My assessment is that the difficulty for immigrants to get ahead is similar in France and the U.S., but in France immigrants are expected to more explicitly reject their culture of origin and embrace the narrow notion of "frenchness" if they want to get ahead. In the U.S., because of the self definition as a country of immigrants, people are more comfortable with immigrants in general and with their holding on to some elements of their culture of origin.
This being the point that I was trying to make. It is easier to be "different" in the USA than in France and yet acheive some degree of upward mobility. In fcat in France there are heated discussion (based on reports in the press) abpout whether an Obama (nonwhite with a visibly black looking father) would be President in France, notwithstanding the USA's history of extreme bigotry.
[What many parts of the U.S. are becoming is more multicultural, which is something else entirely and more problematic IMO.
Using New York City as an example can you outline why this is a problem?
To critique multiculturalism is not to advocate against immigration or in favor of an ethnocentrism. I can't speak for G-Man, but if you are meaning to argue against either of these things than I don't think that we disagree by any means. I am in favor of supporting immigrants who come to the US and in general even loosening many of the restrictions and hurdles that immigrants face in coming to the US. Steps need to be taken to ensure that immigrants are treated with dignity and without bigotry or prejudice. And immigrants ought be assisted in establishing a symbiotic and equitable role in American society,
In conventional usage, the term multiculturalism refers to an active attempt to maintain different cultures or cultural identities within a society by promoting cultural distinction. So, in critiquing multiculturalism, we are not necessarily criticizing immigrants or broadly criticizing their cultures, but we are criticizing a particular way of managing a diverse society.
If you really need an example of how such a policy might be a problem in modern day NYC, then just consider every single act of racism and bigotry that occurs every single day. Period. Racism and bigotry can only exist within a multicultural framework because they depend upon a distinction between an in group and an out group. For example, "whites" can't hate or harbor prejudice against "blacks" if there is no such a thing as "whites" and "blacks" to begin with. Quite simply, racism and bigotry can not exist in a society in which everyone is regarded as belonging to the same group.
My view of a constructive alternative would be the placing of emphasis on basic human rights and cross-cultural common values toward the direction of a common culture that is based on a sharing of parent cultures. It also requires the allowance of cultural criticism in all directions.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Wed 04 Mar 2009 13:12 Post subject:
erasmusinfinity wrote:
caribj wrote:
G-Man wrote:
[What many parts of the U.S. are becoming is more multicultural, which is something else entirely and more problematic IMO.
Using New York City as an example can you outline why this is a problem?
If you really need an example of how such a policy might be a problem in modern day NYC, then just consider every single act of racism and bigotry that occurs every single day. Period. Racism and bigotry can only exist within a multicultural framework because they depend upon a distinction between an in group and an out group. For example, "whites" can't hate or harbor prejudice against "blacks" if there is no such a thing as "whites" and "blacks" to begin with. Quite simply, racism and bigotry can not exist in a society in which everyone is regarded as belonging to the same group.
I lived in East Asia (China and Japan) and I can tell you that if you brought in 1 million subSaharan Africans and they acted perfectly Japanese and you gave them citizenship they would not be considered Japanese by most of the population and people would call them "kokujin (black men) and gai(koku)jin (foreigners and "koku' in this instance does not mean black but 'country')...so there is more to this than mono-culture, sorry that is too simplistic.
Are you American (native born)?
If not, thenI think you are confusing two different things here.
Culture and "race" (the latter meaning a phenotypical range and social identification).
A person considered "black" in the U.S. might have the identical culture of a white man in America.
The difference is how they identify, which is partially based on phenotype and the environment around them.
Let's put it another way.
Skinny and overweight people can have the same culture but people are discriminated against based on how they look.
"fat people" don't have a culture.
The idea of "black" and "white" in America was not a "cultural issue" not purely because if it were, than the dominant "culture" in America is Anglo-Saxon even in 2009, but a Jew from Israel (Presidents Chief of Staff) is considered a white man and so is a Russian immigrant, and so is an Arab from Lebanon.
They don't share the same culture. There is no "white culture" per se. What most white people in America might refer to as "white culture" is Anglo-Saxon culture (the American variant)...
I think you would hard pressed to identify a separate mulatto, predo, white, etc culture in Brazil...but they still differentiate Brazilians based on phenotype and of the Brazil I know they will do it even when not prompted to do so...I've never met so many people interested in other people's "features"...or I should say, people who actively talked about and commented on other people's (and their own) features in a way I felt was random and strange.
Are these people of different "cultures". Before multiculturalism existed in America, as something to be "a good thing" people had some concept of "race" although this concept has shifted greatly over time the two things overlap but I don't think they are synonymous.
