Ethnocentric, xenophobic societies

[Oompa Loompa]

Hi all,

First I want to say that I don't wish to start a thread about politics; at least not one to bicker and argue about it. I am just completely overwhelmed about what happened to the Dutch government yesterday: it fell, it fell again. (If you saw the Holland vs Portugal match: it describes what happened to our government).

The Dutch society, in my opinion, has changed so tremendously after the september 11th: I hardly recognise it. Holland is no longer a place of tolerance and warmth. I have lived a few years in (Paris) France: it has changed so much in the last 5 years, I didn't feel at home anymore. What is happening for crying out loud?

I feel that in the last years poverty and xenophobia have become accepted phenomana in parts of Europe where you wouldn't expect them at all! Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité in France, Tolerantie and Broederschap in Holland: forget it!

Can anyone make sense of what happened this past few years, and why? Is poverty in America an accepted phenomenon? Do you from the U.S/ U.K./ Canada/ Asia/ et al. feel any hostility against Muslims or Christians, Jews or whoever coming from Eastern-Europe, Africa or South-America?

:(

I just feel so sad, I really do. I just can't grasp the whole meaning of it.

EDIT: I suddenly realise that it's a lot, if not simply too much, to ask someone to answer any of the above questions... I am sorry to be so confused... feel free to bury this thread. Mea Culpa. Mea Culpa. Didn't mean any harm.

[drewprops]

Europe has a rich history of intolerance and bloodletting, punctuated by periods of overwhelming peace and understanding. It is to their credit that the violence has historically been delivered with much ceremony and flair. The influx of refugees from eurasia and africa has had a profound effect on the government and culture of Europe and is considered to be the equivalent of the United States' problem with undocumented aliens from South and Central America. In both instances, on both sides of the Atlantic, these large blocs of 'refugees' have a higher resistance to assimilation than in previous generations, or at least it seems that way at this point in time.

That they resist adopting and blending with the culture of the existing peoples of their new homeland is human nature and not entirely endemic to their own culture(s). But it is very traumatic to the native people.

I think that a more overt attempt should be made by the native people to assimilate the cultures of the 'invading' masses.

Everything is obviously more difficult when religions clash between the native people and the newcomers. No magic pill I can think of, other than the passage of time and the passing of the partisans on either side.

It's said that Time heals all wounds.
Unfortunately, quite often the people who are wounded are usually not around to enjoy the healthy state.

[Oompa Loompa]

Wow, Drewprops, thanks for your clarity: you truly are a magnificent bastard :)

But why this abnormal, superficial clash between cultures who I thought were able to come together in the last couple of years? If you as a country have a tradition of newcomers (like Holland and like Canada/ U.S./ U.K) you should be able to deal with it by now, I think...

Why this resistance, why now?

[Enki]

Fear.

Some dumbasses decided they were going to revive terrorism and reinvent it as better than the '70's version. Doesen't matter much after that who says what as long as the threat of the next incident lingers. And we are quite a ways off before that lingering threat is gone.

[drewprops]

From conversations with a friend from Mexico I believe that a lot of it has to do with the fact that you have generations of people who have no knowledge of what it is like to live in a system that works. They are disaffected and have no desire to play within the established system. Culturally, they have circled their wagons. Spiritually, they have given up their ability to dream. Physically they have decided to move into your country, make money, buy products, raise children and live in ignorance of what happened there before they arrived.

Truth is fugitive and paradigms will continue ever to shift, especially as we build larger and more detailed pictures of how cultures clash when they break against each other like waves. Exactly like waves in fact. Our ideals of perfect human cultures are never realized but we can educate ourselves in how to understand the nature of our conflicts so that we might map around the triggerpoints.

Damn, what did you guys put in my beer?

Anyway, everything always seems like it's RIGHT NOW!!!! as FoxNews would have you believe. It only seems more important because most people are unable to backwards and forwards through time... the here and now is all they have.

