The Grimshaw Review of International Affairs Vol. 2, No. 1 Moreover, the digital landscape has exposed critical power dynamics in refugee representation, which can be examined through a postcolonial lens. Mainstream media and humanitarian agencies often portray refugees either as victims deserving of sympathy, or as threats to host communities, perpetuating an “us vs. them” dichotomy (Chatterjee, 2016; d’Haenens et al., 2019; Yeung and Lennette, 2018; Sonia, 2023, p. 2, 23). Not only does this dehumanise refugees, but it also reinforces their dependency on external actors – an inescapable fact, but one which need not be framed in discourses that contribute to marginalisation. As Belloni (2007, p. 455-456) warns, humanitarianism and media often exploit victims for shock value, simplifying complex crises to evoke sympathy while leaving systemic issues unaddressed. It can be argued that ‘compassion fatigue’ – driven by the media’s tendency to shift focus once a crisis has reached a saturation point – contributes to the dehumanisation and simplification of the Rohingya’s plight, often through the use of well-worn stereotypes (Moeller, 1999, p. 2, 43). The framing of their suffering within familiar tropes – such as that of helpless victims fleeing from brutal oppressors – perpetuates a cycle in which international attention wanes as soon as the crisis narrative becomes ‘exhausted’, despite the ongoing grief of those in strife. Consequently, the urgency and incentives for long-term political solutions are diminished, while the portrayal of suffering by distant ‘others’ reinforces unequal power relations between the West and the ‘rest’, where the “poor South” is consistently portrayed as a passive recipient of aid in the eyes of Western audiences (Moeller, 1999; Tester, 2001; Chouliaraki, 2008, p. 329-330). Taken in isolation, constructivist approaches risk reducing the complexity of the Rohingya’s plight to a battle over ideas and norms. While it emphasises the transformative power of advancing global narratives, it fundamentally overlooks a critical question: whose narratives are being reshaped, and moreover why? This oversight arguably cannot be challenged without the incorporation of postcolonial theory, as it requires confronting the mechanisms of power that determine whose voices are elevated and whose are silenced. It insists that the oppression of the Rohingya is not simply a matter of changing perceptions, but rather one of confronting the entrenched structures of violence and power that continue to subjugate the population. These structures are not abstract norms or ideals; they are legacies of colonialism 24