In a democratic society, the policies and national character are determined by the will of the majority.
The majority has a way of thinking and interacting that has a common cultural legacy
If you introduce people from elsewhere, who become the majority, you have fundamentally altered the state for everyone.
Wishing to avoid that is not racism, it is common sense. It is not racist to want the society your grand-children inhabit to have a recognizable link to the one you inhabited. Is it possible to have defensible and good ideas in favour of immigration? Yes. Is it possible for the inverse to be true? Yes.
I would contend that those in favour of unlimited immigration, who also seem to fancy me a racist, have made some extremely ahistorical assumptions. Such include believing that everyone from every part of the world thinks the same way. However, this is not true. This is not only because of differences between individuals. There are recognizable differences in the attitudes and behaviour between populations. This is because of Cultural differences with different histories. If this were not true, why would the notion of “cultural-diversity” have any currency?
Perhaps, desiring the ideas and way of behaving derived from one’s own cultural history is racism. In such a case, I would suggest that the definition of racism includes both pejorative and non-pejorative implications. However, my preferred definition would suggest hating someone one the grounds of their ethnic origins. However, most against immigration do not. I do not hate members of my own ethnicity who I see walking down the street. However, I would not necessarily want them to outnumber me in my own household either.
In any event, let us look at some evidence against the case in favour of immigration. Japan is an extremely homogenous country, despite being “modern”. Poland is too. This has been a policy decision and both countries have benefited from it. Poland is one of the safest countries in Europe, more so than the richer immigrant hubs of France, the UK and Germany, despite being poorer. Japan is also extremely safe. Both countries have a long history and know their children will grow up knowing the same country they did. Desiring these benefits is not racist, and to call it such is to be extremely small minded.
For all that pro-immigration liberals accuse their opponents of being “closed-minded”, in their view anything short of a strict socially Marxist and economically neoliberal world-view in which cultures don’t matter, shared ancestral history is meaningless, no one should have a national identity, and ethnic identity is evil, is considered beyond the pale. Aside from being closed-minded, this attitude moves legitimate debates concerning the benefits of ethnic and cultural homogeneity, held among people who may also be individualist and want more tolerant and less conservative societies, out of the discussion, and thus makes it only possible for such discussions to occur on the right-wing. And these people still wonder where the likes of trump and marine le pen are coming from. A good number of their supporters are probably on the fence, but their views have been shut out of “civilized” conversation.
I would also have a question for those who believe that desiring cultural and ethnic homogeneity is necessarily racist. Do you feel that way about American Indian reservations, whose geographic ambit and legitimate membership is defined solely by ethnicity? What about hunter-gatherer tribes? Should they be expected to admit members from all parts of the world in such numbers as to completely remove their cultures? I doubt it. A case in favour of preserving such “victimized” and “vulnerable” groups of people is likely to be made in response to my question. However, to that response I would pose another question. Are you not treating such people differently based on their ethnicity and shared history? Is that not racist? If not, then why are people who do not share your specific pre-packaged neo-liberal family of ideas, who do the same thing, racist?
Further, by treating those (hunter-gatherer etc.) groups of people differently, you are making your case based on their common ethnic and cultural histories. So if the history of ethnicities and cultures matter, why are those who are ethnically French or German not permitted to make arguments based on their common ethnic and cultural histories?
No feedback yet
Form is loading...