Society Europe is racist

This is from #21. LeBrok is the first to use tribal(ism). I've read the 5 pages so far - a few others used it.

Tribalism is what underlies most of the what is discussed here. It is very basic to our humanity. How could it not be in that it was through identifying with bands and clans and later tribes that we survived to rise to nations and now nation-states. That is hard to shake off through intellect and against cultural tugs and pulls. And if 'the other' is another race (someone who doesn't look like me) it is even more so.

It goes deeper too. Males survived by separating. Males would get killed when one group overcame another. Males would flee if they figured they could not prevail over another group, if they could make that assessment. Females generally would not be killed. With high infant mortality, females were always in demand. So, separated males desired females if their prospects were to rise, and their overall chance of survival was to increase. Females 'know' that they share commonality with their sisters, and through science, we know that there is in fact less diversity among women-kind than men.

Therefore, I believe that men are generally more hostile to giving up identity to another or larger entity, while females are less so. It is likely why females say that they should be given a chance to run things and there would be less conflict. I believe there is a primordial basis for this. I am not advocating anything in this statement, but there may be a reason for the feminization of men.

Much of the arguments seem to tie to outmoded concepts as to what a society is or should be. The information age has changed all that. There is the prospect, good or bad, for a more stratified society. (I cannot comprehend how it will work without organization beyond anything known to date, including Pharaoh's Egypt) Places for low skilled workers, more semi-skilled workers, a few more skilled workers, and the educated. Plus lots of robots and automated processes. And ultimately the educated will be pared back, too.

But we won't need a fraction of humanity that we have on Earth today. So, here we are one-third of the world capable - with some pain - of making the transition, and if not two-thirds, then still a majority of humanity wholly lost as it stands now. Here versus later - absent something unusual, it will be a bumpy ride. I suggest we thinkers try to smooth out what we can, because those who cannot comprehend will need lots of hand-holding. We'll all need a great deal of luck.
The last occupation on the planet will be the Life Coach. Teaching all how to live, be busy, successful and be happy even if you don't have a job. Heck, in 100 years kids will learn in schools a strange concept of "working for money" that was so popular in the past.
 
The last occupation on the planet will be the Life Coach. Teaching all how to live, be busy, successful and be happy even if you don't have a job. Heck, in 100 years kids will learn in schools a strange concept of "working for money" that was so popular in the past.

First they automated the production line, and I did not provide them aid -
Because I was not on the production line.


Then they automated retail, and design work, and so forth, and I did not provide them aid -
Because I was not a retail worker nor a designer.


Then they automated work formerly performed by skilled craft workers, and I did not provide them aid -
Because I was not a skilled craft worker.


Then a robot took my place in academe - and there was no one left to provide aid for me.
 
The last occupation on the planet will be the Life Coach. Teaching all how to live, be busy, successful and be happy even if you don't have a job. Heck, in 100 years kids will learn in schools a strange concept of "working for money" that was so popular in the past.

only the most intelligent people will be needed with the proper talents, 1 % of the population
the other 99 % will be useless, except maybe if they bring some amusement, like pets
90 % are not even capable of that

always there will be jealousy, never the human world will be unified
 
only the most intelligent people will be needed with the proper talents, 1 % of the population
the other 99 % will be useless, except maybe if they bring some amusement, like pets
90 % are not even capable of that

always there will be jealousy, never the human world will be unified
Process will be very slow however, perhaps as slow as 100 years, till loss of all the jobs. You see, in last 100 years productivity due to automatization increased about 50 fold, and yet in the most industrious countries unemployment is the lowest in the world. Why? Because creative people with some capital will invent new services and jobs and get busy for money. There are fewer jobs left which existed 100 years ago, most are completely new jobs. Capital and human creativity factor.
 
Do not hide behind your finger, y'all. Every society is somehow "racist" against the "different". Compared to the US, Europe is more racist for sure.

In Euroland(sic) they(we) have problems making a nation, for brevity call it: United States of Europe. And why is this? Because not only we tend not to like the different (I do not generalise, I mean compared to more open societies--take the States as benchmark), but furthermore, we have problems with our closest neighbors.
 
Do not hide behind your finger, y'all. Every society is somehow "racist" against the "different". Compared to the US, Europe is more racist for sure.

