Education Pack "all different - all equal" 2021 E-Book

Rui Gomes

• Herausgeber: Council of Europe
• Kategorie: Für Kinder und Jugendliche
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2021

Seitenzahl: 509

Beschreibung

It is easy to say "I have no prejudices", "I'm not racist, so it has nothing to do with me", "I didn't invite those refugees". It is hard to say "I may not be to blame for what happened in the past but I want to take responsibility for making sure it doesn't continue in the future". The Education Pack "all different - all equal" was originally produced in 1995 as an educational resource for the European youth campaign against racism, antisemitism, xenophobia and intolerance. Soon after its publication it became a reference work for those involved in intercultural education and training with young people across Europe and beyond. Translated into many languages, it remains today one of the most successful and most sought after publications of the Council of Europe. The usefulness of the pack stems from the variety and creativity of the methodologies proposed. More than twenty years after the "all different - all equal" campaign, the role plays, simulation exercices, case studies and cooperative group work that it proposes remain an inspiration to many youth workers, trainers, teachers and other people actively involved in intercultural education. European societies continue to suffer from a growth of racist hostility and intolerance towards minorities and foreigners; the necessity for intercultural youth work remains undiminished and the relevance of this pack remains unquestionable. Little bit has been changed in this new edition of the pack, apart from an updating of references. Most changes are visible and usable only in the online version, which offers relevant links with other resources for human rights education which continue the legacy of the campaign: equality in dignity and rights, respect for broader appreciation of diversity.

Leseprobe

 

EDUCATION PACK

All Different –All Equal

 

Resources and activities for education and action

with young people against racism and discrimination

 

Fourth edition “Silver”, 2021

 

Authors

 

Chapter 1 Anca-Ruxandra Pandea, Rui Gomes

Chapter 2 Patricia Brander, with Laure de Witte and Rui Gomes

Chapter 3 Gavan Titley (editor), with contributions from Alana Lentin, Barbara G. Bello, Domenica Ghidei Biidu, Hande Taner, Hasti Hamidi, Rokhaya Diallo, Simona Toroţcoi and Yael Ohana

 

Final editor

Rui Gomes

 

Authors of the previous editions

 

Carmen Cardenas, Juan De Vicente Abad, Mark Taylor,

Contents

Click here to see the whole table of contents

Acknowledgements

This Education Pack is the result of the work and contributions of various generations of experts and practitioners in non-formal learning, human rights education and anti-racist work. It has benefited from the experiences of users of the previous editions. This silver edition has been enriched with input and inspiration from many people. We wish to thank in particular::

Cihan Kilic, Deborah Fakeye, Medhi Mirbah, Negmledin Soliman, Tetiana Storozhko and Volodymyr Yakovenko, who shared their experiences in anti-racist youth work

Aistė Šlajūtė, Andreea-Loredana Tudorache, Margareta Matache, Mark Taylor, Mohammed Dhalech for their wake-up calls and advice

Marjam Hagmann and Rhys-Padraig Nugent for their professional dedication and availability

The Secretariat of the European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance

Estelle Glessinger, László Milutinovits, Mariya Angelova, Natalia Chardymova, Nina Kapoor, Stefan Manevski, Zsuzsanna Molnar for their support

The Youth Workers and Trainers who provided input to a survey in June 2020 about the desirable future of this manual, and dedicated their time to a consultation on it: Abdelrahman Rizk, Aga Byrczek, Anne Walsh, Armela Pengili, Asma Saadouni, Beniamin Branzas, Dragana Jovanovska, Ilaria Esposito, Imre Tokviskes, José Brito Soares, László Földi, Mariana Lulache, Mario Dagostino, Ramona Asan, Riccardo Gulletta, Sian Bagshaw, Tony Dronfield, Ufuk Atalay, Vojislava Tomić Radivojsa

Rachel Appleby for being more than a proofreader.

Preface

In 1995, young people at the Council of Europe made history by taking action against racism, antisemitism, xenophobia and intolerance through the All Different –All Equal campaign. This was continued in 2006 with a youth campaign for Human Rights, Diversity and Participation.

The All Different-All Equal campaign marked renewed attention by the Council of Europe to racism and discrimination as particularly persistent and insidious violations and abuses of human rights. The subsequent work of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance has deepened the understanding of these issues and supported public institutions and civil society to take action, especially at national level, against these phenomena. Policies and programmes to prevent and combat discrimination on the ground of age, ethnicity, ability, religion, gender, or sexual orientation have become an integral part of our work for human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

Following these campaigns it became clear that racism and racial discrimination had not gone away and still today they constantly mutate into new variants that threaten the development of a society based on a culture of universal human rights and put many lives at risk. The materials and resources produced for the campaigns, especially this “Silver” edition of the Education Pack, target some of these mutations and provide anyone interested in anti-racism education

with relevant information and educational methods for working with young people.

The task of combating racism and racial discrimination today is more important than ever. Our societies will be stronger and more democratic thanks to the agency and active involvement of the young people. I invite all youth workers and facilitators of education processes to put to good use these resources. Against indifference, all action is welcome!

Snežana Samardžić-Marković

Director General of Democracy

Council of Europe

IntroductionAll Different – All Equal today…

It is easy to say, “I have no prejudices” or, “I’m not racist, so it has nothing to do with me”, or, “I didn’t invite those refugees”. It is much harder to say, “I may not be to blame for what happened in the past but I want to take responsibility for making sure it doesn’t continue into the future”.

This was the opening line of the first edition of Education Pack All Different –All Equal in 1995. This manual was produced with a specific purpose: to support education and awareness-raising activities of the first European youth campaign All Different – All Equal, a campaign against racism, antisemitism, xenophobia and intolerance.

Twenty-five years on, the world is a very different place. Young people interact and take action in new ways and mobilise themselves about new issues. They are globally connected through countless virtual and real networks. All are affected by the Covid19 pandemic, and our common future is at stake with the climate crisis.

