Threads by Kate Evans (November 2017)
Threads is a series of comics describing the author’s recent experiences as a relief worker in France’s refugee camps. The comic-journalism style gave the book a documentary feel – I often felt like I was watching a movie while thumbing through Threads.
Perhaps this was due to how I used the images to make free associations. I first had this thought when I noted how Evans made Marine Le Pen look a lot like Donald Trump. With each subtle stroke of the pen, Evans influences the associations a reader will make later.
Threads, though not an outright political book, reminded me of the power of a political cartoon. Is it possible that readers with defined opinions on a foreign leader will look at the cartoon and suddenly realize how the domestic candidate they support is similar to the foreign leader they denounce? I think this must be the goal for any cartoonist who exaggerates a leader’s appearance to take on the blond, blustery, and red-faced expressions seen so commonly on...well, you fill in this blank space, lecteur.
One up: I learned quite a few unexpected things from Threads. For example, reader, did you know only Americans call it duct tape? Elsewhere, apparently, it is known as gaffer tape. Is it worth noting that we don’t even use the word ‘gaffer’ here in the USA unless when on a film set? (1)
Of course, most of what I learned was more directly related to the refugee crisis. I learned that refugees who come from a sandal-wearing culture will step on the backs of their donated shoes to feel more comfortable. This insight illustrated the challenge of relying on donations to help refugees; Evans thought cash was always the most useful donation because it allowed relief workers to adapt to the needs of the day.
I’ll recap some of the other things I learned in an upcoming ‘part two’ post.
One down: Threads reminded me of how those on opposite ends of an issue will re-frame evidence to support their position. This often leaves those in the middle wondering why two seemingly intelligent groups of people look at the same thing yet reach different conclusions.
One example comes from the debate about immigration’s effect on an economy. One side is represented by Theresa May’s insistence that immigration provides no benefit to the British economy. The other side is represented by Germany taking in millions of refugees, a policy partly driven by their belief in the boost immigration will have for their GDP.
Now, these nations do have some differences that, surely, determine the appropriate level of net immigration for their countries. But are they so different that they can represent opposing viewpoints on the policy question? From my limited perspective, I would expect them to occupy points closer together on a continuum rather than sit at opposite ends of the table. Somehow, these countries have looked at the history of immigration, adjusted for any present-day variables, and reached two very different conclusions in how to best move forward.
Of course, framing the issue around just this one lens is not necessarily going to lead to the fullest understanding of the situation. For those worried about their home countries having enough jobs, space, or resources, the idea of refugees migrating freely out of war zones is a non-starter. It doesn’t really matter if higher net immigration in a given year leads to a higher GDP; who is to say the GDP wouldn't have gone up by even more without the newcomers?
Just saying: At one point while reading Threads, I stopped to wonder: what is the point of the poverty line? A naïve observer would come into the country, learn about this mythical ‘poverty line’, and assume it measured some sort of standard for receiving aid. And this is true to a certain extent – I knew what the federal poverty line was during the half-year I volunteered at a food bank and used it to determine just how many mushy rutabagas to give to each client who visited.
The mystery to me is why people still live below the poverty line. In 2015, over 13% of Americans lived in poverty. Whose interest is served when one-eighth of the country lives in poverty? When lifeguards pull drowning swimmers out of the ocean, do they dump them into the deep end of the local swimming pool? Or to put it another way, is there a point to determining whether someone falls below the poverty line if this information isn't immediately used to pull the person above it?
Another angle – I know a ton of useless stats about things like helmet football, the height of mountains, the Apollo space program, and so on. I do not know which president lifted the most people out of poverty during his tenure. The reason I don't know this is because no one touts it as an accomplishment. There is a reality about the things nobody brags about: they aren’t considered accomplishments.
Footnotes / Manchester United potshots
1. In America, the gaffer is a coach...
The only context I’ve ever heard it used up until this
note was in world football – in the UK, gaffer is a nickname for a
manager. Given the way some managers are tasked with holding together
clubs that would otherwise fall apart, perhaps gaffer is a more
appropriate word than I realized...
