Anonymous #1 1d

You’re right I forgot 😔

1

Anonymous #2 1d

This is why the Sami are called the indigenous people of Norway, despite them and Norwegians having been in the country for around the same time. They’ve both been there approximately equally, but the Sami were the ones subject to settler colonialism.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

So there are circumstances where the word indigenous is useful, where historically a colonial dynamic was applied. Ex Turkish conquest of the Balkans, Arab occupation of Sicily and Iberia, mongol domination of Russia.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

But stuff can easily switch. The Crimean Tatars would probably be the settler group if we are in the 1300s, but today they are called indigenous because they were subject to Russian settler colonialism

1

Anonymous #2 1d

I’d call the massive amount of immigration into Europe colonialism

1

Anonymous OP 1d

It’s not. Just very clearly not. Colonialism involves a more empowered group displacing a less empowered group, usually with state backing and an effective monopoly on violence. Immigrants, especially to Europe, are the less empowered group, and they lack the political and economic influence to displace the local inhabitants. Immigrants join a country, colonists displace it.

6

Anonymous #2 1d

Immigrants are coming to Europe with state backing, against the desire of the indigenous Europeans. Native Europeans are being sold out and watching their low wage jobs being filled by Africans while the higher wage jobs are being filled by South and East Asians

-1

Anonymous OP 1d

What state? How is this any different from the Polish and Italians immigrating to the USA in 1900. They weren’t colonizing the Anglo-Americans. I don’t know how you can look to textbook low-income immigration to high-income regions and think that’s the same as like French colonization of Algeria. Under your definition, non-colonial immigration essentially wouldn’t exist.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

What state? Germany, France and the UK to start. And Poles and Italians have much more in common culturally and historically with Anglo-Americans than someone from sub Saharan Africa does, so naturally there will be less tension between different European communities. If the capitalist class imports cheap labor -and that’s what nearly all immigration in into Europe is- to avoid having to pay native Europeans higher wages, the standard of living of native Europeans will inherently decrease.

0

Anonymous #2 1d

Not to mention the bigger issue of cultural dilution

1

Anonymous OP 1d

The democratically elected governments are colonizing themselves? Also colonization isn’t based on how culturally different the groups are my guy. If “how culturally different the groups are” is your metric of what makes something colonization, that plainly demonstrates that you don’t know what colonization is and this is more about xenophobia. At least admit what your argument is. I think it’s gross but it’s at least honest.

3

Anonymous #2 1d

Like sure, you can criticize the labor dynamics of low income immigration. That’s a valid thing to talk about (but the culture shit immediately makes me take you less seriously). But at least talk about that instead of trying to portray it as something it plainly isn’t.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

Yeah, I don’t like immigration into Europe because the people coming in are undercutting European workers and destroying the culture of Europe. I don’t see why the cultural argument shouldn’t carry any weight why the economic argument is valid

0

Anonymous #2 1d

What’s the point of making London and Paris, multicultural and diverse? They’re special because they have their own unique history and culture. If you import people with a wildly different background, of course the social cohesion is going to be lost along with the sense of community. Not everywhere needs to be New York City. No one’s asking India China or Japan to accept immigrants

1

Anonymous OP 1d

Because “destroying the culture of Europe” pretty demonstrably isn’t true based on assimilation rates and on the simple fact that they aren’t replacing Europeans. Something around labor is at least about an actual harm. The culture shit is just xenophobia. You forget that Americans were terrified that Italians and Polish were destroying American culture.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

London is less than 35% white and most large, Western European cities are under 50-60%. What do you mean they aren’t replacing Europeans??? And they don’t assimilate. Have you seen the ethnic enclaves in these cities? It’s incredibly depressing

1

Anonymous OP 1d

Ah pulling up race statistics. You do know that new people arriving somewhere doesn’t make the white people evaporate right? And that people of a different race can and do adopt French and English culture? What language do you think the second and third generation kids are speaking?

4

Anonymous #2 1d

And do you know anything about the history of Paris and London? They’re famous for being metropoles, centers of global culture. People have been immigrating there forever. Flemish, poles, and Germans have been coming to the UK for decades or centuries. Paris was FULL of intellectuals from all around Europe. It’s more now but it’s not different.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

Like dude this is why I can’t take y’all seriously. If you were just talking about the labor impact of immigration then I’d take you seriously and be willing to talk about that. But instead, anti-immigration rhetoric always ends up as fear of brown people and it means I don’t take any of your other claimed justifications as genuine. They’re just cover for the real motivation: racism.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

And it’d even be something else to talk about the impact of immigration as a form of gentrification on like small rural communities or something. But instead you’re fearmongering about the rustic sense of community in fuckin Paris??? Like come on dude.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

Yeah and I’ve been arguing that immigration within Europe is acceptable. So if Poles come to Paris, I have no issue with that because they share a common background. Someone from India has literally nothing in common with either group- race religion language etc. Having a huge influx of people is lowering the birth rates, because there’s less available funding for social programs because all that funding is being redirected to buy food and housing for immigrants. On top of that, they depress

1

Anonymous OP 1d

The wages of the native population because the new slave class being brought in is willing to work for less

1

Anonymous OP 1d

AND, there is the less obvious effect on birth rates coming from the fact that when people of different backgrounds come to the country, there’s distrust between both the natives and the immigrants. This distrust grows as the natives push back on immigration and as immigrants blame the natives for xenophobia and try to retain their customs. Eventually, you end up with a low trust society, where social cohesion is non existent, people feel isolated, and no one starts families

1

Anonymous OP 1d

You want to stick your head in the sand, pretend that race isn’t real, that it’s a social construct and write yourself off as a better person for believing so. But that isn’t true, it’s real, and people from places outside the US know that.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

Lol talking about the sense of community in Paris sounds ridiculous…because it is… because it doesn’t exist anymore… because of immigration

1

Anonymous OP 1d

And actually, I take it back, immigration within Europe is less problematic than immigration from outside, but it’s still not ideal, because it will change the identity of communities, although it won’t cause the step change in identity that having people come from the other side of the planet will cause

1

Anonymous OP 1d

A native French speaking Catholic from Cameroon has way more in common with French culture than someone from Eastern Europe. And because of that French cultural background they assimilate very quickly. But your problem isn’t culture, it’s very clearly race. Which means I don’t take your concerns seriously because it makes me think you only care about these labor issues as a cover. A poor Albanian or Pole can depress wages too. But you don’t care about that.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

Culture is downstream from race. Which is why black and white Americans have totally different cultures despite living in the same country for centuries, speaking the same language

1

Anonymous OP 1d

I’m from the south. I do not think black and white people have “totally different cultures.” A lot of black culture is shared pan-southern culture, which is viewed as exclusively black culture by northerners. And what differences do exist can be attributed partly to diasporic cultural inheritance, but also to us having segregation for decades upon decades. Race is an artificial construct, and I don’t think you realize that.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

Believing culture to be something indelible and genetically inherited is like some wild 1800s shit. And frankly, I don’t believe in assimilationism. I like it when diasporas preserve their own ancestral culture. I believe a higher diversity of cultures is good. But like clearly you have some fucking *wild* baggage which is clearly motivating your belief system.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

No multi ethnic society would function without assimilation, you would immediately have tribal warfare if everyone retained their culture. Fortunately, this is a solvable problem. Don’t allow immigration in the first place and then there’s no need to argue whether or not assimilation is good or bad

1