The UK media's reporting of events in 2015 contained constantly evolving categorisations of people attempting to reach Europe and the UK, each with different implications for their treatment. A discourse analysis of UK media outputs charts the development of the terminology used to present the crisis and those people involved. First, “Mediterranean migrant crisis” was used to present those involved as “migrants” to be prevented from reaching Europe. Next, it became a “Calais migrant crisis” in which migrants were constructed as a threat to UK security and then the “European migrant crisis” an ongoing threat to Europe. Photographs of a drowned child led to a shift to a “refugee crisis” in which refugees were presented in a humane and sympathetic way. When terrorist attacks were linked with the crisis, refugees reverted to migrants. Findings are discussed regarding the impact of categorisation on debates about the inclusion and exclusion of refugees.
In this article, we explore how speakers discuss whether or not it is racist to oppose asylum seekers. A discourse analysis is conducted on the parts of a corpus of data collected from focus groups with undergraduate students talking about asylum seeking in which they were asked if it is racist to oppose asylum. It is shown that speakers use the word ‘just’ as part of a contrast structure which is used to present a topic as self-evidently unreasonable. While some participants orient to the taboo against prejudice, it is shown that there is also an orientation to the idea that accusations of racism are unreasonable and that opposition to asylum is usually based on practical and economic reasons rather than racism. These findings are discussed in light of the growing literature surrounding the changing nature of race talk and new taboos on accusations of racism.
This article addresses the ways in which opposition towards Gypsies is debated, with particular regard to whether or not this opposition constitutes racism or prejudice towards a group shown to be vulnerable and subject to discrimination. A discursive analysis of a corpus of internet discussion forums about Gypsies in the UK is undertaken. The analysis demonstrates that opposition towards Gypsies can be presented as racist; however, such accusations are met with criticism so that writers become accountable for making them. While writers do go to rhetorical lengths to dissociate themselves from being presented as racist, there is nevertheless an acceptance that opposition to Gypsies may constitute prejudice. This prejudice is presented as an inevitable result of Gypsies' behaviour and, of particular note, appears to be deemed acceptable. The implications of this finding for the discursive literature on taboos against, and denials of, racism are discussed.
In this article, we explore how talk about Nazis is used in Internet discussions regarding asylum seeking, and the issue of whether or not opposition to asylum seeking is racist. Discursive analysis was conducted on discussions about asylum seeking from the social networking website Facebook, where references to Nazis were made. Three strategies were identified: (1) people supporting asylum seeking accuse asylum opponents of being racist by referring to Nazis; (2) opponents of asylum seeking deal with such accusations by arguing that the debate is being suppressed because of references to Nazis; (3) in the final, and most striking, strategy, opponents of asylum draw upon ideas associated with the Nazis and Hitler to bring about their anti-asylum position. These findings are discussed in relation to how the link between Nazis and racism is emerging in the asylum debate.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.