Racism and other ideologies of domination, oppression or supremacy have not disappeared. In fact, it is as if they are now more widespread, more visible and also more “normalised”. The No Hate Speech Movement campaign – another Council of Europe youth campaign – showed that the Internet and the online world have amplified the phenomena of hate speech, which is nothing other than the vocalisation of racist and discriminatory ideas. The proliferation of populist discourses across Europe and beyond tends to emphasise polarised views of society and the world which divide people and communities into the “good ones” and the “not so good ones”, into “us” and “them”. The phobias and insecurity resulting from terrorism, from the Covid19 pandemic or from climate and environmental crises exacerbate this further; “red lines” are crossed, the exception becomes the norm and human rights considerations seem sidelined.

At the same time, acts of racist violence and hate speech are better known and cannot be ignored. The open and subtle forms of oppression are better understood and known: young people play an important role in denouncing, questioning, and challenging social and political norms that justify or nurture themselves on exclusion and violence against racialised groups of society or simply vulnerable people. The movement for universal dignity and human rights has become more universal. It is also more respectful of diversity, pluralism and of the relation between causes and struggles for equality and humanity. It hopefully values the current and historical experiences of domination and oppression which keep imprisoning the minds and lives of many people.

Many of these tensions became apparent in 2020 in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death in Minneapolis at the hands of a white policeman. The shockwaves of his final words “I can’t breathe” were felt and resonated far beyond the USA and made the cause of the Black Lives Matter movement a global one. Youth workers and youth leaders from across Europe questioned the Council of Europe about the responses of the “guardian of human rights in Europe” to the situation, and what especially the youth sector could propose.

In consultation with youth workers, a consensus emerged that part of the response has to be educational: the popularity of populist, nationalist and xenophobic ideas is also the result of failures in education for human rights, including anti-racism education. This Education Pack, in an updated version, contextualised to be appropriate for the third decade of the 21st century, was proposed as part of that educational response.

Preparing this new edition proved to be more difficult than envisaged. On the one hand, understanding the issues is more complex and rich; on the other hand, the educational approach proposed in 1995, based on intercultural education, seemed outdated and sometimes even biased. We have opted for taking up the challenge and the inherent risks which, we believe, are limited.

Updating and contextualising

The most important innovation in this edition is the inclusion of a new Chapter 3 – ‘Combating racism in Europe today’. Co-ordinated and edited by Gavan Titley, this chapter proposes insights into specific forms of racism and discrimination that were less present in the first edition, such as antigypsyism and islamophobia. It also proposes an intersectional approach to handling issues and causes – because they are all interconnected and reflect different expressions of oppressive exercises of power. This also underlines the importance of action against inequality and discrimination going beyond “us” and “them”, “victims” and “perpetrators”. We all contribute to continuing, changing or transforming the systems.

It is important to keep in mind the purpose of the first edition: this is not a sociological book about racism and what causes it. It is important for youth workers and facilitators using it to know and be aware of the issues, but it is possible and often necessary to go beyond the Education Pack to know and to learn more.

A valid educational approach

The 1995 edition of the manual proposed intercultural education as a process of changing perceptions and attitudes to (cultural) diversity in society that would take us from multicultural to intercultural societies. It was deeply influenced by a perspective of global economic relations that furthered social and economic imbalances between the global North and the global South. The educational activities or methods proposed in Chapter 2 helped raise awareness of these issues and how they condition our perceptions of relations in multicultural societies. It gave a specific importance to becoming aware of, and possibly overcoming, prejudice, ethnocentrism and stereotypes.

This has been partly re-written. Chapter 1 proposes a wider framework of understanding racism and discrimination. The role of migration – influenced by crises, conflicts and growing inequalities – as a way of explaining discrimination is now more nuanced. Migration is obviously not the cause of racism, but analysing the links between the two can be useful for exploring the perversion and vacuity of xenophobia. It also establishes a closer relationship between human rights education and intercultural learning.

Intercultural learning still remains an important dimension in the educational approach because it remains fundamentally useful and valid. This is possible if the role of culture is understood as a possible dimension in understanding power relations in a multicultural society, but not necessarily as the most important one. Being aware of the risks of essentialising culture and cultural affiliations and of assigning cultural identities and roles to people (and especially to young people) is key to keep this approach relevant and useful.

A wealth of activities

In the words of the youth workers consulted and involved in preparing this edition, the charm of this manual is its activities and the fact that it fits in a pocket: “I can travel with it”, someone said. Patricia Brander did a marvellous job of updating the activities and also of creating new ones. The range of activities remains wide – from very simple to more complex ones. They propose different ways of “travelling” and usually emphasise the relationship between personal perceptions, stereotypes and prejudice and their impact on the quality of personal interaction and social relations. This still makes full sense when approaching racism and adopting an intercultural learning approach.

However, as with many other experiential education activities, it is the debriefing and the meaning that the facilitator gives to the activity that will determine its value and, especially, the connection that participants / learners make between the activity, themselves and society at large. We trust that the facilitators feel both confident and empowered: human rights education has to make sense to the lives of the learners and their personal experiences, but they can also be (just) the starting point for deeper forms of learning and acting for dignity and equality.

It follows that the respect for learners and their central role in intercultural learning processes implies not proposing or imposing concepts and approaches that are too complex or controversial. Complexity and controversy are welcome as a second or third step for the participants who want it.

The contents

Young people cannot make sense of their own position and gain knowledge and mastery of it without an understanding of both the international and national circumstances that shape their world. Intercultural learning can facilitate this process. This manual provides practical and theoretical materials which can be used by facilitators, trainers, and youth workers in non-formal education but also by teachers and educators in formal education. Although we talk of young people, the activities proposed can be adapted for use with other age groups.

CHAPTER 1 is a general introduction to the challenges of racism and discrimination in Europe. It proposes definitions of some key concepts and understanding of some mechanisms that impact or condition our views on diversity and dignity. It also proposes and explains the responses, starting with human rights mechanisms and concluding with intercultural learning and the approach for activities in Chapter 2.

CHAPTER 2 is a toolbox of methods and activities to use with young people in intercultural learning and anti-racism education. Following a description of the overall methodology, users will find a range of activities which are based firmly on group work and participation. Working from experience, exploring new approaches, Part B encourages young people to take action.

