"Go fuck yourself you anti-native shill" - Immigration drama in /r/europe (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
192 ups - 65 downs = 127 votes
259 comments submitted at 14:03:03 on Apr 15, 2014 by HisenburgX
"Go fuck yourself you anti-native shill" - Immigration drama in /r/europe (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
192 ups - 65 downs = 127 votes
259 comments submitted at 14:03:03 on Apr 15, 2014 by HisenburgX
>Because in Europe being anti-immigration is a good thing.
It's a recent thing and there are a lot of people who have no problems at all with immigrants in Europe. But yeah there is a lot of anti immigration sentiment here and it sucks. It also detrimental to integration.
Some of the anti gypsy hate coming from this site is sickening. I've seen posts saying "I'm not racist but fuck those gypsies". It's the equivalent of that dumb Chris rock joke about black people.
Chris Rock's bit wasn't about black people, it was about the word "nigger" and the subculture he thinks it describes.
White racism apologists use this as an excuse to use the word and to describe all of black culture in the terms of the extreme gangster culture Rock is mocking. Those same white people see Chris Rock himself as part of that culture, with no irony.
Don't blame Chris Rock, it's a classic bit.
Wasn't putting the blame on Chris rock at all. I was likening the gypsy hate and apologetic nature of it with the Chris rock piece people use to justify racist.
Sorry if it came across any different.
No offense here, either. I get defensive about comedy.
We're in agreement on the anti-immigration thing.
I don't think you're right at all. Even if white people (say, here on reddit) specifically delineate black people into the same two groups that Chris Rick did, they're jumped on by subs like this like they burned a cross in a Harlem. I'm sure we could find SRD posts linked to comments in /r/videos that say something like "Man, black people I like but niggers like these piss me the fuck off".
I don't deny that there are a lot of idiots on reddit, but there are a lot of non-idiots who live to make fun of them. Thus SRD, although whether it has become more a satire of, or touchstone for, idiots is open to debate.
For like the last time, gypsies are not a race.
Do you know how ignorant and racist it is to just label all Roma people as Gypsies? Are you aware that there are tons of Irish pure white gypsies as well?
No you aren't because you're ignorant.
Its like saying "God some of this thief hate from this site is sickening" when referring to black people.
They aren't mutually exclusive ffs.
>gypsies are not a race
Not sure where you got that from my post? I never said that gypsy was a race just that the anti gypsy hate was sickening.
I think you might need a break from this website
Have you ever encountered the gypsy culture in Europe?
Nope. Discrimination isn't good regardless of actions.
So you're saying it's a bad thing to dislike the facets of gypsy culture like stealing, harassing or whatever? And those facets are present 99% of the time.
>So you're saying it's a bad thing to dislike the facets of gypsy culture like stealing, harassing or whatever?
No, discrimination of a whole group of people for what you perceive is wrong. Dislike the culture not the people?
>And those facets are present 99% of the time.
Ehhh....I hardly believe that.
No one hates the whole group of people. We hate the culture.
>I hardly believe that.
Then come live here.
I'm not talking about people of Gypsy or Roma origin. But people who live in that culture.
Maybe 99% is an exaggeration. At least around 90% of the time. Most people who live in Europe have personally witnessed this.
The problem is not the people. It's the culture and it's prevalence.
>The problem is not the people.
But the people are the ones I see getting blamed.
>It's the culture and it's prevalence.
Maybe, I'm going off my brief experience with them. I guess its more of a problem in Europe, still doesn't justify the discrimination of a group of people.
And whenever I see one of these comments I just think, "Oh, another American who has never met a Traveller or a Roma and has never had to live next to a halting site."
I've met nice travellers and I've met nice Roma. I've met an absolute metric tonne more who would stab you for your shoelaces and send their kids to steal another six pack of druids for the night.
Travellers and Roma are just people. I don't hate people. I hate traveller and roma culture.
