Subject: RE: More mesmerism, smuggling, assimilation and revenge
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 12:31:05 -0400


>What I'm asking is: why
Britain, when they could get into continental Europe so much more easily?

Eric, the U.K. did 'recruit' from its colonies after WWII for low wage
employment and at that time made it relatively easy to immigrate. And how do
we know it's easier to get into other Euro countries? A few of the UK
immigration analyses I have seen have touched upon (but haven't really
explored although I admit I have not been following the scholarship lately)
familial migrations--how one generation (in the West Indian case, young men
in the 50s) is then followed by wives, daughters, children, & kin (in the
60s). This if course is also related to the UK's recruitment of domestic,
feminized labor as well. (Something like what Canada is doing now with
Philippine women). I am not sure that the UK has the highest immigration
figures and I don't think the UK is any more "sex-starved and
hypocritical"--tracing Philippine women's migrations brings up other
suspects--a few Asian & middle eastern countries and Canada, for instance.

And since someone already brought up Monty Python, the guy from MP who
filmed his world tour (I am blocking out his name--probably because he is so
damn offensive) visited the Philippines and asked the women why they were
emigrating to work as domestic laborers and most likely in enforced
prostitution. He acknowledged local poverty, lack of local opportunities,
the relaxed emigration laws, & the institutional networks (including
language schools) that make this possible and then ignored these factors,
choosing to perceive the women as "free agents" who just can't wait to leave
their homes and be exploited overseas. The point is it was easier for him to
categorize this under 'individual choice' rather than query the various
institutional networks at work--including those that he and his camera crew
participate in. Liz



     --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---