Your last sentence is the most telling.
"Belonging to the same group" does not necessarily mean the same "cultural group".
Protestants can hate Catholics and still say they share the same "culture"...unless you believe, for example, Catholic Germans are not German and only Protestants are the only real Germans...the only "real Irish" are Catholics...
Should we also promote one religion to solve this problem? I mean JFK was considered a white man in 1960, but many people in America still hated or at least were highly suspicious and discriminatory toward Catholics. One could say this is still the case with Mormons. Most Mormons are "white".
France does not stress multiculuralism at all, but do you think there is no racial discrimination in France? Legally there is no such thing as race. Are there no hate groups? If the Arabs or blacks just "acted more French" there would be no negativity toward them by "ethnic gaulish French" at all? (not implying all or most French are racists)...do you think that everyone in France sees a black man walking down the street they feel "he is French just like me". Why is it I can find so many articles about minority groups in France and "race/ethnicity"?
If you do not think that, then how is it that black man (or Arab) on sight can make himself known to be "perfectly French" without opening his mouth? Would a right wing group stop to ask and take a survey of his Frenchness?
Listen to this link, at about the 16 minute mark, a white Frenchman talks about "minorities" he strictly says if you are "black" it is hard to rent and apartment in France. He did not say a black immigrant...he just said "black". If there is no "race" in France and no multiculturalism as we know it why are people discriminating against "blacks" who are French citizens? At 18:15 he talks specifically about French born (often several generations in country) who are still treated as "foreigners". How do they know who is "black" if they don't act differently??
I think you are confusing two different things here. Culture and "race" (the latter meaning a phenotypical range and social identification). ...
I think that you are conflating three different things in your message.
Colorism: Prejudice based on appearance regardless of ancestry, self-identity, or cultural traints. Colorism exists everywhere in the Western world, including within the A-A community, and is very strong in Latin America.
Ethnocentristm: Prejudice based on cultural traits regardless of ancestry, appearance, or self-identity. Ethnocentrism exists everywhere on earth and is probably an instinctive drive.
Racism: Prejudice based on ancestry or self-identity regardless of appearance or cultural traits. Racism in this sense exists primarily in the United States.
Comparative ethnic assimilation (or acculturation) of immigrant minorites is an interesting topic, but the discussion will become muddied if we conflate three very different social-prejudice phenomena.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Wed 04 Mar 2009 13:48 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
I think you are confusing two different things here. Culture and "race" (the latter meaning a phenotypical range and social identification). ...
I think you are confusing three different things in your message.
Colorism: Prejudice based on appearance regardless of ancestry, self-identity, or cultural traints. Colorism exists everywhere in the Western world, including within the A-A community, and is very strong in Latin America.
Ethnocentristm: Prejudice based on cultural traits regardless of ancestry, appearance, or self-identity. Ethnocentrism exists everywhere on earth and is probably an instinctive drive.
Racism: Prejudice based on ancestry or self-identity regardless of appearance or cultural traits. Racism in this sense exists primarily in the United States.
Comparative ethnic assimilation (or acculturation) of immigrant minorites is an interesting topic, but the discussion will become muddied if we conflate three very different social-prejudice phenomena.
Point taken. I think I should clarify and seek clarification to avoid this.
I believe that erasmusinfinity thinks (from his last post) is that being black or white is cultural and the discrimination is ethnocentric, therefore if people had the same "culture" there would be no difference and no discrimination.
What I'm saying is that ethnocentrism may be an issue but it is far from the only reason for discrimination, there is also discrimination based on race and/or colorism/featurism.
Erasmusinfinity...did I accurately define your thesis?
So if you reread my last post in this context it might make more sense.
I'm not so sure that your wording represents my point. Perhaps this was a problematic example on my part-
erasmusinfinity wrote:
"whites" can't hate or harbor prejudice against "blacks" if there is no such a thing as "whites" and "blacks" to begin with. Quite simply, racism and bigotry can not exist in a society in which everyone is regarded as belonging to the same group.
As for the question of what race does or doesn't have to do with culture, that is a separate topic. Although just as interesting. My point might have better been served if I had stuck to the topic of immigration by phrasing the example as-
Quote:
"Sudanese" or "Garifuna" or "Gypsies" or "-you fill in the blank-" could not be discriminated against, in America, if they were not regarded as being separate groups.
I do not disagree with this point, of yours-
Dragon Horse wrote:
What I'm saying is that ethnocentrism may be an issue but it is far from the only issue is discrimination based on race and/or colorism.
Although, perhaps to be saved for another discussion again, I do think that a two sided ethnocentrism is part of the contemporary, as opposed to historical, state of black and white segregation in the US. You must admit that there is some degree of team bias going on, on both sides of the black/white fence.
