Less Immigration is Racist?

[Akka]

Which particular example are you referring to? The former Yugoslavia could be a good example, but to claim that the whole religious/cultural divide there can not be described as racism is taking a very limited definition of the word.

So you can't even see the difference between "being attached to one's culture and wanting to preserve it" and "thinking other races are inferior" ? Seriously ?

 

[Samson]

So you can't even see the difference between "being attached to one's culture and wanting to preserve it" and "thinking other races are inferior" ? Seriously ?

No. I am saying that every example I can think of where "Cultural dilution" or some such argument is used can be described as racism. The two examples that spring to mind are the Yugoslav conflicts and the stereotypical English nationalist, and they are both usually described as racism. You have failed to give a counter example.

 

[Moriarte]

"Cultural dilution" is just racism which won't man up and admit to being racist. Fear of job loss is primarily ignorance of how capitalism works. But you'll notice how that goes away when the immigrants in question are white.

The underlying reason - protection of economic status of the “natives”, of the local capital. Calling it “just racism” obscures the economic developments that led to it, replaces with a popular sticker, open to interpretation on the basis of skin colour, genetic diversity or what have you.

 

[Gorbles]

Tying it to economic problems doesn't mean it isn't (necessarily) also racist. You seem to be offering something as an alternative explanation when it could be entirely complimentary.

 

[Samson]

If you say "it is only racism if the people can be distinguished on a SNP chip PCA" then the nazi's were not racist against the jews. I am not 100% sure this is true, but it is very close to true.

 

[Senethro]

A mob outside some burning homes chanting "This is because we are economically anxious, we're very much not racist!"

 

[Akka]

No. I am saying that every example I can think of where "Cultural dilution" or some such argument is used can be described as racism.

I guess if you redefine every instance of xenophobia or isolationism or tribalism as "racism", then yeah you won't be able to find any example that isn't racism. But then that's pretty much my point to begin with.

The two examples that spring to mind are the Yugoslav conflicts and the stereotypical English nationalist, and they are both usually described as racism. You have failed to give a counter example.

The typical "these people who are not from here" sentiment that has been prevalent since, I don't know, the dawns of time ? Are you going to chalk that up to racism too ?
We also have these funny laws in France, which require each radio to broadcast a certain percentage of songs to be french. Is that racist too ?

I mean, just ask your friends about "cultural appropriation". That's a concept which draws directly from the idea of not having a culture diluted (though amusingly, the same people who speak loudly about cultural appropriation will also say that defending culture is racism, go figure).

Oh, on a personal note : I'm quite attached to my own culture, and I really dislike the pervasiveness of US cultural influence that is, precisely, diluting it. I'd like the US culture to be a bit more restricted to the US. How much racist is this ?
Ironically, one of the aspects that really annoy me in US culture is precisely this pathological obsession with races and making antything and everything about it.

 

[Moriarte]

Tying it to economic problems doesn't mean it isn't (necessarily) also racist. You seem to be offering something as an alternative explanation when it could be entirely complimentary.

I was specifically responding to “just racist”, which unnecessarily limits the issue to just racism.

 

[El_Machinae]

Could it be there is even some "discrimination" in protesting racism ?

Yes. People always care more about near than far, even if that can get hijacked by a country's soft power. In Canada, our First Nations have it really bad, but there are a lot of local liberals that pay more attention to BLM in the United States. Normally you'd expect local power structures to dominate, but the US's media presence overwhelms that.

BLM (again) is not so much about 'black lives' as it is about institutional power structures that disadvantage Black americans.

 

[Samson]

I guess if you redefine every instance of xenophobia or isolationism or tribalism as "racism", then yeah you won't be able to find any example that isn't racism. But then that's pretty much my point to begin with.

This is a point I made recently. There is a spectrum, with in group bias at one end, and the nazis at the other. While we cannot agree exactly where on this spectrum it starts being racism, every example that I can think of on this spectrum that involves determining who is allowed to live somewhere can be described as racism.

The typical "these people who are not from here" sentiment that has been prevalent since, I don't know, the dawns of time ? Are you going to chalk that up to racism too ?

This is a bit different, and I would refer you to my first post in this thread. Basically it is "an "ist" to describe discrimination on the basis of nationality".

We also have these funny laws in France, which require each radio to broadcast a certain percentage of songs to be french. Is that racist too ?

That is not to do with where someone can live. If language was used to discriminate between people then it would usually be described as racism.

I mean, just ask your friends about "cultural appropriation". That's a concept which draws directly from the idea of not having a culture diluted (though amusingly, the same people who speak loudly about cultural appropriation will also say that defending culture is racism, go figure).

That is very different, but it is not something I am very comfortable with. As I am not one who has had a culture appropriated in a damaging way I am not sure I am very well positioned to comment, but it certainly could be used in a racist way.

 

[Azem.Ocram]

Expecting residents to honor local laws should be the norm. It is misguided to label Europeans as racist because they don’t want more men from patriarchal regions after certain notorious events all involving men from deeply patriarchal regions committing sex crimes against women (the immigrant women certainly underreported so the vast majority of complaints are from European women).

