My apologies for the late augmenter post. Hope you enjoy it.
The authors of the convener post on Pushkin’s A Feast During the Plague presented us with very interesting questions. They first explain how there’s “a variety of responses to the plague…displayed in [the] play.” And they note that there’s a spread of “emotional responses to it.” They importantly tie this to societies’ usage of social media; which “polarizes the information we receive about the pandemic”. And ask if this further becomes a challenge or an opportunity to control public reactions during pandemics?
Jason Silva in his video titled How I Feel About Pandemic “Facts”discussed the blurring of the fringe stream and mainstream reality in the midst of a the COVID-19 pandemic. Silva finds himself convoluted while hearing out persuasive speakers on every side, with every opinion on different issues. This makes him feel disoriented. He describes it as living in a “post-truth world which is really problematic”. Furthermore, he compares the experience of living through this pandemic as being lost at sea. Not knowing who to believe, as the “agendas have hijacked the situations.” Do you follow the hysteria on one side or the arguments that claim it’s all a hoax? Silva calls for coherence and asks that we “disclose a set of common frameworks and objective realities” once again. So that we can “cooperate and collaborate and move about the world with some kind of orientation.” That’s his invitation during these times. And he hopes that’ll help us emerge out of the storm stronger, but he is concerned nonetheless.
Our conveners asked: how should we treat and respond to detrimental shocks like the plague? Is there a proper timeline or principle to moderate this shock to prevent mass hysteria and misinformation? They then provided us with an excellent hedgehog metaphor, painting a picture of our relationship to one another. “It is inescapable that we stay together for warmth, but if we are too close, too connected, we hurt each other.” Silva in his video sits with a similar dilemma. He is torn between the persuasive information on both sides trying to reconstruct a new reality by reevaluating his relationship to other people’s opinions, desperately in need of a common framework. How does one resolve that? That’s one of the challenges that pandemics leave us with. It’s a dilemma for all of us, humans, “to reevaluate our relationships with each other”, explain the conveners. “Pandemics pose a challenge for us to reconstruct the interdependent relationship between ourselves and our community.” Silva’s video is an exemplification of one person’s challenge, his emotional response to that dilemma, and how he articulates it. I invite you to explore his channel for more thought provoking videos on various topics and themes like: Mental health, Sex, love and relationships,Creativity, Technology, Fear, and much more!
If you’re curious about where to start, maybe start with this video: The New Normal 2020 in which Silva presents many questions which surround us during these times. Happy watching!
For almost ten years, Bryan Waterman has been an integral—dare we say—core part of the NYUAD community. He has shaped an entire generation of students and community members with his spirit, empathy, and leadership. Although he will continue to impact this campus from afar, we wanted to take a moment and celebrate his time in Abu Dhabi. There’s nothing better than a convener’s post to express just how grateful we are that our paths have crossed with Bryan Waterman.
In the classroom, Professor
Waterman goes above and beyond to challenge us beyond what we thought was
capable and does so without compromising his empathy and humanity. Contagion is
both a safe space and an opportunity to take risks; by breaking down our
writing, he has helped us build it back stronger. Professor Waterman teaches us
new ways of looking at ourselves and the communities we inhabit. In his classroom,
literature transforms from an escapist fantasy into a vital resource for our
survival as a species. As our studies of pandemics took on new meanings,
Professor Waterman helped us make sense of the chaos outside and never lost
empathy for his students. His genuine interest in us, not as objects to be
taught, but as human beings to learn from is the defining element of his
pedagogy. Professor Waterman is never out to push an agenda but continually
demonstrates flexibility, creativity, and a willingness to explore new
perspectives. In his classroom, teaching is a dynamic exchange between
professor and student. He is eternally patient and supportive as we develop the
courage to find our voices and express our opinions. At the same time,
Professor Waterman manages the careful balancing act of creating a learning
environment that is inclusive and kind without sacrificing the academic rigor
for which he is famed. Of course, it wouldn’t be Contagion without infection!
Professor Waterman’s enthusiasm for literature has even spread to our new
habits of reading passages out loud and annotating books by hand.