What I'm saying is that rather than spending so much energy celebrating and reinforcing our differences, why not focus on coming together? I am suggesting that we extend our circle of concern a bit wider, beyond such groupings.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Wed 04 Mar 2009 14:27 Post subject:
erasmusinfinity wrote:
Although, perhaps to be saved for another discussion again, I do think that a two sided ethnocentrism is part of the contemporary, as opposed to historical, state of black and white segregation in the US. You must admit that there is some degree of team bias going on, on both sides of the black/white fence.
What I'm saying is that rather than spending so much energy celebrating and reinforcing our differences, why not focus on coming together? I am suggesting that we extend our circle of concern a bit wider, beyond such groupings.
LOL, I ask this all the time. We are in agreement then.
I just don't know how to make this happen. Historically this usually happened by force. Usually over long periods.
Yes, although I have also lived in other (European) countries. I hope that my answering that question does not bear on how you perceive my view of immigration or multiculturalism in America.
I do think that a two sided ethnocentrism is part of the contemporary, as opposed to historical, state of black and white segregation in the US. You must admit that there is some degree of team bias going on, on both sides of the black/white fence.
FWIW, I definitely agree with this. Although it is useful for us analytical folks to distinguish among prejudices, the real world is messy.
On page 37 of Legal History of the Color Line, I mention a state park ranger who explained the permanency of the U.S. B/W color line by saying "they look different." I do not mention in the book that I then pointed to some blonde, blue-eyed children of mixed parents. The ranger then replied, "well, but they actually have Black blood." So I then reminded the ranger that I was Puerto Rican and so undoubtedly I had "black blood," and yet the ranger considered me White. The ranger replied, "What I mean is that they consider themselves to be different."
In three short sentences, the park ranger covered all of the bases. Each time I challenged the perception of difference, the individual rationalized it away by scurrying to a different ideological stance. I am confident that if I had challenged the last one, the person would have either returned to the "they look different" starting point or simply walked away in a huff. Such irrationality is characteristic of an illogical belief taught in the first few years of life. What is fundamental to such persons is the naked conviction that Blacks and Whites are somehow different. Everything else is rationalization.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Wed 04 Mar 2009 15:58 Post subject:
erasmusinfinity wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
Are you American (native born)?
Yes, although I have also lived in other (European) countries. I hope that my answering that question does not bear on how you perceive my view of immigration or multiculturalism in America.
Not really, I was more interested in how it would effect your view or race and race relations.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Wed 04 Mar 2009 16:20 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
erasmusinfinity wrote:
I do think that a two sided ethnocentrism is part of the contemporary, as opposed to historical, state of black and white segregation in the US. You must admit that there is some degree of team bias going on, on both sides of the black/white fence.
FWIW, I definitely agree with this. Although it is useful for us analytical folks to distinguish among prejudices, the real world is messy.
On page 37 of Legal History of the Color Line, I mention a state park ranger who explained the permanency of the U.S. B/W color line by saying "they look different." I do not mention in the book that I then pointed to some blonde, blue-eyed children of mixed parents. The ranger then replied, "well, but they actually have Black blood." So I then reminded the ranger that I was Puerto Rican and so undoubtedly I had "black blood," and yet the ranger considered me White. The ranger replied, "What I mean is that they consider themselves to be different."
In three short sentences, the park ranger covered all of the bases. Each time I challenged the perception of difference, the individual rationalized it away by scurrying to a different ideological stance. I am confident that if I had challenged the last one, the person would have either returned to the "they look different" starting point or simply walked away in a huff. Such irrationality is characteristic of an illogical belief taught in the first few years of life. What is fundamental to such persons is the naked conviction that Blacks and Whites are somehow different. Everything else is rationalization.
Yeah you are right.
Those rationalizations also accompany various "creations" to reinforce the perception, such as normative behaviors associated with the belief in said "difference". Fiction becomes reality at this point in that we start believing that black people are naturally better dancers and basketball players and whites better at hard science and math, etc.
People start conforming to these stereotypes based on "popular belief"...
sigh. Overtime this becomes a mess to undo.
I think though that in America there is more to it than that.
The racial issues in America center on black and white as poles, other fall in the middle and tend to migrate toward white, there position is historically more flexible even if they start more toward blacks.
There has to be utility for whites (and also blacks) to maintain this dichotomy, more than just saying "I think black people look different and have different 'blood' because that is what I think". Irish people were thought to have "different blood" and "look different" and so are Asians today, however we don't apply the one drop rule to the children of "white" and East Asian unions automatically, they are more free to choose an identity.
