Department of English                               Gymnasium Steglitz Berlin

Contact

Home

Table of Contents

Francisco Jimenez, "The Circuit"

Situation of Mexican migrant workers in the US

Part 1: Summary

The short story “The Circuit” written by Francisco Jimenez is an autobiographic story based on his childhood experiences and deals with the topic of migrant workers in the US. The main character is a young boy called Panchito who has to travel through the country, together with his family, in order to work all year around on the fields. The reader is not told a lot about his family apart from the fact that Panchito works together with his father and older brother Roberto while his mother has to look after several other children.
On the other hand the author describes in great detail how painful the regular process of moving is for the young boy and how hard, rural and exhausting the daily working and living conditions are for the family. It appears to the reader that worst part of that lifestyle is the circumstance that Panchito and his brother are not able to attend school during the different harvesting seasons.
At the end the story takes a very tragic turn in the eyes of the reader after Panchito finished the grape season and is therefore able to attend school again, settles in, starts making progress and friends and after a while has to discover that his and his family are moving places again. In connection to this tragic end the title of the story, “The Circuit” gets a whole new meaning as the reader starts to understand how the life of this family seems to work in repeating circles of moving from one area to another, settling in and after some time painfully moving all over again.
As this process becomes clear at the end of the story, it enables the reader to gain an understanding of the situation of Mexican migrant workers and also puts these poor people and their strain, as well as the strain on their children, into focus. 

Part 2: The economic situation of the family

The economic situation of the family seems to be very bad as they only have one mattress, which means that apart from the mother and the little children, the rest of the family has to sleep outside under a tree. Further on, the fact that the two boys, Panchito and Roberto, have to work, even though it is considered child labor, indicates that the family needs money badly. Concerning the topic of living conditions, it is obvious that the family depends on the standard offered by their employer and cannot afford any improvement, although they have to live in a garage full of dirt, insects and holes in the walls.
Despite all that, the family still seems to have enough food throughout the story and owns an old car, which can only be explained by the theory that they must have cut down their food for a period of time to afford this car.
All in all the economic situation of the family can only be described as bad, as they cannot afford an appropriate style of living and a regular school attendance for their children. In addition to that, it has to be said that the family deals with this situation very well as they enjoy the little things in life like a good dinner, which is very admirable in their situation as well as treating each other nicely and respectfully even though everyone has to carry his own burden.

Part 3: The teacher

As outlined earlier, in the second half of the story Panchito is able to attend school again and describes his experiences of that time in great detail. He enrolls in a school near their home and meets his new teacher Mr. Lema on his first day in his new class. To me Mr. Lema is a good teacher as he spends a lot of time later on to help Panchito with his English and even wants to teach him how to play the trumpet. Even though that never happens because before he can start with that Panchito has to move again, it shows however that the teacher did not only try to help Panchito integrate into the American society but to relate to his own cultural background by suggesting the trumpet to him, an instrument frequently used in Mexican music.

The only thing I would criticize about Panchito´s treatment is the fact that he asks him to read out loud on his first day of school. Even though he does not push or punish Panchito after failing to fulfill this task, it still embarrasses the boy in front of the class. On the other hand this failure motivates Panchito later on to work on his English together with Mr. Lema and so it has to be said that in the end the teacher only tried to help him and not only  improved Panchito´s English but also made him feel better in general . (May 2008)

Fast Fashion or The Pressure of Consumption

Shocking revelations about the globalized textile industry

Fast fashion is handy, fast fashion is great, fast fashion is mainly one thing: It is cheap! That is what hundreds of people in the UK and Ireland think every time when filling the purple baskets in one of the many “Primark” (or “Penneys”- in Ireland) shops all over the country. It seems even better considering that, what most of these customers would not know, “Primark” is member of the “Ethical Trade Initiative” (ETI), an organisation that supports fair working conditions and wages for workers all over the planet and has no acceptance for child-labour.