Professor Waterman’s dedication and
spirit have never been limited to the classroom. From the Core Curriculum to
Howler Radio and early morning HUA sessions (virtual or not), he has been a
fixture of this community for almost a decade. His commitment to bettering NYU
Abu Dhabi sets an example for all of us. Professor Waterman’s work could have
ended the moment class was over but instead, he continually chooses to be a
member of the community and has created a home here. When he talks about
supporting students and investing in people, he follows through with his
actions and dedication. His passion is infectious and he has truly inspired
legions of students with his commitment to community-building. The time,
energy, and effort Professor Waterman has invested in this place outside of the
classroom is proof that he truly exemplifies the spirit of this place. Thanks
to him, this institution and all the people who have passed and will pass
through it are more generative and generous.
Despite his energetic teaching and
campus-wide leadership, Professor Waterman’s greatest impact has been at the
most elemental level: interacting with students. Professor Waterman is a combination
of Sam and Gandalf from Lord of the Rings. His heartwarming optimism and
faith in us when all seems lost makes us feel like the main character in our
lives and in return, we strive to meet his expectations, even if it means
waking up at 8:55am. At the same time, his wisdom and guidance are tremendously
helpful, particularly in these plague times. Professor Waterman is a constant
source of comfort as we weather the beginnings of adulthood. Through
scholarship essays, capstone crises, and late homework assignments alike, he is
continually understanding that we are human beings above all else. When we have
struggled, Professor Waterman has gone above and beyond for us, taking an
active role in supporting us as best he can. In an institution with a toxic
work culture, his validation that we are more than students is truly grounding.
At the same time, his passion for learning and sharing is a reminder of why we
are all students in the first place. Our interactions with Professor Waterman
are shaped by a unique dynamic that few others can match. In seeing us as
humans with value to contribute, he erases much of the power dynamics and
distance that mark traditional relationships with professors. This attitude
based on mutual respect and empathy is truly reaffirming as we find our voices.
Professor Waterman’s empowerment of his students will be remembered long after
we all go our separate ways.
Professor Waterman’s joyful and creative spirit will be sorely missed in Abu Dhabi. This is a bittersweet moment; new beginnings are refreshing and we are excited to see how he will leave his mark on the next generation of students. At the same time, we cannot help but mourn his absence on Saadiyat. His constant dedication, care, and empathy are felt by all and we are so grateful that he has chosen to share the past ten years with this community. Thank you, Bryan!
It’s interesting to see how a play that looks at the AIDS epidemic at a time when not many were willing to talk about it keeps getting reproduced to this date. Why is that so? According to Gary Abrahams, director of a 2017 production of Angels in America, the play goes beyond just talking about AIDS. The play uses AIDS to talk about world politics and issues that the queer community continues to face. The AIDS crisis continues to remain important as it brought up conversations about homosexuality and allyship for the queer community. Due to the impact of theatre, plays like Angels in America have played an important role in initiating conversations and bringing a cultural shift related to civil rights and social justice.
Also came across this critique of the play and how it deals with race.
“I get angry because everyone’s said to him how fantastic, aren’t you courageous, what a hero,” writes Beth. “I wanted to beat the living shit out of him for what he did to our family. There were no repercussions for him. My anger was mind-blowing.”
Beth, an Australian woman whose husband came out
On the occasion of a long-time closeted man coming out, we normally congratulate and celebrate the rebirth of a man, his bravery in self-authenticity. However, this positive reaction towards the man often causes more damage to the woman who has devoted her time and effort to their marriage. From the stories of women seeking help from the Women Partners of Bisexual Men service, we can see the anger, betrayal, disbelief, and among all, helplessness when the partner they have chosen to spend the rest of their lives with reveals that he is not attracted to them. By putting myself in their shoes, it is not difficult to understand Harper’s breakdown.
The worst part is, there is no one ultimately to blame except the intrinsically homophobic society that has locked the men-loving men in the closet consciously or unconsciously. Then, they made the wrong choices.
“The way he described the boys: ‘he’s very handsome’, ‘he’s very muscular’. He probably didn’t know he was gay at the time,” she writes. “It broke my heart to read the diary of a sweet young boy on the verge of making the wrong choice. “And that choice was me.”
Lucy, in her acute distress, read her husband’s teenage diary
Angels in America takes us back to the AIDS pandemic in America. The play is set in 1985, 4 years after the epidemic first started and 2 years before President Reagan publicly addressed the epidemic by its name (see here for a detailed timeline of HIV/AIDS in America compiled by New York City AIDS Memorial).
