USA Rasicm

[StringJunky]

48 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I've  long regarded racial prejudice as a natural inherited characteristic embedded in the human genome. (not that natural equates to good). You have to understand that our ancestors evolved from terratorial apes. They probably lived in bands or troops who claimed and held a territory, which they relied on for their survival. They would have been aware of their immediate neighbours, and would have had to defend their territory and members of the clan against aggression from those next door. This is roughly how chimps live now, where they are numerous enough to actually have neighbours and rival clans. 

I remember reading somewhere that one of the Islands of the East Indies, I think Borneo, had as many as nine hundred separate languages, each extended clan having their own language. And clans were always at war with each other. The basic instinct is distrust and dislike of our neighbours, especially if they look and sound different. 

It seems to be a numbers thing. Small numbers of incomers don't cause alarm, but when they increase in numbers, the aliens tend to get the blame for everything that goes wrong. 

These days we seem to be favouring intellect over instinct, but history shows that when things go wrong, the baser instinct takes over. 

Yes, it is the rate of immigration that determines how they will be received, I think.

[Phi for All]

36 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Yes, ultimately, it's up to them.

The rules have been hammered out over the years with membership input, but the owners always wanted a place for discussion and debate where critical thinking, mainstream methodologies, and reasoned arguments were heard. I don't think that's changed. 

49 minutes ago, studiot said:

But surely the issue here is that Politics at SF is whatever the powers that be deem it to be ?

When someone posts with a fairly shallow opinion on any subject, I've always relied on the membership to provide a deeper and more insightful perspective that may help the OP understand and form a broader, deeper stance. Politics can give us much more than opinion; discussing it HERE can give us several reasoned, well-informed, concisely presented opinions.

 

[StringJunky]

16 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

The rules have been hammered out over the years with membership input, but the owners always wanted a place for discussion and debate where critical thinking, mainstream methodologies, and reasoned arguments were heard. I don't think that's changed. 

When someone posts with a fairly shallow opinion on any subject, I've always relied on the membership to provide a deeper and more insightful perspective that may help the OP understand and form a broader, deeper stance. Politics can give us much more than opinion; discussing it HERE can give us several reasoned, well-informed, concisely presented opinions.

 

I like that there is a little bit of mess because it indicates that individual freedom of thought is well-catered for, up to a sensible point. There are 'better' forums in the sense that rigor is more enforced, but I think they are more for the dedicated and academic that want it strict.

Also, I think everyone naturally comes in with different levels of objectivity. Some new ones might start out shallow, as you say, but gain insight with exposure to more experienced debaters/critical thinkers. The ones that don't learn almost always move on, either voluntarily or with assistance.  

Edited November 23, 2021 by StringJunky

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

I remember reading somewhere that one of the Islands of the East Indies, I think Borneo, had as many as nine hundred separate languages, each extended clan having their own language. And clans were always at war with each other.

You know they were all the same race, right? What they fought over was resources and territory. That's what humans, and other animals fight over - not differences in skin colour. They do fight over religion, but that has only been going on since the advent of exclusive organized religions belonging to civilized nation-states. (The wars were still over resources and territory, just using different symbols to rally the troops.)  

 

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

I've  long regarded racial prejudice as a natural inherited characteristic embedded in the human genome.

It isn't. There is a natural, instinctive tendency to trust whom we know and be loyal to blood kin, but that erects no barriers to trade, treaties and and alliances; raises no barriers to someone of a different tribe marrying in (in fact, that custom is very deliberately encouraged, in order to improve the gene-pool, cement friendly relations with allies and consolidate land and water use agreements). 

 

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

Small numbers of incomers don't cause alarm, but when they increase in numbers, the aliens tend to get the blame for everything that goes wrong. 

That's an extra-long step from tribalism to hostility. Yes, if the number of incomers is low, they have both motivation and time to learn the language and culture and stand a good chance of assimilation. In small, monolithic societies, kinship and shared customs are of paramount importance. It the number of incomers is such that it forms a separate sub-society, that threatens the identity, integrity, and therefore the viability of the whole.  Too fast an influx of population also strains the resources, territorial boundaries and status relationships of a small community. In large, heterogeneous modern societies, diversity is not an existential issue, but the social dynamics are far more faceted and complicated. It's never just a matter of "blaming a group for everything that goes wrong" - it's also a matter of history, agendas, lifestyles, personal conflicts, cultural antipathies, value systems - so many more possible things to go wrong, for which the community is unprepared.