In Euroland(sic) they(we) have problems making a nation, for brevity call it: United States of Europe. And why is this? Because not only we tend not to like the different (I do not generalise, I mean compared to more open societies--take the States as benchmark), but furthermore, we have problems with our closest neighbors.
Right, and this should be addressed. Everybody should confess sins, apologies to all the neighbors and shake hands. It is not that difficult. If Germany could change from the biggest villain to uniting Europe nukleus, during one or two generations, there is a hope and example that everybody can.
 
There was a time where attitudes and behaviours that generated unfairness towards race. It was about people’s skin colour and about people’s descent. However nowadays racism is used for almost everything. For example religious discrimination, is that racism? The new form of racism is about culture. People are fine having their cultures as long as they don’t bring it here. We think certain groups don’t really fit into societies. There is this sense of racial incompatibility that replaces this sense of racial superiority. These days religion is becoming very racialise.
 
Last edited:
it is natural, we tend to trust more those who look and act similar to us because we asume they think like us and have the same morals
sometimes it is wrong, more often it is right

You are right. If I were new to a company or to a class. When I come in, initially I probably would not sit next to a black person or somebody with a turban. However through time if I think the person is harmless and did not do anything to mean or show any disrespect, that barrier can be broken down.

At work there is a black guy, he is alright.

I remember when I was a student in France, I always had a lot of Asian ppl following me around. They seem to think I have the obligation to be friends with them just because we are all Asians.

Let me give you an example, the Thais. There was only one person in there where I understood his English well enough. The others, for me their accents were very difficult to understand.

Moreover, they are part of a Thai Buddhist association called Wat Phra Dhammakaya. I am not at all interested in this.

That Thai guy who studied French for one year due to his fondness of French culture, over the holidays, there was one occasion I saw him again, and he told me that he had forgotten everything he learnt.

Now, mind you at that time my french isn't as fluent as now. It is in my least interest to socialise with some Thai cult people where half of the time I did not understand what they were talking about.
 
Last edited:
The last occupation on the planet will be the Life Coach. Teaching all how to live, be busy, successful and be happy even if you don't have a job. Heck, in 100 years kids will learn in schools a strange concept of "working for money" that was so popular in the past.



Maybe YES
maybe NO

maybe Dredd

judgedredd-fergusonprint-700x993.jpg
 
Because not only we tend not to like the different (I do not generalise, I mean compared to more open societies--take the States as benchmark), but furthermore, we have problems with our closest neighbors.

not to the same extent as with immigrants from outside Europe that don't integrate
 
LeBrok, do all groups integrate well in Canada?
 
Process will be very slow however, perhaps as slow as 100 years, till loss of all the jobs. You see, in last 100 years productivity due to automatization increased about 50 fold, and yet in the most industrious countries unemployment is the lowest in the world. Why? Because creative people with some capital will invent new services and jobs and get busy for money. There are fewer jobs left which existed 100 years ago, most are completely new jobs. Capital and human creativity factor.
No It is here now. On Bill Maher's US HBO cable show, Real Time with Bill Maher, one guest said that 1 in 5 while males are unemployed in the US. Even if she meant underemployed & unemployed, the statistic is astounding.

Trump's election is the sentinel event that marks the change of economies. Average wage only recently turned upward. In general the wage rate has not nearly kept up with productivity gains. So, depending on your age, your grandchildren but likely your children will see a very different economy than today. Those who view this as a distant problem are in my opinion, very foolish.

@bicicleur: Also, sports figures and those who can entertain. Some will be to distract the masses - bread and circuses - and others for the elites' own amusement.
 
......

In Euroland(sic) they(we) have problems making a nation, for brevity call it: United States of Europe. And why is this? Because not only we tend not to like the different (I do not generalise, I mean compared to more open societies--take the States as benchmark), but furthermore, we have problems with our closest neighbors.
Earlier I had noted the importance of DIFFERENCE is making humanity/human society what it is today. It follows that there is value in preserving differences. This is not meant to be racist, but it can be interpreted as such. Europe it seems to me needs people as labor - both upper end and low end - and as the means to support its social welfare system - someone must be around to pay into the system when the current population ages. But many of the people do not assimilate, and to the extent they do, the result is not the 'old ways', but some type of hybrid society (or pockets within the dominant society). You know all this.