The first cases were reported in 1981. By 1984, 7,239 had been infected and 5,596 died. In 1985, there was an 89 percent increase in new AIDS cases compared with the previous year. The severity of the epidemic and the apathy of the Reagan administration formed a stark contrast in those days. Here’s an exchange between Reagan’s press secretary, Larry Speakes, and journalist Lester Kinsolving in 1982:
Kinsolving: Does the president have any reaction to the announcement by the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta that AIDS is now an epidemic in over 600 cases?
Speakes: AIDS? I haven’t got anything on it.
Kinsolving: Over a third of them have died. It’s known as “gay plague.” [Press pool laughter.] No, it is. It’s a pretty serious thing. One in every three people that get this have died. And I wonder if the president was aware of this.
Speakes: I don’t have it. [Press pool laughter.] Do you?
Kinsolving: You don’t have it? Well, I’m relieved to hear that, Larry! [Press pool laughter.]
Speakes: Do you?
Kinsolving: No, I don’t.
Speakes: You didn’t answer my question. How do you know? [Press pool laughter.]
Kinsolving: Does the president — in other words, the White House — look on this as a great joke?
Speakes: No, I don’t know anything about it, Lester.
The jokes from the White House carried on despite soaring death tolls. Here is another exchange between the two 2 years later in 1984:
Speakes: Lester is beginning to circle now. He’s moving up front. Go ahead.
Kinsolving: Since the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta report is going to… [Press pool laughter.]
Speakes: This is going to be an AIDS question.
Kinsolving: …that an estimated…
Speakes: You were close.
Kinsolving: Can I ask the question, Larry? That an estimated 300,000 people have been exposed to AIDS, which can be transmitted through saliva. Will the president, as commander in chief, take steps to protect armed forces, food, and medical services from AIDS patients or those who run the risk of spreading AIDS in the same manner that they bed typhoid fever people from being involved in the health or food services?
Speakes: I don’t know.
Kinsolving: Is the president concerned about this subject, Larry?
Speakes: I haven’t heard him express concern.
Kinsolving: That seems to have evoked such jocular reaction here. [Press pool laughter.]
Unidentified person: It isn’t only the jocks, Lester.
Unidentified person: Has he sworn off water faucets now?
Kinsolving: No, but I mean, is he going to do anything, Larry?
Speakes: Lester, I have not heard him express anything. Sorry.
Kinsolving: You mean he has expressed no opinion about this epidemic
Speakes: No, but I must confess I haven’t asked him about it.
Kinsolving: Will you ask him, Larry?
Speakes: Have you been checked? [Press pool laughter.]
Unidentified person: Is the president going to ban mouth-to-mouth kissing?
Kinsolving: What? Pardon? I didn’t hear your answer.
Speakes: [Laughs.] Ah, it’s hard work. I don’t get paid enough. Um. Is there anything else we need to do here?
Besides the homophobic jokes and infuriating indifference, we also see how little was known about AIDS (people still thought it could be transmitted through saliva and was only a problem within the gay community, thus, called the “gay plague”) despite the fact that 3 years have passed since the epidemic started–a telltale sign of the lack of research done at the time. To get more funding for research, over 100,000 people marched in San Francisco during the 1984 Democratic National Convention.
All this time, the President was silent. It was only until the spring of 1987 did Reagan give a public speech about AIDS at the Third International Conference on AIDS in Washington DC. By that time, 36,058 Americans had been infected and 20,849 had died. The speech was also no more than a mere acknowledgment of the happenings: “But let’s be honest with ourselves. ‘AIDS information cannot be what some call ‘value neutral’. After all, when it comes to preventing AIDS, don’t medicine and morality teach the same lessons?” There was no mention of increasing government-funded research, but rather to “give educators accurate information about the disease. How that information is used must be up to schools and parents, not Government.”
