|
Post by calabria on Jan 19, 2006 14:11:38 GMT -5
Most minorities don’t leave the country they are in because they have hope in time they will be accepted. Think how America treated Asians, Catholics and Jews. Now people of those nationalities are more likely to live a successful life then the majority.
|
|
|
Post by Dodona Underground on Jan 21, 2006 6:22:32 GMT -5
Ideally they would return to the land of their ancestors. If that couldn't be done, they'd find a land that matches themselves in terms of religion, ethnicity and race. If that couldn't be done, they'd find a land that matches themselves in terms of religion OR ethnicty OR race, whichever is the biggest issue to them. And finally, if none of these are available, they can become a part of a minority group in a land where they'd be treated better. Why do you say that they have nowhere to go? Who wouldn't let them in?
|
|
|
Post by Dodona Underground on Jan 21, 2006 6:24:31 GMT -5
The discrimination towards minorities in Europe is real and this is what the whole confrontation boils down to, as we recently witnessed in France. What can France do that will be right and will solve the problem? Please, be as specific as possible.
|
|
|
Post by Dodona Underground on Jan 21, 2006 6:26:22 GMT -5
Most minorities don’t leave the country they are in because they have hope in time they will be accepted. Think how America treated Asians, Catholics and Jews. Now people of those nationalities are more likely to live a successful life then the majority. Why aren't all minorities able to be so successful? How long should a minority group wait for acceptance? 100 years? 1000 years? And if they never get acceptance, then what?
|
|
|
Post by eufrenio on Jan 21, 2006 7:46:24 GMT -5
Jan 18, 2006, 10:07pm, Ewig Berter wrote:
Well Berter, Basques are natives to the area, and there are no Basque enclaves outside of the Basque Country. In other words, they are a majority in their own region. They are not a minority. And they have their own institutions and are free to use the basque language in education and public life. Basques have never been persecuted as Basques. In fact they have been advantaged for centuries by paying less taxes ("fueros"), and their region was graced by more state and private investments than the majority of Spain, which explains they are better off today than their inmediate neighbours in the north and even than Castille. They have very little to complain about, if you ask me.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Jan 22, 2006 10:58:15 GMT -5
Ideally they would return to the land of their ancestors. If that couldn't be done, they'd find a land that matches themselves in terms of religion, ethnicity and race. If that couldn't be done, they'd find a land that matches themselves in terms of religion OR ethnicty OR race, whichever is the biggest issue to them. And finally, if none of these are available, they can become a part of a minority group in a land where they'd be treated better. Why do you say that they have nowhere to go? Who wouldn't let them in? Nobody would accept them. Consider the refugees, who ever accepted them? Which country can afford/wants to to host a massive immigration all of a sudden? When you live in a country you have there your means of living, if you leave it you loose all. They would arrive homeless and pennyless in the ancestral land.
|
|
|
Post by Dodona Underground on Jan 22, 2006 16:20:53 GMT -5
Ideally they would return to the land of their ancestors. If that couldn't be done, they'd find a land that matches themselves in terms of religion, ethnicity and race. If that couldn't be done, they'd find a land that matches themselves in terms of religion OR ethnicty OR race, whichever is the biggest issue to them. And finally, if none of these are available, they can become a part of a minority group in a land where they'd be treated better. Why do you say that they have nowhere to go? Who wouldn't let them in? Nobody would accept them. Consider the refugees, who ever accepted them? Which country can afford/wants to to host a massive immigration all of a sudden? When you live in a country you have there your means of living, if you leave it you loose all. They would arrive homeless and pennyless in the ancestral land. Nock, I don't know how it is in France, but I've heard many black American engineers and accountants talk about how oppressed they are in white America. People in minority groups aren't necessarily poor. Many have money in the bank, stocks, bond, art objects, etc. which can be liquidated and transfered. Are you telling me that South Africa wouldn't love to have a new class of skilled dark skin people who have money to spend? They would? OK, so why don't they go?
|
|
|
Post by Dodona Underground on Jan 23, 2006 16:54:10 GMT -5
So far, I've avoided making any judgements about disaffected minorities apart from constructing a profile that some might find unflattering. For the sake of argument at least, the assumption has been that the grievances are real and that disaffected individuals from minority groups are responsible people. Thus, the puzzle: If these responsible people have real problems which can be solved by emigration, why don't they emigrate? What I've gotten so far is that it's too difficult and that there's nowhere else to go. These assertions fly in the face of recent trends. source of quote and map: news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/world/04/migration/html/migration_boom.stmsource of quote and map: news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/world/04/migration/html/refugees_go.stmsource: news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/world/04/migration/html/global_picture.stmI would appreciate any fresher data than this 6 year old stuff. But I think that it's recent enough to prove that not only are borders wide open but that Africa, Asia, South America and the Middle East are also taking in large numbers of immigrants, partly because they've made international agreements. Also as stated above, at the beginning of the 21st century, there were so many international migrants in 15 years that they could form the world's 5th largest country. So, apparently, emigrating isn't as difficult as some think. So what's left is for you disaffected members of minority groups to explain why you aren't irresponsible and why your grievances aren't phony. I know that you're out there. If you're not a member of Dodona and you're reading this, please register and explain it to me.