I'm saying that Europe is not like the USA, Canada, nor Brasil, nor other South American countries, where the current society is already something different than before. In my opinion, Europe should restrict immigration far more closely than New World countries. Not for racial reasons but for cultural reasons. And, yes, cultural can include religion. There are likely cultural differences that should be preserved. Europe should not strive to be 'homogeneous' ('homogenizing') like the US.

The countries of sub-Saharan Africa, India, and China have internal growth that is needed, so that should be their focus. Every other country needs to consider their own situation, but they are likely like these, if not like Europe.

Edits above and here added: Wasn't that the reason for BREXIT? The cultural element, not the economics - except that with automation, every strata of society is affected. This is not to justify BREXIT, but Europe from my perspective would do far better maximizing trade, standardizing where appropriate to trade, protecting trademarks and product names, etc. and going easy on issues that affect the core dominant societies in each member country of the EU.

As to the need for immigrants to fuel the economies, the mega-trend is that automation in its various forms will soon, and for ever more, reduce the numbers of people required to sustain an economy. So, some of the current immigration value is quite definitely short-term benefit for long term pain.

One more comment here. Every country does well to invest in its people. A laissez faire approach to human development in an era of globalization is tremendously stupid. To the extent that Europe desires to maintain its culture, then these countries need to take to heart the imperative to maximize the human potential of their people. And also work to preserve the best elements of their culture and remembrance of its history.
 
Last edited:
Europa is scattered. So many languages. Full integration is impossible. You will always be a xenos (foreigner, alien) to any country you go. Thus, even if you are European, you will feel some kind of racism.

The Old Continent has been the terrain for numerous migration waves, since the old times. After all, geography favours it. I reckon that in the future the structure of the European population will be very different.

not to the same extent as with immigrants from outside Europe that don't integrate
 
Europa is scattered. So many languages. Full integration is impossible. You will always be a xenos (foreigner, alien) to any country you go. Thus, even if you are European, you will feel some kind of racism.

The Old Continent has been the terrain for numerous migration waves, since the old times. After all, geography favours it. I reckon that in the future the structure of the European population will be very different.

Yes it's true that there are many languages and many ethnic identitetit. But the tradition of Europe is the tradition of great Empires. Throughout history, the borders did not existed. The process of nation-states is only a short period of time in European history. But even during this time, it must be said that the worst period was that of the Cold War. This was the time when the curve reached its highest point. Today borders in a large part of Europe are only some lines on the map. The future is again of this great Empires.
 
Earlier I had noted the importance of DIFFERENCE is making humanity/human society what it is today. It follows that there is value in preserving differences. This is not meant to be racist, but it can be interpreted as such. Europe it seems to me needs people as labor - both upper end and low end - and as the means to support its social welfare system - someone must be around to pay into the system when the current population ages. But many of the people do not assimilate, and to the extent they do, the result is not the 'old ways', but some type of hybrid society (or pockets within the dominant society). You know all this.

I'm saying that Europe is not like the USA, Canada, nor Brasil, nor other South American countries, where the current society is already something different than before. In my opinion, Europe should restrict immigration far more closely than New World countries. Not for racial reasons but for cultural reasons. And, yes, cultural can include religion. There are likely cultural differences that should be preserved. Europe should not strive to be 'homogeneous' ('homogenizing') like the US.

The countries of sub-Saharan Africa, India, and China have internal growth that is needed, so that should be their focus. Every other country needs to consider their own situation, but they are likely like these, if not like Europe.

Edits above and here added: Wasn't that the reason for BREXIT? The cultural element, not the economics - except that with automation, every strata of society is affected. This is not to justify BREXIT, but Europe from my perspective would do far better maximizing trade, standardizing where appropriate to trade, protecting trademarks and product names, etc. and going easy on issues that affect the core dominant societies in each member country of the EU.

As to the need for immigrants to fuel the economies, the mega-trend is that automation in its various forms will soon, and for ever more, reduce the numbers of people required to sustain an economy. So, some of the current immigration value is quite definitely short-term benefit for long term pain.