> And whenever I see one of these comments I just think, "Oh, another European who has never met a Black or a Hispanic and has never had to live next to a getto or bario." > > I've met nice blacks and I've met nice hispanics. I've met an absolute metric tonne more who would stab you for your shoelaces and send their kids to steal another 40 of Colt 45 for the night. > > Blacks and Hispanics are just people. I don't hate people. I hate black and hispanic culture.
Yeah we get people like you in America too, and we call them out for the bigots that they are.
No you see. That's a false equivalent strawman and if you just met a filthy thieving gypsy you'd actually understand. On the other hand, America has the KKK and they lynch blacks so QED.
Call me a bigot if you want, it won't make me one.
It is absolute ignorance and nothing more when people like you comment on a complicated issue like Travellers and Roma with absolutely no first (or probably even second hand) knowledge of the situation.
You exist in your own little world where it's not someones fault if they refuse to obey laws or show any courtesy to the community they exist in. It must be because of those nasty bigots! They're only providing social welfare, free education, housing schemes and giving them their own rights and privileges as a vulnerable ethnic group!
It's our fault if their culture does not respect education and actually applauds "getting one up on" non-travellers/roma. It's our fault if they refuse any social assistance in bettering their situation so they don't have to beg or steal. It's our responsibility to clean up after them when 50 of them camp in our town for three months, throw their shite everywhere and leave a polluted littered mess when they leave, having ignored all of the sanitation services the town council provided and robbed the place blind after assaulting three elderly farmers in their homes.
This isn't just personal experience. This is a trend repeated again and again in every rural town in Ireland. Yes there are nice travellers, they are not a silent majority, they are a silent minority.
It is just our fault for being racist bigots that Travellers do not want to co-operate with the communities they leech off and it's our fault for offering them these services too because who are we to say they shouldn't live how they like just because they are a burden and a danger to our society.
You're all talking out your ass about an issue you have no idea about.
Have you wondered if there were any social issues at play, oh I don't know, forcing them into these situations?
No one is bad because they want to be (or the majority of people, anyway). Most criminals are that way because certain circumstances in their life have forced them into a life of crime.
>Have you wondered if there were any social issues at play, oh I don't know, forcing them into these situations?
Read this article: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/09/wealthy-roma/oneill-text
Some key points:
Now, I don't know how much you agree, but this culture is at odds with a lot of European ones. Their values are not those of most ethnicities, inside Europe or out. While it's true that their situation is not without external causes, they themselves can not be blameless.
What do you mean forcing them into thses situations?
Yes there are social issues at play, social issues within the Traveller/Roma communities themselves. They are ok with their lifestyle. No one is bad because they want to be bad but their culture doesn't even recognise their behaviour as bad. In Ireland at least we provide every means possible for a Traveller to either become settled or live as a Traveller who educates his kids, lives in community without stealing/begging/assaulting the locals and provides facilities to camp places which dont involve driving over some poor farmers fence telling him to fuck off and spraying trash and sewage all over the place.
However yet again here comes the argument, it must be our fault that Travellers live like this. No blame could possibly lay on them its just that society is racist and bigoted towards them!
You need to acknowledge that sometimes there are social issues that cannot be solved by simply blaming the majority. If there is going to be any positive change in the Traveller/Roma situation it is going to have to begin within their communities. We will help them every step of the way but they don't want to meet us half, a third or even a quarter of the way. Until then I guess we're just going to have to put up with them because we're the settled majority so we must be the bigoted racist assholes keeping them down.
> Yes there are social issues at play, social issues within the Traveller/Roma communities themselves. They are ok with their lifestyle.
No, I'm talking about structural issues whereby Roma can't even get jobs like regular people because they're not recognized, even when they've been in a particular country for years to generations (i.e., France) and therefore must either turn to crime or starve. How's that for "integration"?
>However yet again here comes the argument, it must be our fault that Travellers live like this. No blame could possibly lay on them its just that society is racist and bigoted towards them!
Is nuance lost on you or something? Yes, crime is wrong. But when your only choices are crime, living on a state that is actively trying to dispose of you, or starving, what choice do you have?
I'll admit I don't know anything about Roma so I'm not going to argue about the situation in France. The only point I'm trying to make is that you cannot solve every situation by calling people bigots as much as you would seem to like to.
