- 27 Sep 2017 20:05
#14846902
But what you do not understand is that the liberalism of English speaking societies with regards to immigration and discourses on race is only possible because they are so isolated from other cultures. Any society in which the idea of "white privilege" can gain mass acceptance is obviously ethnocentric because any nation that had any real contact with other civilisations would never embrace this. You should also consider the possibility that it is possible to be nationalistic without being ethnocentric. I do not think we can say that the Arabs are ethnocentric. And in Far East it is no different. These are all civilisations which were forced to deal with outsiders forcing themselves in. They cannot be ethnocentric.
A lot of the so called far right today are not really far right, but hard centre-right. It still doesn't change the fact that their positions on Islam and Muslims are infantile and the opposite side of the same coin which the SJWs and cultural leftists share with them.
There is nothing wrong with criticising the right when it is advocating false narratives and short sighted solutions. So far the right has offered no solutions to any real problems. For example, the position of Wilders in Holland is simply absurd.
Well, yes, I think cultural similarity does make integration and assimilation easier. However I think the religious dimension is being over emphasised. And there are Muslim nationalities which have cultures more similar to European culture.
Kaiserschmarrn wrote: there is a difference in the degree to which one can generalise, but the general statements I have made about Islam and Muslims, based on what is observable today, are still as valid as and I think more accurate than yours about Northwestern Europeans. I have a problem specifically with your claim that Anglos are more ethnocentric and ignorant than others which seems totally contrary to reality. I find it hard to believe, for instance, that the discourse in, say, Middle Eastern and North African countries about the US, European countries or the west is more nuanced and accurate, and that they are less ethnocentric or perhaps more applicable in some cases less sectarian. Or take East Asia and their views on ethnic diversity and immigration. What you call right-wing hyperbole and extreme is actually closer to mainstream consensus there. So with respect to your criticism of the far right in Europe, your view seems to be at least as naive and ignorant about other cultures and countries as you claim Anglos to be.
But what you do not understand is that the liberalism of English speaking societies with regards to immigration and discourses on race is only possible because they are so isolated from other cultures. Any society in which the idea of "white privilege" can gain mass acceptance is obviously ethnocentric because any nation that had any real contact with other civilisations would never embrace this. You should also consider the possibility that it is possible to be nationalistic without being ethnocentric. I do not think we can say that the Arabs are ethnocentric. And in Far East it is no different. These are all civilisations which were forced to deal with outsiders forcing themselves in. They cannot be ethnocentric.
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Just in case I haven't made that clear before, I agree with much of your criticism. Where I most strongly disagree, as mentioned above, is your assessment of and complaints about the far right. For one, a large part, perhaps by now a majority, of them are people who were until recently part of the centre-right. Their views weren't regarded as extremist 20, and depending on the country and subject in some cases as little as 10 years ago, and moreover they wouldn't be seen as extremist in many other parts of the world either.
A lot of the so called far right today are not really far right, but hard centre-right. It still doesn't change the fact that their positions on Islam and Muslims are infantile and the opposite side of the same coin which the SJWs and cultural leftists share with them.
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Second, your strategy is pretty much how the right has acted for decades, that is, strongly and constantly distancing themselves from and denouncing the far right. When Charlottesville was in the news recently, the Telegraph had an article on their front page for days whose title was Conservatives must make it very clear that they are not Nazis, or something to that effect. It's hard to put into words the contempt I have for these people. No, conservatives don't have to do that just like they don't have to make clear at every opportunity that they are not aliens. I have no patience anymore for rightist who insist on weakening their position by incessantly focusing on a small fringe element on their side and voluntarily elevating it as a massive problem. The left certainly has no intention to behave even remotely similarly when it comes to their own extremists, but they have exploited that open flank on our side for a long time now and they surely won't stop as long as we keep responding like this.
There is nothing wrong with criticising the right when it is advocating false narratives and short sighted solutions. So far the right has offered no solutions to any real problems. For example, the position of Wilders in Holland is simply absurd.
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:I don't disagree. As I said in my previous post, cultural/religious/ethnic similarity does not necessarily preclude tensions. As is usually the case with complex topics on a societal scale, it's a matter of likelihood. Everything else being equal, assimilating/integrating Germans and Brits in Austria and NZ respectively is more likely to be successful than people who are more different in terms of their cultural background, even more so if we are dealing with large-scale immigration.
Well, yes, I think cultural similarity does make integration and assimilation easier. However I think the religious dimension is being over emphasised. And there are Muslim nationalities which have cultures more similar to European culture.