But is this possible? Can the latest fashion be produced for a low price and good quality while sticking to the rules of ethical trading? This question was raised by the team of the BBC1 TV-programme “Panorama” and so they started to follow the chain of production of different “Primark” tops. Their results were shocking and devastating, not only for fast fashion addicts.

The team flew to India to take a close look at the factories that produced for “Primark” all over the country. At a first glance the places seemed to be as shown in “Primark”s own videos. Happy workers that were dedicated to their tasks and were grateful for their ethical working conditions, which included a 40-hour week and different breaks from work. But not only the fact that the conditions were not as good and ethical as it was said, including a 60-hour week in reality, started to expose cracks on the surface of the successful company.
It turned out that the factories that worked together with “Primark” under the conditions of the “Ethical Trading Union” had so called middlemen that distributed most of the work to places outside the factories. These middlemen were locals that had made a fortune by exploiting their fellow citizens, especially those that were in need or helpless.

So while travelling through the country, the team of “Panorama” discovered that from the factories that work together with Primark” many half finished clothes, which most of the time needed little beads to be sewed on or had to be checked for perfect stitching, were either finished by refugees in camps under horrible living conditions or by children that lived like working slaves, sold by their parents. Of course, none of them worked under any kind of ethical working conditions or was paid appropriate wages.Other items were finished in backyards or kitchens, far away from factories or inspectors.
Despite the different geographic locations, it was always the same situation: People that were helpless or depended on the tiniest amount of money were exploited to finish clothes that had to be produced as fast and cheap as possible.

The problem of child-labour is especially known in India, where it is forbidden to carry out such work for any child under 14 years of age, but it seems to be overwhelmed by the constant need for fast and cheaply produced clothes and the resulting pressure. Children´s Rights activists and their helpers have a hard job by trying to enable children a childhood and education and to work against the needs of the textile industry that seems to rule this country.

Under these impressions, the team of “Panorama” took action after returning to the UK and tried to share their knowledge of the shocking circumstances they discovered along the production chain of the “Primark” garments. Firstly they showed parts of their videos from India to admitted “Primark” addicts and showed them what way the items in their wardrobes had travelled before being sold in the UK or Ireland. All of those shopaholics were shocked as they were convinced that the clothes they had bought were that cheap because “Primark” always ordered high volumes and did not do a lot of advertising.

In addition to that “Panorama” sent a letter to “Primark” pointing out what they had discovered in India. “Primark”s reaction that followed the letter was what experts call a “cut and run” behaviour. They denied that they had known anything about the way of production and stopped their business with the companies involved, leaving hundreds of people without work and perspective. A strongly criticised reaction that does not suit a member of the “Ethical Trading Union” and should not be taken as an example of how to deal with problems in a professional way.

This behaviour is careless and irresponsible, but what is really sad about this topic, is the fact that this is not a problem of one single company. On the contrary, the exploitation of people in need as a result of the price pressure in the textile industry happens all the time and all over the world. Although low-price clothes are more likely to be produced under unethical circumstances, a high price is by no means a guarantee for ethical working conditions.

So what can we, the consumers, do with the gained knowledge? Do we have any power in our hands to help to avoid exploitation and child labour in the textile industry? I think we have!
Consumers should wake up and start to wonder if clothes for 3 pounds can actually be produced in a way that allows everyone along the chain of production to live in a human way from their work. This could be one way to break the circle of price-pressure and to enable every nation to become equal partners and to profit from globalisation as well. So maybe fast fashion is handy, if it is great is a question, but it is definitely not cheap, as it is a high price we have to pay for those clothes in the end! (Sep 2008)

NPWA - No Power Without Accountability

Billy Bragg at a concert in London (2002)

NPWA

I grew up in a company town
And I worked real hard ‘'til that company closed down
They gave my job to another man
On half my wages in some foreign land
And when I asked how could this be
Any good for our economy?
I was told nobody cares
So long as they make money when they sell their shares

Can you hear us? Are you listening?
No power without accountability!