I can and will call any person who automatically labels an entire culture "inferior" without bothering, per your admission, the reason why as bigoted.
Can I ask why not being pro-immigration is a bad thing? There's the simple problem of economics, but there are also cultural issues. Why are European countries expected to compromise their cultural heritage for immigrants? I lived in France during the whole veil controversy, and I have to say, France has a right to legislate against things that are antithetical to the republican ideal.
Plus, it's not like European countries are built on immigration like America. I think a lot of Americans project their ideas about nationhood onto Europeans, and then judge them according to that standard. That is not correct, and it ignores a lot of history and context.
>Plus, it's not like European countries are built on immigration like America. I think a lot of Americans project their ideas about nationhood onto Europeans, and then judge them according to that standard.
Europeans seem to have a selective memory on what makes up their culture. Plus it's hypocritical for Europeans to plead cultural integrity when they spent so much time violating (and profiting from) the cultures of other peoples. There is no such thing as cultural integrity. Cultures are malleable and nobody gets to define a culture as the absence of the Other - that's a form of cultural doublethink.
It's a mistake to think European countries are made of monolithic cultures from time immemorial. Most European countries had no problem exporting their culture and goods to foreign markets whether it was through trade, colonialism, or wholesale slaughter. Europe imported just as much as it exported to its empires so there's no such thing as "protecting cultural integrity." If cultural integrity was a huge concern, nobody would ever explore the world.
France is a great example of this cultural doublethink at work. France's colonial empire included parts of Africa, South America, and (what was then called) French Indo-China. The "republican ideal" granted these colonies de jure equal status with the continent.
It's why France had a hard time letting go of its colonies like Algeria - they were considered an integral part of the republic even though they populated by non-Gallic brown folks who had never heard of Vercingetorix. Algeria was French goddammit.
Which is, on the flip side, kind of hypocritical because of how poorly the colonies were treated by successive French governments.
It's not just France either. Europeans went around the world for three hundred years kicking down people's doors to get access to resources for their factories, markets for their goods, and lands for second sons of their aristocrats. The immigrants aren't coming using military might as the Europeans of old did - and most of these immigrants are from former European colonies that have long-standing ties with Europe going back centuries. These immigrants and their ways aren't strangers to you; they aren't compromising your cultural heritage. Let's not pretend that they are.
> These immigrants and their ways aren't strangers to you; they aren't compromising your cultural heritage. Let's not pretend that they are.
I think that there are two very different kinds of "culture" in the picture.
One is the culture that in the common meaning, like Germans have a culture of bratwurst and beer, while Arabs have a culture of Shawarma, and that produces a strawman European who is afraid that her children would prefer shawarma to bratwurst. I mean, there are crazies like that, but that's not what the people you see mean.
There's another, much more important culture, the culture of being a part of a civilized society. Does a person think that a woman without a hijab is a whore deserving to be raped?
Does a person think that it's not theft if you steal from the outsiders -- I've recently commuted near to a young gypsy dude, like 13 yo I think, and an older woman he knew, they chatted for the entire 40 minutes about stuff, most of what I overheard made me very sad, like, the kid telling about his experience when he was very hungry and went to the local Red Cross, but they refused to feed him because he didn't have some sort of a coupon, and how he feels so much better now after he kicked off the habit of smoking "legalka" (some sort of Spice that's still legal here), he can eat the breakfast now, and how a lot of their common acquaintances are still on it, and how he was happy to discover that he actually has 15 cents to buy a plastic bag for the stuff he is going to get from the Red Cross in the city, and so on, but holy shit, he actually said those words about some other acquaintance, "of course you have to return what you borrowed from our people, the outsiders are a different thing, but to our people you can't be a cheater", with all the innocence of a 13 yo.
I'd recommend a very, very insightful study about what the culture of living in a large-scale civilization is. tl;dr: the dude played the Ultimatum Game with different peoples. The Ultimatum Game is: there's some valuable stuff, the first player offers a split, if the second player accepts, they both get the split, otherwise both get nothing. Well, it turns out that civilized people offer and accept something close to the 50:50 split, people from the rare gift culture tribes offer much more to the acceptor and tend to reject offers that are not like that, people from "scavenger" and otherwise dysfunctional societies offer a small amount and accept any amount.