One more comment here. Every country does well to invest in its people. A laissez faire approach to human development in an era of globalization is tremendously stupid. To the extent that Europe desires to maintain its culture, then these countries need to take to heart the imperative to maximize the human potential of their people. And also work to preserve the best elements of their culture and remembrance of its history.
What elements of "their" culture you think it is worth preserving. Is it the culture of "old" Europe, like religious wars, hyper nationalism of WW2, tradition of beating own wife, country life, folklore garments and pierogies, etc... , or are the liberal values that developed fairly recently (and not without help of USA), like democracy, equality, tolerance, inclusiveness, free market and cooperation?
 
What elements of "their" culture you think it is worth preserving. Is it the culture of "old" Europe, like religious wars, hyper nationalism of WW2, tradition of beating own wife, country life, folklore garments and pierogies, etc... , or are the liberal values that developed fairly recently (and not without help of USA), like democracy, equality, tolerance, inclusiveness, free market and cooperation?

European values started to develop 600 years ago with the renaisance when free minds started to clash with the religious establishment.
None of the traits of what you lable 'old Europe' have been exclusively or specificaly European traits.
 
Democracy

In the year 507 B.C., the Athenian leader Cleisthenes introduced a system of political reforms that he called demokratia, or “rule by the people.” This system was comprised of three separate institutions: the ekklesia, a sovereign governing body that wrote laws and dictated foreign policy; the boule, a council of representatives from the ten Athenian tribes; and the dikasteria, the popular courts in which citizens argued cases before a group of lottery-selected jurors. Although this Athenian democracy would survive for only two centuries, Cleisthenes’ invention was one of ancient Greece’s most enduring contributions to the modern World.
http://www.history.com/topics/ancient-history/ancient-greece-democracy

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/greeks/greekdemocracy_01.shtml

The Renaissance
http://history-world.org/renaissance.htm

The Enlightenment
http://www.livescience.com/55327-the-enlightenment.html
 
Democracy

In the year 507 B.C., the Athenian leader Cleisthenes introduced a system of political reforms that he called demokratia, or “rule by the people.” This system was comprised of three separate institutions: the ekklesia, a sovereign governing body that wrote laws and dictated foreign policy; the boule, a council of representatives from the ten Athenian tribes; and the dikasteria, the popular courts in which citizens argued cases before a group of lottery-selected jurors. Although this Athenian democracy would survive for only two centuries, Cleisthenes’ invention was one of ancient Greece’s most enduring contributions to the modern World.
http://www.history.com/topics/ancient-history/ancient-greece-democracy

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/greeks/greekdemocracy_01.shtml

The Renaissance
http://history-world.org/renaissance.htm

The Enlightenment
http://www.livescience.com/55327-the-enlightenment.html

the strongest penalties ever,
and limited access to many 'chairs',
as also low salaries of officers, almost zero considering today.
for many years check of property and money to those who reach high levels or handle public money.
and even 'economical killers' or embargo to a city if someone went abroad with public money.
exclusion from vote for newcomers, even married (citizenship is a priviledge that is given by blood or bravery, and can be easily lost)
eclusion from vote to those who do not own land or pay taxes, or do not serve as military.
help and anex to the weak (υπερ αδυνατου laws))
division not only to economical class, but also origin class, and forced train by 3 non same class to all men, so achieve the public good and not the class prosperity.
and the meter of 'exostracismos'. the exile of one politician every year which was considered dangerous.
that was his secret.

we need such punishments today.
among democracy of Athens and today there are huge differences,
modern democracies mainly are based on Cromwell effort (king and parliament) and revolution Francais (president).
but works like the Venician and Genouatic style of Don's, strong politician families in closed circles, or rhetores founded by rich circles etc. (at least in my country)
 
Last edited:
Europa is scattered. So many languages. Full integration is impossible. You will always be a xenos (foreigner, alien) to any country you go. Thus, even if you are European, you will feel some kind of racism.

The Old Continent has been the terrain for numerous migration waves, since the old times. After all, geography favours it. I reckon that in the future the structure of the European population will be very different.

I don't really agree that it is language that is causing all these problems in the EU. Take Turkey for example, I think religion is the biggest problem. I think this is the major reason why they are not accepted to be a member of the EU.

Other than that the border, I don't think the EU like the idea of being neighbours with radical muslims.

I don't think Europeans accept Turkish as Europeans, they don't see Turkish culture as an European one. There is also economy, geography and politics.

With other European countries I think it is mostly culture, and economics. The rest yes but less of a problem.
 

This thread has been viewed 71950 times.

Back
Top