movement on French society both emotionally and practically over the past year is undeniable, but the future of this protest group is difficult to gauge. Is it just another demonstration of an infamous determination to protest in a country founded on rebellion? Or perhaps it shows a progressive relationship between people and state? Having successfully reminded Macron (accused of being the ‘president for France’s elite’) that there is a whole population of French people who will not stand for these “inégalités”, perhaps the work of the Gilets Jaunes is complete. In the face of increasingly violent action at the hands of the Gilets Jaunes, many of the group’s more moderate supporters have distanced themselves from the disruption, leaving a determined core who insist that their fight is far from over. The yellow vest has undoubtedly become a symbol for productive activism in France; they protested for change and they got it. However, this image of change does not come without its complications.
​
The Gilets Jaunes have shown that protest can be productive, and we perhaps have something to learn from the French in this. The impact they created was brought about by a unifying sense of discontent, and now, in the face of Macron’s concessions, the intensity of widespread feeling has faded, if temporarily. Although maybe less well-attended, the protests continue to take place and the yellow gilets have not quite gone out of fashion. The flame, if small, remains, ready to be stoked when the occasion arises.   

‘This government was not going to hang around’ and ‘that we would not wait until Brexit day, October 31st, to deliver on the priorities of the British people,’ declared Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, on 2nd September over the chants of Westminster protesters. Now nearing a general election on 12th December, with the Brexit deadline in a constant state of postponement, is it wise to take our parliamentary representatives’ words with a pinch of salt, an ounce, or a kilo?
 
Among the many possible eventualities which could determine the course of Brexit based upon the general election result, the three most probable outcomes are shrouded with delay and uncertainty. For if the Conservatives win a majority, Johnson claims he will back Brexit and ‘get it done’ before 31st January 2020, though this would not necessarily entail a Conservative majority, but a leave majority. If Labour wins the election, Jeremy Corbyn will call for further delay beyond 31st January, promising six months of negotiating the withdrawal agreement again, then putting a referendum back to the people. In the event that the Liberal Democrats win, though this is unlikely, Brexit would be scrapped in true ‘Bullocks to Brexit’ fashion.
 
Speaking to protesters outside Westminster, many were infuriated and felt cheated by the government and their handling of Brexit. ‘Some may call it a national crisis, what are your views on the uncertainty [surrounding Brexit], is it worrying for the nation?’
 
‘Well, there’s a very simple way to stop the uncertainty and that’s to revoke article 50,’ claimed Ruth from Canterbury. ‘Why should we respect the result [2016 EU referendum]? You know, which bit should we respect? The inequalities? the lying? the cheating? the foreign money? the Cambridge Analytica adverts? What is there to respect? There is nothing democratic about it at all.’
 
On Brexit, Sam from South London put his foot down saying that, ‘there are enough people on the leave side — I’d say at least 1.2 million; for them, a no-deal Brexit would be the line that is crossed, therefore as a Democrat I think that if it’s a no-deal that we’re getting we need to either stop that [gestures to protests outside Parliament] by letting Parliament do their job or have a second referendum between remain and no-deal because I think that’s what a democratic mandate would say we needed.’
 
When questioned which party he would vote for in the general election Sam responded, ‘if Rory Stewart had won the Conservative leadership debate I would be voting for the Conservatives and not Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour government.’ He then affirmed that because Johnson leads the party he will vote for the Liberal Democrats.
 
At what point will the Commons put their ideological differences aside and act in the national interest? Something of a positional issue has now turned into a national crisis and if the tensions facing Parliament were not bad enough, the delay has brought about further grid-lock, throwing days away like pennies down a wishing well. Brexit remains a lingering dread on people’s minds and whether you are remain or leave, the delay brings many people to the same judgement; Brexit must be dealt with now.


Sophie Farmer

 “Trafficking”, “immigration”, “refugees”. Whether used as terms for political scaremongering or simply on the front pages, these are three words that we hear all too often. It was only three weeks ago that 39 Vietnamese nationals were found dead in the back of a lorry in Essex after attempting to reach the UK through clandestine methods. This is very much not the first case of its kind, and nor will it be the last. Is it not time that we re-think our immigration policies?

On 23rd October, 31 men and 8 women were found dead in the back of a refrigerated lorry container in an industrial park in Essex. Since then, the driver of the lorry has been charged with manslaughter and three others have been released on bail on suspicion of manslaughter and conspiracy of human trafficking. The identities of the victims as well as their cause of death is still under forensic investigation, however, Essex police have termed it the “largest mass fatality victim identification process in their history”. It is reported that some of the victims and their families paid up to £30,000 for what they believed to be a ‘safe route’ to the UK.