CHAPTER 3 is a reflection on the current state and status of racism and discrimination in Europe today. Gavan Titley sets the scene and outlines the contradiction and the tension around racism in Europe today and why we cannot undertake a journey of human rights education without being aware of the deep and perverse ways that racism and racialised views of society taint our view of the world. Individual contributors address issues of intersectionality, islamophobia, antigypsyism, anti-racism and youth work. The facilitators using the manual should read this chapter to deepen their understanding of racism as a whole and of some of the specific forms it takes today.

Interested youth workers and facilitators are also invited to consult the online version of this Education pack; they’ll also find there information and resources developed for and during the All Different – All Equal campaign.

— 

posters of the campaign

CHAPTER 1KEY CONCEPTS AND RATIONALE FOR UNDERSTANDING AND ACTING AGAINST RACISM AND DISCRIMINATION

Challenges, problems and their origins 13

The challenge of “understanding” racism and discrimination 13

Forms and expressions of discrimination 25

Our responses 36

Legal responses: the human rights framework 36

The educational response 38

Challenges, problems and their origins

No-one is born hating another person because of the colour of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.

— Nelson Mandela

The challenge of “understanding” racism and discrimination

In this section, we’ll be exploring the issues related to diversity in our societies and the manifestations of racism and discrimination today. Rather than a thorough review of all the issues that cut across European societies, which would be too complex to deal with in a single book, the text proposes an analysis of diversity as being inherent to any society, and explores forms of racism and discrimination experienced today. This is nonetheless challenging because the keys to understanding racism and discrimination cannot be understood as the only keys, and certainly not as “the” explanation and, even less, justification for racism and discrimination. They constitute one approach that links discrimination with diversity and, in the second part, intercultural learning with part of the response of anti-racism education. However, other approaches are possible, and sometimes necessary.

Racism is multifaceted and mutates in time and space – and this does not make the task of explaining or understanding it any easier, even if the ethical and legal basis is very clear. But the mutations and perceptions of racism and the damages it causes to society and people are also a reminder that education always has to be part of the response. The educational proposal of this manual is indeed based on a concept of intercultural learning that assumes that we are all influenced by prejudicial and stereotypical views of “others”, and that it is also possible to “unlearn” or to correct prejudice, notably through education. Similarly, the focus on migration and cultural diversity cannot either be understood as being related to the causes of racism. It helps to contextualise racism and anti-racist struggles in many countries in Europe today, but racist ideologies do not “need” migrants to flourish and grow. Rather, migrants and refugees, and minorities in general, are the easy target and the easy scapegoat.

“Understanding” why migrations are inevitable in the 21st century, which is central to this chapter, should be helpful in identifying and de-constructing the manipulation and instrumentalisation of mobility and migration for the de-humanisation of people that is always part of racist discourses.

Humanity, Dignity and Diversity

We human beings are all different in many ways and can be identified according to many criteria: gender, nationality, age, physical characteristics, sexual orientation, personality, hobbies, standard of living, religion and beliefs and so on. The title of the manual, and of the Campaign that it originally served, states what stands out as universal evidence: each of us is a unique individual, yet we are individual human beings who are part of the human community in which we enjoy equal human rights. Truly all different and all equal!

As part of humanity, all of us are holders of human rights. Human rights are indivisible, interdependent and interrelated: the enjoyment of one right depends on the enjoyment of many other rights; no single right is more important than others. Human rights are also universal: they apply equally to all people and to everyone in the world, and with no time limit. Every person is entitled to enjoy their human rights without distinction of “race” or ethnic background, colour, sex, sexual orientation, disability, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, birth or other status. Their universality is also grounded on the fact that they reflect universal needs ranging from survival, health, education, freedom, self-fulfilment, and so on. This is encapsulated in Articles 1 and 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR):

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status (…).

The aspirations contained in the UDHR and other human subsequent rights instruments demand constant attention and action because the promise of universality has been challenged historically by centuries of conflict, domination and annihilation. Furthermore, today, at least on the European continent, the adherence to the principles of equality in dignity is regularly challenged by manifestations of racism, discrimination, antisemitism and xenophobia that violate the fundamental rights of many people and communities and put at risk the values which, in the words of the European Convention of Human Rights:

(…) are the foundation of justice and peace in the world and are best maintained on the one hand by an effective political democracy and on the other by a common understanding and observance of the human rights upon which they depend.

The contemporary human rights framework has been determined and moulded by the mass violations of human rights during the Second World War represented by the Holocaust, genocides and other crimes against humanity that were rooted in and nourished racism and racialised views of the world and humanity. Equally important in shaping the human rights framework were processes of self-determination and the end of colonialist rule.

The core of the human rights promise lies in living with equality in dignity and rights for all human beings. However, the simple declaration of these values, albeit fundamental and strengthened by a comprehensive framework of protection, does not immediately dissolve the effects of centuries of domination and oppression, nor does it dismantle the justifications that were built to explain them. The consequences of racial ideologies impact the lives of millions of people today. Racist ideas are also prevalent in our societies even if they appear in many forms and expressions.

It has become commonplace in European politics to assert that diversity is a given reality of our societies, and that this is even a strength to be built upon. It has not yet become commonplace to follow through this political assertion consistently.

For example, in the European Union, a 2017 study shows that four out of 10 respondents (38 %) felt discriminated against in the five years leading up to the survey because of their ethnic or immigrant background in one or more areas of daily life1. Respondents of North African background, Sub-Saharan African background and Roma respondents indicated the highest levels of discrimination based on ethnic or immigrant background. Moreover, in a Special Eurobarometer reported published in 2019, just over one quarter of respondents across Europe thought that national efforts to fight discrimination have been effective, underlining the widespread belief that more needs to be done to tackle discrimination.2 The figures are no better in other parts of the Europe and the world. Studies also show that discrimination has a particularly negative effect on children and young people; young refugees and young people from migrant backgrounds – “second” or “third generation” – are particularly affected.

The aspirations for equality in dignity and rights for all are influenced and shaped by inequalities that affect individuals and communities and the quality of social relations: inequalities in the access to rights; inequalities in exercising those rights; inequalities in economic resources and power. The digital divide, the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic and the climate crisis accentuate the extreme inequalities that characterise each of our societies and the inequalities between richer and poorer countries.