So yeah, this shit is important, and I recognize that in some cases it might be prudent for a civilized country to limit the immigration from not-so-civilized countries to ensure that the immigrants do in fact integrate and accept the values of civilization.
And yes again, I think that living in a civilized country is better than living in a non-civilized country, because in a civilized country we can have free toilet paper in public toilets and nobody "harvesting" it. And I like that. And it's not like I look down on societies where that's impossible, knock yourself out those societies, I tell them, but I'd prefer to live in a society where that is possible. And that means teaching people from those other societies to respect our values, which have nothing to do with the "culture".
The funny part is that your hypothetical German woman probably won't have kids..... Ever.
Ok, this is a pretty good post, and I appreciate your neutral tone. It is also evident you have a familiarity with history. However, there are a few points I disagree with:
> There *is no such thing as cultural integrity
Then why have libertie égalité fraternitie on all official documents? Do you deny that French culture exists? Are you opposed to an institution like l'academie francaise?
>It's a mistake to think European countries are made of monolithic cultures from time immemorial.
I never said that.
>Most European countries had no problem exporting their culture and goods to foreign markets whether it was through trade, colonialism, or wholesale slaughter. Europe imported just as much as it exported to its empires so there's no such thing as "protecting cultural integrity." If cultural integrity was a huge concern, nobody would ever explore the world.
Yes, what a lot of European countries did was terrible, and it certainly weighs on the debate today. Yes, europe imported just as much as it exported (this is especially true for France who had the policy of assimilation. They were interested, theoretically, in making citizens). The point breaks down after that. What do you mean "there's no such thing as protecting cultural integrity?" Are you a futurist? Do you think we should burn down the Vatican? Should we destroy Mecca? If there is no cultural integrity, why is a problem to ask Muslims from the ME and the Magreb to abandon the burka or hijab? The last sentence will need clarification. I honestly have no idea what you are attempting to communicate.
>France is a great example of this cultural doublethink at work. France's colonial empire included parts of Africa, South America, and (what was then called) French Indo-China. The "republican ideal" granted these colonies de jure equal status with the continent
Have you read The Invention of Decolonization? This is a pretty central argument to the book.
I'm not going to talk about other European countries and immigration, because I don't know enough. However, I'm uncomfortable with your sweeping generalizations in that last paragraph. You state it like an absolute, but it does nothing to explain the nuances of Turks in (former) West Germany and the legacy today, or Bosnians in Sweden, or Poles in the UK.
I apologize for mistakes. I'm doing this from mobile, and editing as I go. Please keep that in mind.
Thanks for your response.
> Then why have liberté égalité fraternité on all official documents? Do you deny that French culture exists? Are you opposed to an institution like l'academie francaise?
I don't deny French culture exists but I do deny the idea that French culture is defined by excluding whatever it is the maghrebs do. A culture cannot be defined by the exclusion of the Other. Similarly a culture is not merely a slogan. The ideals of the Republic aren't unique to France - liberty, equality, and brotherhood are pretty universal values.
Which is why your questions about razing the Vatican and the Q'aaba are misplaced. Islam is more than just "not-Christianity." Christianity is more than just "not-Islam." The same thing goes for French culture - it's more than just "not-[insert ethnic group here]." French culture is anything but exclusive of other cultures. Remember this is a language/culture that shamelessly and controversially imported the phrase le weekend yet the Eiffel Tower still stands.
That's what I mean but there's no such thing as cultural integrity. French culture - indeed all cultures - have fed on each other. You cannot draw a bright line that separates one from another. Doing so is just intellectually lazy and refuses to acknowledge just how interrelated and inter-dependent cultures are. The people who try to draw these lines are usually trying to sell you some sort of nationalist agenda.
It also ignores history - remember the Republic denied that there was a difference between the homeland and its colonies as a matter of policy (but not practice).
