|
Post by eufrenio on Jan 15, 2006 15:07:04 GMT -5
The only consensus seems to be the politically correct piety that they are poor and neglected by society. The rioters themselves made no statements. Actions speak louder than words.
|
|
|
Post by Dodona Underground on Jan 15, 2006 15:27:31 GMT -5
Well, as you've read, the press here is accusing France of failing with the old "integration" project. The angle is usually the old "Look how chauvinistic the French are. Look how well America integrated her blacks, et. al." Apparently, integration is a code word for a morass of new regulations, torts and boondoggles. So, since France is probably going to head in that direction, I'm considering immigrating to France and becoming an attorney there so that I make a fortune...er..I mean so that I can help integrate those poor dispossessed people whether they want it or not.
It's telling that none among the actual rioters is trying to exploit the situation to make some kind of political point.
|
|
|
Post by eufrenio on Jan 15, 2006 15:38:23 GMT -5
Well, as you've read, the press here is accusing France of failing with the old "integration" project. The angle is usually the old "Look how chauvinistic the French are. Look how well America integrated her blacks, et. al." Apparently, integration is a code word for a morass of new regulations, torts and boondoggles. So, since France is probably going to head in that direction, I'm considering immigrating to France and becoming an attorney there so that I make a fortune...er..I mean so that I can help integrate those poor dispossessed people whether they want it or not. . Affirmative action would be a double disaster in a European country. There´s very little guilt to exploit. Most Europeans have recent memories of poverty and class discrimination. It´s not going to go well with the native population, in other words. It´s not politics, it´s open extortion and ruthlesness.
|
|
|
Post by Ewig Berter on Jan 16, 2006 7:35:56 GMT -5
1. Minorities definition The minority notion supposes at least two groups, say (g,G',G", ...), coextisting in the same habitat (---country in the case of Homo Sapiens groups); if g is the sub-group with the smallest population number, it will be seen as a : - Racial minority, if it does not share the same racial background with groups G', G", ...
- Cultural minority if they do not share the same culture.
Except in cases of total cultural integration, a racial minority is also a minority in the cultural sense. 2. Minorities formationA co-living system of populations (g,G',G", ...) comes into being as a result of : - A successive arrival/settlement of racially different populations on the same country,
Examples (Amerindian Americans, Euro-americans, Afro-americans), (North African Berbers, North African Arabs), (Turkish Kurdes, Old Anatolians, Mongolid Turks).
The arrival of the racial minority on the shared land might predate or not that of the other groups.
- An adoption by a fraction of a given racially homogenous population of more or less new cultural elements (F.e revolutionary political or religious system of beliefs derived from old ones).
Examples There are not many examples of such minorites, I can only think of : (Mormons, Euro-americans), (Druze, Muslim Lebanese).
3. Ghost's questionIt can be re-stated as follows: - Why do minorities, in most cases, accept their status (that of being a minority) in the physico-cultural systems where they live!?.
- When does a minority start to effectively consider moving into another place where it can change its status and become a majority!?.
Inside the co-existing system of populations and depending on periods of co-existence, the minority will react either (1) to maintain its physical existence (survival) or (2) in the direction of gaining a higher 'social' status. Reactions will range from the least costing solutions to the high costing ones; the term 'cost' should be understood here in terms of physical losses for the group (economical losses, loss of lives, etc). - Examples of reactions in the case of a racial minority
- Cultural integration: Total loss of all forms of the defining culture (relgious coversion, etc) with adoption of the culture of the dominating group,
- Niche modification resulting in economical losses: F.e. Acceptance of the underpaid functions in the national economy and the lowest hierarchical positions in the state systems and institutions.
The two above examples are types of reactions that ensure survival for the minority group.
- Military struggle to gain freedom ((Chechens, Russians)),
- Violent resitence, in the form of bombings and public demonstrations, to gain political recognition or regional autonomy ((Basques, Spaniards), (Palestinians, Israelites), ...),
- Ghost's solution: Changing biotope/country for another place; this reaction is the one attached with the highest cost and risks for the minority (Loss of territory; Enormous efforts to carry out migration with all associated route-risks; Unavailability of host lands in an already heavily populated Earth: War is practically the only solution to gain a 'new home') and is therefore the less occuring/observed reaction; its in fact always kept as a final solution.