Inequalities, conflicts and the climate crisis are also largely responsible for movements of population, within the same country and internationally. Migration has been a constant throughout human history, and mobility of human labour a consistent feature of the capitalist world we live in since its outset. This enhances the diversity in our societies, be it in terms of nationalities, ethnicities, religions, cultures or anything else. In fact, difference and diversity seem rather to be the norm and not the ethnical unity that some advocated for or idealised. One of the biggest challenges faced as humanity and as communities of people is to discover and decide how to live together and interact with difference, creatively and constructively.

Multicultural and unequal societies

We live in a confusing world and times. In some ways, we seem to be coming closer together. With about 60 % of the planet’s population connected to the Internet3 and an estimated 97 % living within reach of a mobile cellular signal4, we now have the possibility to connect with someone far away from us in a matter of seconds and to access and follow events worldwide. Prior to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, national and geo-political boundaries had diminished to allow for unprecedented transnational movement of goods, services, and capital. Moreover, people had more capacity to travel and explore the world than ever before, even if the distances between us were increasing. We do not all enjoy the benefits of globalisation in the same way. While the world seems to get increasingly smaller, the gap between the rich and the poor is forever increasing. While we can communicate faster and on multiple channels, we seem to shout more than we engage in dialogue. The rise in popularity of populist parties and narratives symbolises increasing levels of social division and polarisation. While international mobility has increased, social mobility seems to be a faraway dream for most young people.

Global communication does not necessarily increase our efficiency in co-operation and problem-solving; sometimes it actually makes us more egocentric as exemplified by filter bubbles, fake news and the influence of attentional biases. It also creates new divides, amplifies hate speech, and it seems to diminish our capacity for dialogue. It certainly has not resulted in the reduction or elimination of racism, antisemitism or xenophobia.

2020 recorded the highest number of antisemitic hate crimes (2,275 crimes) in Germany, the highest number since records began in the country in 2001. The president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, Josef Schuster, saw this as a sign of the fact that “the radicalisation of society is progressing and respect for minorities is declining”. This is not exclusive to Germany: a survey of the Agency for Fundamental Rights of the EU on Jewish people’s experiences and perceptions of discrimination revealed that 46 % of the respondents worried about being verbally insulted or harassed in a public place because of being Jewish, and 33 % worried about being physically attacked in the country where they lived.5

We face, at the same time, a backlash to the ideals of equality, dignity and peaceful co-existence in multicultural societies through populist, nationalist and xenophobic appeals across the political spectrum. While we have achieved significant progress in terms of anti-discrimination laws, in our daily experiences we continue to see more and more examples of racism in actions of police forces, in the work of institutions, in mass media and in the daily behaviour of people.

The EUMinorities and Discrimination Survey shows that 24 % of the respondents experienced hate-motivated harassment, and 3 % experienced hate-motivated physical attack, with the Roma population reporting the highest rate, and with most incidents going unreported. Racial profiling by police remains a practice all over Europe. A report of the European Roma Rights Centre demonstrates that the Covid19 pandemic has affected Roma communities disproportionately with Roma being particular targets of racist violence6. For example, in Bulgaria, politicians from the governing coalition called Romani neighbourhoods “nests of contagion” and called for reinforced quarantine measures. The harshest situation was in Yambol where the Roma community was fully quarantined and blockaded for 14 days. On 14 May 2020, a helicopter sprayed nearly 3,000 litres of detergent to “disinfect” the Romani neighbourhood7.

For minorities in our societies, be they ethnic, religious, linguistic, LGBT+, or historical or new, discrimination is not new. Its prevalence and extent, however, is more threatening and it permeates all areas of life: provision of public services; employment opportunities; policing practices; housing; political organisation and representation; access to education.

The very idea of human rights and equality in dignity is being contested, and standing for it, standing for diversity, can have negative consequences for young people. The number of human rights defenders, activists and educators who are persecuted or afraid of being persecuted in Council of Europe member states is alarming. This can be explained by historical racism in our societies, the reaction to the speed of changes or a consequence of terrorism and the wars on terrorism. But it is also, inevitably, the result of insufficient efforts in raising awareness and education against racism and for human rights. If it is true that we are not born racists but learn to become racists, no-one is born a good citizen either, since this is the result of a learning and growing process.

Hate speech, including in its online form, is perhaps the most visible part of the phenomenon of radicalisation and banalisation of aggressive populism and nationalism. Escalating intolerance often leads to violence and, in the most extreme cases, to armed conflict. Using the definition of the Uppsala University Conflict Data Project: “an armed conflict is a contested incompatibility that concerns government and/or territory where the use of armed force between two parties, of which at least one is the government of a state, results in at least 25 battle-related deaths”. According to the project, in 2019 there were 54 state-based conflicts active, the highest number since 1946. Of these, only two were between states; the remaining 52 took place within states. More interestingly, out of the 52 intra-state conflicts, 22 were internationalised in some way, with the United States being the country involved in the largest number of conflicts (10) as a secondary warring party.8 The on-going conflicts in Syria and Yemen are examples of intra-state conflicts that are heavily internationalised.

The conflicts in Rwanda and former Yugoslavia in the ‘90s, the current conflicts in Syria and Yemen, in addition to the war crimes and crimes against humanity reported against the Myanmar Rohingya, have brought the issue of genocide and ethnic cleansing back to the attention of the international community. More questions are also being raised regarding the duty of the international community to intervene in the face of gross violations of human rights. Should the international community be more vocal in discrimination and displacement of Muslims in India? Should further pressure be placed on China for its so-called “re-education” camps for Uighur communities in Xinjiang province? The recent conflicts in Eastern Ukraine and the Caucasus, are also stark reminders that Europe is not free from conflict and that hate speech and armed conflict have often mutually reinforced one another.

Every society has been built through the inclusion of people from various geographical and cultural backgrounds. Twenty-five years ago, the authors of this manual mentioned Iceland as the only mainly mono-cultural society in Europe, mentioning, “And even there things are changing!” Today, we can say things have changed: 14 % of the resident population of Iceland hold a foreign citizenship, according to 2020 data.

