Pub Date : 2021-11-03DOI: 10.1080/02619288.2021.1944855
Andrekos Varnava
ABSTRACT This article explores why and how the British and Australian authorities monitored their British Cypriot communities and how this impacted upon their respective immigration policies in connection with British Cypriots. Both the British and Australian authorities monitored sections of the British Cypriot community for similar reasons, especially political, using similar techniques, yet adopted different immigration policies on more Cypriots arriving. While the historiography for this period claims that the British were moving towards restricting immigration from their Empire and Australia was opening its borders, the opposite is in fact the case for the British Cypriots. The British did not alter their policies or procedures very much on the immigration of Cypriots from the 1930s, and even opened their border to Cypriot informers during the EOKA period. On the other hand, the Australian authorities progressively placed restrictions on Cypriots until they suspended immigration in 1956.
{"title":"‘Border Control and Monitoring “Undesirable” Cypriots in the UK and Australia, 1945–1959’","authors":"Andrekos Varnava","doi":"10.1080/02619288.2021.1944855","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02619288.2021.1944855","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article explores why and how the British and Australian authorities monitored their British Cypriot communities and how this impacted upon their respective immigration policies in connection with British Cypriots. Both the British and Australian authorities monitored sections of the British Cypriot community for similar reasons, especially political, using similar techniques, yet adopted different immigration policies on more Cypriots arriving. While the historiography for this period claims that the British were moving towards restricting immigration from their Empire and Australia was opening its borders, the opposite is in fact the case for the British Cypriots. The British did not alter their policies or procedures very much on the immigration of Cypriots from the 1930s, and even opened their border to Cypriot informers during the EOKA period. On the other hand, the Australian authorities progressively placed restrictions on Cypriots until they suspended immigration in 1956.","PeriodicalId":51940,"journal":{"name":"Immigrants and Minorities","volume":"40 1","pages":"132 - 176"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45625293","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-03DOI: 10.1080/02619288.2021.1977126
R. Bright
ABSTRACT Enemy aliens were undesirable migrants in Australia during World War I, right? Yet enemy alien women who sought naturalisation were largely successful. Using the concept of ‘desire’, this article uses quantitative and qualitative material from women’s naturalisation applications to consider why women applied and subsequent state decision-making. The narratives of applicants and administrators reflect wider negotiations over different types of citizenship, where women could challenge their very labelling as enemy aliens, or employ highly gendered notions of vulnerability and respectability. Particular groups were treated favourably, revealing practices which challenge existing historiography about how migration and citizenship laws worked throughout the British empire, especially concerning race and denaturalised women. This is part of a wider need to reassess the relationship between migration law and practice, especially the role of gender and the use of executive privilege. While important to recognise the overlapping push for a ‘global color line’ in creating the system which developed within the British empire, it was less a legal system and more of a constant negotiation between different actors, based on laws that were often imprecise. In this case they gave space for enemy alien women to circumvent the legislative restrictions on their naturalisation, despite the politics of war.
{"title":"Rethinking Gender, Citizenship, and War: Female Enemy Aliens in Australia during World War I","authors":"R. Bright","doi":"10.1080/02619288.2021.1977126","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02619288.2021.1977126","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Enemy aliens were undesirable migrants in Australia during World War I, right? Yet enemy alien women who sought naturalisation were largely successful. Using the concept of ‘desire’, this article uses quantitative and qualitative material from women’s naturalisation applications to consider why women applied and subsequent state decision-making. The narratives of applicants and administrators reflect wider negotiations over different types of citizenship, where women could challenge their very labelling as enemy aliens, or employ highly gendered notions of vulnerability and respectability. Particular groups were treated favourably, revealing practices which challenge existing historiography about how migration and citizenship laws worked throughout the British empire, especially concerning race and denaturalised women. This is part of a wider need to reassess the relationship between migration law and practice, especially the role of gender and the use of executive privilege. While important to recognise the overlapping push for a ‘global color line’ in creating the system which developed within the British empire, it was less a legal system and more of a constant negotiation between different actors, based on laws that were often imprecise. In this case they gave space for enemy alien women to circumvent the legislative restrictions on their naturalisation, despite the politics of war.","PeriodicalId":51940,"journal":{"name":"Immigrants and Minorities","volume":"40 1","pages":"13 - 58"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47957466","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-01DOI: 10.1080/02619288.2021.1984234
Marinella Marmo
ABSTRACT Using an interdisciplinary approach of critical historical and border criminology, this paper sheds light on the continuity and durability of the violent gendered-racialised border regime impacting ‘undesirable migrants’. With a focus on Britain and Australia, this article argues that border policies and practices have been constructed and maintained since the nineteenth century to the present day (continuity) and able to withstand various pressures for change (durability). The importance of controlling and monitoring ‘un/desirability’ in this way must be understood in the socio-political and temporal context of twentieth-century nation-state design, which entrenches these border mechanisms within a ‘white patriarchal possession logic’, therefore ensuring their durability. The concept of ‘un/desirability’, as this article demonstrates, is an adaptable tool that enables transformative coloniality and is currently actualised through the narrative of a ‘humanitarian border’. This article achieves these aims by presenting multiple historical and contemporary examples. These cases, when read in isolation from each other, do not offer a comprehensive and longitudinal view of the border regime over time. However, when these examples are considered together, they provide evidence of the continuity and durability of the border.