I lost my job, my car and my house
When ten thousand miles away some guy clicked on a mouse
He didn’t know me, we never spoke,
He didn’t ask my opinion or canvass for my vote
I guess its true, nobody cares
'Til those petrol bombs come spinning through the air
Gotta find a way to hold them to account
Before they find a away to snuff our voices out

Can you hear us? Are you listening?
No power without accountability!

The ballot box is no guarantee that we achieve democracy
Our leaders claim their victory when only half the people have spoken
We have no job security in this global economy,
Our borders closed to refugees but our markets forced open

The World Bank says to Mexico,
We’ll cut you off if you don’t keep your taxes low
But they have no right to wield that sword
‘Cos they take their orders from the chairman of the board

IMF, WTO,
I hear these words just every place I go
Who are these people? Who elected them?
And how do I replace them with some of my friends?

Can you hear us? Are you listening?
No power without accountability!

WORDS: Billy Bragg (2002)

MUSIC: The Blokes (2002)

The song “NPWA“, written by the English songwriter Billy Bragg in 2002, deals with the desperation of workers in Mexico. The song consists of three main stanzas always followed by the chorus consisting of two lines.

The title of song is the abbreviation for one part of the chorus and means “no power without accountability”. Because of its frequent appearance and repetition, this line is the most important one in the song. It is the point that Bragg wants to make and it is the key for understanding the statement of the song.
The narrator is a worker, who “grew up in a company town” (I, 1) where he “worked real[ly] hard [un]til [his] company closed down” (I, 2). This happened because this company gave his job “to another man […] in some foreign land” (I, 4) for “half [his] wages” (I, 4).

The phenomenon he describes is well known as outsourcing and happens all the time, even in Europe. Companies move their production or parts of it to foreign countries where social welfare costs are low or nonexistent and where people work for the tiniest amount of money. This is   highly criticised behaviour that leaves thousands of workers and whole economies behind, only to increase profits.
This impression is supported when the narrator asks if this decision was “any good for [the] economy” (I, 6). As expected he has to find out that nobody cares [as] long as they make money” (I, 7f).

The following first chorus asks if “you hear us” and if “you are listening” and the “you” indicates that he turns to the people responsible for those actions, seeking for answers.

In the second part of the chorus the narrator states his key-point, demanding “no power without accountability”, which basically means that he claims that power should only be given to accountable people. These would be people that accept responsibility and do not only act in the interests of profit but for the sake and benefit of the workers and the economy of a country.

In contrast to that the people that made the decisions for the narrator had no accountability and therefore he lost his “job”, “car” and “house” (II, 11) as he outlines in the second stanza. Even worse, all this happened because “ten thousand miles away [a] guy clicked on a mouse” (II, 12), which exposes the dark side of globalisation, meaning that some man on the other side of the world, whom you do not “know” and you have “never spoke[n]” (II, 13) to decides over the lives and the future of others. This man was never elected by him or asked for his opinion as he outlines in line 14 by saying “He didn’t ask my opinion or canvass for my vote”.

Therefore the narrator draws the conclusion that those people in charge do actually not care until “petrol bombs come spinning through the air” (II, 16) and by saying this he insinuates that this problematic side of globalisation, which includes not accountable behaviour and the exploitation of workers, could some day provoke violence or a war.
But this does not seem to be his idea of solving this conflict because he wants to “find a way to hold them to account / [b]efore the find a way to snuff [their] voices out” (II, 17f). His idea of a way out of this misery is therefore to force the people in charge to act in an accountable manner, but at the same time he seems to be worried that these people might find a way to stop the workers on their way to justice.

After repeating the chorus for a second time, the narrator thinks that elections are no “guarantee “for “democracy” (III, 21) and that the results are not representative as only “half the people have spoken” (III, 22). This underlines the impression that the people in charge make their decisions without taking in account the voices of their citizens. They only act in their own interests and as a result the workers have no “job security in this global economy” (III, 23) and by using the word “global” he implies that one could expect a better standard of working in the globalised world, where nothing is impossible and the world is a village. But the opposite is the case, as he proceeds that their “borders [are] closed to refugees [and] their markets are forced open” (III, 24). This shows two other dark sides of globalisation, the inhumanity on the one hand and the inconsiderate way of forcing markets open to the world that do not seem to be ready for it. Both of these dark sides demonstrate the way globalisation works, always forward, never pausing like a wave that cannot be stopped.