If diversity is the norm within our own societies, why do we find such intolerance towards people we consider different? Clearly, there is no single answer to this question and developing every aspect that should be taken into consideration would take more than this manual.

Does migration really matter?

In Europe, the development of multicultural societies became more marked following the end of the Second World War. In Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, great movements of population took place involving the forced return of the Soviet prisoners of war from the United Kingdom, deportations of German ethnics and others on various grounds, as well as movements of populations for labour purposes. As the continent was divided between spheres of influence, movements of population were also happening within the countries and between them.

As Western Europe recovered after the Second World War, a shortage of low-skilled labour led to a wave of migration from less developed countries in the Mediterranean. Generally, the migrants joined the labour market of the receiving countries as manual workers and, as a rule, were given a friendly or “neutral” reception. They were “needed”. The economic crisis of 1973 changed the situation: a recruitment freeze and a series of economic recessions that lasted until the mid-1980s. Structural unemployment was experienced in every industrialised country. It affected mainly “the weakest” in the production system, especially foreign immigrants. The initial friendly reception turned into fear or suspicion: “you are not needed anymore”. Foreigners were made into scapegoats for the economic problems and blamed for taking jobs away from the host population.

The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 led to an increase in economic migration and asylum seekers looking for refuge in Western Europe. The countries in Central and Eastern Europe became an important new source of migrants for Western and Southern Europe. In the first years after the collapse of the Iron Curtain, migration was marked by the “return” of the German ethnics from the former Soviet Union to Germany (including populations that had previously been deported). With the conflict in former Yugoslavia, war refugees re-appeared in Europe. The conflict resulted in some 4.6 million people leaving the country, and some 700 000 seeking refuge in Western Europe in the first part of the ‘90s.

The enlargement of the European Union has led to increased mobility within and particularly from countries in Central and Eastern Europe to Western Europe for permanent or seasonal migration for labour. As the EU internal borders slowly dissolved with the Schengen agreement, the external border controls increased to such a degree that the talk of a “Fortress Europe” changed from being a source of fear of the Union closing in on itself to its neighbours, to becoming a reality and a demand by some politicians and important segments of the population.

The terrorist attacks of September 2011 in the United States marked an important shift on the role of security and terrorism at a global level. The launch of the global war(s) on terrorism, with the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, was also mixed in public space with the legitimisation of stricter policies in migration and restrictions of human rights in the name of security. This has been accompanied by an increased number of terrorist attacks across Europe which have also contributed significantly to the rise in xenophobia, and in particular of Islamophobia.

The war in Syria confronted European countries with the plight of refugees and asylum seekers that still marks attitudes towards refugees. It is important to note that, since 2014, Turkey has hosted the largest refugee population in the world, with 3.6 million “registered” refugees in 2019. In 2015, some 1.3 million asylum seekers entered Europe9. The broad coverage of the 2015 plight of migrants and their journeys through the Balkans or Hungary towards Western Europe renewed debates over migration and saw increasing levels of anti-migrant sentiments on the continent weaponised for political gain by many parties, particularly by those advocating for stronger border controls. This was accompanied by an increase in nationalist rhetoric coming from extreme right parties, but also from parties claiming to be closer to the centre of the spectrum. It led to policies in Europe that heavily violate international human rights and humanitarian law. Fences have been erected at borders, and under some legislation it became illegal to help asylum seekers. Many of these asylum seekers are also young people, including unaccompanied minors who often find themselves in situations of total precariousness, insecurity and destitution. In 2016, almost 26,000 unaccompanied or separated children arrived in Italy; migration reception centres such as on the island of Lampedusa struggle to accommodate migratory flows, often housing populations of migrants multiple times their maximum capacity.

In 2015, the Hungarian government decided to build a wall on its border with Serbia to prevent asylum seekers from entering its territory, along with making changes in the national legislation that infringe on the rights of the asylum seekers to proper protection and analysis of their case. The measures were accompanied by a billboard campaign in the country with messages such as: “Did you know that since the beginning of the immigration crisis the harassment of women has risen sharply in Europe?”

The UN Global Compact on Migration (2016) is the first inter-governmentally negotiated agreement that covers all dimensions of international migration in a holistic and comprehensive manner. It presents a significant opportunity to improve the governance of migration, to address the challenges associated with today’s migration, and to strengthen the contribution of migrants and migration to sustainable development.

The COVID-19 pandemic health and safety measures led to an unprecedented halt in international mobility: most countries in Europe and the world closed down their external borders completely, and imposed severe lockdowns internally to stop the spread of the virus. But these measures were not as uniformly applied as it may seem: as the lockdowns led to closure of businesses, many seasonal workers found themselves jobless, facing social security violations or unsafe working environments, and many either had to return to their home countries or were forced to do so. Since much of the agricultural work in countries such as Spain, Germany, the United Kingdom and elsewhere is dependent on cheaper labour forces from Central and Eastern Europe, the borders were – by exception – open for the migrant workers to come and ensure the crops were not lost. In Germany, for example, some unions documented cases of extreme abuse of Romanian workers brought to work in conditions that did not respect labour law or health security measures.10

Growing global inequality and injustices

Throughout history, our world has been the subject of multiple divisions. Romans divided the world into the Roman Empire and the Barbarian World; after the voyages of Columbus, people spoke about the New and the Ancient Worlds; an “Iron Curtain” separated Eastern from Western Europe at the end of the Second World War, and today we speak of EU and non-EU members or about a world divided between the global North and the global South.

This differentiation between the global North and the global South does not refer to the geographical situation of each country in relation to the Equator, (Australia is economically in the North!), but to a much more complex economic and political situation.

Only a small minority of this planet’s inhabitants enjoy the benefits of this smaller world we referred to earlier: technological advances and consumption levels which surpass basic needs. The terms ‘global North’ and ‘global South’ are generalisations, and there are many differences among countries from each group. It is undeniable, however, that the real frontier dividing the global North from the global South is poverty. Although poverty also exists in tcountries of the global North, the situation of their poor could sometimes be viewed as a privilege compared to those in poverty in the global South.

