I lived in Europe for many years..studying & teaching.
I saw a lot of racism first hand and found it hard to accept.
I think that maybe part of the problem is that Europe has such a high population density & people invariably feel over-crowded and squeezed in.
Well, your australian history part was really good.
I think europeans are just insicure of themselves. In some places they are letterally afraid that the dark-skinned and weird-religion and 'obviously' terroristic newcomers to the country will rob their daughter(s hart)s. and the same people would likely to steal the local white-collar workers jobs. it's sad. and i don't believe the people density, but national mentality and beingusedtoness has more to do with it. luxemburg, belgium and holland are rather small countries, but there immigrants are relatively well accepted. those countries have a high density of population compared e.g. to finland, where the 'others' aren't generally accepted. unless they are from european union countries (wery definitelly excludes any eastern country), or (white) americans.
of the countries where i've lived in europe, britain seems to have the population where the people are most used to racial diversity. the street i lived in had under 30 % of white inhabitants, most were indian and then darker colors. somehow uk seems even better accepting than brazil (fortaleza more precisely, on north coast) or (some parts of, excludin NY) us. in brazil most dark-skinned people are simply in lower-paid jobs (i saw no black executives), but they aren't stared for the skin. in some parts of us there are big parts of city that are lived mainly by darker skin toned people. and not because of the people but the legends those suburbs have ("shoooting is normal, but they don't shoot white people because they know they'd get to trouble").
and oh - thanks for correcting me alcimedes. most latin languages allow 'the blacks' be used as meaning 'the black people'. corrections are always welcome (unless i'm really flaming).
all the things that you describe giagurra are usually the modes of racism.
I would say that Europe has had just as dark, if not darker, history of racism and has the structural reasons for its continuation.
First if you look at the history: pograms, holocaust, belgian congo etc etc . . . .
then when you think about the self-identities of Europeans, most of the white Europeans have grown up where they live and their families have come from that same area probably for generations, the language is linked to the culture in profound ways and that culture seems as if it is integrally linked to the land since the histories go back so far. Reasons like this made otherwise super-intelligent Europeans think some pretty stupid things, such as Martin Heidegger's constant lamentatins of the rootlessnes of Europeans . . .
(in contemporary Europe 'rootless' is often a synonym for anti-semitism and anti-gypsy feeling) and the influx of imigrants feels to many of these 'rooted-in thier-region-and-history' europeans as a loss of identity and grounding in the earth . ..
this is why Europe needed teh philosophy of Deconstruction: it provided an essential uprooting of identity so that living with others could occur . . . contrary to the American academic reaction against Decconstruction as anti-ethical it turns out to be profoundly ethical as a process.
But we are rootless here in America. Camille Paglia is right, we don't need deconstruction we already are deconstructed . . . our fluidity is a blessing when we can let it be . . . .
Comments
Originally posted by aquafire
I lived in Europe for many years..studying & teaching.
I saw a lot of racism first hand and found it hard to accept.
I think that maybe part of the problem is that Europe has such a high population density & people invariably feel over-crowded and squeezed in.
Well, your australian history part was really good.
I think europeans are just insicure of themselves. In some places they are letterally afraid that the dark-skinned and weird-religion and 'obviously' terroristic newcomers to the country will rob their daughter(s hart)s. and the same people would likely to steal the local white-collar workers jobs. it's sad. and i don't believe the people density, but national mentality and beingusedtoness has more to do with it. luxemburg, belgium and holland are rather small countries, but there immigrants are relatively well accepted. those countries have a high density of population compared e.g. to finland, where the 'others' aren't generally accepted. unless they are from european union countries (wery definitelly excludes any eastern country), or (white) americans.
of the countries where i've lived in europe, britain seems to have the population where the people are most used to racial diversity. the street i lived in had under 30 % of white inhabitants, most were indian and then darker colors. somehow uk seems even better accepting than brazil (fortaleza more precisely, on north coast) or (some parts of, excludin NY) us. in brazil most dark-skinned people are simply in lower-paid jobs (i saw no black executives), but they aren't stared for the skin. in some parts of us there are big parts of city that are lived mainly by darker skin toned people. and not because of the people but the legends those suburbs have ("shoooting is normal, but they don't shoot white people because they know they'd get to trouble").
and oh - thanks for correcting me alcimedes. most latin languages allow 'the blacks' be used as meaning 'the black people'. corrections are always welcome (unless i'm really flaming).
all the things that you describe giagurra are usually the modes of racism.
I would say that Europe has had just as dark, if not darker, history of racism and has the structural reasons for its continuation.
First if you look at the history: pograms, holocaust, belgian congo etc etc . . . .
then when you think about the self-identities of Europeans, most of the white Europeans have grown up where they live and their families have come from that same area probably for generations, the language is linked to the culture in profound ways and that culture seems as if it is integrally linked to the land since the histories go back so far. Reasons like this made otherwise super-intelligent Europeans think some pretty stupid things, such as Martin Heidegger's constant lamentatins of the rootlessnes of Europeans . . .
(in contemporary Europe 'rootless' is often a synonym for anti-semitism and anti-gypsy feeling) and the influx of imigrants feels to many of these 'rooted-in thier-region-and-history' europeans as a loss of identity and grounding in the earth . ..
this is why Europe needed teh philosophy of Deconstruction: it provided an essential uprooting of identity so that living with others could occur . . . contrary to the American academic reaction against Decconstruction as anti-ethical it turns out to be profoundly ethical as a process.
But we are rootless here in America. Camille Paglia is right, we don't need deconstruction we already are deconstructed . . . our fluidity is a blessing when we can let it be . . . .
anyway .2$