Danish far-right party calling for Muslim deportation to stand in election

neither is the Chinese feeling of han superiority. they're different kinds of hierarchical discrimination based on outward appearance, ancestry and culture.

I get that you use the word differently, and that's a cultural thing indicative of a certain, perhaps even dominant and mainstream, continental European mindset, but until you forward to me as useful an equivalent term in common parlance as "racism", I hope you'll forgive my Americanness in not really giving a crap about mincing words when it comes to an actively engaged, intentional and measured, genocidal culture along racial lines. I also understand that, generally speaking, the attitude may also say of different cultures not presently undergoing forcible attempts at erasure: "I don't think they have a cultural commitment to crime or are literally ******ed, I just don't like the fact that they look black" and I still can't bring myself to care. :dunno:

There's plenty of whataboutism to go around, my culture is far more than a hop skip and jump from perfect, but still, good lord. What term am I going to have to fall back on? Evil? If I use genocidal, the people who don't like Mooselems and Jehoofah's Witnernmesses and Juice will cheer.

in the next few decades national identities will be completely abandoned anyway, we are just ahead of the curve.

If I had to guess, this seems a European perspective. This might be an eventuality, but nationalism is on the rise and has more than enough power to melt civilization yet. My personal pet theory is that the loose confederation of Europe is starting the crisis that has been unavoidable to confederations. Do national identities fade into something similar to those of US states as a federal identity rises to take its place, or does the governing unit dissolve as confederation-ish things are wont to do under pressure? Brexit seems a symptom with a lot of details/inputs, and a pretty predictable one at that. But again, I'm not really sure about what they hell do I know, watching from all the way over here.
 
Last edited:
You are equivocating, probably unintentionally due to lack of actual familiarity with the subject.
You can claim that Turkish Gastarbeiters worked diligently for the benefit of the Republic;
you can claim they were often enough not treated the way you or i would deem proper.

The claim you made however is incorrect and problematic.
The operative term of your claim was "Turkish immigrant workers during the postwar rebuilding period".
And that's not consistent with reality unless you employ very warped definitions, or a dubious perception of, well, numbers.

The Gastarbeiter programs had precursers but if we are to put a date on them beginning in earnest it would be 1955. The hiring freeze occured in 1973.
Within that timeframe Turkish Gastarbeiters heavily leaned towards the last portion of that timeframe. And the numbers of Turks arriving after '73 are quite significant, to say the least.

Point being: They arrived in a country that was pretty much already rebuilt.

Ah, who’s not reading now? I was actually quite generous and gave 1961. It’s still the same reliance and exploitation. The economic miracle would’ve collapsed without cheap labor into the 60s. That labor could no longer come from the east... so it came from Turkey.

In making this historically improper claim you are being unjust on both ends:
1. You are implicitly reattributing the achievements of the actual country-rebuilding Gastarbeiters (for no fault of theirs other than habitually not being Muslims).

Hm... this strikes me as a what about fallacy. In what way does recognizing the exploitation of one group diminish the exploitation of another?

To “stay in my lane”— how does recognizing the racial oppression of southern black slaves diminish the exploitation of Irish and Italians in the northern factories?

2. You are misrepresenting the Germany that Turkish German immigrants arrived in and the experience they faced.
I.e. the very "exploitation" that you refered to is obscurred in your mistelling of history.
The others were called.
And then they were needed and wanted.
Then they were called.
And then they were not all that needed. And unwanted.​
And they worked quite hard in an economy marked by rising structural unemployment, not labor shortages.
And they had to suffer a number of insults and injustices.

And you have erased this their story in your comment, marked by superficiality and convenience.

Not sure what your gripe is. I wasn’t specific enough? I mean, sorry. This interestingly seems to be your argument in general across the thread— even more interestingly it makes YOU look like a “tumblr SJW”.

>Here’s a picture of some Turkish workers in the German factories in 1963!

>Wow, breathtaking exploitation. Perhaps contributes to racism against Turks and Muslims in general in modern Germany?

>No. You don’t get it. These people...

And so on for several paragraphs.

But of course that’s really not your claim because you have no substantial claim, other than some immaterial assertion that we are being “too English”. Lex asks: how? You say: “by just how you’re being. It’s too English.”

Well, excuse us if we don’t take your analysis too seriously then.

colonialism is not equal to racism though, we have to be careful. colonialist powers were all racist, and Europeans (in the 19th, and first half of the 20th century) were also all definitely racist in meaningfully different ways.

Certainly. Though I may cautiously assert that colonialism is a prerequisite to the development of racist systems, in some capacity. It dehumanizes uniquely, in a way that may be of absolute necessity to racialization.

German racism is even kind of an outlier, since it is a mixture of scientific racism and völkisch ideology (aryans, "homeland" and all that bs).

Perhaps this is just because there wasn’t much German colonialism until the 19th century, and thus the German concept of race in this structural, western sense necessarily developed in a period in which much colonial discourse across all Western European nations was dominated by such ideas. There is no shortage of scientific racism or nationalistic structures in British or French colonial sources from those times.

metatron is right in one and only one thing: racism still dominates public medial, academic and cultural discourse in the Anglosphere while in Europe it seems to have mostly vanished, that is where the culturalization of race comes in, the point many people have tried to make throughout the thread.