What these 39 Vietnamese men and women shared was the promised hope of a better life in the UK. Risking family debt and security, they unknowingly were signing up for a scam; the promises of VIP entry on a business class ticket to the UK, and a more prosperous life upon arrival. However, paradoxically, immigration policies are only getting stricter, which is forcing more and more migrants to take these life-threatening journeys. The Essex lorry deaths are not an isolated incident. Tragically, the 39 Vietnamese nationals make up just 4% of official migrant deaths in the Mediterranean this year. This story was covered in every UK news outlet and made the front pages of every newspaper, yet despite the horrifying realities of human trafficking that it exposed, it failed to precipitate a government-level discussion over immigration policies.

Ultimately, there is no perfect solution on how to police immigration, which is what makes this such a polarizing issue. From one perspective, in a ‘Trump-esque’ fashion, the UK government could resolve to build a more fortified border. Indeed, this was at the forefront of the ‘vote leave’ Brexit campaign in 2016, with many UK citizens advocating stricter immigration policies in order to “keep out foreigners”. However, being an island with an 11,000-mile coastline, it is perhaps ingenuous to believe that this would be an effective or economical approach to the issue. As one iNews reporter sharply suggested “Build bigger walls and determined people will build bigger tunnels or buy longer ladders”.
This apathetic ‘build a wall’ approach gives rise to the question of fundamental human compassion. Shouldn’t we be looking beyond how to best keep a tally of who’s crossing the border and how we can stop them, but rather question why they are crossing the border? Why were 13.6 million people forced to flee their homes in 2018? Why are we still letting human traffickers capitalize on human suffering? Why are we denying access to these desperate people?

When Alan Kurdi, a young Syrian refugee, washed up dead on the Turkish coastline in 2015, this evoked emotion in even the most heartless of the population. What this image also did was educate. It educated us about the reasons that forced this young boy and his family to flee Syria by such desperate measures. Reasons such as; violence, persecution and insecurity. The Essex lorry deaths have played a similar role, laying bare the fragility of life in Vietnam. In addition, it has disclosed the cruel reality of human trafficking. It is estimated the smugglers responsible for the Vietnamese nationals would have made upwards of £500,000, whether the 31 men and 8 women survived, or not. From these instances alone it seems certain that harsher immigration policies in the UK are not the answer.

Ultimately this demonstrates the urgent need for a deeper global awareness of the driving forces and motivators that lead migrants and refugees to flee their homelands under such desperate circumstances. Hopefully then moving forward, immigration policies will be determined in a more informed and compassionate manner. One suggested solution is to increase border regulation rather than fortification of controls – but this puts pressure on a system which is already struggling. Or it is possible that increased support, whether financial or other, to the countries of origin would be effective? Although sadly the Essex lorry deaths may not have been the wake-up call that the UK so desperately needs, what is certain is that they demonstrate why there needs to be a reinvigorated urgency for a change in attitudes amongst UK policy makers and the population alike.

By Tilly Campbell, Current Affairs Editor 

Clorrie Yeomans, Third Year MLAC Student, College of Saint Hild and Saint Bede 

The Run-Up to the Abortion Debate

The abortion debate in Argentina is an earthquake that splits the land in two. The ground shudders during five months of campaigning in the streets filled with crowds of campaigners wearing emerald bandanas and make-up to symbolise the pro-choice movement. Their principal argument is that criminalising the issue of abortion does not make it go away. In fact, the issue is far from being unimportant, considering that up to an estimated 500,000 clandestine abortions are performed every year in Argentina. Women are criminalised for taking ‘misoprostol’: a drug originally intended to treat stomach ulcers. However, the metal coat hangers in the activists’ hands are a sickly reminder of the even more traumatic alternative for many women, mainly living in rural or deprived areas. Unsurprisingly, these dangerous illegal abortions are the country’s leading cause of maternal deaths. The pro-lifers are also chanting in the streets; dressed in blue. Their fundamental pillar of support is the Catholic Church; whose power has been reinforced since the beginning of the Argentine Pope Francis’ papacy in 2013. 


The entire nation waits in suspense on 8th August 2018, as the Senate deliberates for over 16 hours. This would be the final hurdle for abortion to be legalised after it had already been passed by the Chamber of Deputies, the Argentinean equivalent of the House of Commons. The proposed bill would endow every woman with the choice as to whether to continue or terminate her pregnancy during the first 14 weeks. This is a substantial improvement in comparison to the current law which only allows terminations in cases of rape or when the expectant mother’s physical health is at risk. This would be a historic moment for Argentina and for Latin America, where over 97% of women live under restrictive abortion laws. Then, the wave hits and the ground shudders: the Senate rejects the abortion bill by 38 votes to 31. In the streets, there are endless tears of disappointment and anger, as well as happiness and relief.