In the final Epilogue, Prior, Louis, Belize, and Hannah sat on the rim of the Bethesda Fountain in Central Park. That was one of the most memorable shots in the HBO series for me. These four characters sit under the giant statues of an angel, surrounded by the wings of the angel. This angel is a sculpture by the lesbian sculptor Emma Stebbins. Emma Stebbins was openly part of the LGBTQ+ community. She sculpted this artwork based on a biblical story. It is an angel holding a lily, blessing the water with healing power. Back in the day when the queer community is strongly looked down upon. Central Park became an important spot for the gay community to hang out and meet. By setting the final act in the central park in front of the angel, the play linked itself together by referencing this important artwork.
read more about the artist: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/29/obituaries/emma-stebbins-overlooked.html
Angels in America consists of two plays, Millennium Approaches and Perestroika. The two plays are based on the very real AIDS epidemic that ravaged the United States during Reagan era America. Millennium Approaches focuses on three sub-stories interconnected in their own way—the love shared by Louis and Prior, which is cut short by Prior contracting AIDS; Joe and Harper’s very dysfunctional marriage, and Roy Cohn’s narcissistic life. Roy Cohn is (very heavily) based on the lawyer in real life of the same name, who, similar to the Roy Cohn in the story, denied his homosexuality while still engaging in sexual acts with men, and who, similar to the Roy Cohn in the story, perished of AIDS. In Angels in America, Tony Kushner explores identity (especially relating to sexuality), religious beliefs, and death. When Kushner was writing the play, he visited the AIDS Memorial Quilt, and upon seeing the quilt memorializing Roy Cohn, he mentioned how he wanted Cohn’s character in the play to be similar to how he is represented in his quilt: “dialectical.” The quilt is a glimpse into just how despicable Roy Cohn was, as well as how complex his character is—in the play as well as in real life. What made Roy Cohn into the ball of hatred he is in the play (and was in real life), denying his own identity while engaging in its pleasures? And what made Joe feel he had to “kill” and suppress his homosexuality?
A previous convener post presented a character map of the main characters in the play. This map places Prior Walter in the center of 7 other circles containing the names of the other characters in the play and a brief description about them. These circles are linked by arrows explaining how each character is related to Prior Walter (lover, friend, etc.) and how those characters relate to each other (patrons, spouses, family). What’s particularly useful about a character map like this is that it places a single character as a node in a network – a very complex network with multiple layers and a lot of overlap. We started the course with a very broad and open question: are we too connected? We’d like to point us back to that inquiry and use it as one of many possible lenses to read Angels in America. Who was connected to whom and on what levels (religious, political, interpersonal relationships, spousal, friendships, doctor-patient, mother-son, and even supernatural or spiritual)? And then how did those connections and choices influence the other characters in the story? What is Kushner trying to say about the level of interconnectedness at the time ?
Rather than attempting to trace where a disease came from (as Oedipus and Ghosts do, each in their own way), Angels in America traces the origins of the belief systems that structure life in 1980s America. (References to “America” in the play sometimes gesture vaguely towards the continent as a whole, but seem to mainly be speaking about the US.) The play opens with a funeral scene, presided over by a Rabbi with limited understanding of the particular person he is burying, but a detailed theory about the social group she fit into: “a whole kind of person, the ones who crossed the ocean, who brought with us to America the villages of Russia and Lithuania …” (10). Through the Rabbi’s monologue, audiences are immersed in a conversation about inheritance and tradition before any of the central characters even speak. The instantly recognizable ritual of mourning carries the first scene, superseding the audience’s need for specificity about characters and context, and allowing Kushner to open the play with the striking warning that “soon … all the old will be dead” (11).
From the very first acts in the play we can observe how Kushner raises questions about stasis and change through the voices of his characters. As we continue reading Perestroika, it might be interesting to compare Kushner’s use of the angels in this play, with Ibsen’s use of ghosts in -well…- Ghosts. Both the angels and the ghosts can be seen as barriers between the characters, pulling them back from a changing future.
In this text, there is no apparent belief system that unites all of the central characters. They have different sexualities, political parties, and religious affiliations. They each have individual, complex relationships with their faith and family histories. The pattern that unites them is that these relationships tend to break down when exposed to the realities of both the AIDS epidemic and the political, social climate surrounding it. Louis begins the play feeling comfortable with his own concept of an afterlife based on his Jewish belief system. But he finds that this doesn’t hold up in the presence of Prior’s actual imminent death (“not at all like a rainy afternoon in March…”) Joe has clung to his Mormon ideals of good and evil to the point of suppressing his own sexual identity, but he begins to lose his grip on them in the midst of political pressures from Roy and family tensions from Harper’s pill addiction. Though Kushner inserts plenty of critiques of the specific systems the characters inhabit, his greater focus seems to be on the way these systems clash with each other and with the realities of modernity in the US.