{"title":"Continuity and Durability of Violent Border Policies and Practices Directed at Undesirable Migrants in Britain and Australia: Some Reflections on the Past–present Continuum","authors":"Marinella Marmo","doi":"10.1080/02619288.2021.1984234","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02619288.2021.1984234","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Using an interdisciplinary approach of critical historical and border criminology, this paper sheds light on the continuity and durability of the violent gendered-racialised border regime impacting ‘undesirable migrants’. With a focus on Britain and Australia, this article argues that border policies and practices have been constructed and maintained since the nineteenth century to the present day (continuity) and able to withstand various pressures for change (durability). The importance of controlling and monitoring ‘un/desirability’ in this way must be understood in the socio-political and temporal context of twentieth-century nation-state design, which entrenches these border mechanisms within a ‘white patriarchal possession logic’, therefore ensuring their durability. The concept of ‘un/desirability’, as this article demonstrates, is an adaptable tool that enables transformative coloniality and is currently actualised through the narrative of a ‘humanitarian border’. This article achieves these aims by presenting multiple historical and contemporary examples. These cases, when read in isolation from each other, do not offer a comprehensive and longitudinal view of the border regime over time. However, when these examples are considered together, they provide evidence of the continuity and durability of the border.","PeriodicalId":51940,"journal":{"name":"Immigrants and Minorities","volume":"40 1","pages":"240 - 274"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43125699","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-21DOI: 10.1080/02619288.2021.1967752
Sara Cosemans
ABSTRACT In 1972, upon expulsion from Uganda by Idi Amin, diasporic Asians, who had settled in East Africa during colonial times, underwent a second stage of global dispersal. Many of them managed to resettle in the United Kingdom, despite anti-immigrant sentiments and increasingly restrictive immigration legislation. Other large groups arrived in India and Canada. One group, however, got scattered around the globe: the approximately 10,000 ‘Asians of undetermined origin’, who were resettled as refugees under auspices of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. This article investigates how and why this group of stateless Asians became refugees and candidates for international resettlement. It argues that all British policy makers sought to use the international community to shoulder part of the burden of winding up empire, while trying to avoid convictions for breaching newly emerging legally binding international human rights obligations. The Ugandan Asian crisis fits within the history of the creation of modern British immigration control law that took shape from 1962 onwards. This article proposes to decentralise the geographical frame beyond the UK to include developments in Kenya, Uganda, and India, where East African Asians likewise became ‘undesirables’.
{"title":"Undesirable British East African Asians. Nationality, Statelessness, and Refugeehood after Empire","authors":"Sara Cosemans","doi":"10.1080/02619288.2021.1967752","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02619288.2021.1967752","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In 1972, upon expulsion from Uganda by Idi Amin, diasporic Asians, who had settled in East Africa during colonial times, underwent a second stage of global dispersal. Many of them managed to resettle in the United Kingdom, despite anti-immigrant sentiments and increasingly restrictive immigration legislation. Other large groups arrived in India and Canada. One group, however, got scattered around the globe: the approximately 10,000 ‘Asians of undetermined origin’, who were resettled as refugees under auspices of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. This article investigates how and why this group of stateless Asians became refugees and candidates for international resettlement. It argues that all British policy makers sought to use the international community to shoulder part of the burden of winding up empire, while trying to avoid convictions for breaching newly emerging legally binding international human rights obligations. The Ugandan Asian crisis fits within the history of the creation of modern British immigration control law that took shape from 1962 onwards. This article proposes to decentralise the geographical frame beyond the UK to include developments in Kenya, Uganda, and India, where East African Asians likewise became ‘undesirables’.","PeriodicalId":51940,"journal":{"name":"Immigrants and Minorities","volume":"40 1","pages":"210 - 239"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45431861","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-16DOI: 10.1080/02619288.2021.1977923
E. Smith
ABSTRACT Between the 1920s and the 1950s, hundreds of thousands of Italians emigrated to Australia, with fewer restrictions placed upon them than other continental European migrants. However, Italian migrants, especially from southern Italy, were often seen as ‘undesirable’. This was due to both their ethnicity and the view that Italians were attracted to extreme political ideologies, such as Fascism and communism. This combination led the Australian authorities to treat Italian migrants as a‘suspect community’, which meant prolonged surveillance of Italian communities, as well as efforts to prevent entry, deny citizenship to or deport certain undesirable individuals. The policing of Italians in Australia intensified in the Second World War, which resulted in many being interned, regardless of political affiliation. But at other times, the political persuasion of the Italian migrants did play apart in how they were viewed by the authorities, with communists being monitored more heavily in the 1920s and 1950s and fascists being the focus in the 1930s and 1940s. This article looks at the shifting undesirability to Italian political activists in Australia over four decades and how ethnicity alongside ideology informed their policing by the authorities across several periods of political upheaval.