I don't try to explain the Turks or the Bosnians or the Poles in their respective new contexts. But then, how does that undermine my point about cultural integrity being a non-concept?
Finally:
>why is [it] a problem to ask Muslims from the ME and the Magreb to abandon the burka or hijab?
You tell me. Why do the French think that what people wear is a threat to their Republic? Moreover, why should you tell them what they can and cannot wear in public? What business does the government have policing what people wear? Especially if it harms no one? Isn't that antithetical to the first core value of the Republic - liberté?
You could argue that if you went to a Muslim country you would be expected to abide by their dress rules. But just because they have a dress code in Saudi Arabia doesn't mean we have to do the same thing in France.
I think this is mostly an economic issue really. Low-skilled immigrants compete for the jobs of the lower classes. This causes wages to be depressed among large segments of society. Given that they have few employment options by virtue of being low-skilled immigrants turn to crime which further fosters resentment. This is what the right in Europe plays upon to secure political power.
The left in Europe could mitigate this by encouraging a policy of only allowing high-skilled immigrants. The left could then still hold the values of cultural pluralism while denying the right the socio-economic political advantage here. It would be a partial concession, but would be better in the long term. The right wouldn't be able to use this us vs them tactic in poor economic conditions.
>I don't deny French culture exists but I do deny the idea that French culture is defined by excluding whatever it is the maghrebs do.
Good, neither do I. Those from the Maghreb have a rich culture that has been massively influential on France. I, however, identified one thing that thing that they do anathema to the republican ideal. The veil works off the assumption women need to be covered. That idea has no place in French society. Not every aspect of every culture is good. There are some things that can be done away with. I'm not saying they have to do away with it in Syria or Morocco, but they should in France.
> it's more than just "not-[insert ethnic group here
I agree. I have never said anything to the contrary. I said one aspect of a group's customs doesn't have a place in a secular society.
>Remember this is a language/culture that shamelessly and controversially imported the phrase le weekend yet the Eiffel Tower still stands.
Ok. I don't see how this is relevant. The importation of le weekend is different from the wearing of head coverings.
>That's what I mean but there's no such thing as cultural integrity. French culture - indeed all cultures - have fed on each other. You cannot draw a bright line that separates one from another.
Just because cultures feed off of one another doesn't mean cultures don't have integrity. You never really addressed my point about burning down the Vatican. You just said it was "misplaced." You then followed that by saying Christianity is more than not Islam. That does not follow from my question. So again, if there is no cultural integrity, why not burn the Vatican down, or ban the hijab? If France has not cultural integrity, then does that mean Islamic cultures also have no cultural integrity? If they do not have cultural, then why is a problem to ban the hijab?
>You tell me. Why do the French think that what people wear is a threat to their Republic? Moreover, why should you tell them what they can and cannot wear in public? What business does the government have policing what people wear? Especially if it harms no one? Isn't that antithetical to the first core value of the Republic - liberté?
Because what they wear works off an implicit assumption women need to be covered. That idea has no place in a secular society. It isn't a "threat" per se, it just has no place. They aren't telling them what they can and can't wear. They are saying you can't cover your face. Again, if there is no cultural integrity, why does that matter? Does Islam have cultural integrity, but France does not? Plus, it harms people be enforcing a strict gender binary. Lastly, religion is antithetical to the e first core value of the Republic.
>... religion is antithetical to the first core value of the Republic.
It's a little strange for France to plead secularism when the Gallic Catholic majority doesn't see their own religiosity as a problem.
I've been to France. French Catholics can wear crosses without any real controversy because such a show of faith is acceptable within the context of French secularism. Which makes no sense on its face. Why is one show of faith (by French Catholics) acceptable but other showings of faith (by French Muslims) are prohibited?
> So again, if there is no cultural integrity, why not burn the Vatican down, or ban the hijab? If France has not cultural integrity, then does that mean Islamic cultures also have no cultural integrity? If they do not have cultural, then why is a problem to ban the hijab?