Natalie Cave, a Third Year Spanish student who was in Buenos Aires on her Year Abroad, reflects on the historic event: 

Being right in the centre of an Argentine protest was quite the experience. I didn’t really know what to expect as I’ve never been involved in a protest in England before, let alone in Latin America where protests are known to be violent. However, I was pleasantly surprised at the abortion protests. The streets were full of singing, dancing, food stalls and music. Everywhere around me I could see both men and women chanting and waving green bandanas (a symbol for pro-choice supporters) in the air. What really stood out was their passion and solidarity in their protest. 

The Wider Causes and Effects 

Reflecting on Natalie’s response, it is clear that the abortion debate stood for so much more than just a change to the law. The campaign was undoubtedly intertwined with the revitalisation of the feminist movement in Argentina, as well as throughout the continent. It could be said that the abortion debate triggered the feminist movement to become more concrete. At the vanguard of the debate, the ‘#NiUnaMenos’ (‘Not one [woman] less’) campaign surged over social media in response to a series of femicides, including that of 14 year-old Chiara Páez who was beaten to death by her 16-year-old boyfriend when she was 
8-weeks pregnant. This triggered women to bring their issues out of the home and into the streets with their heads held high. A space has been forged in which to confront male chauvinism; one of the underlying causes of femicides, violence against women, and poverty throughout the continent. From this point forward, politicians in Argentina and beyond can no longer bury their heads in the sand when confronted with women’s issues. It is true that the abortion debate is not an isolated issue and it has continued to have an amplified ongoing impact, despite the law being rejected. The debate must be situated within a wider dialogue which The New York Times refers to as a ‘broader cultural struggle’. Curious as to what this means, I began to contact members of both sides of the debate, starting with a Skype interview with 24-year-old Franco Teves from Mendoza (the fourth largest city in Argentina):

Hello, Franco, thank you so much for taking the time to talk to me today. Could you briefly introduce yourself to our readers, please? 

Franco: Hi, it’s a pleasure. My name is Franco Teves and I am a political researcher in the Senate of Mendoza, Argentina. As part of my work, I was involved in the pro-choice campaign. 

So, what were the main arguments of the pro-choice campaign? 

Franco: We believe that universal access to safe and legal abortion is necessary because the contraceptive pill is not 100% effective and many people are allergic to condoms. It is hard to say that bringing a new life into the world is something negative but this kind of mistake can really destroy your future. In Latin America, this is a reality because it is the woman who takes care of the child. When young women get pregnant in Latin America, they are often still in education. They are marginalised from society as they can never return to school and if they lack support from their families, they will forever struggle financially. Also, as a matter of fact, many women die from unsafe illegal abortions. Normal terminations are not 100% safe but women would feel a lot more at ease if they had access to a regulated service with specially trained doctors. It is important that we make people aware of this; we must take care of these young girls. 

So, what was your personal involvement in the campaign? 

Franco: I went to schools, along with other campaigners, to discuss the need for the law… 

… But isn’t it wrong to influence school children politically? 

Franco: We don’t say that this is a political motive: this is a human need. 

President Mauricio Macri’s decision to not veto a law to allow more open abortion, despite being a pro-life advocate himself, has been interpreted by many sceptics as a premeditated way of distracting Argentinians from the country’s ongoing economic problems. What do you think about this? 

Franco: This is definitely not true as the abortion campaign began many years prior to the economic deterioration. This year seemed to be the perfect time to vote because the country had become more open and it was more likely to be successful.

What would have been the secondary effects of the law? 

Franco: The legalisation of abortion would have led to a more open society with better sex education which would prevent abortion from being needed in the first place. 

So, is abortion really the solution to the issue, or what Argentina really needs is better sex education? 

Franco: I don’t believe that abortion is the absolute solution to the root cause of the issue. However, by introducing it, people will become more open-minded and will feel more comfortable about speaking out about the issues of unwanted pregnancies and unsafe sex in public. This would lead to sex education being more widely taught in schools. 

Would you consider Argentina to be a ‘developed’, ‘forward-thinking’ country then? 

Franco: Argentina is a very open-minded and developed country. In fact, in some aspects, we are similar to countries which are considered to be developed. Many advances have taken place in London before coming to Buenos Aires only a few years later. There is a broad acceptance of gay rights and women’s rights and after the next elections, 50% of the Parliament will be made up of women. However, we cannot be an open-minded country until the abortion bill is passed.