And boy, these belief systems are pervasive, to the point where they forcefully shape our very perceptions of ourselves. The play touches on how society’s views can influence our self-perception through Roy Cohn’s passionate inability to accept his homosexuality. In the striking diagnosis scene with his doctor, Roy refuses to identify with the label, painting us a picture of the deep stigma Roy associates with being gay. To Roy, homosexuality is the real disease, to be avoided like the plague. As someone obsessed with power (he is described as a ‘power broker’ in the opening character list) and his position in the world, being gay is a weakness he cannot afford.
“Like all labels, they tell you one thing and one thing only: where does an individual so identified, in the pecking order? Not ideology, or sexual taste, but something much simpler: clout…Homosexuals are men who know nobody and who nobody knows. Who have zero clout. Does this sound like me, Henry?” (46)
Roy’s raging hatred of his own homosexuality is a manifestation of society’s perception towards gay people at the time. We see a similar internal conflict manifest itself in Joe, a closeted homosexual Mormon man, who votes for Reagan. We see Joe torn between upholding the beliefs of a ‘good’ Mormon versus his personal sexual liberation. His truth is unspeakable to him, so he chooses to live in denial, spending a large part of his life suppressing his identity. Even so, his truth comes to speak to him through dreams, as he describes to his wife:
“The angel is a beautiful man with blonde hair and wings, of course. I still dream about it. Many nights I’m…It’s me. In that struggle. Fierce, and unfair. The angel is not human, and it holds nothing back, so how could anyone human win, what kind of a fight is that? It’s not just. Losing means your soul thrown down in the dust, your heart” (52)
We similarly see Joe depict his refusal to self-identify as a violent battle, when Harper questions his sexuality directly:
“Does it make any difference? That I might be one thing deep within, no matter how wrong or ugly that thing is, so long as I have fought, with everything I have, to kill it…As long as my behaviour is what I know it has to be. Decent. Correct.” (40)
However, even speaking the truth isn’t liberating for Joe. When Joe attempts to accept his identity, such as in the scene where he calls his mother at 4am and confesses his sexuality, he is met with flat denial. This brings up a question we have been returning to throughout the semester: how do we know which beliefs are actually originally ours, versus what have been inherited from our ancestors, environment or social circumstances? How much of the character’s beliefs and views are influenced by their religious upbringing, or the politics of the time? Angels in America suggests that our inherited belief systems are deeply tied to our sense of self, yet not always sufficient means of navigating the many contagions of the modern world—whether it be physical contagions such as AIDS or other forms of contagion plaguing society, such as homophobia and greed for power.
In Welcome to Our Hillbrow, the author is highly critical of the treatment of foreigners/immigrants in post-apartheid South Africa. Right off the bat, readers are given a sense of how grave the hatred or bias against immigrants in Hillbrow is. I decided to do some research of my own and see how during COVID-19, the immigrants within Hillbrow were treated. I stumbled across an article published by news24 which details the tribulation they face from police, the state, and other residents.
The epigraph at the beginning of the book, a quote by Dubois saying “reader, be assured, this narrative is no fiction” could not have described Welcome to Our Hillbrow better. Officially and formally, the novel is fiction, however there exists way too many parallels and similarities to real life. To tie this augmenter’s post to both the above news article and Mpe’s novel, I focus on how the blame game manifests in both fictional and nonfictional Hillbrow. In both instances, blame of contagion and disease such as AIDS is automatically put on the immigrants of the town. The inability to critically think about whether this is plausible or not is ignored, rather in an effort to preserve the south-african image/reputation, blame is placed on the “outsiders”.
After writing Dream of Ding Village, and with the recent rise in the book’s popularity, Yan Lianke has given several interviews to provide more insight into the book and into his writing in general, and several articles about him have been written. One of these articles written in 2006—the year the book was published—especially interested me.
The article focuses on Dream of Ding Village being censored in China, and how that affected Yan Lianke. Despite his efforts to rigorously self-censor his book and avoid topics that would result in a ban, Dream of Ding Village was quickly banned anyway. Yan Lianke talks about how he regrets this self-censorship, as he feels he could have written a better book if he did not need to worry about censoring it. I think this ties back to Mary’s post. Nearly 14 years later, he told his students to write their own stories from their own experiences, without worry about “nations and other entities engaged in the act of writing histories.” He tells them that, if they cannot speak out loudly, then they must be whisperers.