I have a slightly used Type-44 for sale.

[billybobsky]

Europeans have NEVER had to deal with Racism.

The US fought a part of this battle in the later half of the twentieth century as what happened in Europe and Asia came to shead light on our own hypocritical treatment of segments of society. Europe, however, escaped WWII with broken economies and one nation which felt incredibly bad that they killed off certain populations of Europeans (Jews primarily, less so Gypsies, etc). But Europe never has had any racial balance. It is lilly white, and still evidently proud of this fact. The Turks and Africans and others moving in now are brown. Europeans don't like brown people. It is racial first ethnic second.

What is happening in the US is different. It is language/ethnicity first (my bet is language) and race barely plays any part in it at all -- for the average 'merican that is...

[Moogs]

I have relatives from Spain; they openly admit many of their countrymen (and those in France and Germany) are very racist by American or even Dutch standards. I saw a special on European soccer players- of African or Caribbean descent mostly- who are routinely jeered (monkey calls, epithets, etc) and even have bananas thrown at them. And this is apparently not uncommon. I saw footage and I was totally floored. I mean I didn't think this kind of shit existed anymore, especially not in a place though of as "liberal minded" like western Europe.

While there are plenty of overt and closet racists in America, as a larger society we have become much more tolerant and open-minded in the last 20 years as compared to 20 before that, which in turn were better than the 20 prior, etc. Still have a ways to go, but let's put it this way: if a bunch of white guys made monkey calls and threw bananas at the athletes here, they'd get the crap beat out of them most likely, and not by people of dark skin necessarily.

Most Americans will not tolerate that shit, even those who have their little secret prejudices and illogical opinions based on stereotype. Other than the random Klan rally we don't tolerate overt forms of racism very well... the Klan rallies don't end in slaughter because the police are forced to form a line between them and the sentient people, to keep a riot from occurring, which it certainly would. [In a way, I almost wish the police wouldn't bother. Sadly, some good people would die, but it's a near certainty anyone with a sheet on their head would pay for it with their life. In effect, every rally they held would be like self-extermination.]

Now we just have to work on the more subtle forms, like making cultural assumptions that all dark-skinned people have the same opinions on certain issues, same work habits, etc etc.

[Wyatt]

What is happening in the US is different. It is language/ethnicity first (my bet is language) and race barely plays any part in it at all -- for the average 'merican that is...
I'd say that's pretty accurate. I actually think it's a combination of language and religion first in some places. I come from a badly small-minded town originally, and I can only imagine what some people I went to school with would do if a Muslim family was speaking Arabic anywhere near them. Part of me is incredibly embarrassed to be from where I'm from. :\ Other parts of me are proud that I grew up there without being a religious/ethnic bigot. How sad is it that we live in a culture where it's not the norm to just be okay with people the way they are? :(

[Moogs]

Pretty f-in sad. :|

[drewprops]

The other shoe:

While I side with BB on a vasty array of topics I find this assertion a little strange in that Europe is "lily white" because that is where those ethnicities originate. How could they be anything other than "lily white"? I mean, come on, look at Finland for gosh sakes.

Remember that the Spaniard's aggression toward the people from Africa is certainly colored by the relation that Spain has had with Northern Africa in the last dozen centuries. It isn't entirely based upon skin color, culture is indeed involved; this stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum.

Our conceptions of race and culture continue to grown and shift. Without a doubt the "modern" views of race are wildly outmoded by what today's kids will consider "modern".

The "lily white" dialogue is very 1970's.

[billybobsky]

By lilly white, I mean it isn't 'racially diverse'. I am sorry if that wasn't clear...

[drewprops]

Perhaps "colorblind" would be a better term? "Racially diverse" sounds vaguely like an unstated quota to me. But, this is a tangent from the topic.

Two sides to the story, remember that in France and in England and in other European countries the immigrants (who happen to be Muslim) are not integrating with the natives. In fact, they are pointedly abstaining from any participation in that country's ongoing cultural dialogue.

