M + R Text A

  Analyse how Text A (Guardian article) uses language to create meanings and representations.

(AO1 + AO3)

This article is written by David Marsh. This opinion article is outlining the attitudes people have towards migrants and they’re treating them as a whole. Due to the nature of the topic and how formal the article is I believe it is targeted to people that are in their 30’s + or anyone that is currently working. This article talks about migrants and seems to be supporting the ‘left wing’ community in regards to politics.

The first part of language that sticks is the title; “We deride them as ‘migrants’. Why not call them people?”. By using the plural pronoun “We” David makes it sound as if everyone calls them that. By doing this I get the impression that he is talking for everyone. By doing this he is voicing the reader. This will encourage them to agree with his points of view as they may feel a lot more personal with the author. The rhetorical question, “Why not call them people?” could also be showing that people as a whole are putting “migrants” into a certain group and are no longer treating them like “people”. In the title, David makes the article seem a lot more personal and could be meaning to show how people are getting treated differently because of how they’re a migrant.  

Furthermore, the line right at the top of the article that is highlighted seems to be rather interesting as well, “The term is badly tarnished after years of abuse by those who seek to strip refugees of their humanity”. To me, this gives me the idea that David Marsh is very much against not letting people into his country who may be seeking refuge. The active verb “tarnished” could be saying that the “term is badly” stained due to how people have been using it over time and changing the meaning of it to people entirely. “Abuse”, this noun may be giving people the idea of how the term is being used improperly and could be representing to people how much the term’s meaning has been changed. Along with this, the active verb “strip” gives the idea that people are trying to eliminate “people” from having any type of “humanity”. This whole phrase gives the sense of how locals are dehumanizing migrants and are treating them as if they’re some kind of unwanted animal or plant that’s in their way.

Additionally, the first quote used; “They are people- men, women and children, fathers and mothers, teachers and engineers, just like us - except they come from Syria, Eritrea , Afghanistan and elsewhere”. This asyndetic list is being used to create sympathy within the reader, using this technique is highlighting how we’re the same despite coming from different areas. This quote is also unknown to the reader so it may make them a little more appealed to the whole ideal. David Marsh is most likely doing this to make the audience agree with his views a lot more than they were previously. By using this quote he is encouraging people to agree with his opinion and go along with his ideals.

Continuing on, David Marsh also lists famous example of migrants; “Mark Carney”, “Kevin Pietersen; Nigel Farage’s wife, Kirsten; Chelsea’s new striker, Pedro; and Sir Bradley Wiggins?”. These people are gratified and thought of as British. The potential meaning behind using these people in this article could be being used to show that migrants can be very useful for a country and aren’t just ‘taking jobs’ and ‘taking up homes’ There are some that can rise and become very influential people, and without them we could be in a different state to what we are currently.

Continuing on, David goes on to criticize media and politics when he says “this term is reserved exclusively by politicians and the media to describe people who - unlike bankers or sports cars - they don’t like”. By saying this David makes the media and people who are in the political scene look like snobs who only want the higher class things. By doing this, he makes the people who currently have political power seem foolish and unable to make good decisions for the country as they only care for “bankers or sport scars”. By doing this David may be persuading more and more people to go along with his views and support his left wing beliefs.

David also highlights the hypocrisy hidden with the terms used and the way people are viewing “economic migrants”, “migrants” and “immigrants”. He proceeds to say “People from, the UK moving abroad to pursue their career or financial interests, meanwhile, are ‘expats’, never emigrants or immigrants.” By stating this he is showing how we label those who come from “Syria, Eritrea, Afghanistan and elsewhere” as being “migrants” who are ‘stealing our jobs’ and also shows how we label them with this “tarnished” term that makes them seem a lot worse than they actually are. By doing this, he is showing readers how people are put into these groups and how people are quick to judge before they know the person. This could be being done to persuade people into being left wing. He is showing people how quickly they are to judge and is showing them that they are full of hypocrisy making them want to change their views.

Moreover, David states “until the very word “migrants” is toxic, used to frighten us by conjuring up images of a “swarm” (as David Cameron put it) massing at our borders, threatening our way of life”. The word “ swarm” tends to be in focus of a large group of insects. By quoting this David is showing just how the media and other people are representing migrants; as an annoying group of insects that invade your home’s, places of work, garden’s, cars etc. This shows that many people think of “migrants” in a very low way.

In addition, by stating “as David Cameron put it”, he is potentially outlining how the government is “corrupt” in their ways of thinking about migrants and how they treat them. This could again be being done to show people that the “right wing” views of politics is the ‘incorrect and view and he could be doing this specifically to persuade people into being for ‘left wing’ and supporting those types of political views.

As a whole, I believe David Marsh is using this article to persuade people into being more ‘left wing’ and supporting those views instead of being a ‘right wing’. I get this from the way that he uses other names and examples of the exaggerating media in regards to how migrants actually are. He also presents names of migrants that have been such a good influence on the UK that they are now classed as British and are now glorified. I also think David is trying to express how people are presenting migrants in the media and in the politics, making them seem a lot worse than they really are.