I think Yan Lianke’s message here is based on his reflections on his experience with Dream of Ding Village. In the time he’s had, I think he’s realized that rather than trying to appeal to those who want his writing to conform to a certain message, it is better to write as he wishes.
And now, for something completely different that I also wanted to mention. I regret that we completely ignored Volume 1 of the book. I very much want to hear others’ thoughts on the significance of the biblical references in Volume 1. What do each of the three dreams signify?
The Cupbearer’s Dream seems clear cut—it represents the residents of Ding Village, the cupbearers, squeezing ripe grapes and giving a full cup (of blood) to Ding Hui, the Pharaoh.
The Baker’s Dream, I’m not too sure of. What first came to my head was that the birds again represent the villagers, while the bread (“bakemeats”) represents the trees of the village (or the furniture of the school—it seems to be a general theme throughout). Or does it represent the bloodheads feasting on the people’s blood? Or maybe it is specific to Ding Hui (represented by the birds), who eats the bread (the coffins, or maybe the money from selling blood) carried by the baker (the government) intended for the pharaoh (the villagers).
Last, there is The Pharaoh’s Dream. Do the ill-favoured cows represent the Ding Hui and the other bloodheads, feeding on the well-favoured cows that represent the people selling their blood? (Especially in the case of Ding Hui, who takes every single opportunity he can get to feed on others and fatten himself up, which is clear when Grandpa at the end sees that Ding Hui has more money than he knows what to do with, stored away in a vault.) Or does it instead represent Ding Hui using the authority of those more powerful than him (who in this case would be the well-favoured cows) to exert his own power over the village? (Ding Hui maintaining a garden with spicy mustard greens solely to curry favour with the deputy governer, and also marrying his dead son to the daughter of a wealthy man both come to mind). Or maybe the dream even represents the villagers as the ill-favoured cows, who repeatedly go to the rich and well-favoured Ding Hui for his help, who ransack Ding Hui’s house when he leaves, and who robbed Ding Liang’s and Lingling’s graves).
Apologies for the late post! But if anyone is willing to share their thoughts, I’m very keen to read them. It’s unfortunate we never discussed the biblical references in class. I am curious to hear thoughts on the interpretations of these dreams, the significance of them being included, and Yan Lianke’s choice to introduce the book with these dreams (and maybe why he considered them important enough to separate these dreams as their own volume).
Welcome to our Hillbrow, the land where crime, prostitution, and violence prevails, the land where laws do not bind its people. Throughout the novel, we observed multiple cases where violence takes place in Hillbrow, from a seven years old child getting hit by a car to hearing gunshots ringing in the streets. Curious about how violence takes form in the novel (and beyond), I did some research into how violence can be characterized. One interpretation by Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek describes the multifaceted nature of violence in his book Violence: Six Sideways Reflections as the following: “At the forefront of our minds, the obvious signals of violence are acts of crime and terror, civil unrest, international conflict. But we should learn to step back, to disentangle ourselves from the fascinating lure of this directly visible ‘subjective’ violence, violence performed by a clearly identifiable agent. We need to perceive the contours of the background which generates such outbursts.” In essence, besides the visible forms of violence that are often reported and discussed, there also exist less visible forms of violence which often perpetuate and accentuate the “obvious signals of violence.”
In his book, Žižek argues that one of the most harmful forms of invisible violence is represented in everyday language. This idea is supported in Welcome to Our Hillbrow, in which non-nationals are reduced to the label Makwerekwere, a derogatory term “derived from kwere kwere, a sound that their unintelligible foreign languages were supposed to make, according to the locals” (p. 20). They say that language is a tool used to connect cultures and build bridges between people; however, it is more than a simple tool: it is a double-edged sword that could also shatter bridges and sever relationships. Vilifying non-nationals by referring to them as Makwerekwere reduces them to less than human beings. In doing so, they are subjected to greater risks of physical violence, one reason being that perpetrators of violence are less inclined to feel guilt or remorse towards their actions. Another reason is that they even feel justified in putting what they perceive as “sub-humans” in their rightful places. Such thoughts are manifested in the 2008 xenophobic attacks throughout South Africa. In essence, dehumanization through language is a sensitive topic that warrants our attention, especially given its power in destroying social order.