[ Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: channell daniels, marie godin, maryse antoine et barbara adams
Category: Category 1
Date: 4/7/04
Time: 2:33:14 PM
Remote Name: 130.104.239.234
Xenophobia in the EU and nativism in the US are 2 different things but both of them are about discriminating a certain type of people because they are different from the majority. Xenophobia is mostly the fear of others who are different. Nativism is the discriminations that the natives are facing in the US society. The big difference between xenophobia and nativism is that nativism don't always create fear. The tribes who would resist to the domination of the white settlers would be seen as violent. The settlers would fear them. That is xenophobia. In other cases, the tribes would not resist in an aggressive way, then the settlers would think that they were more pacifist and that they would react better to assimilationnist policies. The natives in that case were not feared but they were seen as inferior, and put under "tutelle". This approach is not considered as xenophobia but is still racism. > > Xenophobia and racism exist everywhere. The differences that exist in the different cases can be explained by the historical context. For example, in the US, the relationships between the natives and the first settlers has create the peculiar form of nativism, the long history of the US with slavery and discriminations against the black community has also shaped the US society. In Europe, we had the colonization that influences the european mentality. Even if we have different label to tag those behavior, the different patterns show the same process, no matter if we call that xenophobia, racism, nativism, antisemitism, etc: the domination of one group (usually the majority) on another one (usually the minority). > > Nativism in the US can be compared to some extent to xenophobia reactions in the European countries. The ideology of the right popular party all around Western european countries stand on cultural nativism. The idea is the protection of culture, customs, and way of living in a world where mondialisation is perceived as the ennemy of cultural identity. The discourse is against mondialisation, and against Islam representing the other. In the website of A^? le front nationalA^? by Jean-marie le pen, we can observe such discourse against mondialisation as well as the use of samuel Hutington's arguments about clash of civilisation. > Beside such a radical discourse, the idea of what means to be european today, is often a mystified view of the past. As we saw the debate on the European constitution and the inscription of christianity as a fundamental base of European identity and cultures. This inscription would potentially exclude all the non-EU citizens as well as people who are EU-citizens but whose personnal and cultural history have no link with christianity. Moreover to be an European citizen, you need to be part of member state which means having the nationality of this state. European citizenship is therefore linked to nationality. Therefore, we can stipulate that the vision of European Identity and culture is one which tend to cultural essentialism. > In this sense cultural essentialism of European identity can be compared to nativism in the US. > With taking the definition of xenophobia from Joly, being: "persuasive, fluctuating and largely irrational towards groups belonging to different cultures, ethnic/cultural backgrounds and different religions" (1998:15), we can assert that it is becoming increasingly more apparent in the US and EU, reflected in the thoughts, discourse and politics of them. There have been various reasons given for the growth in xenophobic attitudes in the literature we have read, but a distinct under-current is the views that it is because of the very nature of Western societies, and the changing way international communities are viewed. For Wieviorka (1994), these changes are: the decay in industrial societies and thus the working class as a social movement; the problems faced by the state and public institutions in trying to respect egalitarian principles or in acting as welfare states; and as a consequence the changing face of nationalism. Here he states that in most European countries debates on the nation, nationality and citizenship are activated, with nationalism loosing it's universal values and links with progression, reason and democracy. > This kind of reasoning is evident in the Huntington article where he states his dismayal of the internationalisation of the American economy, language and culture. The article doesn't as such express xenophobic views (as the fear factor isn't there), but rather more hetrophobic ideas. > > Xenophobia is not always a behavior from the whites toward the other races. Racism is not part of one race or society, anyone can be racist. Another thing is that discrimination is not only linked to races: women, poor people, less educated people, etc can also be discriminated.Most of the laws that are made today to prevent discrimination or to establish affirmative action policies comes usually from the majority (in most cases the whites) who recognize, generations later, the errors of the past. They are trying to repair the misdeed of the past by acting like this. > > Xenophobia or more generally intolerance will not disappear. That doesn't mean that we don't have to do nothing against it. That means that we are realistic and we stay humble: the fight against racism and intolerance is a daily struggle. Discrimination today is present everywhere, even in immigration. However, we have legal means of handling it. What is scaring is the silent anti-immigrant and racism expressions. When people talk openly (after few beers) they tend to generalize and call black - monkeys, jews - money hungry, arabs - terrorists. We don't hear these comments openly, but xenophobia is alive in everyone homes. > All the efforts must be kept to educate the future generations not to fear the differences but to learn from them. This is a big challenge but that is the only way to change the mentalities on a long-term. We don't fear what we know so education is the key and part of the solution for a more multicultural society where nationality and ethnicity are no longer acurate to define people. > > Because European Identity is still not yet socially, politically, culturally constructed constructed, we should see the opportunity to invent a way of belonging to a community different that it is now. Because it seem to be very difficult at a national level to change the mentality of people as we saw for the acceptation of local vote for foreigners in most european countries. Maybe it will be easier at a European level, to create something different than national identity. People will have plural affiliations by sharing common values. Of course, that is quite utopic nowdays, but things can go in that direction. Of course is not just a question of diversity, as we saw, but a multifactoriel problem, that comprise social, economical, political, civil, cultural issues.
> > > >