This is in many ways a cultural colonization.

The topic really isn't about racism, it's about Xenophobia and religion and it's about culture and it's about the mass migration of people into countries which are not equipped (nor could they be) for the migration of those people into their country.

And it's about change.

[billybobsky]

Colorblind is as anachronistic (and wrong in this context) as lilly white...

Racial diversity has nothing to do with quotas or favorability etc. It is a fact that Europe is not very racially diverse.

[BarracksSi]

In fact, they are pointedly abstaining from any participation in that country's ongoing cultural dialogue.
There's a neighborhood here in DC that's being called "Little Ehiopia", and a lot of its residents aren't fond of gaining the label.

Okay, here's the beef that I've been having with cultural diversity around my region... and I'm going to put up assumptions that may be offensive and patently wrong...

The service industry sucks. Standards are lax.

It's nigh impossible to place a food order with a waiter who's only been off the boat for a month. I would expect communication problems if I went to Latvia or Senegal, but not in my own backyard.

By "standards are lax", I mean that they don't understand basic cleanliness and health codes. I saw a manager type at a California Pizza Kitchen handle a garbage bag and go directly to handling diner-bound plates of food.

In a while, I'm going to expect the same amount of poor service, shitty food, and health code violations that must exist in those far-off lands.

Cab drivers suck. The driving test in India, for example, involves moving your car forwards and backwards. I don't think any of these yahoos have had further training after arriving here.

I've worked on the other side of the kitchen counter. I know how it's supposed to be done. I know that the job sucks, is hard work, and puts oneself in the path of unappreciative customers. But goddammit, I'm going to lose my mind one of these days.

[billybobsky]

And how exactly are these problems that don't exist in the indigenous population that perform these same tasks?

I can't understand the english spoken by supposedly native english speakers in most of the fast-food places I have recently been. Cab drivers are always bad. Health code violations occur regardless of who is undertaking the task (and I know you have travelled, so I really don't understand your claims that food prep in 3rd world countries is any worse than in the US)...

I think the issues striking people are assuming that people who preform work poorly are immigrants and that because of these assumptions, these events are actually meaningful and significant.

[BarracksSi]

I think the issues striking people are assuming that people who preform work poorly are immigrants and that because of these assumptions, these events are actually meaningful and significant.
It's not an assumption, it's an observation. I know the difference.

The less "newly immigrated", the more attuned they are to how things are supposed to be done.

[drewprops]

Colorblind is as anachronistic (and wrong in this context) as lilly white...

Racial diversity has nothing to do with quotas or favorability etc. It is a fact that Europe is not very racially diverse.


In regard to racial diversity, you needn't be shy about including most of the countries of the world on your list. From large asian nations like China, Japan and Korea to the many countries of the former Soviet Union. All of the nations in Africa, the countries of the Middle East and various island nations peppered across the Pacific. Racial diversity is a wholly unusual concept, something that seems to defy the tribal nature of the species. Not that that's a good thing, diversity in systems is important; it's just nearly impossible to implement in human societies without express effort - it doesn't seem to come naturally to us. There are a lot of interesting symmetries with what's happening in the Netherlands and what happened historically with the colonies established by the VOC (Dutch East India Company), notably in South Africa.


The reason that citizenship programs exist is to provide a clear and friendly path for immigrants to adapt to the culture of a country, from common laws to matters of personal hygiene. When immigration occurs without oversight it allows for the tendency of racial clumping and cultural isolation.

[World Leader Pretend]

My town has an interesting twist on the way the whole racism/predjudice thing. Since we are a college and a military city, we have tons of people from foreign countries. People have gotten very used to it, and most people don't think anything of it. Eat at a restaurant next to a Chinese family, no one cares. There are plenty of African American, Korean, Mexican, Etc people who own businesses, and many foreigners from Europe. Race isn't really a factor at all in our city of 50,000.