All of these are social issues - not biological or evolutionary ones.   

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

but history shows that when things go wrong, the baser instinct takes over.

Where does History show anything about instinct, or indicate which ones are base and which noble? History seems to me a record of collective actions, based on political decisions.  Where you have an antipathy between two strangers of different nationalities, look for its roots in the history of their nations, not their genotypes. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, mistermack said:

I've  long regarded racial prejudice as a natural inherited characteristic embedded in the human genome. (not that natural equates to good). You have to understand that our ancestors evolved from terratorial apes. They probably lived in bands or troops who claimed and held a territory, which they relied on for their survival. They would have been aware of their immediate neighbours, and would have had to defend their territory and members of the clan against aggression from those next door. This is roughly how chimps live now, where they are numerous enough to actually have neighbours and rival clans. 

I remember reading somewhere that one of the Islands of the East Indies, I think Borneo, had as many as nine hundred separate languages, each extended clan having their own language. And clans were always at war with each other. The basic instinct is distrust and dislike of our neighbours, especially if they look and sound different. 

It seems to be a numbers thing. Small numbers of incomers don't cause alarm, but when they increase in numbers, the aliens tend to get the blame for everything that goes wrong. 

These days we seem to be favouring intellect over instinct, but history shows that when things go wrong, the baser instinct takes over. 

There's probably something to this but I don't believe we are born knowing what colour our skin is (or what other characteristics we will turn out to have). We just have an instinct to be tribal, as that is what (among other "attributes") got us here through evolution. I think we get comfortable with the people around us and those that don't look similar to them seem "foreign". It probably helps to have positive interactions with many different peoples, especially in our formative years.

Assuming some truth to that, survival of humanity might depend to some extent on multiculturalism and multiracial communities.

[beecee]

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I like that there is a little bit of mess because it indicates that individual freedom of thought is well-catered for, up to a sensible point. There are 'better' forums in the sense that rigor is more enforced, but I think they are more for the dedicated and academic that want it strict.

I have only seen one forum where the rigor is more enforced then here. It isn't a better forum as a result. The more sensible application applying here is to my liking. I have also had the unfortunate pleasure of being a part of another "recognised" science forum for many years, where the rigor is near non existent. It more or less ran on the principle of quantity over quality. Plus it only really had one or two experts in various fields, which gave me more of a chance with the sciences, in my more layman's style. That still applies here of course, but with far more experts and professionals to explain in more rigorous fashion. I see it as a reasonable mix.

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Also, I think everyone naturally comes in with different levels of objectivity. Some new ones might start out shallow, as you say, but gain insight with exposure to more experienced debaters/critical thinkers. The ones that don't learn almost always move on, either voluntarily or with assistance.  

With the rather large number of professionals here, I'm certainly learning all the time, with the hard sciences. And I prefer to take a "middle ground"perhaps slightly left leaning with the softer sciences, and political opinions. Admittedly that midle ground, slightly left leaning approach, can have some disagreements. But even in that I'm learning much more with the methodology of debate, particularly with the more  philosophical approaches of some, as against the more stable methodology of science and the rigor involved.

All in all, I'm (so far) enjoying my stay. 😜

Edited November 23, 2021 by beecee

[StringJunky]

17 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

There's probably something to this but I don't believe we are born knowing what colour our skin is (or what other characteristics we will turn out to have). We just have an instinct to be tribal, as that is what (among other "attributes") got us here through evolution. I think we get comfortable with the people around us and those that don't look similar to them seem "foreign". It probably helps to have positive interactions with many different peoples, especially in our formative years.

Assuming some truth to that, survival of humanity might depend to some extent on multiculturalism and multiracial communities.

A species needs diversity to survive adversity.

[CharonY]

4 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Yes, it is the rate of immigration that determines how they will be received, I think.

I would add a couple of caveats to that. First, perceived immigration rate is often very different from actual rates. Surveys through the world have shown that in most countries immigration is vastly overestimated (e.g. in the US and UK 2018 values indicate that the share of immigrants is about 14% in both countries, but folks assume that it is actually 36-32%). 

And related to that, how visible (this includes also how visibly "foreign" the immigrants are). There are different ways to measure acceptance of immigration, and asking e.g. whether you are in favour of more immigration can yield different results from asking whether you would like to have immigrants as neighbours. Asking the former many countries with traditionally high levels of immigration have overall more positive attitudes, though there are some outliers with e.g. Japan recently have become very much in favour of more immigration despite (or because of) low immigration rates. The UK is surprisingly high in terms of seeing immigration as a strength (in line with relatively high immigration rates) but is only middling (but still above average) in the acceptance score (asking e.g. about immigrations becoming neighbours or marrying one).