Example: Exodus from pharaonic Egypt to Palestine was the ultimate solution for Old Israelites to get delivrance from the oppression of Ancient Egyptians; the on-road risk for the group was high (40 yrs of roaming in the Sinai desert), plus, they had to engage in wars mainly with the philistines to get possession of their ... Promised Land!.
|
|
|
Post by Dodona Underground on Jan 17, 2006 7:26:29 GMT -5
Again, it doesn't have to be a coordinated collective undertaking. Every day Mexicans and Central Americans cross into the US illegally and join millions who have already been here for years. No Moses' required. Here's what they do. (1) They decide they want to come here, (2) they pay a "coyote" (an entrepreneur) to arrange the whole thing and (3) they try to avoid dying before they reach their destination. Challenging and dangerous, yes, but it happens all the time. And the people doing it aren't the leaders, it's just ordinary people who are sufficiently motivated.
What's the struggle with preparation and education? Ask around. Go to the public library. Get on to the internet. Find a way to get in touch with ambassador's offices to ask about what's involved, etc. These things can be done on weekends. If you want to learn a new language, don't rent movies for a year, save your money and enroll in a night or weekend course. Look for job openings in foreign newspapers. If you want prepare yourself, you will.
Berter, the Africans who are rioting in France, what do they want?
|
|
|
Post by Ewig Berter on Jan 18, 2006 15:52:57 GMT -5
So, Berter, your answer is that disaffected minorities remain in their host country because they eventually find a niche in which they´re confortable enough? Yes, the minority develops a set of reactions that aim to alleviate (or even, reverse) the oppresion coming from the majority; not all possible reactions are allowed 'by the group' : reactions causing the least physical damage to the minority as a group are resorted to first (see my post above). I dont see non-european immigrants in Europe as minorities (in the anthropological sense, or at least in my sense), whether they are NAs or else; Most of them live there as individuals or in small famillies or bunches (-- groupuscules), in total lack of any internal organisation or group feelings. They dont qualify as group minorities and their behavior should be analysed by case or individual basis.
|
|
|
Post by Ewig Berter on Jan 18, 2006 16:07:28 GMT -5
Actually, what usually happens , is that the disaffected minority tries to seceded from the state to get their own country, not to move to somewhere else. But that happens only when the minority is focused around only one area like the basques, not when the minority is dispersed all over the country like blacks in the USA . Yeah, one should distinguish 'naturally' formed minorities which formed as results of historical group migrations from those minorities which formed from modern individual voyages or forced voyages of small groups (slaves); The response to oppression differs greatly from one type of minority to another. Btw, I'm really surprised to hear eufrenio considering immigrant groups in Europe as minorities while denying that character to Basques of Spain.
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jan 18, 2006 16:10:00 GMT -5
Some minority groups are trapped. Yes, the vast majority have countries to go back to; but some don't. Historically, this was true of Gypsies and Jews. Luckily, within the last fifty years, Jews created a country for themselves, but--until then--they had nowhere really to go. And as for Gypsies? Is there some country for them to flock to--say, Gyspland? Gypsrael? The Kurds are in a similar situation. No homeland. So they have to live as minority-groups in other peoples' countries.
These are the only real groups that I feel for. As for the rest: If you actually have a country and you're complaining about discrimination in a new country you've moved to--- No one's stopping you from moving back. It's as simple as that. I have no pity for people who place themselves in bad situations and expect the world to change around them to accommodate them. That is just chauvinism--like those Muslims who moved to Italy and were offended to see the Catholic cross everywhere. They sued. Sorry, but that's Italian culture. Respect it or leave. It's that simple. No one forced you to immigrate to Italy. If you are offended at their culture, then go back to your own country . . . a country that, I daresay, would laugh in the face of any Italian demanding them to stop displaying Islamic symbols. What hypocrisy. They should change for you, but you aren't supposed to change for them? I'm sick of the double-standards. Get thee back to the Third World, whiner!