The problem arises when you bring education into the equation. There are lots of "white trash" that live out in the various towns nearby, and a city closer to the Fort that has a high population of poorer, less educated people. When you see problems or conflicts of interest, it is usually split along these lines. :( There are many influential people who have gone to college that have to deal with good 'ol boys racing their F-350s down Main Street. Unfortunately, we as a town aren't doing enough to try and incorporate everyone into the culture. I fear that ten years from now the city will be split in two.

In the brighter side, we hardly ever have to deal with racism, which is always nice. :)

[drewprops]

As long as we're busy we don't think about racism, likely the case in your town. I think that some of us go long periods without even thinking about it, only to be baffled when we run into it.


A month or so back I was at a sporting event, buying something to eat. I chatted with the guy behind the counter and after I'd paid and started to walk away he said something and called me "Bossman", to which I had no reply because it seemed to come out of nowhere.


I'd be interested to know the details of how the Dutch government "fell" this past week, from Oompa Loompa's viewpoint...

[Banana]

I wonder if those are factors:

1) The changes are occuring at an increasing rate
2) People are having trouble keeping up
3) More people are moving around, even across world, increasing the potential for clashes

...?

[billybobsky]

Why are there clashes at all?

[Banana]

Why are there clashes at all?

Banana's Proposal

1) Make Conflict Resolution a mandatory curriculm from elementary school to college.
2) The Passing grade should be 85% or great
3) Execute those who flunk the class.

[drewprops]

Why are there clashes at all?


Well that's an easy one. Look at the people you know. How many of them:


jump to conclusions
don't consider other people's perspectives
make wild assumptions about people they do not even know
are itching to spread shit about other people instead of looking at their own foibles


Clashes are easy dude.

[Banana]

In which case....

*gets a shotgun*

[julesstoop]

I hope you all will forgive my bluntness.

The problem is not the color of someone's skin, nor 'religion', the problem is education. Especially certain cultural/ethnic groups that haven't received any proper education for several genarations.

Something strange is hapening in our society (at least in the Netherlands). It seems that often those with less education and a smaller income display excessive fecundity, while educated successful people remain childless for a much longer period of time.

To me this trend seems anti-evolutionary.

I.m.h.o. this is the father of al problems.
Our society is organised is such a fashion that more success means a slower rate of procriation. Which means that the way we (society subconsciously) define(s) "success" is in the end going to kill our way of life.

[billybobsky]

*bullshit*

On the time scale of human evolution the success of even 100 generations is nothing -- yet we don't see economic trends that last 100 generations.

2000 years does nothing for or against evolution and your argument is on the time scale of what, 100 years?

[Banana]

I wouldn't be too quick to point out at education. I've heard and seen of even highly educated people being intolerant. In fact, I've had to deal with them now and then. :|

Semi-related:

I once read an good essay that compared smokers with joggers. Not their health, but their social tendencies. The essay pointed out that on general, smokers were more tolerant of other faults, provided support to each other, and are more sociable compared to joggers who usually have a competitive edge and thus look down on other who can't keep up or whatnots.

Then there was a harvard study that showed that on average, smokers and drinkers actually outlive health freaks, with single biggest correlation being the numbers of friends and strong bonds shared.

/semi-related

[julesstoop]

Nice and sensitive response [not] <-- @BillyBobsky

I'm not saying that we as a species are "doomed" or whatever: I'm not stupid.

I just fear that our societies won't survive this trend of successful people unwilling to raise kids. To me it seems a sign of decadency that threatens our way of life.

[billybobsky]

Actually from my brief literature searches on fecundity of animals, human trends are identical.

We have it in our genetics that success, if you will pardon the pun, breeds low fecundity...

[Banana]

Seems anti-evolutionary....

[billybobsky]

Evidently not.

Edit: I will qualify my statement -- success here is life span. It actually makes sense that you don't want your populations to swell faster than resources, putting the brakes on long lived populations ensures that the population is well defended against external determinants of survival... disease, famine, etc...

