essay - homelands final

7/30/2019 Essay - Homelands Final

1/6

Z0930665

Describe the ways in which the nation can be thought about as a homeland, and outline

how Geographers might critique such an imaginary

A home is a space of imaginative, material and multi-scalar ideas and can be constructed

as a metaphor for power and identity (Blunt & Dowling, 2006). Homeland is simplistically

defined in the Oxford English Online Dictionary, (2011):as a person's home country or

native land; the land of one's ancestors. However, this simplified term encompasses a

vast range of ideals and its meaning varies significantly across political entities (Robin &

Strath, 2003). Firstly, a homeland can be used in a historic, symbolic sense to appeal to

native bloodlines and notions of racial and ethnical uniformity (Kaplan, 2003). For

example, homogenous groups may feel a specific region is closely identified to their

origins, ideals and heritage such as Zionists, who declare Israel as their Jewish homeland.Alternatively, In 2002, George Bush established the department of Homeland Security in

the United States of America (USA), introducing the concept that a nation is linked to home

through political ideas of security and membership. Each imaginative of homeland has

been criticised by academics , and during this essay, popular definitions shall be explored

and critiqued with the assistance of case studies.

Perhaps the most simplistic, antiquated way to identify an individuals homeland is to

analyse their historical bloodlines and ethical roots. This supposedly permits an individual

to find which nation they ideally fit into. Essentially, defining a homeland through these

means attempts to find a space which people feel they belong to and introduces the

concept of national belonging (Hage, 1995). In order to understand a homeland in this

context, it is necessary to look at the views of diaspora. Walker Connor, (1986: 16)

broadly defined diaspora as the segment of a people living outside the homeland.

Diasporas such as the Maghrebis and the international dispersion of Jews and Armenians,

often conform to the ideal of wanting a collective homeland. They feel that they have been

dispersed from an original center and despite living apart, share a history and a belief of

one day returning there (Safran, 1991). These diasporas feel that although they live across

the globe, they all unite in believing that they belong to a specific region. Even though

they may be an accepted part of a host society, they may still feel alienated and maintain

the view that they can only feel at home, where they belong, once united in their

ancestral lands - their homeland (Safran, 1991).

1


2/6

Z0930665

Although blood lines and ancestry are still used as key components for defining a

homeland in modern society, as evidenced by Zionist behavior in their attempt to establish

Israel as their sovereign nation, many geographers have critiqued this ideal. Populations

lack fixity and due to processes of transmigration individuals may not share the sentiment

of belonging to a single, ancestral homeland. Younger generations may struggle with anidentity crisis feeling confused about where or what their homeland actually is, whilst

living in their transnational homes. For example between 1951 and 1971, 12 percent of the

population of Barbados emigrated to the United Kingdom (UK). This transnational

migration was triggered by UK employers, such as London Transport and the National

Health Service, setting up recruitment programs in the Caribbean to entice migrants

(Chamberlain, 1995). The majority of these Barbadian British people or Bajan Brits,

particularly those that are British born, now seek a balance between both nations despitetheir ethnic origins lying in Barbados (Western, 1992). This does not match the Zionist

ideal of searching for a single sovereign space guided by historical roots. Rather than

individuals solely being able to connect to a single region, Bajan-Brits attempt to combine

two places to be home through a series of networks. They may even have two homes.

Perhaps to these Bajan Brits, particularly those of the second generation, and similarly

with British Muslim school girls with Pakistani parents (Dwyer, 2002) they live in and treat

Britain as their home but utilise material culture such as flags and food to domesticate

ideas of their parents nation, to instill familiarity and to remind them of their native cultural

networks. This allows them to appreciate both nations without concluding on a single,

definitive homeland.

