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).

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 an identity 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 despite their 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

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 protected from 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

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 act forced 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 Trail of 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

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: <http://www.oed.com> [Accessed 15 January 2012 ]. Potter R B, Phillips J. (2008), "The past is still right here in the present: secondgeneration 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

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)