Edit 2: I will note that life span in humans is correlated with what julesstoop is referring to as success.

[drewprops]

This is actually something that has delighted me on some perversely base level for a long time... that despite all of our wondrous achievements, that people who are at the absolute bottom of the ladder continue to plug away. Ignorant, uneducated, ugly and underprivileged, they live and thrive.

And even from those lines springs genius.

So the low birth rate that is associated with education and wealth seems to be a built-in safeguard to prevent the species from losing its genetic diversity. The bottom of the pile is continually turned....

[scratt]

Dude.. I hae read each of your posts in this thread, and they are very concerning! Are you on drugs?

I have picked this one as it is the most ridiculous. That is not to say that the others don't have notewarthy points to pick out and also take issue with...

Europeans have NEVER had to deal with Racism.

Good grief! What on earth do you mean by that?!?!?
Try a google search, or just pick up a book in your local library!

The US fought a part of this battle in the later half of the twentieth century as what happened in Europe and Asia came to shead light on our own hypocritical treatment of segments of society.

The US was a wholescale importer of slaves, who fought a civil battle to escape from being slaves.
This is the only place that the US 'fought part of this battle'. The US spends very little time looking outside it's own borders (unless it's for Oil - sorry couldn't resist), and is still to this day discriminating against black and hispanic people, as well as having 'reverse racism' in certain states.

Europe, however, escaped WWII with broken economies and one nation which felt incredibly bad that they killed off certain populations of Europeans (Jews primarily, less so Gypsies, etc).

One mans xenophobia and megalomania have nothing to do with Europe wide values. Where do you get this stuff?

But Europe never has had any racial balance. It is lilly white, and still evidently proud of this fact.

What on earth does that mean?
France, the UK, Spain etc. etc. are all very integrated multi-ethnic populations. Don't believe what you see on FOX News please!

Heck, the UK has been mixing races since before the US wass even thought of!
We have been invaded and raped till our bits hurt for most of the middle ages!
Christ it's hard to know where exactly most individual people from the United Kingdom have come from ethnically..
In more recent history, our national dish is Curry!

The Turks and Africans and others moving in now are brown. Europeans don't like brown people. It is racial first ethnic second.

Europeans don't like brown people!??!?! WTF!? How old are you? And really how much have you travelled?
I am dumbfounded by your comments!

What is happening in the US is different. It is language/ethnicity first (my bet is language) and race barely plays any part in it at all -- for the average 'merican that is...

The current fear by government of anyone with a Middle Eastern name, national guard on the borders, arrest rates for black inner city kids, literacy, employment issues and so on does not really sell the idea that the problem is language. Perhaps I am missing your point on this one.. Please enlighten me if I am.

You know the only accurate thing in your post so far is your admission of a guess in that last part.
That just about sums up the subject matter of your entire post.
Jeez, dude.. Go do some real reading and learn a little bit about life.

Sorry for the rant, but I cannot believe noone else would pick up this kind of post, and this kind of attitude and make at least some comments to try and put this guy back on some kind of path to sense.

[Banana]

Tell me, I've heard that Europeans in general are more jittery of muslims, even before Americans were, because of terrorist attacks in last two or three decades?

I've heard of stories of security being so tight that if you had a metal clip in your skeleton from a surgery, you would get searched?

Any truth to this perception?

[scratt]

Tell me, I've heard that Europeans in general are more jittery of muslims, even before Americans were, because of terrorist attacks in last two or three decades?

I've heard of stories of security being so tight that if you had a metal clip in your skeleton from a surgery, you would get searched?

Any truth to this perception?

None, that I am aware of.

I can only speak for countries I have lived in.. UK, France and Spain.

There has always been some conflict with regards to behaviour of ethnic groups. Let me explain, in the UK there are a lot of communitys where Muslims "needs" seem to outweigh the native populations "wants". For example, the live sacrifice by slitting the throat of goats and other animals in people's backyards, and letting the blood drain out. Certain UK communities have asked that this be outlawed in public because it distresses them and their kids. The religeous groups that practice this kind of sacrifice then call racial foul.