Depending solely on lines of descent and ancestry can by logic, strip people off having any

claim to a homeland. A key demographic of the USA is the vast numbers of mixed race

people and to a lesser extent, African Americans, if they do not have the right to call the

USA their homeland due to birth right- they have no homeland! This example and the UK

examples mentioned above evade to the notion, that a homeland is not simply a birth right

defined by ethnical roots, but a combination of factors such as citizenship and emotional

attachment.

Additionally, understanding a homeland through ideals of ethnic, cultural and religious

homogeneity can provoke problems and is open to academic criticism. These values lean

towards an ideological idea of a homeland, exclusive to certain races. A notable house

war is the Bosnia-Herzegovina war of the 1990s (Brickell, 2011). The politics of home and

2


3/6

Z0930665

the native right to home ownership led to ethnic cleansing by the Ethnic National Group

(Stefansson, 2004). Such strong belief in a symbolic ideal of an aspired homogenous

homeland led to horrendous consequences. This shows how understanding a homeland in

such rigorously basic means of imagery of national identity can lead to logic of

extermination, (Hage, 1995) and it has done in Rwanda in 1994 and Bosnia in the 1990s.

Domopolitics has recently been exploited by the US government in an attempt to redefine

the nation. Domopolitics refers to the government of the USA and other political spaces as

home (Walters, 2004). Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which exposed the US

citizens to a largely unprecedented form of political, terrorist violence, George Bush

established the department of Homeland Security in November, 2002. This introduced the

idea that a homeland could be thought of as a secure, unified and stable space protectedfrom foreigners. Unfortunately this concept, also relies on the premise that there is a

sentiment of insecurity. Such sentiments encourage strong opposition to the idea of the

foreign, identifying external nations to be alien and menacing (Kaplan, 2003) ; an Us vs

Them approach as the US must be protected.

Academics questioned the chosen name for the department. Simply the name Homeland

Security introduces an exclusionary element and anti-immigrant feeling. Whilst this may

be appropriate for nations who have or previously have had anti-immigration policies such

as Japan, the US is recognised as a melting pot or a nation of immigrants (Kaplan,

2003). Many US citizens descend from transnational migrants. These citizens probably

would not identify the US as their ancestral homeland and are likely to feel excluded or

seen as a foreign threat. This is particularly the case as by the US suddenly claiming that

the state needs protection, it implies that it is in significant danger from foreign threats,

heightening the anti-foreigner mentality. Rather than the term homeland introducing a

feeling of security and unity amongst the US population, it could lead to the complete

opposite, making US citizens and immigrants feeling insecure and vulnerable. US citizens

fearing the foreigners due to the histrionic risk of danger and sudden need to defend

(Cowen, 2004) and immigrants feeling isolated and targeted. It does not make sense for a

country with an infamous history of immigration to be in fear of foreigners. A more fitting

name would be the Department of National Security (Kaplan, 2003).

Also, the term Homeland Security subversively mocks the US native american, indigenous

populations. In the previous paragraph, it states that many US citizens would struggle to

3


4/6

Z0930665

define the US as their ancestral homeland. The indigenous population, such as the

Chickasaw and Cherokee and Seminole tribes, are one of the groups to genuinely claim

the US to be their homeland. However, in the past, they have been treated as foreigners

by the US government during practices of colonial resettlement (Churchill,1993). For

instance, in 1830, President Andrew Jackson introduced the Indian Removal Act. This actforced five tribes located in the Trans-Mississippi East out of their original homeland to

create new homes, in the Trans-Mississippi West of the United States (Manning &

Clarence, 2010). This contests the ideal that a homeland is a national and unified space if

one homeland can be destroyed, and another home created in the same country. Being

forcibly relocated led to deaths from disease, exposure and starvation and has left strong

feelings of insecurity and instability amongst the indigenous. The trauma of this experience

is summarised by the naming of the Cherokees forced migration route in 1838 - The Trailof Tears (Manning & Clarence 2010). Surely, Homeland Security implies protection and

safety, especially for the indigenous population who have lived there the longest and

declare it to be their home? Instead they are haunted by traumatic memories and

increased isolation. A homeland is not a unified and stable space if some of its own

citizens are treated as foreigners and feel separated from society.