Thank you very much, Franco, for taking the time to speak to me today.

Questioning Western Media Coverage 

Charles Camosy, Associate Professor of Theological and Social Ethics at Fordham University, has conducted a plethora of thought-provoking research into the abortion debate including his book Beyond the Abortion Wars: A Way Forward for a New Generation. His article, The abortion debate in Argentina vs. Ireland: what made the difference? compares Argentina to Ireland, where abortion was legalised in 2018. The article primarily critiques Western media coverage of national abortion debates. For instance, Camosy argues that the case of Chiara Páez, the pregnant teen who was tragically killed, was skewed in order to support the pro-choice campaign. Páez’s pregnancy might have triggered her partner’s violence but his temperament would have possibly manifested itself anyway in an alternative situation further down the line. Legal abortion could have maybe prevented this isolated case of violence. However, it would not have attacked the root cause, or rather the misogyny which is notoriously perpetuated in Latin American culture. All women are threatened by this, and particularly young pregnant women who fall into a downward spiral of dependency and vulnerability. The Western media coverage which I came across tended to oversimplify the debate by inferring that Argentine women, except for those who were deeply religious, universally supported abortion. On the contrary, Camosy observes that a considerable number of female Senators opposed the bill. For example, Senator Silvina Garcia Larraburu considered the abortion debate as a smoke-screen for the country’s economic problems and as an insufficient measure to resolve the wider issue of gender crime. 

The conclusion to Camosy’s argument is that the largely generalised and biased Western media coverage in support of the pro-choice campaign in Argentina represents ‘a classic example of neocolonial imperialism into a culture with a very different understanding of the good’. After reading this nuanced conclusion, I decided to personally contact Professor Charles Camosy to ask him to further elaborate on this argument: 

Do you believe that western media coverage has used the abortion debate as a way of demonstrating neo-imperialist attitudes? Has western media depicted Argentina as a backwards country? 

Charles: 'Indeed I do. Such media, not least because of its partisan bent, simply assumes that abortion rights should be accepted by all societies which care about human rights--and then uses that assumption to describe a country like Argentina (which advocates for the human rights of both the mother and the child) as regressive, based and beholden to religious authority given their refusal to yield to the orthodoxy of the developed West. But that neocolonial posture is not only morally wrong--it is, frankly, silly given, for instance, Argentina's clear progressive history with LGBT rights. There is nothing progressive about appealing to Western-style individual autonomy in ways which make the unwanted vulnerable invisible. Argentina is rightly wrestling with the complex legal and social situation in which both mother and prenatal child are treated as the people they are. Countries like Chile and Ireland--which have had far better health outcomes for women than their abortion-friendly neighbours--prove that a morally serious country need not choose between the vulnerable pregnant woman and the vulnerable prenatal child. Argentina is to be lauded for having a more expansive view of human rights--especially when compared to developed Western countries which proceed as if the massive and horrific violence faced by prenatal children ought to be ignored.'

Reflecting on the Western media coverage to which I had already been exposed, I personally found Camosy’s argument very convincing. For example, the ‘Dispatches’ video by the New York Times describes Argentina as ‘overwhelmingly catholic and conservative’ and infers that the Catholic Church continues to be the puppeteer commanding society and the government in Argentina. The video focuses on the fact that the colour of the pro-life movement is blue; the same as the national flag. This polarizes the ‘Argentinean’ pro-lifers in blue and the green pro-choice activists who are supposedly importing a movement from the outside world: feminism (of which the West likes to try to take ownership). 

Camosy’s observation that the debate was a key moment for Argentina in asserting and projecting her own national identity is very convincing. Despite being known as one of the most European nations in Latin America, Argentina is also starkly different to European countries, as the abortion debate has proven. Indeed, for us outsiders in the West, it is incomprehensible how extensive gay rights coexist alongside strict abortion laws in one, united country. That is to say that Argentina refuses to force herself to fit into the mould of Western dichotomies, favouring instead a rich and multifaceted national identity. 

Concluding Remarks 

To conclude, the purpose of this article was not to convince you to support either side of the abortion debate. Instead, I hope to have led you to consider if it is a good idea to continue to universally implement Western ideologies of feminism and human rights in other nations, without adapting them to their own culture and economy. In a country apparently offering limited sex education, would abortion replace contraception? Does Argentina have sufficient revenue to set up safe abortion clinics for all? Does one have to support abortion in order to be feminist and progressive? 

Most importantly, should the West be allowed to dictate what is morally right and wrong throughout the world? 

The Definite Article would like to thank Natalie Cave, Franco Teves and Professor Charles Camosy for contributing to the article.

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