Possibly just because racism is so basically fundamental to the entire society of the Americas that any serious social analysis MUST include an analysis of race.

are you genuinely suggesting that America is NOT trying to culturally imperalize other nations with their highly specific notion of liberalism and identity politics? (or their products, advertisements, pop culture, food and literally anything else). Because they definitely are, and they are highly successful at it. controlling public discourse is one thing I reckon is extremely high on many important people's agenda :)

Hm... no, I don’t think “America” really “tries” to do much. Do I think some socially influential American commentators have inadvertently set goalposts around discourse internationally that rely on uniquely American perspectives? Yeah, definitely. But I think that’s a very different process to the concerted effort by American political and corporate elites to drown out indigenous culture, material and non-material, in the third world— like in my genetic homeland, the Philippines. I think it’s a very, very different process with very different results. One ends up alienating some academics, and one ends up gentrifying localities until the entire population has either become effective slaves of American firms or corpses. One is cultural imperialism. The other... should perhaps find another word for itself, because bunching them together is tenuous and could lead to some unpleasant equivocation.

honestly, if there were two peoples worth of collective scorn and hatred, it would be the Germans and the Brits (and their obese cousins, the worse Brits). humans are inherently destructive and terrible, but those two are the worst of the worst.

And together they’ve created the white Americans... the worst people of history? :lol:
 
Not only have you not made my points any weaker, you have arguably made them stronger, which leads me to rest on them for the time being:
You are equivocating, probably unintentionally due to lack of actual familiarity with the subject.
You can claim that Turkish Gastarbeiters worked diligently for the benefit of the Republic;
you can claim they were often enough not treated the way you or i would deem proper.

The claim you made however is incorrect and problematic.
The operative term of your claim was "Turkish immigrant workers during the postwar rebuilding period".
And that's not consistent with reality unless you employ very warped definitions, or a dubious perception of, well, numbers.

The Gastarbeiter programs had precursers but if we are to put a date on them beginning in earnest it would be 1955. The hiring freeze occured in 1973.
Within that timeframe Turkish Gastarbeiters heavily leaned towards the last portion of that timeframe. And the numbers of Turks arriving after '73 are quite significant, to say the least.

Point being: They arrived in a country that was pretty much already rebuilt. In making this historically improper claim you are being unjust on both ends:
1. You are implicitly reattributing the achievements of the actual country-rebuilding Gastarbeiters (for no fault of theirs other than habitually not being Muslims).
2. You are misrepresenting the Germany that Turkish German immigrants arrived in and the experience they faced.
I.e. the very "exploitation" that you refered to is obscurred in your mistelling of history.
The others were called.
And then they were needed and wanted.
Then they were called.
And then they were not all that needed. And unwanted.​
And they worked quite hard in an economy marked by rising structural unemployment, not labor shortages.
And they had to suffer a number of insults and injustices.

And you have erased this their story in your comment, marked by superficiality and convenience.

Additionally you have demonstrated a number of claims i would have made about you were i a less polite person.
E.g. we understand quite well that you'd (eventually) have picked '61, and why you'd do so and how that is not generous but rather revealing the nature of your claim.
As usual i have to thank you for doing my work for me.
 
And together they’ve created the white Americans... the worst people of history? :lol:

you. I like you :) nice to see we agree with each other on most points and don't have to shout at each other or be mean.
 
you. I like you :) nice to see we agree with each other on most points and don't have to shout at each other or be mean.

My brother believes Saudis are worse - especially as they'd gotten Americans (and some other First World Nations) giving them high-tech military equipment (like F-15's Typhoon Eurofighters, renamed Canadian LAV-25's, etc.) and have treaties to come rushing to their defense at the drop of a hat if the threat of invasion rears it's ugly head, and pay them so much money for their vast oil resources they live the good life in shining, high-tech, comfortable "oasis-cities" in the desert, but are given NO real pressure to advance socially and politically from, effectively, the absolute, non-constitutional monarchy with hard Sharia law backing of clan-oriented Bedouin tribes they were upon the foundation of their kingdom in 1932 - and they feel entitled to this attitude and have become arrogant and indolent. My brother worked for an international oil field tools repair company and was sent all around the world to oil-rich nations, even (because he was Canadian, despite working for an American company) ones American citizens would have been barred from by Department of Commerce restriction, like Cuba, Libya, and Iran, and he had learned to tell the difference, by the way they talked, dressed, and acted, between different Arab nationalities, unlike many Westerners. Mind, when he says Saudis are, on average, the worst nationality of people he's met, he of course only means the men - he, like all outside men, was not permitted to speak to, or even in close proximity to, the women.
 
They send lots of the young ones to university in northern Illinois from what I can tell.
 
I'll accept my share of responsibility for arguing some silly things in the past but like...continually implying we are hive-mind caricatures from the most ridiculous corners of the internet is just...wearing

Yes it is isn't it.
 