The term homeland can be defined in numerous ways in order to portray a certain ideal. It

can be used as a political tool to attempt to unite a population, enticing populations by

proposing ideals of security, protection and mother-land like qualities. Alternatively, it can

be a robust term relating to ones birthright through lineage and pedigree. However, both

these imaginaries have been fiercely critiqued by Geographers. In the modern,

multicultural society we now experience, it seems that the idea of homeland is an

antiquated model. Globalisation has damaged cultural identity and transnational migration

has distorted citizenship rights. It is virtually impossible to to says whose homeland is

whose. Using the term homeland when talking about a nation seems to be no more than a

political tool in order to portray wholesome values and to inspire people. It was used as a

comforting tool by the US government and when ancestral groups such as the Armenian

diaspora talk of homeland, it often appears simply to be a dream rather an actual

achievable goal. A homeland is no more than an imaginative concept, and it is perverse to

perceive a nation as a homeland, as the idea of a homeland is itself ridiculous.

Bibliography

4


5/6

Z0930665

Blunt, A. & Dowling, R. (2006) Home. London: Routledge. Chapter 5

Brickell, K. (2011). Mapping and Doing Critical Geographies of Home. Progress in

Human Geography.

Chamberlain, M. (1995) Family narratives and migration dynamics: Barbadians to Britain.

Nieuwe West-Indische Gids 69.3/4, 25375.

Churchill, W. (1993), Struggle for the Land: Indigenous Resistance to Genocide, Ecocide

and Expropriation in Contemporary North America, Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press.

Connor, Walker. (1986) The Impact of homelands upon diasporas. I G Sheffer(red),Modern

Diasporas in International Politics. London; Sydney; Croom Helm.

Cowen, D. (2004) From the American lebensraum to the American living room: class,

sexuality, and the scaled production of domestic intimacy. Environment and Planning D:

Society and Space 22: 755 771.

Dwyer, C. (2002) Where are you from? Young British Muslim women and the making of

home in Blunt, A. & McEwan, C. (eds.) Postcolonial geographies (London: Continuum)

Hage, G. (1996) The spatial imaginary of national practices: dwelling -domesticating/being

exterminating. Environment and Planning D: Society & Space 14: 463-485.

Kaplan, A. (2003) Homeland Insecurities: Reflections on Language and Space. Radical

History Review 85: 82-93.

Manning, J, Clarence, W. (2010), Encyclopedia of Media and Propaganda in Wartime

America, Volume 1

Oxford English Dictionary 2011, September Online Edition. [online] Available at:

[Accessed 15 January 2012 ].

Potter R B, Phillips J. (2008), "The past is still right here in the present: second-

generation Bajan-Brit transnational migrants views on issues relating to race and colour

class" Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 26(1) 123 145 ),

5
http://www.library.nhs.uk/guidelinesFinderhttp://www.library.nhs.uk/guidelinesFinder


6/6

Z0930665

Robin, Strath B. (2003), Homelands: Poetic Power and the Politics of Space, Brussels,

Peter Lang,

Safran, W. (1991) Diasporas in modern societies: Myths of homeland and return.

Diaspora 1 : 83-99

Simpson, J. (2011), Oxford English Dictionary, Third Edition, 2011

Stefansson AH. (2004) The House War: The Politics, Practice and Meaning of Home in

Bosnia and Herzegovina. Working paper 10, Goteburg University.

Walters, W. (2004), Secure borders, safe haven, domopolitics, Citizenship Studies, Volume

8, Number 3, pp. 237-260(24)

Western, J. (1992) A passage to England: Barbadian Londoners speak of home

(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press)

6
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/ccst;jsessionid=1whon4oejg6ll.alicehttp://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/ccst;jsessionid=1whon4oejg6ll.alice

essay - homelands final

Documents