Then there are the more publicized head wear issues for girls at school.

I can see both sides on this, but do tend to think that religion is often used to try and change rules, not for the sake of the religion but almost as a form of independance.

Hence my own personal belief that *all* religion should be made illegal, the churches should be sold along with their land, and the wealth re-distributed. End of story.

I digress sorry.. On a daily basis we have so many colours and creeds that I think (apart from the looney fringe political parties) people don't even notice people's ethnicity. Some exceptions exist.. The silly beard and hair styles of some Jewish people, and really ridiculous turbans will draw remarks from some people, but only in private.

In fact I was discussing the recent arrest in the UK on terorism charges of that group, and then the subsequent one in the US. Most people agreed that if the UK group (who complained of 'rough' handling by the UK Police) were arrested in the US, they would have really found out what rough handling was about! Let me put that in perspective. The UK group were complaining that they were pushed, treated abruptly, and had guns pointed at them during the raid on their home.. And they thought this was unreasonable, as they were innocent!

I am personally of the belief that if you are integrating into another society you try to respect their feelings as well as be true to your own. If I was a girl and in The Middle East, I would cover my head, just as when I visit a shrine in Thailand, both my wife and I wear appropriate footwear, and my wife covers her shoulders, and does not wear a 'strappy top' as she calls them. No problem.

To try to change the country you are in to fit the rules of the country you evidently decided you did not want to live in anymore seems counterintuitive to me! This applies to 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants as well.

In all these things a compromise has to be found, but I do tend to think that the wishes and belief of the country as a whole should carry more weight than that of societies who are integrating into it. This does not seem to be the case, and hence this whole 'reverse racism' mess.

A few years ago I remember being told that if there was one 'person of colour' in a job intervice in Florida, most of the 'white' people would up and leave. This was simply because most employers were scared to give jobs to 'white' people because they felt they would be sued by the coloured people. I don't know if this was an urban myth, or true. Either way it is a very good illustration of the whole 'reverse racism' issue, which is prevalent today all over the west.

To answer your question more directly.. Your example sounds more like the image we are getting of domestic travel in the US these days. I know I for one have cancelled a trip there this year as I refuse to be fingerprinted and deal with the asses who control the borders at airports in the US. The last time I visited the word facists came out of my mouth (quietly) at least 5 times before I even left the airport! ;) The last being when I was told off for smoking a cigarette, outside the airport in San Francisco... Apparently that is not allowed! WTF!?! The fact that we were all standing by taxis and breathing in more damaging fumes from those cars, in one of the most polluted cities in the world seemed to have no bearing on this new illogic!

[Dorian Gray]

I'm glad scratt injected a bit of sense into this thread. I'd like to know in which alternative universe billybobsky resides where Europeans "have NEVER had to deal with Racism", or where Europeans are "lilly [sic] white". London is statistically the most ethnically and linguistically diverse city on the planet, and some other European cities like Paris aren't far behind. Also, there is something hideous about holding up America as a poster-child of racial integration when Martin Luther King is a household name across the world. It's ironic that the same Americans who fought against anti-Semitism in Europe went home and practised an even more blatant form of racism after WW2. Likewise, the Little Englanders who today vote for the British National Party and UK Independence Party are the same people who more than anyone else glorify the British role in WW2. The incredible irony of this goes right over their heads, of course.

Integration is a two-way street. It is impossible for an outside party to assimilate the culture of their adopted home if the people of that country, instead of doing their bit to welcome their new citizens, treat them with suspicion and cultural insensitivity. And the viscous-circle nature of this participation creates a situation where progress can only be made if one side is big enough to unconditionally extent a hand in fraternity. This is very difficult to resolve. The French approach of using an elitist government to enact progressive legislation doesn't work because the majority of the population is not sufficiently educated to understand why this is necessary, and therefore feels that the government is out of touch with the people (which it is). Their anger is then directed towards the Muslims and others who are the subject of the legislation.