This question makes no sense. Like I said, cultural integrity is an empty concept. It's empty analysis posing as real criticism. It gets you nowhere in understanding what culture is. There's nothing to do except ignore the people who want to argue that it exists.
Another thing - why do the French feel entitled to define what Muslims believe? Nowhere in the Q'uran is head covering required. Covering women is not a tenet of faith in Islam - I don't know why the French seem to think that it is. Nor is misogyny a tenet of faith in Islam either. France is an incredibly sexist society even without mischaracterizing the role of women in Islam. Let's not pretend that the hijab ban is aimed at reducing sexism in France.
Now there's a difference between a woman who is forced to wear a hijab or a burka and those who choose to so so. The fact that the laic laws don't recognize this is ... well, you tell me. Do the laic laws recognize this distinction? Or do they assume all Muslim women are helpless and oppressed without the help of the secular French government?
Let's assume that all Muslim women in France are forced to wear the hijab by their cultural background/families. How does banning the hijab/burka in public address actual sexism they are under at home? If anything the ban just masks the symptoms without addressing the cause.
What laic countries like France have done is identified a culture within their borders and then tried their best to define that culture's religion, costumes, and practices as "non-French." It's just xenophobia masquerading as good intentions.
Oil not going to address anything you've written until you address my question about cultural integrity. Why is it any of those things you listed? You can't just say that and expect me to accept it. I obviously don't think it is an empty concept. So, tell me why it's empty. You have not demonstrated that.
Also, if it isn't real, what is the problem of banning the face-veil? If there is no cultural integrity, then don't countries that use face veils also have no cultural integrity? Given your points about cultures feeding off one another, why should France accept the face veil, but the other cultures not accept the absence of the face veil? You don't seem to get these things are a two-way street. Why should France alone amend its culture?
To be fair, you're the one who brought up cultural integrity in your first post and never defined it when you asked:
> Why are European countries expected to compromise their cultural heritage for immigrants?
By assimilating immigrants Europeans are not compromising their cultural heritage. How can they be? Immigrants have been coming to Europe for hundreds of years and Europeans still have a cultural heritage.
There's also no definition of cultural integrity that's internally and externally consistent. I've had this discussion dozens of times. If you can come up with a definition that's consistent I'd be happy to reverse myself.
> Given your points about cultures feeding off one another, why should France accept the face veil, but the other cultures not accept the absence of the face veil? You don't seem to get these things are a two-way street.
Why should it be a two-way street? Why is what France does dependent on what the Middle East does? Just because other countries have misogyny, xenophobia, and are intolerant to "strange" religions doesn't mean France should be the same way.
> The veil works off the assumption women need to be covered. That idea has no place in French society.
WHAT. This is not the entire point of the veil at all. If a woman wishes to wear the veil, why can she not? Conversely, say that I, as a Catholic, wish to wear my own traditional Catholic veil. Would I be forced to take it off, like my Muslim cousins?
>If France has not cultural integrity, then does that mean Islamic cultures also have no cultural integrity?
Having cultural integrity does not mean smashing down other people's rights. Its preserving your own through study and immortalization through museums and such, without having to turn to measures like taking away people's rights to religious freedom.
>Lastly, religion is antithetical to the e first core value of the Republic.
This is a terrifying statement, especially coming from a person who is arguing that a country with a history of anti-theist persecution that has repeatedly slaughtered thousands of clerics all in the name of secularization.
Oooooooh, kill 'em
>Plus, it's not like European countries are built on immigration like America. I think a lot of Americans project their ideas about nationhood onto Europeans, and then judge them according to that standard. That is not correct, and it ignores a lot of history and context.
Americans are still dealing with extremist white supremacist/ethnic nationalist/hate groups everywhere because we have very liberal speech and expression laws as well as a right wing streak that is hard-coded into our politics and culture. Europe has certainly had its experiences with the extreme right; it's the birthplace for a lot of the modern extreme right political thought. That said, it's largely disappeared or been marginalized by European governments, and more pushed out of sight or absorbed into mainstream politics than it has been in the United States.