* I feel the same way about Jews who live in Christian countries and are offended by Christmas. I say to them, "If you're so offended, you have a choice now: Move to Israel and you won't have to see Christian culture ever again." I have no sympathy whatsoever for you if you stay. That's like deciding to move to Sweden and being offended by blonde hair, or moving to China and being offended by narrow eyes. Don't move to Western countries that are 98% Christian and then carp when Christian culture manifests itself. Israel has a 2% Christian population. Would the Israeli government stop showing Jewish culture to appease that 2%? --Of course not. But in the United States, where they're 2%, they expect the Christians to bend to their whims. Let's make a deal: We'll ban Christmas when Israel bans Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah to appease its 2% Christian-populace. Sound fair? Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Jan 18, 2006 16:27:01 GMT -5
Btw, I'm really surprised to hear eufrenio considering immigrant groups in Europe as minorities while denying that character to Basques of Spain. Why would it cause you to be surprised? Basques aren't exactly foreign to other Spaniards. Nor are they oppressed. If you want to consider them a minority because of culture and language (a language most of them do not speak) then why not the Catalans? or the Galicians? But don't they all have a historical connection to what is called Spain? On a side note: If Basques were being persecuted, or taken advantage of in any way by the state, then I'd understand if they as a people would want to separate from Spain. They would have that right (well, maybe not under Spanish constitution but morally they would be in the right) But this isn't the case.
|
|
|
Post by Ewig Berter on Jan 18, 2006 16:31:49 GMT -5
And as for Gypsies? Is there some country for them to flock to--say, Gyspland? Gypsrael? They are said to be indians of origine, ... India's arms are wide open, Its practically a ghetto of peoples. Thats true only from a political point of view; On terrain, their home well exists, Its called Kurdistan, they even have vast autonomous regions inhabited and controlled only by them (Ex, northern Irak). Do you think Muslims are of that naivety!?.
|
|
|
Post by Ewig Berter on Jan 18, 2006 16:42:22 GMT -5
Btw, I'm really surprised to hear eufrenio considering immigrant groups in Europe as minorities while denying that character to Basques of Spain. Why would it cause you to be surprised? Basques aren't exactly foreign to other Spaniards. Nor are they oppressed. If you want to consider them a minority because of culture and language (a language most of them do not speak) then why not the Catalans? or the Galicians? But don't they all have a historical connection to what is called Spain? On a side note: If Basques were being persecuted, or taken advantage of in any way by the state, then I'd understand if they as a people would want to separate from Spain. They would have that right (well, maybe not under Spanish constitution but morally they would be in the right) But this isn't the case. Since my youth, I heard of them as a racial and cultural minority in Spain. I live in Tamazgha-- Morocco and do hear ETA's bombings whenever the Basques strike!. www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/eta.htmwww.ict.org.il/inter_ter/orgdet.cfm?orgid=8en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETA
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Jan 18, 2006 17:08:51 GMT -5
I see... so if a separatist Catalan group set off some bombs (actual there is a history of that) then you accept them as having a legitimate right to separate themselves from the nation of Spain... because they let everyone know their separatist feelings by bombing? I can understand such a reaction under Franco but Franco is dead and buried. Their desire would be based on nothing except that they have a different culture (a language that the majority use in their daily lives, which is more than can be said about Basque) than the other groups that make up Spain. Historical ties and the fact that they are not politically or economically oppressed by the state should not be taken into consideration when discussing justification for separation, I suppose.
With regards to the supposed "racial" difference of Basques that would perhaps be like arguing that French Alpines should disassociate themselves from French Meds.
Are Basques that "racially" different from other Spaniards? I don't believe so. Even if they were a different race it wouldn't be justification for separation unless state actions were oppressive..
|
|
|
Post by Dodona Underground on Jan 19, 2006 12:43:55 GMT -5
Bearing in mind that I'm not completely sure about the status of everyone here, the only member who has responded who I know for sure is a member of a minority group is Murphee and she doesn't seem at all disaffected.