|
|
|
Post by Dodona Underground on Jan 25, 2006 10:52:47 GMT -5
Traits of a disaffectoid, continued:
8) Easily offended, not very concerned about offending others.
|
|
|
Post by eufrenio on Jan 26, 2006 11:25:55 GMT -5
Summing up your definition of a disaffected minority: Am I right in supposing you have a certain US minority in mind?
|
|
|
Post by Dodona Underground on Jan 26, 2006 15:10:32 GMT -5
Black Americans influenced the profile because many of the disaffectoids that are most familiar to me are black Americans. But remove Tookie Williams and replace him with Julius and Ethel Rosenberg or any other set or individual here or elsewhere, and I would think that it would apply as well. Also the terms "Uncle Tom" and "Aunt Jemima" could be changed to moderate, accomodationist, traitor, self-hater (for Jews, for example) or sell-out. But I wanted to use the more colorful, comprehensive and provocative terms which I felt would be understood by most people here.
I think that the profile contains the kinds of feelings and attitudes that mark any individual who sees himself in the midst of a majority whom he detests and considers an enemy, even if he won't admit it. The attitudes in this profile are different from those of dissidents and reformers. Even revolutionaries only see the fairly small ruling class as enemies while regarding the masses as comrades.
Eufrenio, how would you modify the profile to make it more universal?
|
|
|
Post by eufrenio on Jan 26, 2006 15:22:14 GMT -5
Your profile could be universal, except you could add the possibility of sharing minority status with other minority groups.
|
|
|
Post by Dodona Underground on Jan 30, 2006 17:38:20 GMT -5
OK, time to wrap this up. This thread has been up since 14-Jan-06. Of the 59 threads that were started between 01-Jan-06 and 30-Jan-06 in “Race and Ethnicity in Society” this thread was in the top 10 in terms of views. So I’m betting that everyone at this forum who is interested in race and ethnicity in society has seen it.
Am I wrong to assume that if the disaffectoids among you had anything refuting the notion that you are irresponsible and that your grievances are phony, that you would have hit me over the head with it by now? You can’t or won’t solve a major problem in your life and waiting for the problem to solve itself is silly. What’s wrong? I used a profile to describe you so that there’s no mistake who I’m talking about. Then I eliminated the usual excuses about the impossibility of emigration. So it seems that I’ve found the Achilles heel of disaffectoids, the “Kryptonite” question---Why don’t you leave?
There are evasions instead of serious answers. One is “Why don’t YOU leave?” I don’t leave because I’m happy and well-treated here and I don’t consider the majority of my countrymen to be enemies. Another one is “I’m just as American/French/Russian/whatever as you are.” So? My ancestors were completely of their nation before they came to America. Their emigration wasn’t a form of treason. They were trying to do right for themselves and their family and weren’t trying to hurt the mother country in any way. Patriotism is the honor that we give to our ancestors but I believe that we honor them best by doing right for our descendents who are more dependent upon us.
Apart from hardship cases such as where the disaffectoid has an old, sick mother who can’t be moved and needs family care, the only sensible answer to “Why don’t you leave?” is "Because I love all of my people, including those in the majority, more than any other people in the world and I believe that whatever's wrong here that's causing me unhappiness will be fixed and I can prove it." Anyone who believes and consistently lives by that answer is already too much of an Uncle Tom for the disaffectoids. To a disaffectoid, an Uncle Tom isn’t only someone who slanders his own group, desecrates his own place of worship, or directly supports the Nazis or the Klan. To a disaffectoid, someone can be an Uncle Tom because he truthfully criticizes his own group, because he behaves like the majority, because he supports the wrong centrist political party, because he marries outside of his group or because he generally shows too much fraternal feeling for the majority of his countrymen.
I suspect that many of you have avoided this discussion because it looks too much like the old “My country, right or wrong. Love it or leave it.” slogan. Strictly for sheep and bootlicking regime-robots, eh? So I would like any of my fellow libertarians, leftists, progressives, etc. to tell me something. This cause that you believe in, what good do disaffectoids do it? Does the modern Left in the West cater to disaffectoids for any reason other than sheer political opportunism? If I’m building a large reform or revolutionary movement, pitting the masses against the ruling class, do I really need to include small groups who hate the masses as much as the ruling class does? My opinion is that, though they can be occasionally anarchic, disaffectoids are a regime’s best friends. To cater to disaffectoids isn’t to support dissent, non-conformity, reform, revolution, secession or federalism. It’s exactly the opposite. Furthermore, I distinguish between minorities and groups like American Indians and Catholics in Northern Ireland who became minorities because their ancestral lands were overrun.
So I invite everyone to ask the Kryptonite question as much as possible because the disaffectoids need to shit or get off the pot.
If anyone would like to respond to this post, do it before Wednesday. That’s when I return to semi-retirement. After that, you can PM me.
|
|
|
Post by eufrenio on Feb 2, 2006 6:29:51 GMT -5
Perhaps, Ghost, there are no "disaffectoids" among the Dodonites, or those who could reasonably be considered such do not consider themselves to be so. After all, it takes a lot of self-deception to go through life as a "disaffectoid".
|
|