So we're pretty accustomed to rightist rhetoric (NOTE: I am not talking about the mainstream Right like Republicans here). When we hear:
>Can I ask why not being pro-immigration is a bad thing?
We hear someone twisting the deate, because that's what you're doing and it's a very common tactic for all kinds of far-right groups. No one here is talking about "not being pro-immigration." We're all talking about being staunchly anti-immigration. You want us to be victimizing those poor conservatives who are simply not for immigration, because you want to be seen as the moderate party in the discussion.
>Why are European countries expected to compromise their cultural heritage for immigrants?
This has a similar dynamic. It's a rather common American white nationalist rhetorical tactic to equate the mere presence of non-whites with the erosion of "white culture." Of course in European countries, it's different because the culture being referred to actually really exists as the native culture of the area. The premise is still absurd though: You're implying that Muslims (for example) living in X European country automatically means the destruction of that European culture. Over here we get a lot of racists writing things like "White Genocide," i.e. the mere fact of immigration and the presence of non-whites in society is an actual genocide against victimized whites. You again position yourself as a victim.
>I lived in France during the whole veil controversy, and I have to say, France has a right to legislate against things that are antithetical to the republican ideal.
And you say "antithetical to the republican ideal" the same way that the KKK talked about Catholicism/Republicanism/Abolitionism as antithetical to the American ideal. It's fine to say that, except you haven't laid out a clear definition for "the republican/American ideal." They may claim that it is antithetical to said ideal, but if they offer no explanation as to why and neither do you pursue one, you're accepting that it's antithetical for personal reasons, which invites the thought that you might be a racist.
>Plus, it's not like European countries are built on immigration like America. I think a lot of Americans project their ideas about nationhood onto Europeans, and then judge them according to that standard. That is not correct, and it ignores a lot of history and context.
As I said, educated Americans just happen to be a little better-tuned insidious right-wing extremism than Europeans, who are more naive (innocently or willfully, as in the case of your real ethnic nationalists) about these things. It's not what you believe, it's how you frame it and talk about it. It's not the immigrants, it's how you talk about immigrants that reveals a lot more about you than you seem to think.
I'm not talking about "white culture?" You don't have to be white to be European, and racial plurality is a good thing. I'm not really going to address anything else you wrote since you're working on the assumption I'm a racist.
You're talking about native culture. Our closest analog and focus for extremist groups here in the States is "white culture." As I said, it's as much your rhetoric as your beliefs themselves. If immigration = erosion of [European] culture is the quickest and easiest conclusion you draw, that's getting dangerously close to extreme right attitudes.
I'm not working on the assumption that you're racist, I'm working on the fact that your rhetoric and style of debate are almost identical to that of extremist right groups, who are racist. Like I said, Europeans tend to be a little more naive about that aspect of the debate, sometimes intentionally but most often not.
No, I never made the absolute statement immigration leads to the erosion of "European" culture. I said immigration CAN compromise the cultural integrity of a country. It doesn't have to but it can. My go to example is the burka or hijab in France. It is antithetical to the ideals of republicanism. France was not wrong to ban it. France has a long history of being anti religion, and I support that. To be French, you need to be secular. If you read my other comments I explain that, simply, the religiosity of the immigrant should be considered.
>My go to example is the burka or hijab in France.
Interesting example, a tiny minority of people's mostly cultural practice (differing widely country-to-country) threatening to "compromise the cultural integrity" of a country with an ancient culture and the vast, overwhelming majority of its population being native. I was under the impression that France's stance on religion (being a mostly Catholic nation, after all) was religious non-involvement with government affairs, paired with government non-involvement in religious affairs. Yet Muslims don't count.
>It is antithetical to the ideals of republicanism. France was not wrong to ban it. France has a long history of being anti religion, and I support that. To be French, you need to be secular. If you read my other comments I explain that, simply, the religiosity of the immigrant should be considered.
So your definition of "republicanism" in this case is secularism, excluding all natural-born white Frenchmen who are non-secular. Got it. When will you be advocating for the deportation of devoted French Catholics?
This has nothing to do with race, and I said nothing about deportation.
