Kony 2012: A Powerful Message

The Kony 2012 movie is a great example of digital storytelling. It empowers people to join a global community; to connect and share ideas with one another. The movie’s message is inspirational and justified. It implements the “Made to Stick” principles of simplicity, unexpectedness, concreteness, credibility, emotions and stories. Kony 2012 motivates people to be a part of the solution by stressing the importance of the issue for everyone and making it relatable to the audience.

The primary “Made to Stick” principle that Kony 2012 uses is the art of storytelling. It uses a challenge plot that inspires people to act and join the fight against Joseph Kony. The movie also contains elements of a connection and creativity plot. It is a connection plot because it bridges a gap in knowledge and establishes a relationship between people of different races, religions, ethnicities and social status by uniting them under a common goal. Kony 2012 is a creativity plot because it attacks the problem of stopping Kony in an innovative way. Due to the lack of support from policy makers in the U.S. Government, the campaign leaders had to find creative alternatives to spread the message. It took advantage of technology and social media to get the word out and influence others to participate.

The campaign also uses a variety of emotional techniques that impact the audience. In order for people to take action on an issue, they have to care about it. In order for people to care, they have to know. To make people care about an idea, we need to get them to stop thinking analytically and to empathize with specific individuals. Kony 2012 does this effectively by introducing the story of Jacob, a child from Uganda. The movie depicts Jacob’s tale of being one of Kony’s war soldiers who saw his own brother be killed before his eyes. At one point, he breaks down and cries in a very emotional scene that moves the audience. It becomes very real to the audience, because many of us care deeply about our family and loved ones like Jacob did for his brother. This emotional appeal works because it shows how our ideas are connected with people’s self-interest and things that they already care about.

Kony 2012 also introduces elements of unexpectedness that make the campaign effective. One of the most concerning truths about Joseph Kony that the movie reveals is that nobody knows about him. Part of the unexpected principle is that it uses the element of surprise to get people’s attention. Throughout the film, the audience is surprised to hear about Kony’s crimes of abducting children, forcing them to become child soldiers and sex slaves. What is even worse is that nobody knows that this is happening. It generates curiosity within the audience because they notice a gap in knowledge that needs to be filled. Once the message has people’s attention and curiosity, then the possibility for them become interested in acting towards a solution becomes available.

The campaign illustrates a goal that is concrete and explain the idea in terms of human actions and vivid images. Concreteness boils down to specific people doing specific things, which Kony 2012 demonstrates in order to accomplish its mission. In order to capture Joesph Kony, the world must make him famous like a popular celebrity. People can do this by creating posters, stickers and flyers with his name and placing them all over cities in the world. This way his name is brought to the light, as long with the horrible crimes against humanity that he has committed. Concreteness enables coordination by making targets clear, and the campaign clearly targets Joesph Kony as the villain.

Kony 2012 does not lack the credibility nor the simplicity in its message. The author is credible because he has experience working in Africa and hearing the stories of the victims in this situation. Not only does the author have credibility, but the message of the campaign has “internal credibility.” The idea is credible because it is supported by concrete details, statistics, and vivid images that validate the importance of its mission. The principle of simplicity involves stripping a message down to its core, which in the case of Kony 2012 is capturing Joesph Kony and making him face the consequences of his crimes. The difficulty with this principle is that although it is the easiest to understand, it is also the hardest to achieve. The goal of the campaign is to capture Joesph Kony, which seems simple, but if it were that easy then it already would have been done.

In my opinion, the best part about this campaign is the way it delivers its message. It is important to realize that the way a campaign’s message is delivered in a cue for how the audience should react. If you present an argument, it implicitly states that you want it to be evaluated and criticized. This is not the case with Kony 2012. Instead it is presented as a story that engages the audience, involves them in the idea and asks them to participate in its mission. Even though I had already seen this movie before, I was still inspired and motivated after watching. Overall, the Kony 2012 campaign is highly effective in presenting a solution to a problem that the whole world can participate in resolving.

-Ben

KONY 2012: Effective?

Honestly, I had not seen the KONY 2012 video until today, but I had obviously heard many things about it when it first was uploaded. I know there is a lot of conflict and controversy settled around that 30-minute video with people for it and against it. I have found that it was an effective campaign that helped people become more involved with the other side of the world. I mean, the video has over 100 million views, the biggest viral video of our time! People watched it, and whether they agreed or disagreed, thoughts began to churn in their heads.