Some of you might be confused about the word "disaffected" and it's connotations of disloyalty and hostility to authority. You know that you wouldn't sell secrets to foreign governments or avoid military service or shoot judges or be disrespectful to your grandparents so this thread couldn't possibly be about you. Let me unconfuse you. I'm using the word in the more general sense to mean the same as being in a bitter, possibly abusive, loveless marriage. It's true that there are people in such marriages who can't or won't fix things and yet deny to others that the marriage is over. I suspect that this applies to disaffected minorities as well. So let's run through some of the signs of members of minority groups who are or are becoming disaffected. If any of this applies to you, speak up. I want to hear from you.
1) You have less love for the majority of the people in your country than you do for other peoples and you believe that other people would treat you better. 2) You condone or sympathize with members of your group who commit acts of unproductive destruction presumably as an expression of rage. 3) You get furious when someone from the majority group criticizes your group no matter how true or unhateful the criticism is. 4) Your attitude toward members of the majority group is "guilty until proven innocent" and you blame them for something that has a perfectly plausible alternative explanation. 5) You're angry at the execution of Tookie Williams but hardly give a damn about the execution of Clarence Ray Allen. 6) You excuse bigotry and laud commercial ambition when it comes from your group while seeing these things as unjust or exploitive when coming from the majority group. 7) You regard anyone from your group who doesn't have the kinds of attitudes expressed in 1 through 6 as "Uncle Toms" or sell-outs.
I"ll post more signs as they occur to me.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Jan 19, 2006 12:57:13 GMT -5
But where could they go? The only cases I can think of are Israel and Liberia, both were accomplished with the help of the major world powers and the results are at best controversial (as quality of life of the disaffected minority). They just have nowhere else to go. They're as political rebels, they revolt against society but don't wan't to go, they want society to change.
|
|
|
Post by Ras-Xafun on Jan 19, 2006 13:02:22 GMT -5
Some minority groups are trapped. Yes, the vast majority have countries to go back to; but some don't. Historically, this was true of Gypsies and Jews. Luckily, within the last fifty years, Jews created a country for themselves, but--until then--they had nowhere really to go. And as for Gypsies? Is there some country for them to flock to--say, Gyspland? Gypsrael? The Kurds are in a similar situation. No homeland. So they have to live as minority-groups in other peoples' countries. These are the only real groups that I feel for. As for the rest: If you actually have a country and you're complaining about discrimination in a new country you've moved to--- No one's stopping you from moving back. It's as simple as that. I have no pity for people who place themselves in bad situations and expect the world to change around them to accommodate them. That is just chauvinism--like those Muslims who moved to Italy and were offended to see the Catholic cross everywhere. They sued. Sorry, but that's Italian culture. Respect it or leave. It's that simple. No one forced you to immigrate to Italy. If you are offended at their culture, then go back to your own country . . . a country that, I daresay, would laugh in the face of any Italian demanding them to stop displaying Islamic symbols. What hypocrisy. They should change for you, but you aren't supposed to change for them? I'm sick of the double-standards. Get thee back to the Third World, whiner!* I feel the same way about Jews who live in Christian countries and are offended by Christmas. I say to them, "If you're so offended, you have a choice now: Move to Israel and you won't have to see Christian culture ever again." I have no sympathy whatsoever for you if you stay. That's like deciding to move to Sweden and being offended by blonde hair, or moving to China and being offended by narrow eyes. Don't move to Western countries that are 98% Christian and then carp when Christian culture manifests itself. Israel has a 2% Christian population. Would the Israeli government stop showing Jewish culture to appease that 2%? --Of course not. But in the United States, where they're 2%, they expect the Christians to bend to their whims. Let's make a deal: We'll ban Christmas when Israel bans Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah to appease its 2% Christian-populace. Sound fair? Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha Lmao, that was some funny shit ;D ;D ;D on a serious note though, most people who live in western countries and complain don't do this because of cultural differences or they expect the majority population to adapt to their condition and lifestyle. The discrimination towards minorities in Europe is real and this is what the whole confrontation boils down to, as we recently witnessed in France.
|
|