In the other two parts of the third stanza the narrator expands on the question of who is in charge and why. He believes that all the different global organisations like “The World Bank” (III, 25) or the “IMF, WTO” (III, 29), all being responsible for granting loans to countries, do not have the right to give orders to his country or to put pressure on it by impending that they will “cut [them] off if [they] don’t keep [their] taxes low” (III, 26). He wonders who those people are and who elected them; because they make decisions that affect him even though he never put them in charge.

This opinion of feeling underrepresented and ignored by the people in power, is a common one and understandable through the eyes of a worker who is never taken into account because he only plays a tiny role in the big business. Therefore the narrator wishes in the end that he could be able to replace the people in charge with some of his friends that feel the same way and would decide with the needs of the workers in mind.
Again, this statement shows how the population and especially the workers long for people that understand them and listen to their voices in order to act in a way that does not only follow the interest of profits and money.

The song ends with a third repetition of the chorus and hence leaves the audience with the call for accountability in mind, being more effective and understandable, now that the narrator has explained his circumstances and demands so effectively.

In my opinion this song outlines the dark sides of globalisation very convincingly by letting a worker describe his situation in a country that is not a third world country but has always lived in the shadow of his bigger sister and economic giant, the United States of America.
Problems with refugees, instable markets as well as governments with a questionable democratic legitimation create problems that should be solved in globalised countries.

But as the key-statement of the song indicates, the people in charge do not seem to care because they follow monetary interests rather than humane ones and nobody seems to care because everyone does the same. Accountability does not seem to be important for global players although it is vital for the wellbeing and smooth running of a country in the long run. Profits might be a government’s exclusive ambition, but acting and making money globally also means having a global responsibility.

Globalisation does not only have positive sides and we have to accept this and stop lining our own pockets.
So who is going to start to tackle the problems?
I really hope the petrol bombs are not going to make this start.
I really hope this in the interest of all of us.

(Nov. 2008)

Obama continues a long tradition of Inaugural Speeches

There are five aspects comprising the first public address of a new president

Barack Obama’s Inauguration Speech, held on January 20^th, 2009, addresses five major aspects and can be regarded as a typical example of its kind. The structural elements are found in many Inauguration Speeches and contain the three main topics future plans, historical references and words to the rest of the world as well as emotional elements and stylistic devices.

The first topic that appears throughout the whole speech concerns his plans for the future, of course. As the president is deeply aware of the “crisis” that America is in and the “challenges”  it has to face, he is of the opinion that “the time has come to set aside childish things”  and to choose a “better history”. Therefore he wants to start “remaking America” by “creat[ing] new jobs […] build[ing] new roads and bridges […] and wield technology’s wonders to raise the quality of health care and lower its costs”. In addition he plans to “harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel [their] cars” as well as transforming “schools and colleges and universities”.

Concerning foreign affairs, he is intending “to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan ” planning for America to “play its role in ushering in a new era of peace”.
All in all, Obama’s plans for the future have peace for the world and improvement for America on its agenda, while he is naturally emphasizing the challenges the country has to face after the financial crisis.

But Obama does not only talk about the future, he also mentions some historical references during his speech. Just like the 44^th president of the United States, many others have taken the oath “amidst gathering clouds and raging storms” as he does in the “midst of crisis” that challenges the country these days. A bit later he mentions the journey of the founding fathers of America, who “packed up their few worldly possessions and travelled across oceans in search of a new life” and whose journey the people have to “continue today”. And as those founding fathers drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, […] [whose] ideals still light the world, they “will not give them up for expedience’s sake”. As Obama’s major aim is to underline the importance of standing together and working towards a common aim with steady effort, he recalls how “earlier generations faced down fascism and communism […] with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions”. Today, when America has to face various challenges, he remembers “those brave Americans”  whose values “have been the quiet force of progress throughout “ history and whose spirit should inhabit every citizen.
Obama closes his speech by referring to a quotation that once helped America to get through the winter during the Civil War and which should now encourage the people to continue the journey of the founding fathers despite the actual situation in the country. Summarized, Obama uses historical references to show where they came from and how far they have travelled in order to motivate the people to stand together and overcome all recent odds.