{"title":"Shifting Undesirability: Italian Migration, Political Activism and the Australian Authorities from the 1920s to the 1950s","authors":"E. Smith","doi":"10.1080/02619288.2021.1977923","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02619288.2021.1977923","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Between the 1920s and the 1950s, hundreds of thousands of Italians emigrated to Australia, with fewer restrictions placed upon them than other continental European migrants. However, Italian migrants, especially from southern Italy, were often seen as ‘undesirable’. This was due to both their ethnicity and the view that Italians were attracted to extreme political ideologies, such as Fascism and communism. This combination led the Australian authorities to treat Italian migrants as a‘suspect community’, which meant prolonged surveillance of Italian communities, as well as efforts to prevent entry, deny citizenship to or deport certain undesirable individuals. The policing of Italians in Australia intensified in the Second World War, which resulted in many being interned, regardless of political affiliation. But at other times, the political persuasion of the Italian migrants did play apart in how they were viewed by the authorities, with communists being monitored more heavily in the 1920s and 1950s and fascists being the focus in the 1930s and 1940s. This article looks at the shifting undesirability to Italian political activists in Australia over four decades and how ethnicity alongside ideology informed their policing by the authorities across several periods of political upheaval.","PeriodicalId":51940,"journal":{"name":"Immigrants and Minorities","volume":"40 1","pages":"106 - 131"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48725883","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-07DOI: 10.1080/02619288.2021.1974405
Andonis Piperoglou
ABSTRACT In 1903, the Commonwealth Australian government passed the Naturalisation Act (1903). Acquiring naturalisation, however, was not straightforward in a country that was concerned about its ‘foreign element’. A key legal requirement of the Act stipulated that ‘a person resident in the Commonwealth, not being a British subject, and not being an aboriginal native of Asia, Africa, or the Islands of the Pacific’, who intends to settle in Australia could apply for a naturalisation. Because the naturalisation law explicitly excluded people who were from certain regions of the world, applying for naturalisation was, at its root, racialised. For Syrians and Greeks, acquiring naturalisation came to hinge on the question of whether they were to be accepted as white subjects. This article compares naturalisation application files of Syrians and Greeks to explore the ambiguous inclusivity of Australia’s naturalisation law. In comparing how two groups subjected to similar external representations applied for naturalisation, it is argued that applying for naturalisation was a mode by which migrants outwardly performed their acculturation by identifying with a dominant whiteness-property nexus. In doing so, the article opens terrain in migration history to consider how applying for naturalisation was contingent on migrants’ capacity to present themselves as loyal settlers.