 

[Kyriakos]

Expecting residents to honor local laws should be the norm. It is misguided to label Europeans as racist because they don’t want more men from patriarchal regions after certain notorious events all involving men from deeply patriarchal regions committing sex crimes against women (the immigrant women certainly underreported so the vast majority of complaints are from European women).

The "fatherland" is pretty patriarchal too. Maybe somewhere like Sweden wouldn't be (?).

 

[Akka]

This is a point I made recently. There is a spectrum, with in group bias at one end, and the nazis at the other. While we cannot agree exactly where on this spectrum it starts being racism, every example that I can think of on this spectrum that involves determining who is allowed to live somewhere can be described as racism.

It's simplistic to show it as a spectrum, it's a multitude, and I can only surmise that this simplistic view is the root of why you can't seem to distinguish blatantly different points of view and just toss them in the catch-all bag of "racism".

This is a bit different, and I would refer you to my first post in this thread. Basically it is "an "ist" to describe discrimination on the basis of nationality".

Dunno how you can expect nationality to NOT be discrimination, considering the entire point is to define who is part of "this nation" and who isn't. The itch to add some "ist" to it makes me think there simply is a desire to add something negative to the very principle.

That is not to do with where someone can live. If language was used to discriminate between people then it would usually be described as racism.

Okay, let met get this straight, are you saying that discrimination through language is ALSO racism ?

That is very different, but it is not something I am very comfortable with.

Why and how is it different ?

 

[Gorbles]

I was specifically responding to “just racist”, which unnecessarily limits the issue to just racism.

Except you defined your alternative as the underlying reason. That actually excludes (or supercedes, which is effectively the same thing), any mention of racism as a cause in this context. And your specific response still goes some way to undermine attributing racism at all as a reason. So I think my response still applies. You didn't stop at objecting to "just racism", you attempted to reject racism entirely and posit an alternative explanation.

 

[Senethro]

Okay, let met get this straight, are you saying that discrimination through language is ALSO racism ?

I mean, sometimes it has been? It has a pretty strong cultural/ethnic association. That much at least is uncontroversial.

 

[Samson]

It's simplistic to show it as a spectrum, it's a multitude, and I can only surmise that this simplistic view is the root of why you can't seem to distinguish blatantly different points of view and just toss them in the catch-all bag of "racism".

I agree here. When I describe it as a spectrum I mean it is continuous, rather than it is one dimensional. It really is a whole load of things that all influence the attitude between one person and another.

Dunno how you can expect nationality to NOT be discrimination, considering the entire point is to define who is part of "this nation" and who isn't. The itch to add some "ist" to it makes me think there simply is a desire to add something negative to the very principle.

I am saying that a definition that uses 'who is part of "this nation" and who isn't' as something to discriminate on is unjustifiable. I specified it more precisely in my first post:

From the standpoint of moral philosophy I do not get the axioms that would make discrimination on the basis of nationality moral but discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion or all the others that are acknowledged as bad immoral.

Okay, let met get this straight, are you saying that discrimination through language is ALSO racism ?

In practice, yes. In cases where populations are divided by language using that as something to discriminate on is unjustifiable. The use of such a label that is at least ethnic is generally referred to as racism.

Why and how is it different ?

Saying that "you are not allowed to live here" is inherently different from "you are not allowed to use that form of artistic expression". As I say, I am not particularly comfortable with it, but it is clearly a whole different thing. It is also generally not expressed in law, which is another big way it is different.

 

[Moriarte]

You didn't stop at objecting to "just racism", you attempted to reject racism entirely and posit an alternative explanation.

Your response is mildly entertaining. But I haven't the time, nor the inclination to write in-depth letters to you. To me, economics is the underlying issue of this thread, while other considerations branch out of it. I am not excluding anything from the discussion, idk where you got the idea and frankly not interested to know.

 

[Gorbles]

Your response is mildly entertaining. But I haven't the time, nor the inclination to write in-depth letters to you. To me, economics is the underlying issue of this thread, while other considerations branch out of it. I am not excluding anything from the discussion, idk where you got the idea and frankly not interested to know.

shrugs

From my perspective, you are "unnecessarily limiting" root cause to purely economics. That might explain why you're objecting to the statement of "x is just racism" in the first place. I'm glad you get some amusement out of it all though

 

[Senethro]

Well, when you consider it that way, maybe the Atlantic slave trade was just purely economics! From a certain point of view, y'know.

 

[Moriarte]

Well, when you consider it that way, maybe the Atlantic slave trade was just purely economics! From a certain point of view, y'know.

Except we are discussing New Zealand immigration policy here. If you have an opinion about how particular races come into it - do share it. To my understanding immigration policy change was prompted by the increase in worker inflow during last 3 decades and subsequent strain on infrastructure due to NZ’s attractive economy and climate. The proposed solution is also economical: adjust the balance of skilled workers, thus increasing total productivity of the workforce. If you would like to add race complexion to the matter, I’ll be most delighted to listen.