In some parts of the speech he addresses the rest of the world to underline his plans for the future, for example when he tells the Muslim world that America “seek[s] a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect”. For the same purpose he also addresses “leaders around the world who seek to sow conflict […] [or] cling to power through corruption”  to make clear that they “are on the wrong side of history; but that [America] will extend a hand if [they] are willing to unclench [their] fist”. Finally he turns to “the people of poor nations” whom he wants to support and “to those nations like [them]”  in order to inform them that they can no longer “afford indifferences to the suffering outside [their] borders […] nor can [they] consume the worlds resources without regard to effect”. So it can be said that Obama addresses the rest of the world as well as his own nation to advise them that “the world has changed, and we must change with it”. From his point of view this change does not only include improvement concerning America ’s relationship to foreign nations, including the Muslim world, but it does also include environmental improvement for the United States itself.

Apart from covering the three main topics, Obama’s speech also contains many emotional elements which help to underline the points he wants to make and support their rousing character. Examples can be found in his first sentences when he refers to himself as “humbled by he task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed” and later when he mentions the Scripture and “the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness”.
Finally, the probably most emotional part appears at the end of the speech as Obama tells the people that their liberty and creed can conquer all odds, which can be best seen in the fact that “a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before [them] to take a most sacred oath”. This piece is so effective because it is personal on the one hand, and plays on the hopes and buzz of all his (black) voters.

In addition to the highly emotional parts, this speech does also contain various stylistic devices. Those are mainly parallelisms such as “So it has been. So it must be […]” , anaphora like “For us” or “This is” and chiasms such as “To the […]/ To those […] “ and “To those […]/ To the […]. All those devices pervade his speech and help to make it more effective, as the meaning and importance of certain aspects is more easily transmitted to the people.

As the five aspects mentioned above are typical of an inauguration speech, they can also be found in the inaugural of the former President of the United States, G.W. Bush. In his speech, held on January 20^th, 2005, he uses stylistic devices and emotional elements in the same way Obama does, but his content focuses mainly on the history of the country to emphasize its long tradition of “freedom” and “liberty”. As an inauguration speech is always connected to the current political affairs of the country, it is not surprising that Bush chooses the topic of freedom. His time as President of the United States was dominated by the nation´s struggle to cope with international terrorism and the Islamic world. This connection to the current affairs of the country can be compared with Obama’s focus on the financial crisis in his speech. Therefore the words spoken to the rest of the world only revolves around Bush’s wish to free oppressed people and countries and his vision of the “Declaration of Independence”. Therefore he is of the opinion that the United States is “ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom”. Concerning the aspect of future plans, Bush hardly mentions any other things than achievements concerning the spread of freedom and democracy apart from a paragraph in the middle of his speech, where he mentions that he intends to improve the country in order to prepare the people “for the challenges of life in a free society”.

All together, it can be seen that Bush’s speech does contain all the five aspects of a typical inauguration speech in general, but it should be also noticed that his speech mainly focuses on his ideological ideas about freedom and liberty. This fact supports many of his critics who criticised the former President of being focused only on the war on terror and American imperialism while neglecting other duties during his period as the 43^rd President of the United States of America. However, it is necessary to mention that Bush himself is of the opinion that on the one hand he wants to free oppressed nations, but on the other hand he knows that “the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from [their] own. America will not impose [their] style of government on the unwilling […] [but wants] to help others to find their own”. Therefore he does not draw the picture that he is intending some kind of American imperialism concerning the spread of freedom in a westernized way, at least. On the other hand, presenting plans of this kind for the rest of the world would not have been very suitable on an inauguration day, while nearly the whole world is watching America.