What is often common to some of the countries in the global South and global North is the shared history of a colonial past, of economic exploitation and disadvantageous international trade agreements in exchange for the recognition of the independence of a country.

In the first quarter of the 21st century, the global North was home to 25 % of the population of the world and had four-fifths of the global income, while producing 90 % of the manufactured goods11. At the same time, the ‘South’ hosted three-quarters of the world population and had only one-fifth of the global income. This is also clearly illustrated by access to COVID-19 vaccines: in January 2021, the World Health Organisation (WHO) reported that while 39 million doses had been administered in nearly 50 richer countries, only 25 vaccines had been given in one of the lowest income nations. Despite the COVAX Pillar co-led by the WHO, which seeks to ensure that all countries have fair and equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines, the WHO director spoke of how COVID-19 vaccination procurement schemes have revealed “another brick in the wall of inequality between the world’s haves and have-nots” and of “a catastrophic moral failure”.

The world is on the brink of a catastrophic moral failure – and the price of this failure will be paid with lives and livelihoods in the world’s poorest countries.

Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General, 18 January 2021

This situation of poverty has not occurred naturally: in many cases the countries concerned have more natural resources than those of the developed countries and in the past, they had thriving economies. So, what are the reasons for this unequal and unjust situation? At the risk of over simplification, it may be said that the situation in these countries stems from the international system that dominates our world politically and, above all, economically.

In 1791, in the French colony of Saint-Domingue, a slave revolution started, inspired by the ideals of the French Revolution of 1789 and the principles of the rights of men. Following years of battles between the slave armies and the French and British armies, the independence of Haiti was proclaimed in 1801. This is the only slave revolution to result in the establishment of an independent state. However, the new country was not recognised by “great powers” easily and found itself unable to enter the global market. France eventually recognised the country in exchange for a payment of 150 million francs in 1821. This obliged the Haitian government to borrow at disadvantageous interest rates from western banks and the debt was only finally paid in 1947. Haiti is currently the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, ranking 169 out of 189 on the Human Development Index.

An imbalance every one of us helps to maintain

After the Second World War, the present international economic order was created by a small number of “Northern” countries. These countries imposed rules and created structures that reflected their interests (for example, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank) and made use of resources that were not theirs. In a few words: they designed a system by which the development of the few was supported by the poverty of the majority.

Other, subtler forms of dependency became the norm and their main expression can be found in the concept of foreign debt, which burdens most of the developing countries. Countries in the ‘South’ became trapped into a system of having to exploit and sell their primary resources in order to pay for machinery and technology.

Since the late 1990s, the political concept of the global ‘South’ has been considered less attractive on the international political scene and other narratives about poverty have started to be used. In the late 1990s, the United Nations Development Programme started to develop a model of poverty that was based on the lived experiences of people. Poverty, in this model, is understood to be a combination of three areas: education, health and living standards. This recognises the interconnectedness of human rights and the ways that violations of one right determine violations or reduced capacity to access and exercise other rights.

Basic inequality of the economic system, civil wars, environmental disasters (desertification, earthquakes), famine, epidemics and a strong increase in the level of population (particularly in Africa) all combine to produce dramatic situations. Increasing numbers of people have been forced to take a painful if not traumatic decision: to leave their homes, emigrate or seek asylum. They do this to survive, despite being aware of the difficulties involved in living in a foreign country.

In 2020, the number of people “of concern” to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees was 79.5 million (in 1974, the figure was 2.4 million), out of which 26 million are refugees, 4.2 million are asylum seekers and 45.7 million people are internally displaced. Most refugees come from 5 countries: Syria, Venezuela, Afghanistan, South Sudan and Myanmar, and 82 % are hosted in developing countries. Can you imagine what these figures really mean in terms of human tragedy?

A European reality

What is Europe? Where does it start? Where does it end? How many countries are there in Europe? Who can claim to be a European? Is there a European culture?

The end of the Cold War in 1989 brought with it the processes of enlarging the membership of the Council of Europe and the European Union. The European Union enlargement has not been an easy process, entailing much more than just aligning and preparing economies for the common market. While it is common in Europe to talk about members and non-members of the European Union, it has become equally more common in recent years to talk about a European Union with two speeds. European citizenship is both an expression of a legal status with rights and responsibilities for citizens of member states of the European Union, as well as the expression and commitment of people to European values and a sense of identity that goes beyond the borders of EU.

Founded in 1949, the Council of Europe is today a Europe-wide organisation with 47 member states. At the Vienna Summit in October 1993, the Heads of State and Government cast the Council of Europe as the guardian of democratic security – founded on human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Democratic security was considered as an essential complement to military security, and a pre-requisite for the continent’s stability and peace. As the continent was transformed by different political processes, particularly the European Union enlargement, it was also exposed to new threats such as terrorism, violent extremism, aggressive forms of nationalism and a resurgence of authoritarian regimes.

As the border controls disappeared between certain European countries, the barriers increased to those outside of these areas. The Schengen Agreement encompasses 22 EU member states and four non-EU member states (Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein) that decided to lift or abandon border controls between them. On the day when the Accord came into force early in 1995, there were 24-hour queues at the German-Polish border. Wind forward 20 years later and the refugee crisis of 2015, in addition to the COVID-19 pandemic, saw the extraordinary situation of the Schengen Agreement being temporarily lifted and countries imposing border controls or completely shutting down their borders for the first time in many years.

Minorities in Europe

In nearly every state there are “traditional” minorities: ethnic groups who have been present for centuries but who have different characteristics, manners, habits and ways of life from the majority. Multitudes of examples could be cited; here are some, and you can find many more. European history is littered with expansionist movements, trading relations, and religious and military conquests. All of these have provoked movements of peoples. The 11th century Norman knights managed to set up dominions as far apart as Britain, Spain and Sicily; the forces of the Ottoman Empire reached the walls of Vienna in 1529 and again in 1683. Many places have seen terrible times; as Richard Hill points out, the town of Ilok, now on the eastern border of the independent state of Croatia, is an illuminating example. At the time of the Ottoman Empire, Ilok was a Muslim settlement. Before that it was Catholic. In 1930, many of the inhabitants were German and Jewish. In 1991 it counted 3 000 Croats, 500 Serbs and 1 900 Slovak descendants of migrants from the 19th century. A year later, in 1992, the population consisted of 3 000 Serbs. Since the end of the war, the majority population is once again Croat.

