Tuesday, April 24, 2018

Culture Clash






It is incredibly disingenuous, even terrifyingly ignorant and arguably evil, to actually suggest that speaking up/out against the FACTS that the forced mass migration of Syrian/Etc. refugees to "Western" nations, has not gone smoothly, is "racism". No, attacking those people for simply being who they ARE, THAT is actual, literal racism.

But pointing out that you simply cannot take, especially in mass quantities (meaning by the thousands), people from one culture, and shove them into a nation with a VERY different, even opposite culture, and expect it to go smoothly? That's just shining a light on what's actually happening. It isn't (or shouldn't be) subjective opinion. It is objective FACT that for countries who have taken on mass refugee populations, in many cases FORCED without choice by the EU, etc., things are not going so great.

It is a statistical, objective FACT, that the rates of things like robberies, beatings, stabbings, shootings, people driving vehicles into crowds, public attacks, kidnappings, rapes, and outright murder, has increased in many of those nations, like the UK, like Germany, like France, like Sweden, etc., considerably, since taking on those refugee populations. Are ALL of those increased instances being perpetrated by the refugees? Are ALL refugees bad or dangerous? Of course not. But it they are still directly correlated realities.

It is sickeningly hypocritical, for example, for feminists to blather on about Western "rape culture" and all of this bullshit, and then be absolutely SILENT, or decry people pointing it out as "RACISM", when literally thousands of European girls and women have been raped (objective fact, not opinion, not conspiracy), in those nations since taking on refugee populations. And yes, MANY, if not a majority, of those rape cases have been carried out by immigrants. There are girls and women in Germany, and even in the UK, who now live in fear of so-called "rape gangs", and fear they can't even go out anywhere alone anymore.

Yet where are all the strong feminists, who shout from the rooftops about the "Western Rape Problem", when these things occur? Is it actually somehow justifiable to these people, to simply ignore ACTUAL rapes occurring, because the perpetrators belong to what they identify as a "protected minority victim group?" Are they actually saying that because these people are Muslim Refugees, that committing horrible acts of atrocity is forgivable?

Beyond that, there are the cultural and economic implications. People are branded "Racist" if they speak out on the very real fear, whether it is entirely well-founded or not, that their countries and their cultures are being "overrun" by immigrants. And yeah, looking at what some of them have to say, or at least the ways in which some of them choose to say it, YES, of course, there is some racism there. There was always going to be, and WOULD be in any similar scenario.

Imagine, if you will, for a moment, that the "Shoe was on the other foot", so to speak. Imagine if some massive war or atrocities broke out in Europe, and the United Nations sent "white" European refugees into Middle Eastern, Islamic countries. Or Asian countries, or African countries. What, exactly, do you think THOSE indigenous populations would have to say about that? How do you think a lot of THOSE people would react, to "white people" flooding their cities? How do you think they would react, to non-Muslim/Arab, or non-Asian, or non-African immigrants suddenly existing by the thousands in their homelands, and NOT integrating well, NOT really bothering to learn the languages or cultures, just spreading "White European" culture around, in the very streets of non-European lands.

Would that be okay? How would the "Social Justice" set react if that happened. How do they think the indigenous populations would react? Do you think everything would go over smoothly, or that there WOULDN'T be xenophobia and racism towards the European immigrants?  Do you honestly think there would NOT be a movement in those countries to give those "whities" that were moving in, the boot? Tell them "Euros Go Home", etc? That there WOULDN'T be people in those countries who would claim, rightly or not, that the European immigrants were "threatening their stability, their culture and their way of life".  Sentiments like "This is OUR land, not THEIRS", etc.?

And where would so-called "liberal" whites in places like the US and Canada stand? Would they express that the indigenous populations of those countries had a right to feel that way? To "protect their culture and cultural identity"? Or would they say the same thing they say to European folks who share the exact same views, and label them "racists", even going so far as to claim they "deserve to be overrun and out-populated in their own lands" (yes, I've seen that exact sentiment online, by white Americans). 

Of course, the entire issue anything BUT simple, nor are the answers and solutions easy. In the example of JUST the Syrian refugee crisis, yes OF COURSE those people need someone to live, temporarily, so that they can be safe until shit calms down in their own country. No one should claim that they have no right to flee for their lives. Everyone has a right to self-preservation, on some basic primal level. But the thing is, circling back around to the concept of a "Culture Clash", it really wasn't, and isn't, a great idea to just push those people, who come from a HEAVILY Islamic culture, into "Western" countries that are decidedly almost the polar OPPOSITE of heavily Islamic culture. It is going to be difficult for those people to just on the fly adapt to European culture and views and ways of life, and it is most certainly absurd to expect that the European host countries should CHANGE their cultures or views or ways of life, to suit what is supposed to be a temporary immigrant population. 

The bottom line is this: Those refugees are human beings, regardless of culture, religion, or any other man-made complexities. They deserve the chance to live peacefully, without fearing for their lives or safety, and it is obvious that they do not feel, or cannot be safe in their home countries right now. But firstly, they should have been sent to cultures far more similar to their own, where the "clash" would have been minimal at worst. And ideally, the END GOAL, should be for their home countries to IMPROVE, for conditions to IMPROVE, so they can all go HOME. Their home, their land, their nation. They should strive to go back to their home eventually, and change it for the better. THAT should be the end goal of this entire circumstance, not for these populations to simply take root in Europe, or Canada, or the US, or Australia, etc. There is nothing saying some of them CAN'T make a home and a life in those places. But fleeing their HOME, permanently, especially for the majority of the population, shouldn't be the goal.  

The Culture Clash is real, whether people want to openly and intelligently acknowledge it, or not. And while fears are rarely fully rational, there is still something to be said for one people's fear of being "overrun" by another. Racism and xenophobia may well exist in that fear, for some people. But it is foolish and idiotic to assume that the exact same WOULDN'T be the case if "White Europeans" were flooding into "non-white" lands. And in both cases, the indigenous population has SOME right, at least, to want to preserve and protect their own culture and identity and way of life. That doesn't mean it's right, or OK, for anyone to be an asshole about it. But just as an extreme, but real and legitimate example, British people are not automatically "racist", if they are uncomfortable or even frightened by the sight of, say, thousands of Muslims immigrants praying in a London park. Imagine how Muslims would feel, if thousands of European Christians, who were forcibly moved to their country, were gathering and holding Christian prayers in public streets, or public parks. Would those Muslim peoples be merely "racist" for being disturbed or frightened by that? Or would they be well within their rights, rational or not, to be concerned that "these white people are taking over our country"?

That isn't to say that people shouldn't be able to move where they want, and that every nation on earth should be this perfectly homogeneous, static, xenophobic monolith that never allows "outsiders" in. But it IS to say, that it isn't necessarily "bigotry", for people to have a legitimate concern, especially in the face of very real non-integration issues and rising refugee-related crimes, that "shit's getting out of hand". It isn't anymore "Racist", if let's say, Swedish people or British people or French people want Swedish to "Stay Swedish", or Britain to "Stay British", or France to "Stay French", in the sense that they want their culture and ways of life protected, than it would be for people from Iraq, or China, or Nigeria to feel the same exact way. 

The Culture Clash is real, and while the ultimate goal should be to strive for a future where the human race grows up enough, that we stop being so sickeningly petty and small-minded, there is also nothing automatically, inherently "bad" or "wrong" about being proud of who your people are, and wanting your people to sustain and survive. 

No comments:

Post a Comment