The Made to Stick framework shows how some ideas fall while other successfully rise to be heard. It explains that there are six principles that a campaign needs to create a successful idea: simplicity, unexpectedness, concreteness, credibility, emotions, and stories. I found that in the KONY 2012 video, the Invisible Children organization could have used these principles as a framework to help that make one of the most seen videos of all time. Although I feel as those some of the principles were lacking, which will be examined in the next few paragraphs.

I found the video to have a simple essence to it, yet was very complex at the same time. I felt that it had one main clear idea: to make Joseph Kony famous around the world so we could stop him and the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), but there were several smaller points that were scattered around the video. Yet I feel that the main point didn’t come into play until the 15 minutes in, leaving me confused with some of the background information. I feel that Invisible Children relied heavily on their examples and stories that they had, that they kept adding more knowledge and information to the video, causing it to be a bit more complex than it should have been.

Unexpectedness was a key factor in KONY 2012. I think when it began in 2012 and I saw these posters, stickers and retweets saying “KONY 2012” or “STOP KONY”, I was quite perplexed with what was happening. But it stirred my interest into learning more about the video and who was this Kony everyone was tweeting about. I didn’t watch the video back then, but I noticed how fast people began to support the campaign. Now having watched the video, I found the Invisible Children effectively sucked people with talking about how we can change the world with just an idea. Their propaganda also helped the campaign to move faster than they probably expected, and I feel that people were very surprised at the time that all of this stuff concerning the LRA and Joseph Kony was happening. Like the video stated, no one knew who Kony was (no one being the vast majority of people). It was an eye opener for some and I felt the video used unexpectedness to their advantage to make their idea soar through the Internet.

As I said discussing the simplicity of the video, the idea of KONY 2012 was concrete and clear: let’s make Kony famous and please support in anyway possible so that no child will live in fear of abduction again. The ending of the video really emphasized the concreteness that the campaign was shooting for. They show that every future generation would be affected by this change of arresting Joseph Kony, allowing thousands of children to go back to their families, to live the lives that they were meant to live. I felt throughout the video, especially the second half, it was clear what the final aspect of this video was meant to be for, and even though the campaign didn’t end up the way it was planned, the idea still stayed clear and concise.

I felt that their credibility of the situation at hand was there. I felt their additions of talking heads and excerpts involving senators and other government officials allowed viewers to be able to trust the campaign as many prominent and credible people agreed as well. I found that they were very careful in their sources allowing their viewers to understand everything that the group meant and what their process and procedures were, giving the viewers a stable trust in what they were watching. Although the major point that allowed people to believe was child abductee Jacob Acaye. As someone who experienced being part of the LRA with Kony was able to give a personal testimony, which I feel put the campaign in a major step in the right direction.

This video is filled with emotion! The campaign effectively used emotional language, images, and videos to help give the video more emphasis on the situation. I found my emotions were high at certain points (hundreds of Ugandan children sleeping on the floor in that small room, children hugging their family, etc.) with me wanting to help them with whatever I could do. The narrator uses his own son to help show that even young children can understand what Kony is doing is wrong. Children always bring about feelings with people. We don’t like to see children starving or having to sleep on a dirt floor or being abducted and having to kill their parents. The shock value creates an overwhelming emotional plea that I feel made this video become so viral and supportive as it was.

The last principle in the framework is stories, which the entire video is an example of. KONY 2012 is one big video story showing the world their thoughts and idea surrounding Joseph Kony and the Invisible Children. I feel that all of the other 5 principles can all easily tie into stories. Jacob Acaye’s story of his time in the resistance having to watch his brother be killed struck me, making me realize that these are children that are experiencing horrible things without any kind of help or love that the desperately need. They can’t stay in their own homes due to the fear of being abducted and killed or trained to kill. Jacob even states that they would rather die than stay on earth because they have no future to the fear instilled in their lives. This comment and the rest of his stories the campaigns use really helps settle emotions in people’s hearts.

I feel that this campaign emphasizes the impact that these rebel groups have on these children and their call to action is quite clear. The aftermath of the video caused many people to hate it or love it. The Invisible Children group had a purpose and idea that they wanted to advocate to the whole world to help change the way future generations will grow up. I felt that they may have had a few issues with their practice but nonetheless I felt they followed most of the six principles allowing their idea to be one of the most talked about ideas in the entire world.