The other approach, as typified by Tony Blair in the last few months, of caving in to populism and implementing draconian policing and and other measures in the name of "anti-terrorism", doesn't work because of all the ancient human-rights arguments (innocent until proven guilty, right to fair trial, etc., etc.). Also, in most of the arrests and detentions made by British authorities, the detained have been released without charge, which has a massively negative effect on the populations affected. Likewise, the British police, even under extraordinary pressure, couldn't find anything to prosecute the Brits who were eventually released from Guantanamo Bay (they are now trying to settle back into their home towns around the UK, doing the occasional interview and hopefully at least profiting financially from their ordeal). History shows us that any group that is treated with such injustice resorts to violence at some point or another, either in a revolution-like fight for independence or senseless and desperate violence against the state.

Here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5137628.stm) is an interesting BBC article that touches on some of the points I've made here. Clearly while the West goes around heaping indignity on Muslims, there is little hope of real progress. In any case it's going to take decades to sort out. But I do think humanity will eventually triumph over this. As a hopeful example, remember McCarthyism and apartheid? McCarthyism (half a century ago) is now little more than a silly joke, and apartheid (much more recently) has already got few and dwindling supporters. But these practices were far from light-hearted affairs at the time. Many people fervently supported them, just as many people today support Guantanamo Bay and "anti-terror" raids on anyone with a turban. So there is hope. In the past the progressive rationalisation of society has always eventually triumphed over mindless hatred, and I see no reason why it shouldn't continue to do so in the future (with the exception of hiccups along the way such as the one we were thrown into by September 11th).

[Oompa Loompa]

First let me say to you all: thank you for your excellent posts; it helps me focus on the issue(s).

In my view what happened in the Netherlands is this (I'll first shortly explain the facts.)

Facts: The D66 party pulled three ministers from the government because Ms Verdonk, known as "Iron Rita" for her tough stance on immigration issues, refused to resign over her treatment of Ms Hirsi Ali (writer of a controversial film about the treatment of women in Islam, which was directed by Theo Van Gogh, later led to his murder by a Muslim extremist in 2004.)

Ms Verdonk had threatened to strip former politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali of her Dutch passport because of false information she gave in 1992.

But suddenly Ms Verdonk (under political pressure) did a U-turn on her stance on Ms Hirsi Ali, claiming she had found a legal loophole that would allow Hirsi Ali to stay. That legal loophole was a letter of apology from Ayaan Hirsi Ali to Ms Verdonk. A letter of apology that was fabricated by Ms Verdonk and that had to be signed by Ayaan. What a disgrace! Not only was it unfair to Ayaan but also to all the asylum-seekers in Holland waiting desperately for years and years to recieve a verdict from the frustratingly bureaucratic IND (Dutch Immigration and Naturalization Service).

I want to compare this fact to the story of the Asylum-Seeker's Voucher in the UK. Asylum seekers are to be forced again to live on supermarket vouchers instead of cash five years after the government scrapped the controversial system because it was unfair and unworkable. The vouchers can only be used to buy food and drink in a limited number of supermarkets and shops, which often do not provide culturally suitable food such as halal meat, or can only be used in city centre branches. No change can be given, which means asylum seekers sometimes pay more than anybody else: the shop pockets whatever's 'left-over'.

The remainder (no matter how petty) represents the glimmer of a chance for the asylum-seeker to plug into other choises, even to haggle over them. Blocking these choises, the coupon tags the asylum-seeker with a sussed-out 'identity'... an item in a no-exit loop. A scheme that is lucid, calculated and therefore absurd.

My point is that both stories represent such a deep contempt for foreigners/asylum-seekers, it makes me sick to my stomach. How frustrated and xenophobic have West European societies become? Where does it lead to?

