You are racist because you think that only the people who are born near you from people who share some lineage with you can participate in your culture, your people, your nation.
I also want all of those things to survive, but I really don't think that mixing with other people poses a danger to them. If anything I recognize that most of the food I eat, most of the words I speak, the clothes I wear come from some interaction with other cultures.
> If they don't share my lineage, how are they my people? my nation? my culture?
Because all of those things are a product of nurture, not nature. If your twin was adopted, raised in a different country and didn't speak your language would you still consider them part of your culture?
> You're wrong. Go to any city that experienced mass immigration, and then to a city that didn't. See which one is culturally rich.
Oh, like Paris?
Honestly I'm trying to come up with a large city that didn't experience mass immigration and the only thing that comes to mind is something like Pyongyang. At this point I'm not sure if you meant that seriously, but mass immigration is something that pretty much defines being a large, culturally vibrant city. I come from Rome, and the moment our city was richer both economically and in terms of culture was when it was at the center of the Roman Empire and it was experiencing huge influxes of people from all the corners of the known world.
I will yield that culture is nurture, but others are not. If my twin was adopted and raised in China, they will not be Chinese. They will still be European.
> Oh, like Paris?
Yeah, a complete shadow of it's former self. It is completely unrecognizable compared to even 15 years ago. Thieves everywhere.
> Honestly I'm trying to come up with a large city that didn't experience mass immigration
Tokyo? Warsaw (Before Ukrainian refugees)? Prague? All beautiful cities, safe and culturally rich. They have immigration, which is fine, but not mass immigration. Most of the people you will see are natives with some tourists.
> but mass immigration is something that pretty much defines being a large, culturally vibrant city
Completely false. Mass immigration is what kills cities. It's also illogical. Culture is built upon generations of people. When you mass import foreigners, you are diluting that culture, killing it. It's partially why US cities are less culturally rich compared to EU cities.
> I will yield that culture is nurture, but others are not. If my twin was adopted and raised in China, they will not be Chinese. They will still be European.
That's only true if you are racist. To me anyone who grows up fully immersed in Italian culture is Italian. Period. An American who calls themselves Italian, doesn't speak the language and has never visited isn't.
> Yeah, a complete shadow of it's former self. It is completely unrecognizable compared to even 15 years ago. Thieves everywhere.
15 years ago I used to live in Paris, every time I visited more recently I found it greatly improved. Not sure what Paris you've been to. Also mass immigration in Paris is a very old phenomenon. At any point in time in the past 100 years Paris was something like 30% foreign born.
> Tokyo? Warsaw (Before Ukrainian refugees)? Prague? All beautiful cities, safe and culturally rich. They have immigration, which is fine, but not mass immigration. Most of the people you will see are natives with some tourists.
Haven't been to Tokyo so I can't comment, but honestly Warsaw and Prague over Paris? Prague is cute, but it's not much of a real live city, with a bustling cultural scene. It feels a lot more like a museum for tourists. Warsaw, meh.
> Completely false. Mass immigration is what kills cities. It's also illogical. Culture is built upon generations of people. When you mass import foreigners, you are diluting that culture, killing it. It's partially why US cities are less culturally rich compared to EU cities.
If what you mean by culture is some old buildings you might be right, but honestly I'll take NYC, Chicago or LA over Prague or Warsaw any day in terms of culture being produced right now.
> The Roman Empire fell, so not a great example.
The Roman Empire still stood for far longer than any modern nation state.
That's not racism. That's being factual. Nations are bound together by common traits, including ethnicity. Italian, is an ethnicity. Chinese, is an ethnicity.
Racism is denying the European indigineous people the right to their own nation. Why do Europeans have to accept importing immigrants, who, statistically, commit more violent crimes?
> Haven't been to Tokyo so I can't comment, but honestly Warsaw and Prague over Paris? Prague is cute, but it's not much of a real live city, with a bustling cultural scene. It feels a lot more like a museum for tourists. Warsaw, meh.
Way safer and way nicer cities to live in than Paris, but the latter is a personal preference I guess.
> I'll take NYC, Chicago or LA
I remember visiting Google LA's office. There were junkies shooting up at the garage entrance.
What culture is being produced? The culture of gangbangers? Culture of homeless junkies harassing people on the subway?
> The Roman Empire still stood for far longer than any modern nation state.
And they were quite heavily xenophobic too. They did start giving our citizenship more broadly - preceding it's death.
I’m not the person you asked, but I feel very uncomfortable with the idea that cultures and societies should be subject to mass immigration in the name of economic activity.
Immigration when done right, can have a positive impact. Both economically and culturally. However, I think mass migration into declining populations risks having the opposite effect. I’d like to present a historical example.
Hawaii has a famously multicultural society. That being said, it became that way because rich plantation owners simply wanted cheap labor. In the span of a few decades the native Hawaiians became a minority in their own land. Traditional Hawaiian culture is practically extinct as a result. The economic situation of native Hawaiian communities remains impoverished to this day. They wound up being marginalized and almost all of the economic gains that resulted from the mass migration went to those who implemented it. Going further, the Kingdom was eventually overthrown. This was partially enabled by the fact that the new population was so fractured and disunited.
Since statehood, the politics of the state have been largely been controlled by Japanese Americans. Japan was the largest source of immigrants to the Kingdom. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, however. I allege no racism on the part of the descendants of plantation workers. I just wanted to illustrate how a society can be radically altered through mass migration in a relatively short amount of time.
I can only speculate, but I imagine if the Hawaiian people in the 1800’s had known this would happen, they would have chosen a depressed economy instead.
You raise great points here. It's very interesting how the term racist (from the post you're responding to) gets thrown around by people to shut down every side of the discussion depending on what their objectives are.
It's racist for people born in or who are citizens of a country - today - to resist the governing class allowing foreigners to immigrate to benefit the economy AND it's racist policy - historically - for a governing class to push immigration on a natively born population for economic reasons.
You could come out and say the B word. The British transplanted a massive number of people throughout their colonial possessions which later fueled ethic violence.
It's striking to me that a certain kind of person is willing to endure demographic collapse and all that entails, just so that they don't have to see so many brown people.
Instead let's try a hypothetical. Perhaps someone has a historically oppressed indigenous background (perhaps they even have brown skin) it is possible that they may not want any more immigration into their lands.
In my opinion that would be a very understandable position for them to take given the historical circumstances.
The economic argument isn't as clear cut as you suggest either. An economy with excess supply of underutilized labour isn't going to see many gains from immigration.. There's market distortion to consider with regard to housing supply as well, and plenty of other reasons someone may take a valid position against immigration without being racist
It's striking to me that a certain kind of person is willing to endure the genocide of their people and all that entails, just so they can enjoy cheap labour.
Mixing of cultures and ethnicities is good. It makes us stronger and our system has always been made more resilient by absorbing the most adventurous, those who are willing to risk it all. It's what has always actually made America great. We have a wildly inexpensive and rich resource in the form of our fellow humans who happen to have been born behind some different lines. We reject it at our own peril.
It’s comical how quickly some people resort to such extreme measures as if that were the only option they can conceive, rather than encouraging people to have families. Luckily more open minded thinking seems to be more common nowadays.