-Joshua

And here is the infamous video itself:

Moral language and advocacy

I feel that using moral language can really help influence peoples’ thoughts about genocide and refugee issues. The language has a distinct way of being overtly emotional, tugging at people’s heartstrings. From reading the text I found that language is critical for advocates to persuade their audience and viewers to what they are advocating. Advocates against genocide and refugee issues are able to influence their audience by using emotional pleas and troubling images that cause people to feel sorry for those that are victims of genocide.

I have found that advocates use two different types of moral vernacular to help with their advocacy campaigns: thick and thin. Both are based around human rights, or moral principles that create standards for human behavior. A thick moral vernacular, however focus more on the virtues of human rights rather than the principles themselves. This type of rhetoric employs people to inspire allegiance and support through people’s language and culture. This form is seen to be for the powerless whereas a thin moral vernacular is used mainly for those in power. A thin form transforms the human right principles into discourse, giving people the rights to interpretation and constant revision.

As Westerners, we heavily focus on the emotional aspects of a story and enlarge to help others acknowledge their presence. And I feel especially with victims of genocide and the hardships of refugee life, advocates are able to dive into the pathos region of rhetoric to help influence American citizens to donate or help their cause to save the lost children, give food and water, etc. We want to be able to sympathize with the victims and let them know that we are here to help. This comes hand in hand to the idea of universalism, in which most Americans have the understanding that every person should have the same equal human rights regardless of their race, gender, etc. Having this understanding allows advocates to use these emotional languages to help clearly identify that these oppressed and damaged people need our help and would do the same if we were in their situation (at least we could hope).

I feel that a disadvantage to this use of advocacy could be that sometimes emotionalism can become overbearing and too much to handle. If an advocate only uses emotional language in their speeches and programs, it could create a sense of overbearing or unpleasantness. This could cause people to completely tune out the speakers as they’ve heard it all before as well as causing people to feel that the advocates don’t think that they (the people) don’t really care about the situation at hand. Overall, advocates should be weary of the amount of emotional language that put forth into their stance.

Genocide and refugee issues are touchy and intense subjects to advocate. Not many people want to know the things that are happening in third world countries far away from the United States, but we have to understand that these horrible murders are happening everyday. By using moral vernacular to help people to become involved with your advocacy stance is an effective piece to the overall program. By allowing people to know that we all should have a universal right as a human to be free can create more followers to help effectively change the way people view genocide and the issues of the refugees.

-Joshua

Moral Language and Human Rights

The use of language plays a crucial rule in advocacy for genocide and refugees. It’s important to understand which forms of rhetoric are most persuasive and effective. Advocates typically speak for the abused and imprisoned, those whose voices we rarely hear and whose pain we rarely see. It is their duty to educate the world about the struggles of the oppressed and abused.

In the United States, most of the advocacy for refugees and genocide victims is very emotional appeal. We’ve all seen the commercials with the depressing music and horrifying images of starving children in poor living conditions. This approach can be effective to those who are persuaded by pathos, but we must also be cautious when going overboard with an emotional approach. Sometimes the audience can feel like they are being guilt-tripped into action or made to feel ignorant because they don’t understand the issues.

Our reading for today discussed two different types of moral vernaculars that deal with human right. The first is a thin from in which human rights are transformed from a discrete set of moral principles to a discourse, known as human rights talk. It asserts that human rights are open to interpretation and continual revision. The second type is a thick form that is a mode of resistance and a critique of power. I will be focusing more on the thick form as a method for resolving conflicts associated with refugees and genocide.

When advocating for human rights, we often focus our talk about the specific cases of abuse and violence that occur. It’s all about sympathizing with the victim influencing agency and participation in the conflict. This reflects the ideals of a Western culture that believes in the universalism of human rights. This is the belief that the basic human rights should be granted to all individuals, regardless of ethnicity, religion, gender or other characteristics. It argues that sovereign states have a moral obligation to protect the rights of all humans and to fight those who attempt to deny these rights to individuals.

This idea of universal human rights makes sense theoretically because our culture believes that everyone should be entitled life, liberty, and the ability to pursue their dreams. All of us would prefer to live in a world that guarantees the protection of these rights, but the thought of a perfect world seems very idealistic and abstract. Moral universalism has the tendency to favor Western-culture over others, which leads us to force our beliefs on people who may think differently. The opposition to moral universalism is moral particularism, which asserts that although most societies have a concept of rights, they do not have a concept of human rights. Human dignity does not refer to an inherent right to respect, but rather something that is granted at birth or by inclusion into a community.