My point is that it's not about what you claim, it's about the issues you focus on and the rhetoric you employ. That says as much about a person's beliefs as what they actually purport to support. A lot of white nationalists claim that they aren't racist, but you dig an inch into their ideology and they're clearly racists. And like I said, Europeans are pretty easily fooled by that sort of thing because they're somewhat sheltered from hate speech, whereas in America we practically encourage it. If you read up at all on American far-right groups, you very quickly learn to detect patterns in behavior.
EDIT:
I forgot to mention why I keep bringing up European naivete. It's very possible that you don't think you're a racist, like most Europeans probably think. You could be a victim of your naivete when it comes to racial issues. The same is true for reddit, even though the community here is extremely racist. The fact is, if you don't know what you're looking for, you can very easily be influenced by the likes of, say, the British National Party.
I don't know what's more terrifying: the person you're replying to not realizing they're a bigot, or the person you're replying to very much realizing it AND supporting France's anti-religious history.
Of the two, I'd rather take the former. Its absolutely chilling to realize that it might be the latter.
Do you genuinely believe that immigration 'compromises cultural heritage'? That sounds racist as shit on its face.
Well, clearly it does in the instance I cited. Otherwise, why did France need to legislate over the burka and hijab? Or are you suggesting every country and culture is the same, and they have no unique aspects worth protecting?
France didn't need to legislate against head coverings. If you think that suppressing the Muslim right to wear religious gear is "protecting" Gallic culture or whatever, you're fucking hopeless. Those two things can exist in peace.
I'm suggesting that while every culture is not the same, they're all human and can therefore coexist in the same geographic region. The fact that you seem unable to distinguish between "multiculturalism" and "ERADICATING PURE WHITE CULTURE" is very, very telling.
What did I say about eradicating "pure white culture?" French culture doesn't have to be white. In fact, the Third Republic was the first to elect high ranking non white political figures in the world. The republican ideal transcends race. This is more a religious issue for me. Immigrants tend to be religious. I believe in libertie égalité fraternitie. Religion is antithetical to that. The one aspect of the Terror I agreed with was destroying and expelling the Catholic Church.
The Third Republic was a venal failure of republicanism and probably not what you should hold up as a testament to "libertie égalité fraternitie". Secondly, your main point seems to be "I'm a virulent antitheist who thinks we should exclude Muslims from Europe" which, frankly, is just stupid and totally lacks nuance. Religion isn't inherently bad and it's laughably vintage /r/atheism that you'd say religion is inherently antithetical to republicanism in the same way most undemocratic atheistic ideologies would, like Stalinism.
Well one the reasons I suggested those books to you was so you could familiarize yourself with the historiographical argument on the matter. Alice Conklin would argue in both the book I recommended and The Republican Ideal in French West Africa that, yes, the Third Republic was a failure of republicanism. Todd Shepard would argue it was not. I tend to agree with Todd Shepard. History isn't an exact science, and saying "X thing was not Y" is not objective fact. For instance, when you say the "Third Republic" who are you talking about? What people? The citizens? The politicians? The soldiers? Who? Are they all the same with the same beliefs from 1870-1940?
Also, I don't think "Muslims should be excluded," but rather their religiosity should be considered. The question should be, "does real belief in religion have a place in a 21st century secular state?" Religion isn't inherently bad only with it's the variety advocated and practiced by Kierkegaard.
Also, please stop misrepresenting my positions, and then attacking that misrepresentation. It is neither productive, nor does it reflect well on your intellect and disposition.
> This is more a religious issue for me. Immigrants tend to be religious. I believe in libertie égalité fraternitie. Religion is antithetical to that. The one aspect of the Terror I agreed with was destroying and expelling the Catholic Church.
Really? This is you being secular and not antitheistic? I guess I'm just intentionally misinterpreting your positions, then.
I'm specifically referring to this comment:
>"I'm a virulent antitheist who thinks we should exclude Muslims from Europe"
When did I say that? That is such a cut-and-dry misrepresentation of what I said I'm surprised you can't see it.
So, it's ok to be a xenophobic racist as long as you're European.