{"title":"Migrant Acculturation via Naturalisation: Comparing Syrian and Greek Applications for Naturalisation in White Australia","authors":"Andonis Piperoglou","doi":"10.1080/02619288.2021.1974405","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02619288.2021.1974405","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In 1903, the Commonwealth Australian government passed the Naturalisation Act (1903). Acquiring naturalisation, however, was not straightforward in a country that was concerned about its ‘foreign element’. A key legal requirement of the Act stipulated that ‘a person resident in the Commonwealth, not being a British subject, and not being an aboriginal native of Asia, Africa, or the Islands of the Pacific’, who intends to settle in Australia could apply for a naturalisation. Because the naturalisation law explicitly excluded people who were from certain regions of the world, applying for naturalisation was, at its root, racialised. For Syrians and Greeks, acquiring naturalisation came to hinge on the question of whether they were to be accepted as white subjects. This article compares naturalisation application files of Syrians and Greeks to explore the ambiguous inclusivity of Australia’s naturalisation law. In comparing how two groups subjected to similar external representations applied for naturalisation, it is argued that applying for naturalisation was a mode by which migrants outwardly performed their acculturation by identifying with a dominant whiteness-property nexus. In doing so, the article opens terrain in migration history to consider how applying for naturalisation was contingent on migrants’ capacity to present themselves as loyal settlers.","PeriodicalId":51940,"journal":{"name":"Immigrants and Minorities","volume":"40 1","pages":"59 - 78"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47478747","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-02DOI: 10.1080/02619288.2021.2014326
Y. Papadopoulos
ABSTRACT The article focuses on the importance of the migration experience in transforming the ‘identifications’ of Greek-Orthodox Ottoman subjects in relation to the historical reality of their country of origin and their host country, the United States, as well as the country that from the beginning claimed their loyalty as a national centre, Greece. Subsequently, it examines the terms that defined the construction of religious, social and political diaspora groupings and the attitudes that conditioned their participation in the Greek nationalist project. Although ‘rival’ ethnic groups in the United States came to blows during periods of violence in the Ottoman Empire, it appears that they also reconstructed in their daily life a ‘deterritorialized Ottoman space’ based on their origin in a common city or region or common cultural characteristics. There are hints that immigrants’ common references or memories led to the construction of a ‘nostalgic Ottomanism’ when the Empire dissolved, contributing to the survival of cultural elements and the continuation of social and labour relations with persons from rival ethnic groups.
{"title":"Ottoman, Anatolian, Greek, yet above All American: Evolving Identifications and Cultural Appropriations","authors":"Y. Papadopoulos","doi":"10.1080/02619288.2021.2014326","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02619288.2021.2014326","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The article focuses on the importance of the migration experience in transforming the ‘identifications’ of Greek-Orthodox Ottoman subjects in relation to the historical reality of their country of origin and their host country, the United States, as well as the country that from the beginning claimed their loyalty as a national centre, Greece. Subsequently, it examines the terms that defined the construction of religious, social and political diaspora groupings and the attitudes that conditioned their participation in the Greek nationalist project. Although ‘rival’ ethnic groups in the United States came to blows during periods of violence in the Ottoman Empire, it appears that they also reconstructed in their daily life a ‘deterritorialized Ottoman space’ based on their origin in a common city or region or common cultural characteristics. There are hints that immigrants’ common references or memories led to the construction of a ‘nostalgic Ottomanism’ when the Empire dissolved, contributing to the survival of cultural elements and the continuation of social and labour relations with persons from rival ethnic groups.","PeriodicalId":51940,"journal":{"name":"Immigrants and Minorities","volume":"39 1","pages":"224 - 271"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47636591","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-02DOI: 10.1080/02619288.2021.1922888
Lucie Zouya Mimbang
ABSTRACT Cameroonian immigration into Alsace differs from previous ones. More skilled and more feminine, it was triggered by a saturation of the need for graduates in the country of origin. Because of their family structures, Cameroonian immigrants were not in radical opposition to the French promotion of the right for women’s economic autonomy. Culturally, this new influx of immigrants shared common religious beliefs and practices with those of the host country, a consequence of the evangelisation movement that began at the end of the 19th century. All of these elements could, at first sight, suggest a smooth integration into French society in the short term. However, faced with a society that perceives them primarily along racial lines, second- generation immigrants may be more sensitive to identity-based slogans.
{"title":"The Cameroonians of Alsace: An African Diaspora in Europe","authors":"Lucie Zouya Mimbang","doi":"10.1080/02619288.2021.1922888","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02619288.2021.1922888","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Cameroonian immigration into Alsace differs from previous ones. More skilled and more feminine, it was triggered by a saturation of the need for graduates in the country of origin. Because of their family structures, Cameroonian immigrants were not in radical opposition to the French promotion of the right for women’s economic autonomy. Culturally, this new influx of immigrants shared common religious beliefs and practices with those of the host country, a consequence of the evangelisation movement that began at the end of the 19th century. All of these elements could, at first sight, suggest a smooth integration into French society in the short term. However, faced with a society that perceives them primarily along racial lines, second- generation immigrants may be more sensitive to identity-based slogans.","PeriodicalId":51940,"journal":{"name":"Immigrants and Minorities","volume":"39 1","pages":"133 - 154"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48030321","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-02DOI: 10.1080/02619288.2021.2014325
David Abraham
ABSTRACT ‘Peoples’ may have their present and future collective needs realised in one of three ways. They may aspire to their own titular state, self-determination, where they predominate and act collectively; they may rely on the recognition and provision of collective minority rights (with some autonomy in a more or less territorially-defined multi-peopled space); or they may advocate for a regime of strong ‘liberal’, non-discriminatory individual rights for all in which (significantly weakened) collective identities are lodged in the private sphere.The second outcome, official minority rights within majority national self-determination, was a concomitant of the first or compensation for its serious imperfections, and became visible in the partially-successful minority rights treaties of interwar Europe. Importantly, it also had its day in the U.S., where populous minorities, mostly immigrant, facing discrimination, both as individuals and as groups, clamoured for group recognition and group rights, either within their ‘pales of settlement’ or throughout their countries. And it may be coming back --in light of the failures, inadequacies, and possible exhaustion of the first and third models. Is there now a conceivable progressive pluralist nationalism pluralist nationalism that combines recognition and redistribution, recognising that people are both apart and together?