With various perspectives and cultures involved, the challenge of human rights talk is to translate meaningful ideas from one frame to another. One must be able to generate arguments that cross ideological boundaries and uncover alternative political and social relations. This is where the presence of a leader who has a strong voice in human rights would be beneficial. There is a need for someone in the Third World to stand up and present a message to be heard, not only by their peers but others across the globe. Someone like Nelson Mandela comes to mind, a person who has experienced the violence firsthand and can relate to the oppressed, as well as someone who understands the ideals of moral universalism.

This leads to the conclusion that a thick moral vernacular provides a path to hope and promise. Its not about the principles of human rights, but their implied virtues and vices. This rhetoric publicizes the plight of the oppressed by translating it into cultural frames that calls for the world to respond. A thick moral vernacular is a critique of power and seeks to change the current system. It empowers the abused to disrupt the regime of power imposed by their oppressors.
-Ben

Fame for the Refugees

I do believe that refugees need fame to allow their voices to be heard and their problems to be addressed. From reading all of these chapters, I found that these people are becoming invisible to the public eye. It seems to me that they are being stripped of their identity and all they shows that they are an individual fighting for their life to get their home back. Refugees need to have their voice to be heard so that more people around the world can understand the torment and suffrage these people have been through what could possibility be the majority of their lives.

Pop culture and celebrities are a major aspect of a good majority of peoples’ lives in the United States. Honestly, some people are obsessed fans who know every miniscule detail about certain celebrities which is a bit creepy, yet these people have been so engrossed with their love for a famous person that I don’t see why people can’t do the same for those who are living terrible hardships in refugee camps, surviving on a little to no food yet still have a positive outlook on life. Inside these camps are people who want to make a difference, to make a change. They haven’t given up the hope that one-day they will be able to go back to their homes and live out their lives in full freedom from entrapment. Fame will empower these victims of genocide and hatred. Fame will help provide us with a source of knowledge of their stories and tales that would travel around the world flowing through city-to-city, person-to-person.

I feel if refugees did receive the fame that they need, more life would shine throughout the camps. They would not be just one more number in the blocks, one more ration of food. They would begin to become the person that they strive to be. Refugees have amazing testimonies about their lives pre-refugee as well as their lives within the camps. From reading the testimonies given, I know that these people want their voice to be heard. They want the fighting to be finished; they want the hate to cease to exist. I feel that it is a necessity for these refugees to become known to the world because if we don’t know them, how would we care? The United States especially loves hot topics and controversial subjects and empowering these victims of persecution could turn the whole idea of refugees around.

Some refugee agencies may see this fame that refugees desperately need as a constraint to the power that they hold over the program.  It seems that they attempt to desensitize and strip the people of their identities to allow them not to worry about the outside world, to not care about making a difference. Overall, agencies need to tear down their walls a bit to allow these people to become prominent in the media allowing their voices to be heard.

I feel that as the years go by, people are becoming more and more informed about refugees and their issues. I honestly do not see any wrong reason why a refugee should be famous. They might not live in the spotlight like celebrities in Hollywood and New York City, but these people are strong willed and do not give up. They deserve to be able to allow their stories to be told, their lives to be witness, because I feel that the hardships of living in these refugee camps is something that most people don’t think twice about.

– Joshua

Do Refugees Need Fame?

I don’t think that refugees need fame in order to be recognized, but unfortunately that is the only way to get our society to listen and to accept this reality. We live in a culture today that would rather hear bad news about terrible people that good news about righteous individuals. The American Dream now seems to be one about obtaining fame and riches while acting completely ignorant and egocentric. Thats the only reason I can give for why the public and the media would care more about Justin Beiber and Miley Cyrus than someone busting their chops in Africa trying to make life better for refugees and genocide victims.

If you view it from a refugee’s perspective, its easy to see how they become villains and resort to violence. Most come from very poor areas with little food and shelter. These poor physical conditions can lead to an unstable psychological state. When theses urges and desires are excessive, common sense and compassion are pushed aside as survival of the fittest occurs. People become more likely to resort to crime and violence when social and economic conditions worsen in their country. This can explain why people abuse, harm, and steal from one another in order to move up in the social hierarchy.