[billybobsky]

Europe isn't 'lilly white,' eh (and I am not talking only about urban areas, as racism tends to grow up where communities don't see each other)?

UK (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/uk.html) 92.1% White
Germany (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gm.html) 91.5% 'German' whatever that means
Netherlands (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/nl.html) 83% Dutch, 8% Other western origin.

Whereas:
US (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html) 81.7% White. Period.

My contention is simple (and from what I have seen in the US/Europe/Latin America/North Africa absolutely true) that populations that are not exposed to people who are different, be it aesthetically or culturally have no basis with which to accept them into a broader community. Europe's current wave of immigration is different than previous waves, the influx is not coming from countries that were once well colonized as the last three (four?) centuries of "reverse colonial" immigration.

Regardless, the US isn't as racist as scratt makes it out to be, we aren't beating black urban youths for fun, hanging up their grandpaps from the nearest tree for smelling funny. Our problems in the states are due to economic imbalances, poor people are treated terribly (and there are a disproportionate number of poor blacks, but this is a dynamic situation, capitalism and the somewhat successful education initiatives are working to allow for mobility -- I am not claiming its perfect, but little that you see in the US is due to current racism).

As far as Europe is concerned, having been there on a number of occasions, and knowing Europeans in the US and talking to them about these issues (since I am from the South East, the very birth place of the confederacy, it concerns me when people apply significance to skin color), it is possible in many places in Europe to have grown up not seeing someone of another racial group. In the US this is simply impossible. That extra 10% minority population changes thing a lot.

[billybobsky]

I should also note that where I grew up had a 40% minority population...

[billybobsky]

One more thing...

The term "reverse racism" is completely nonsensical. One can either be racist or not. There is no correct direction of racism, and so there is no reverse.

[scratt]

One more thing...

The term "reverse racism" is completely nonsensical. One can either be racist or not. There is no correct direction of racism, and so there is no reverse.

I cannot even be bothered to reply to your first two posts..

But for your education on 'reverse racism'...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_sexism

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/199311/reverse-racism

And the first thing I found on Google....

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/02/eveningnews/main520514.shtml

[billybobsky]

Good for you. You can use google to look up definitions of words.

[alcimedes]

Let's try to keep the posts on topic.

[Banana]

Regarding immigration, I'm told that it is increasingly becoming a bureacrautic process and developed countries has come to assume citizenship as a mandatory requirement to any benefits.

I have a case in my International Law textbook which for some reason isn't on the intraweb. I can give you the citation if you want, but here's the summary on "Hama and Re: Immigration Act".

Hama was born at high seas. His mother was a stowaway and a refugee, died after birth and was totally undocumented. Consequently, no states would claim Hama as their citizen. Hama then spent his childhood residing in various African counties that were then under England and French and other European countries control (I'm thinking of old French Swaililand and the vicinity). He transversed several countries during his childhood, wiht no problem from border officers. Thus he did not have any citizenship and was for all purpose, stateless. (This isn't same as a refugee, mind you- it's even worse.) The textbook does not explicitly mention it, but I have a hutch that he worked as a sailor which would explain the above.

As he become older, the entry to other countries become increasingly difficult and as result, officals ordered him to be deported. However, they didn't specify a destination as is the customary with deportation. Thus he was bounced from various countries, even developed countries (Sweden was explicitly mentioned).

At one point, he arrived at Canada and applied for waiver to their Immigration Act. Judge Sullivan reviewed the case and after some consideration, Judge Sullivan agreed that immigration officals should not be able to subject people to what is essentially an imprisonment for indefinite term. But the waiver was not granted, and Hama was ordered to deport. The textbook ends saying that Hama's whereabout is presumed at high seas and may continue for rest of his life.

It goes to show that it's not always about skin color, religion or language. It may be about documentation and playing by their rules. It doesn't really matter whether you didn't mean to break the rules. Once it's broke, off you go.