For Spain, these traditional minorities are, mainly, the Roma and Sinti (or Gitanos) people, who are also an ethnic minority in many other countries, and Muslim, Jewish and Hindu communities. In Sweden, there is a sizeable Finnish minority. In Turkey, an estimated 17 % of the population are Kurds and they are only one of more than 14 ethnic minorities. There are more than 30 000 Travellers in Ireland. About 6.5 % of the population of Romania are Hungarians.

Having been in the minority within the federation of Yugoslavia, Slovenians are now the majority in Slovenia, making up around 88 % of the population. Declarations of independence and the carving up of territory after wars have played an enormous role in “creating” minorities. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, 25 million Russians were living outside of the Russian Federation and – particularly in Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia – formed minorities of some magnitude in the newly independent countries. In 1920, the Treaty of Trianon cut off two-thirds of Hungarian territory together with one third of its population and many of those people stayed in their towns and villages. Their descendants can be found mainly in the Romania, Slovak Republic, Ukraine, Croatia and Serbia.

The decision to recognise or define a group of people as a “minority” is a fundamental challenge and a danger. It is dangerous because it can lead to increased discrimination and segregation. On the other hand, it can lead to an increase in recognition and respect of the rights and responsibilities of a particular group.

No state in Europe has within its borders people who only speak one language, although there are some who choose to have only one official language. Language plays an enormous role in the culture of a people and this is particularly prevalent in the case of minority languages, whose communities often associate language closely with the expression of identity and culture.

Attention! A minority in one place can easily be a majority in another place.

Migrants, Immigrants, Refugees

Terminology is also difficult in this area. It is an accepted practice in many European countries to talk of “migrants” as people who have origins in another country. To those young British passport holders from Manchester who are of, say, Jamaican origin and whose parents were born in Britain, it comes as something of a surprise to learn that they could be considered migrants. Some talk of “immigrants”, others of “guest workers”. Although it would suit some forces if migrants were to remain just that, it has become increasingly clear that many migrants wish to stay. And many of those are nationals of the countries where they live.

Problems of definition and different methods of collecting statistics mean that, often, comparable data between countries does not exist. Almost by definition “illegal immigrants” are incredibly difficult to count but, especially for unscrupulous politicians, incredibly easy to estimate (it is a little like the concept of the silent majority – as it is silent, anyone can claim to speak for it). People are not “illegal”; it is the legal system which defines them so. If you add to these considerations the fact that each country has different rules and rates for processing applications for naturalisation, it seems obvious that statistics have to be viewed with extreme care. Yes, even the few we use in this education pack.

We have referred earlier to the differing patterns of migration within and into Europe. Until the beginning of the 1990s, the main cause of immigration was the re-unification of the families of migrant workers who had settled in the ‘60s and ‘70s.

At a migration conference of the Council of Europe in 1991, it was predicted that, within three years, up to 20 million people would emigrate westward from the countries of the ex-Soviet Union. This did not happen, but such wild predictions have helped produce public support for increasingly strict immigration controls in Western Europe. In the midst of the ‘refugee crisis’ in Europe in 2015, Viktor Orbán, the prime minister of Hungary, declared, “We do not see these people as Muslim refugees. We see them as Muslim invaders.”

Throughout the world there has been a massive increase in the number of refugees and asylum seekers in the last decades. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees called the decade 2010-2019 “the decade of displacement”, with at least 100 million people forcibly displaced. Among these people, only a very small fraction found a solution. The figure for 2019, 79 million people, is the highest ever in the records of the organisation, roughly 1 % of the world population. The COVID-19 pandemic placed refugees and asylum seekers living in improvised camps at higher risk of contracting the disease and being unable to access proper medical care.

The legal “welcome” to those coming from outside

Depending on where you live, your nationality and your financial status, you will find it easier or harder to move to and work in a European country (or from one to another).

If you have at least EUR 100 000 in the bank, you will experience few problems in obtaining a visa or a residents’ permit in most countries; in fact, controversial “golden visa” scheme are operated in a number of countries through which wealthy “investors” are speedily granted long-term visas. At the same time, many countries have stopped issuing visas to foreign nationals who are already within their borders. Take the example of someone who is visiting their family on a tourist visa and wishes to stay longer; this person must then leave the country and apply for a new visa, with all the costs and stresses of separation this would entail. Strict regulations have been placed on transport companies to ensure that they carry only passengers with the right to enter a particular country. A company in breach of the regulations is liable to be fined and must cover the costs of repatriating the passengers concerned.

Unless you work for a large transnational company, you will have major problems in obtaining permission to live and work in any of the countries within the European Economic Area (EEA). However, nationals of those countries are allowed to move relatively freely from one country to another. Although regulations do differ in nuance, the basic challenges remain similar. If you want to stay in one of these countries legally, you will need to bear in mind some of the following:

A residence permit. This will be granted if you have already obtained a work permit.

An employment contract with a recognised business. Without this you cannot obtain a work permit.

The work permit will only be granted if the employer can prove that nobody in the host population could do the job.

Official procedures and delays in gaining work permits dissuade many employers from even attempting to recruit third country nationals.

If, in the meantime, you start working before being granted official permission, you risk immediate expulsion from the country.

Some crimes can only be committed by foreigners. Legal regulations change and it will be your responsibility to ensure that you conform to them.

Forms and expressions of discrimination

All societies are cultural

At first sight, the terms ‘Multicultural Society’ and ‘Intercultural Society’ seem to be similar but they are not synonyms. So, how do we tell the difference between the two? Here are some basic ideas, to which you can add.

Multicultural societies

Different cultures, national, ethnic, religious groups all living within the same territory but with limited contacts between each other.

A society where not all diversity is viewed positively and forms major justification for discrimination. Minorities may be tolerated passively, but not accepted or valued. Even in cases where there are legal rights designed to stop discrimination, the law may not be enforced uniformly.