One of the campaigns I really admire was Kony 2012. During the 2012 election, posters and flyers were spread across cities promoting Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in Uganda. He has been indicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court for abducting children and forcing them to become sex slaves and child soldiers. The point of the campaign was to make Kony famous, to get people talking about him and to inform the public of his crimes. I think this method can be very effective if used in a similar way to highlight issues associated with genocide and refugees. If we make the violence, rape and sexual abuse in refugee camps and regions of genocide as famous as we make celebrities in the U.S., then we will have success informing and educating the public about these issues and compel them to act accordingly.

-Ben

Prayer for the Refugee

Our reading for today described the nature and structure of refugee camps. It gave insight into what daily life is like for a refugee living at these locations. I thought it made great points about how we view these camps as ethnographic museums, as well as how we separate our “privileged” world from their “bruised” world. This holds plenty of implications for our approach when we advocate for refugees and other genocide victims.

Refugee camps are designed to ensure the protection and survival of displaced persons during a time of war, persecution, or natural disaster in the refugee’s homeland. Most of the camps are created by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and vary in size and location. In some rare instances, the camps house refugees within their own country through the direction of government or different non-government organizations (NGOs). The point of these “humanitarian spaces” is to shelter and shield refugees from the political and military pressures of warring groups or countries.

In theory, refugee camps are beneficial and provide a common good for the people they service. But at the same time, they can endure problems and make life worse for refugees. The responsibility of refugee camps are unstable and dependent on resolving the conflicts that force refugees to flee their home country. The camps can suffer internal problems by exiled ethnic or religious powers as refugees become targets of violence instead of seekers of peace. Under these circumstances, the camps become “humanitarian sanctuaries” and innocent victims become targets of violence and destruction.

The UNHCR has sought out different ways to ensure the protection of the civilian population during war by creating three specific zones for refugees in the camps. First, the “zones of safety” aim to protect the most fragile participants, most notably children, elderly, pregnant women and sick people. “Neutralized zones” are broader spaces that are defined within the region where the entire population, to the extent that it is not involved in any conflict, is to be protected. Finally, “undefended localities” are voluntarily disarmed and supposedly immune from any attacks. All of these zones of humanitarian emergency are only legitimized if they can keep their inhabitants at a distance from war, politics, and violence.

Refugee camps are an arrangement for policing, feeding and giving health care to populations that are offered refuge in order to shelter them from violent death that arises from war or hunger. The camps represent the best emergency response to a troublesome situation, making it possible to group people effectively, ensure protection and a minimal level of care for exiles that arrive in poor condition. Officials at Dadaab in north-eastern Kenya claim that they give refugees “security, food and health” or a minimal life under transfusion.

This “life under transfusion” provides refugees with just enough rations to survive on a daily basis. They are supplied by the UN’s World Food Programme and are distributed every two weeks by Care, a Canadian NGO. In Dadaab, Women line up one at a time in front of the distribution centers with UNHCR ration cards that indicate the number of portions they are entitled to receive. They maintain a diet of 1,900 calories per day. Each camp has three medical posts, a field hospital, and a mobile care team to treat any patients that are sick or injured. Security is provided by the country’s police, under the supervision of UNHCR.

One can imagine the struggle and daily grind for the people living in these camps. Diseases like Malaria and Tuberculosis are prevalent and can spread throughout the population. Although malnutrition is monitored and only 9-10% of the population has this issue, the rate can rise very rapidly when the supply of food aid is interrupted because of bad weather or other complications. Local problems such as rape, theft, and even murder can occur within the camp. These difficulties lead to the conviction that the population is artificially kept alive by this international “transfusion,” and that any small dysfunction could immediately compromise its success or reduce it to failure. It creates a certain culture of aid, consumed of dependence and begging, that rapidly permeates through the camp life. It leaves one to wonder what happens to the population after their home conflicts are resolved and they return back to their previous lives.

If the conflicts are not resolved, social and economic conditions worsen in the country of origin and exiles remain in refuge. When the precise duration of time spent in the camps is unknown, refugees begin to shift from lives of emergency to lives of permanence. Members of the UN and relief organizations assert that they cannot view things from a long-term perspective, though they witness and realize that many of situations become perpetual. The continuation of war prevents the refugees from returning home, and they begin to “settle” in the camps and become dependent on the aid they receive.