If you had no "black" in America what will "white" mean or be? What would African Americans be without "whites"...if all "whites" disappeared tomorrow.
[ Racism and bigotry can only exist within a multicultural framework because they depend upon a distinction between an in group and an out group. For example, "whites" can't hate or harbor prejudice against "blacks" if there is no such a thing as "whites" and "blacks" to begin with. Quite simply, racism and bigotry can not exist in a society in which everyone is regarded as belonging to the same group.
.
What is interesting is that youths in both France and the USA have a highly developed sense of their ethnciity. This despite the socalled multiculturalism of the US which recognizes this difference and in France which does not. Similarly racism and ethnic conflict exist in both. Apparently such conflict seems today to be more violent in scope in France (Muslim attacks on Jews, and white supremacist attacks in immigrants or those deemed to be "foreign") than in the USA.
What appears interesting is that the grandchildren of North and West African immigrants in France seem to be involved in a struggle to demand their rights not only to be considered French, and not immigrant, but to determine what KIND of Frenchmen they are. Immigrant descended youths seem less involved in this struggle in the USA.
I am curious as to why you believe that racism and bigotry is less of an issue in France. I specifically mention France (no strawman here) because that is a society which proclaims that there are no differences based on religion or race. At least that is the rhetoric. The reality seems very different and the existence of a Le Pen who is way more powerful in France than his equivalent is in the USA gives one pause.
Maybe the US recognizes that people of differing ethncities have their own historic experience in determining who they are and their world view and just acknowledges that fact. In Europe there seems to be more of a notion that acceptance should be more tied to the relinquishing of ethnic loyalties, cultures and perspectives. Something that many, maybe most of us, at least first generation immigrants (I say us because I fit in that category) cannot and will not do. Despite possessing educational, linguistic andd value systems that would otherwose not preclude our upward mobility.
Now I will admit that its easier for the USA, a relatively new culture which is still attempting to define itself (after all who or what is American) to be open to the development of multi-ethnic societies without feeling a loss of self. Harder maybe for older cultures which havent (until recently) encountered radically differing cultures rubbing shoulders with each other, each demanding equal treatment.
My assessment is that the difficulty for immigrants to get ahead is similar in France and the U.S., but in France immigrants are expected to more explicitly reject their culture of origin and embrace the narrow notion of "frenchness" if they want to get ahead. In the U.S., because of the self definition as a country of immigrants, people are more comfortable with immigrants in general and with their holding on to some elements of their culture of origin.
This being the point that I was trying to make. It is easier to be "different" in the USA than in France and yet acheive some degree of upward mobility. In fcat in France there are heated discussion (based on reports in the press) abpout whether an Obama (nonwhite with a visibly black looking father) would be President in France, notwithstanding the USA's history of extreme bigotry.
Or it's possible given the way the French economy is run upward mobility of the type found in the U.S. is more difficult.
In conventional usage, the term multiculturalism refers to an active attempt to maintain different cultures or cultural identities within a society by promoting cultural distinction. So, in critiquing multiculturalism, we are not necessarily criticizing immigrants or broadly criticizing their cultures, but we are criticizing a particular way of managing a diverse society.
Exactly.
In a liberal society there can indeed be room for many races (I know it's a social construct, etc) and many ethnicities, but there should not be room for many cultures.
I am curious as to why you believe that racism and bigotry is less of an issue in France.
I don't. I think that racism is a big problem in both the US and France. I do not know in which of those two countries it is worse. You make very good points in criticism of the situation in France.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Wed 04 Mar 2009 23:04 Post subject:
erasmusinfinity wrote:
Dragon Horse,
Thanks for the NPR link. I enjoyed the broadcast. There were some very interesting points regarding a contrast of situations in various countries.
By far, the worst situation seems to be in Italy, even Chinese people are rioting there, something that almost never happens outside of Southeast Asia. Well in SE Asia usually Chinese are being rioted against.
[What many parts of the U.S. are becoming is more multicultural, which is something else entirely and more problematic IMO.
Using New York City as an example can you outline why this is a problem?
Sure the imposition in many quarters of Spanish on others, including immigrants attempting to learn English is one.
Who imposes the use of Spanish in New York? By impose I interpret that you mean force the use of Spanish by people who ahve no interest in being exposed to the language. Many people in fact see the widespread use of Spanish as an opportunity to learn the language. I suspect that most Latino immigrants know full well that lack of competency in English guarantees poor outcomes for their kids and desire that their children learn English. The popularity of courses aimed at teaching English to non English speakers suggests a deep desire of nonEnglish speakers to learn that language. Even the Mexican busboys are reasonably competent speakers.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
Usually over long periods.
Well in SE Asia usually Chinese are being rioted against.