Department of English                               Gymnasium Steglitz Berlin

Contact

Home

Table of Contents

Immigration crisis in Britain?

Analysis based on the TV documentary "Immigration: The inconvenient truth" on Channel 4

The British government and the British people as well as the immigrants will have to face some difficult times in the future, because Britain is having a starting immigration crisis. This crisis includes prejudice, racism, and, of course, a decrease of the economy.
The first mistake that led to the situation at the moment is the fact that the British government failed to spend more time calculating how many immigrants they could expect over the next years and decades. Especially the influx of immigrants from Pakistan was not estimated correctly.
Today many people from east European countries, especially Poland,  pour into the country and offer their work for much lower wages than the British citizens.  And since they all compete for a limited amount of jobs, the wages keep dropping.

According to the TV program, this leads to the fact that 66% of the British people feel that their job is undercut by the immigrant workforce. This is certainly alarming, but many also estimate that the immigrants come into the country not to contribute to the economy, but just to get benefits and live of the welfare program. It is a surprising fact that also many of the second generation immigrants think that Britain has an immigration crisis and they want to stop immigration or at least reduce it.

Another big issue is assimilation and its problems: Just 15% of all the people in Britain are actually immigrants, which means every 8^th person. That does not seem too much. The only problem is that these immigrants live together in clusters and form ghettoes where the density of immigrants turns out to be 80% or more. This circumstance allows them to keep practicing their religion and not integrating into the country they entered. It also reduces their chance to practice English.

The British government claims to check immigrants for their ability to speak English, but in fact many immigrants cannot even fill out any kind of form without major help. This makes the British people angry, because they see how their government spends more time on the needs of foreigners than their own. And if this anger about neglect and unemployment rises and rises, the willingness to use violence against the immigrants and those who are allegedly responsible might grow with it.

The result of this persistent and subliminal hate against foreigners of a certain kind leads to racism, which often affects young people quickly if they do not see a bit of a chance to find work soon or to even have a decent future.

So how should the government act now? It is already too late for stopping or reducing immigration like 84% of the British want. The problem has yet become much bigger. There was a violent riot between Blacks and Asians, because of a rumour. This shows how much the understanding of different cultures is needed and how badly the government needs to act to boost it. Otherwise there will be much more violence and soon many dead people when the immigrants find themselves in a situation where they have to compete with other ethnic groups about the same area and jobs. (May 2008)

Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury

Review: The novel performed as a play

The play Fahrenheit 451 performed in Berlin by TNT theatre and the American Drama Group Europe is based on the novel of Ray Bradbury. It tells the story of the fireman Guy Montag, whose job it is to detect and burn all books he can find. The keeping of books is strictly prohibited by the law in this futuristic state he is living in. Montag has never questioned the system and he also enjoys doing his job. But everything changes when he meets his young neighbour, a teenage girl that shows him all the beautiful things in life and nature and more importantly who also tells him about the time when people still used to read books. After her tragic death, Montag discovers that books are not as evil as he thought they were and finds pleasure in reading books in secrecy. Meeting and becoming friends with a professor shows Montag more and more how much wrong-doing is going on around him which is planned by the government. Together they decide to start a rebellion by putting books into other people’s houses. The plan fails and Montag has to flee the city. Outside the city are camps where he finds refuge by many professors and educated people who left the city when the government started to prohibit the reading of books. Out there they all live in poverty. The novel ends with the dropping of a bomb on Montag´s old city by another government which is not further introduced.

Without knowing anything about the play at the beginning, it was hard to find a way into the plot. But as the play progressed I enjoyed it more and more. Especially the second part was much more interesting than the start.

With just four actors on stage it was not too easy to create situations that deliver the author’s intended emotions. In my opinion they did a remarkable job. My favourite part was the scene where they imitated different accents. And by doing such an amazing job on stage the director was able to reduce the use of other equipment for the scenery. Over all it was a stunning performance. (Feb 2008)

Obama reminds the nation of their great American history

Working together through the crisis is a key issue in his inaugural speech

The nation of the United States is still shocked. Just today three more banks have gone bankrupt – American banks. So in 13 months 34 banks have been affected. The system that has developed in the last eight years under president Bush is collapsing. The crisis has become the most immediate problem that has to be solved, more important than the war in Iraq or Afghanistan or the climate change – it is happening right in their country and millions of Americans fear for their money and their houses. And to solve their problems, the US has decided to trust one man: Barack Obama.

The speech Obama held on January 20^th, 2009 was not missing any kind of his promised change. Compared to the inaugural speech of George Bush it is much longer, more than twice the length, and also the content refers to a lot more aspects than the one delivered by Bush four years ago.

The difficult political situation forced Obama to give another kind of speech. He does not want to euphemize any part of the situation and gives a solid perspective on how the situation really is like. The focus is not on one certain political detail, it takes the internal political problems as seriously as the problems in Iraq or Afghanistan. The approach to motivate all citizens to work together is achieved by reminding them of the famous history of their country and how their grandfathers and ancestors managed to get through every single crisis. Obama’s goal is to awake the American Spirit and he does that with eloquence, passion, and solid facts.

In comparison George Bush’s inaugural speech from 2005 is more single minded; his main goal is to frighten the American people just by recalling 9/11 and all the terrorist that live in the Middle East and want to harm America. By focusing so much on foreign policy and dangerous enemies, he does not have to talk about domestic policy – to be precise – his failed policy.

But not just the content of those two speeches is entirely different; Obama also imposes another kind of style. The eloquence I mentioned earlier and the partially old fashioned or extravagant choice of words or habits (humble, lash of the whip, sweatshops, sturdy, unclench…) underline and emphasize his main theme – how the American people always managed to raise from the ashes and reunite after so many conflicts, especially after the Civil War. This is exactly the motivation the American people expect to hear from him.
George Bush, on the other hand, has never been that eloquent and the style and structure of speech is rather simple in every way: simple to understand and simple to follow. The choice of words is trivial, for America he often uses words that stand for a positive quality (wisdom, liberty, freedom, success, democracy) and contrasts them with words of a negative quality for all the undemocratic or terroristic people (tyranny, oppressors, repression, prison, victim, racism, enemy…). To be honest, George Bush’s speech is as ridiculous and simple-minded as his poor policy.

Finally I want to compare how both presidents address foreign countries and their leaders. Again, for George Bush there is no “grey area”, just white or black. He wants to support all the democratic governments that seek freedom for their people. His effort to reach out to other nations is not compelling; it seems that the US is seeking allies not on an equal basis, but on a dominating one. Equally his support for that life suppressed by their governments sounds hypocritical when you look at the economic policies of George Bush. Countries like China finance the economic system of the US, the very enemy that Bush wants to fight.

Obama seems to know better about the American economy and knows that this crisis is not just weakening the US, but also strengthening the political power of governments America does not want to be affiliated with; and that is not just China. Many countries in the Middle East have profited over the last decades from the increasing demand for energy, especiallly oil. Obama’s plan is to spend more money for science projects and to be less dependent on foreign resources. During that process many jobs will be created and in the end the United States will emerge as strong as ever. intending to build a future that holds peace and prosperity for everyone who is willing to work. (Feb 2009)