Humanitarian intervention often has a tendency to become frozen at the sites of implantation. We often hear about the events before and after the refuge, but the present duration is unthinkable and often unspoken. According to the reading, “To speak of time spent in the camps is a disturbing subject: durable life is not supposed to exist in a space outside of place, a moment outside of time, and identity without community, and in this respect it is upsetting and unnameable.” During this time, refugees are alive in a biological sense, but they no longer “exist” in a social or political manner. An individual’s nationality, ethnicity, religion, and social identity is put into brackets for as long as they are confined to living a “bare life.”

This “bare life” is one that is indefinite and separated from its context and has become incompatible with the human world. The camp makes the empty space around these lives that are placed under the dependence of global humanitarianism because of violence, war and exodus. It ensures the power of international organizations over the lives of the individuals that are grouped in the camps. In emergency situations all that matters is the victims, and victims have no social or political affiliation according to a humanitarian way of thinking. The reality becomes ambiguous and unfulfilled, for the camps are neither completely closed or open, and refugees and neither completely dead or alive.

In a sense, refugee camps get lost in time and become ethnographic museums to the outside world. Refugees are grouped according to their place of departure, ethnic group, or original clan. They begin to construct replicas of their old homes and revert back to their old ways of living. Gradually, they form an image of an ethnographic museum that exhibits different features that are grouped together outside of their original context. They create a world of improvisation, developing a new context for this ethnographic exhibit that appears to be frozen in time. Attempted towns transform the space on which the camps are built and gradually become places where a social and economic life is reinvented.

Those who have observed the refugee camps notice the formation of a sort of town, not just by size, but also by the forms of life that seek new expression. There is plenty of potential but nothing ever develops and no promises of life are really fulfilled. The camps remain “bare towns” like the indigenous quarters of colonial towns that history has frozen in time. The displaced people and refugees experience a new type of reality: one that is lasting and separate non-development. In other words, a situation of temporary emergency and relief transforms into one of perpetual dependence and suffering.

It’s almost as if the refugee camps are concealed from the outside world and only exist to those that are confined within them. The camps are “gated identities” that contain ethnic, racial, and national identities that have been bruised by war, massacre and flight. This “bruised world” is completely shut off and separate from a “privileged world,” one where inhabitants are similar in ethnicity and social status while protecting themselves from the outside. Both worlds are nearly identical in their composition and in the sense that they are compatible to only thinking about themselves, to the point of self-obsession and fear of physical contact.

Refugee camps are outside the place and time of the ordinary and predictable world. They survive in the margins where they are kept apart from society and just kept alive so that it does not require elaborate thought and consideration. In the privileged world, private cities, protected condominiums and gated communities are examples of refugee camps in the sense that they are shut off from society and rarely thought of or spoken about.

As we proceed to advocate for refugees, we must familiarize ourselves with their daily struggle and the habitats in which they live. It is important for us to understand that although humanitarian aid can be beneficial for refugees, it should not be the end solution to the initial problems that cause displaced persons. We can provide refugees with the temporary relief from war and violence, giving them better living conditions than if they stayed in their home country. But this cannot be a permanent destination for them, because life is still tough in the camps and the struggle is still real. If we view this circumstance from a privileged-Western perspective, we would conclude that this not a life of promise or one that should endure for long. No one living in a privileged world would accept the conditions of a “bare life.” It seems as if our society turns a blind eye to refugee camps, believing in an illusion of a peaceful village where everyone is happy and gets along. We would rather remain in our “privileged world” oblivious to the atrocities occurring in the refugee’s “bruised world.” We view their world as a ethnographic museum while failing to recognize that their tumultuous condition still persists. As advocates, we must educate the public and our fellow neighbors about the issue, enlightening them and opening their eyes to the real problem. The way we can help refugees reclaim the life they lost is to aid in resolving the conflicts of war, politics, or persecution in their home country that caused them to leave.

-Ben

Trapped

I never really thought about how refugees are trapped in the camps and towns set up for them until recently. My mind began to open and understand (as much as I could) how refugees are living in these camps or constructed towns through reading the chapters.  I never realized that these refugees are trapped. Trapped from living the way they want to live. Trapped from experiencing the joys of having a worthy income and education opportunities. You would think after having to flee from your home country because of the dangers of the perpetrators’ hatred and persecution towards you, life, as a refugee would be a breeze. These people are living in a circulating wheel with no stopping point and almost no way to jump off and get out. I do agree that these several million people suffering from persecution are living in an open housed museum for the entire world to see.