"ad hom" must have been redefined since I last checked.
 
Ad horn? Isn't that where you roll up a bunch of supermarket flyers into a cone and make funny noises at people?
 
If I had to guess, this seems a European perspective. This might be an eventuality, but nationalism is on the rise and has more than enough power to melt civilization yet. My personal pet theory is that the loose confederation of Europe is starting the crisis that has been unavoidable to confederations. Do national identities fade into something similar to those of US states as a federal identity rises to take its place, or does the governing unit dissolve as confederation-ish things are wont to do under pressure? Brexit seems a symptom with a lot of details/inputs, and a pretty predictable one at that. But again, I'm not really sure about what they hell do I know, watching from all the way over here.

My european perspective is that national identities are coming back with a vengeance. There cannot be any form of working democracy outside the nation. And working democracy is necessary to solve a whole lot of problems that are plaguing the world, power sharing (including "inequality") foremost. The balance of social feelings will overshoot and do a lot of damage because of all the fools who have been trying to prevent the functioning of democracy. It's a dam filling until the water goes over the top....
 
My european perspective is that national identities are coming back with a vengeance. There cannot be any form of working democracy outside the nation. .

communes, Spanish civil war, grassroots movements, the greek Polis, and millions of other institutions (sports clubs, voluntary work..) that work on a semi-democratic basis would like to disagree.
 
My european perspective is that national identities are coming back with a vengeance. There cannot be any form of working democracy outside the nation. And working democracy is necessary to solve a whole lot of problems that are plaguing the world, power sharing (including "inequality") foremost. The balance of social feelings will overshoot and do a lot of damage because of all the fools who have been trying to prevent the functioning of democracy. It's a dam filling until the water goes over the top....
communes, Spanish civil war, grassroots movements, the greek Polis, and millions of other institutions (sports clubs, voluntary work..) that work on a semi-democratic basis would like to disagree.

Also, keep in mind, EVERY single nation-state in existence today was artificially created by someone, at some point, securing a piece of land (or sometimes several non-contiguous pieces) to mark invisible borders around and get a system of laws and order and governance established, and have it recognized by enough relevant nation-states already established to make it viable. These are not natural, organic, intrinsic institutions like nationalists often portray them as, and, technically - and theoretically - they're always up for renegotiation - internally and externally - with enough military, political, economic, and/or cultural clout. As an astronaut from the ESA said after first setting foot on the International Space Station and looking down from an observation window, "you cannot see international borders from space."
 
My european perspective is that national identities are coming back with a vengeance. There cannot be any form of working democracy outside the nation. And working democracy is necessary to solve a whole lot of problems that are plaguing the world, power sharing (including "inequality") foremost. The balance of social feelings will overshoot and do a lot of damage because of all the fools who have been trying to prevent the functioning of democracy. It's a dam filling until the water goes over the top....

I'm curious what role you imagine the European far-right playing in this process of reinvigorating democracy.
 
Also, keep in mind, EVERY single nation-state in existence today was artificially created by someone, at some point, securing a piece of land (or sometimes several non-contiguous pieces) to mark invisible borders around and get a system of laws and order and governance established, and have it recognized by enough relevant nation-states already established to make it viable. These are not natural, organic, intrinsic institutions like nationalists often portray them as, and, technically - and theoretically - they're always up for renegotiation - internally and externally - with enough military, political, economic, and/or cultural clout. As an astronaut from the ESA said after first setting foot on the International Space Station and looking down from an observation window, "you cannot see international borders from space."
Actually, nation-states in existence today largely follow cultural lines. Those which don't tend to have serious instability and to break up with time.
 
Actually, nation-states in existence today largely follow cultural lines. Those which don't tend to have serious instability and to break up with time.

Ah yes, a long-familiar argument. Chinese Emperors also follow the Mandate of Heaven; those who don't tend to be overthrown or die untimely deaths.
 
Ah yes, a long-familiar argument. Chinese Emperors also follow the Mandate of Heaven; those who don't tend to be overthrown or die untimely deaths.
I provided a fact, you provide an idiotic wannabe parallel that is lacking the core concept that would make it work as a parallel. I know which one hold the most weight.
 
Actually, nation-states in existence today largely follow cultural lines. Those which don't tend to have serious instability and to break up with time.

They don't do so well ENOUGH that border disputes, separatist movements (whether militant or as political parties, depending), proclamations with a lot of baggage - and even good points and evidence - and lack of national legitimacy, Aboriginal peoples' and their claims and issues, including the malappropriation their old land and resource claims within, and other issues that crop up ALL THE DAMNED TIME that show these nation-states are not nearly so intuitive and often much more contrived than you seem to admit, even if they're not falling apart at the seams, like Austria-Hungary, or the Russian or Ottoman Empires at the end of WW1, the great Colonial Empires during Decolonalization, or the USSR and Yugoslavia in the early '90'. And that's all BEFORE newer issues like immigration and political asylum migrants and globalization and the changes they wreak are taken into account.
 
Top Bottom