{"title":"Group Rights and Individual Minority Rights in Immigrant Societies, Then and Now","authors":"David Abraham","doi":"10.1080/02619288.2021.2014325","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02619288.2021.2014325","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT ‘Peoples’ may have their present and future collective needs realised in one of three ways. They may aspire to their own titular state, self-determination, where they predominate and act collectively; they may rely on the recognition and provision of collective minority rights (with some autonomy in a more or less territorially-defined multi-peopled space); or they may advocate for a regime of strong ‘liberal’, non-discriminatory individual rights for all in which (significantly weakened) collective identities are lodged in the private sphere.The second outcome, official minority rights within majority national self-determination, was a concomitant of the first or compensation for its serious imperfections, and became visible in the partially-successful minority rights treaties of interwar Europe. Importantly, it also had its day in the U.S., where populous minorities, mostly immigrant, facing discrimination, both as individuals and as groups, clamoured for group recognition and group rights, either within their ‘pales of settlement’ or throughout their countries. And it may be coming back --in light of the failures, inadequacies, and possible exhaustion of the first and third models. Is there now a conceivable progressive pluralist nationalism pluralist nationalism that combines recognition and redistribution, recognising that people are both apart and together?","PeriodicalId":51940,"journal":{"name":"Immigrants and Minorities","volume":"39 1","pages":"186 - 223"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59256670","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-02DOI: 10.1080/02619288.2021.1942852
Lauren Banko
ABSTRACT The histories of refugees and forced displacement do not often consider the impact of grief and loss upon the family members of such individuals. This essay places the story of one such family member, a young woman who lost her parents, brother, and her fiancé on the sinking of a ship filled with refugees during the Second World War, as the focal point of an exploration of grief, material possessions, and migration, amidst the bureaucratic mechanisms of empire. The story of Doris, a migrant to Mandate Palestine in 1941 and then a repatriate to Great Britain the following year, highlights the ways in which elements of refugeedom intersected with colonialism and empire and restrictions on Jewish migration. I use the fragmentary nature of Doris’s archival record to understand her as a ‘refugee-adjacent’ individual who tried to negotiate hurdles, constraints, and dismissive attitudes of colonial authorities and all the while deal with her own loss and its consequences. Of significance to this historical context is that the grief of refugees and their family members left behind was often unrecognised by colonial and state authorities.
{"title":"Grief, a Wedding Veil, and Bureaucratic Persecution: Becoming Refugee-adjacent in the Aftermath of Tragedy, 1941-1946","authors":"Lauren Banko","doi":"10.1080/02619288.2021.1942852","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02619288.2021.1942852","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The histories of refugees and forced displacement do not often consider the impact of grief and loss upon the family members of such individuals. This essay places the story of one such family member, a young woman who lost her parents, brother, and her fiancé on the sinking of a ship filled with refugees during the Second World War, as the focal point of an exploration of grief, material possessions, and migration, amidst the bureaucratic mechanisms of empire. The story of Doris, a migrant to Mandate Palestine in 1941 and then a repatriate to Great Britain the following year, highlights the ways in which elements of refugeedom intersected with colonialism and empire and restrictions on Jewish migration. I use the fragmentary nature of Doris’s archival record to understand her as a ‘refugee-adjacent’ individual who tried to negotiate hurdles, constraints, and dismissive attitudes of colonial authorities and all the while deal with her own loss and its consequences. Of significance to this historical context is that the grief of refugees and their family members left behind was often unrecognised by colonial and state authorities.","PeriodicalId":51940,"journal":{"name":"Immigrants and Minorities","volume":"39 1","pages":"155 - 185"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44162509","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：