Intercultural societies

Different cultures, national groups, and so on living together within a territory, maintain open relations of interaction, exchange and mutual recognition of their own and respective values and ways of life.

A process of active tolerance and the maintenance of equitable relations where everyone has the same importance, where there are no superiors or inferiors, or better or worse people, and where everyone’s human rights are upheld and respected.

Probably there are no “pure” multicultural or intercultural societies; these are not mutually exclusive concepts. “Interculturality” is a process, not a status. Now we need to examine some of the main elements of this process.

Let’s talk about culture

Men and women are not only themselves; they are also the region in which they were born, the city apartment or the farm in which they learnt to walk, the games they played as children, the tales they overheard, the food they ate, the schools they attended, the sports they followed, the poets they read and the God they believed in.

W. Somerset Maugham, The Razor’s Edge

Hundreds of definitions of culture exist, each one longer and more difficult than the last.

The first thing that comes to mind may be what you would find in the cultural pages of a newspaper: ballet, opera, music, books and other intellectual or artistic activities.

Here, however, we view culture from a much wider perspective. We are looking at the values and systems of behaviour that allow groups of people to make sense of the world. Culture is complex and trying to understand multiple cultures, including our own, will mean examining many different aspects of life. Some of them are immediately visible, while for others you may have to dig more deeply:

What is defined as “good” and “bad”?

How are families structured?

What is the relationship between men and women?

How is time perceived?

Which traditions are important?

What languages are spoken?

What rules govern the consumption of food and drink?

How is information shared?

Who has power and how do they get it?

What are common reactions to other cultures?

What is funny?

What role does religion play?

The list could be much longer, and you can find other aspects to add. It is important to stress here that the answer to such questions are, to a great extent, shared by the members of a culture– it’s obvious, it’s normal, that’s the way it is. They behave in similar ways, they share similar references and they judge things in similar ways. Such an observation is more obvious when you are confronted with a different culture or go abroad. Cultures are not static; they change and so the answers and even the questions themselves change over time. More importantly, everyone within one given culture behaves differently and may even excel in “deviating” from the cultural norms of the community or group that they are affiliated or ascribe to.

The existing differences between cultures reflect the effort each society has had to make in order to survive within a particular reality. This reality is made up of: a) the geographical background; b) the social background, that is to say, the other human groups with which it has had contact and exchange; and c) the “metaphysical” background, looking for a sense to life.

Learning your own culture: something as natural as breathing

We are born within a specific cultural environment, and during the first stages of life we learn our culture(s). This process is sometimes referred to as our ‘socialisation’. Each society transfers to its members the value system underlying its culture(s). Children learn how to understand and use signs and symbols whose meanings change arbitrarily from one culture to another. Without this process, the child would be unable to exist within a given culture. To take a banal example, imagine what would happen if your children could not understand the meaning of a red traffic light. There is no objective reason for red to mean ‘stop’, or green to mean ‘go’. Parents and family, school, friends, mass media, particularly television and social media – all of them contribute to the socialisation of children and, often, we are not even aware that we are part of this process.

Culture is lived in a different way by each of us. Each person is a mixture of their culture, their own individual characteristics and their experience. This process is further enriched if you are living with two or more “cultures” at the same time. For instance, as a second-generation immigrant, you may be learning your culture of origin within the family, and the culture of the country where you live at school and through the media.

Identity

Who am I? What am I? Identity is like culture: there are many aspects to it, some hidden, some visible. As with culture, it is always evolving: we are the same person as the one five years ago, and yet we are not exactly the same: we may appreciate different or new things, know more than we did, love other people…; it is almost impossible to define, and the definition is not very useful in any case. We usually know how to relate our identity to the context and the people we are with.

Identity can become problematic as an issue because it is not shaped only by our will, affiliations and preferences but also how society sees us, especially by what is valued as positive or negative. In other words, an individual cannot control or master how society sees them or the cultural relations that are related (rightly or wrongly). This often has an impact on self-esteem, especially of young people, particularly when the perception is negative.

One popular way of looking at identity is using the metaphor of an onion in which each layer corresponds to a different part of one’s identity. What is visible? What is invisible? What is known to the self and to others? How does it change in the process of the creation of the onion (growing up)?

Some of these will be related to:

the roles you play in life: a daughter, a friend, a school student, a baker, a banker

the parts of your identity you may be able to choose: fan of a certain type of music, member of a political party, style of clothes

where you were born, where you now live

belonging to a minority or not

your gender and your sexuality

your religion

and, perhaps strangely,

what you are not or don’t want to be: not a woman, not a socialist, not French, not a dentist.

The onion of identity

Others identify us, and we may not like the label they give us. Continuing the vegetable analogy, what happens if one onion calls another a tulip bulb? To return to one of the major subjects of this manual: the labelling of some people as a “minority group” may be done by others. Who are we? And who are they? Our social identity has to do with values and symbols. We divide people into groups because there seems to be a need to be different from others and we often define ourselves through our juxtaposition with “the other” . We need to give values to our group (class, family, friends) which give us a positive value of ourselves.

The danger lies in putting negative values on those who do not form part of our group. Putting people in boxes denies them the possibility of being anything else.

The Onion of Identity can be used as an activity in itself: what does your “onion” look like? It has proved very useful with groups as an introduction to discussions about identity, how we perceive others and how others perceive us.

All is perceptions and image

As we have seen, a person’s identity cannot be summed up by just one label. Often, though, we tend to concentrate on limited or distorted aspects. This is because the responses of different human groups to each other are the product of a complicated system of social relations and power. To discover some of the mechanisms at work, we need to examine the role of stereotypes, prejudice and ethnocentrism.

Stereotypes

Stereotypes consist basically of shared beliefs or thoughts about a particular human group. A stereotype is an ensemble of characteristics that sums up a human group usually in terms of behaviour, habits, and so on.

The objective of stereotypes is to simplify reality: “they are like that”. Bosses are tyrannical; these people are lazy, those are punctual; the people in that part of town are dangerous – one or some of them may have been, but all?