It is hard to realize how much stress and pain mentally it must be to be a refugee.  These people have to leave their home in fear of being murdered because of their race, religion, etc. And while they are thankful for the camps that are set up for them, it comes to their realization that they have soon lost all identity. I feel that these camps and communities of refugees have saved these people from certain death yet stripped them from living the life they want for themselves and for their family.

I found that refugee organizations and agencies such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) have done exceptional jobs in keeping the refugees safe and protected from the turmoil and war in their homelands. But it is hard to factor out that these refugees are given very precise and small portion of food to survive (with an average of 1700 calories per day). Under the mandate, refugees are unable to leave their camps to find jobs to support their families and potentially enabling themselves to move out of these communities to start a new life outside of being a refugee, due to being unable to receive work permits. They also are unable to seek further education after secondary school (if they were even lucky to go to secondary school). I feel that these organizations are seriously dehumanizing these people with their efforts of “helping” them. They do not have the ability to find jobs that truly will help them succeed in life nor do they have enough freedom to receive the education that they so desire. It seems living in a refugee camp gives you nothing to strife for except hope of the end of civil disputes in their home country. Refugees are stripped of everything that they once knew, to these agencies it feels that all they are are a number; a number that needs food and water, healthcare, and a place to lay their head.

This all relates to a life under transfusion. The term transfusion comes from the medical procedure of transferring blood from one person to another. Refugees are being kept alive by their weekly rations of food and water that are being “transfused” from refugee agencies and donators. They are being carefully watched making sure all their health is fine, their shelter is safe, etc. These people aren’t experiencing life to their fullest due to, as the chapter states being “kept artificiallly alive by the international transfusion.” They are thankful, no doubt, for the caring of their bodies, but any bump in the road could easily misrupt the transfusion causing a “spill” resulting in an accident. These people are dependent on these transfusions, which can be very alarming, as accidents can always happen.

I can understand how people say that refugees live in a bare town with a bare life. No longer do they have things like a home, village, jobs, relatives, and other social ideals. All they have is the body that they were born with and the ration card tied around the neck or wrist. Living in a refugee camp seems to destroy their identity though it doesn’t mean they do not try to make the best out of the situation.

In the Kenyan refugee camps, large fences and barbed wires wrap around the vicinity of the camps. These refugees live in certain groups depending on their ethnicity, arrival time, etc. and soon attempt to use what they have to attempt to recreate their own homes. I feel this is where the idea that these people are a living ethnographic museum as these people seem to not be going anywhere for a long time. They live in these shelters day in and day out, showing the world what the daily life of a refugee could possibly consist of. I honestly would say that these camps could be considered as even “human zoos” for these people are seen to have no identities, nothing in their future.  They are basically being held in captivity. From the descriptions through the chapters, the camps sort of remind me of the ghettos where the Jews were segretated in Nazi-occupied Europe during World War II.

People are living in these camps for many years, some even being born there, never stepping foot in their home country. The younger generation is beginning to forget about their own heritage, their true home outside of the fenced in communities. They are losing all sense of culture and history of their home country, leading to a bare life. These people have already lost everything, they shouldn’t have to lose the pride they have for what is inside of them.

It seems that as Westerners we think of refugees and think “Aw, I’m glad that they got out from the perils in their home country,” and then go on with our daily lives. We see these commercials on tv asking for donations to help those in need in places such as Kenya and Ethiopa but we don’t fully understand what these people are experiencing inside of the camps when the cameras are off. Thankfully after reading several accounts of life in these camps from those living in them, I have been able to understand just how difficult it is to be someone in the camps, to live your life. We need to open our eyes to what is happening outside of our own comfortable safety bubble in America.

Overall, I understand now that refugee camps are not a “home away from home” and can really dehumanize an entire population. We need to become more aware about the corruptness that is found in these camps with them not allowing these refugees (who are human beings) to live their lives just as if they were in their home country. I do agree that refugees are living in ethnographic museums, showing people what its like to live as a refugee. These are real-life people who deserve to have a life just as you and I do so they should not be trapped in a fenced in community resulting them becoming a spectacle for the world to see.

-Joshua