Some studies indicate that acceptance is not strongly related to immigration rate (or is positively correlated). Rather, the way immigration is debated in terms of policy seems to heavily influence perception. E.g. in countries where debates are almost exclusively about economic cost (in many European countries, for example) resistance against immigration is high (though it could be a chicken and egg situation). In others where it is framed as a larger part of economic opportunities, it is generally more positive. But some areas (e.g. Italy and to some degree Germany) have a profoundly schizoid situation where immigrants are accepted on an economic basis with high participation in the labor market as business owners etc. but are often culturally rejected. Invisible immigrants are sought after, but if they become visible (in any number), they are often seen as a threat. It is an interesting, but complex dynamics.

[Peterkin]

42 minutes ago, CharonY said:

It is an interesting, but complex dynamics

Yes. May we conclude that these attitudes are not genetically determined, biological, instinctive or "hard-wired"?

[CharonY]

48 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Yes. May we conclude that these attitudes are not genetically determined, biological, instinctive or "hard-wired"?

I think it is at least fair to say that we all learn by exposure what is familiar and what is not.

[BlightedFox]

The answer to this question lies entirely in US history.

Native American Genocide (what humble beginnings)
US Colonialism/Imperialism began pretty much the moment we were no longer under British control (it has never stopped)

Expansionary practices always involved atrocity, mass murder, and the cultural/social/economic rape of the ensnared nations.
If we were going to criticise the Brits/etc... For their misdeeds, we would instantly be hypocrites to not acknowledge our own atrocities that were committing at that time, and have continued to this day.
German mass genocide was too public and too exposed to be ignored. So the hypocrisy was necessary. The whole debacle happened as the whole world watched, and regular people were never going to take a different stance on such vile, and wretched crimes against humanity.

Britain and the colonialist nations also existed in a different time in information dissemination. In those times, it was a lot easier to control the narrative.
And atrocity after the fact doesn't seem to gain public interest nearly as much. Conservatives can pretend it never happened, and liberals can ignore it. Pictures coming from cameras taken last week are a lot harder to ignore, people feel connected to events happening in the now.
Germany also, was a total failure. They were perfect scapegoats for right-wing trash across the planet. The evil enemy that isn't "US." The fascism of the 3rd Reich could be hand waved at political opponents of any flavor, and the meme's could roll for a hundred years.

Controlling the information as it seems, is more important than the truth, when an uninformed populous is concerned.

Maybe we really ask the bigger question?!
How is it that Americans are so ignorant to our nation's long history of atrocity and human rights violations to many, many nations around the world? (spanning our entire history)
It's almost like people go to Banana Republic to buy overpriced t-shirts, and they completely miss the irony. #UnitedFruitCompany

US foreign policy has been almost entirely human rights violating for our entire history. Maybe the moral of the story, is that ALL of the violations are of equal evil, and bad. And the bad-faith disgusting argument "Daddy, Daddy, they did it too." is wretched!!!!

---

Consider the bad-faith argument about the impending doom of "refugee caravans at the border."

El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras

Maybe, just maybe, you go read about US interventionism and actions towards those 3 nations for many, many years?!?!?!?
The propping up of mass murdering militia groups,
The propping up of puppet dictators and despots,
The wholesale rape of indigenous peoples' lands and resources (not to mention the rape and murder of those people)
-And that is just the tip of the iceberg that is the history of US foreign policy affairs... (You won't find many Latin nations we didn't fuch over)

Spreading Democracy, as it seems, is just a phrase they use when they actually mean "You will do as we say."

[Der_Neugierige]

10 hours ago, studiot said:

About the greyness, I would agree with you, but what makes you think Science does not offer a multitude of approaches ?

For example in considering a structure you can use Force-Displacement, Slope-Deflection, Virtual Work, Energy theorems, Graphical methods, finite elements, and quite a few more besides.

But surely the issue here is that Politics at SF is whatever the powers that be deem it to be ?

Science can not do everything. Some things are not possible like making an autistic person to a non autistic person, even if we would understand the biology behind it. 
 

and very recently this ,,gene therapy“ thing. If you have read this story about  this very expensive gene therapy (Zolgesma)from Novartis. Now they figured out that it doesnt cure spinal muscular antrophy! 
 

science can not do everything, you see the very well when it comes to biological/medical issues.

Humans are not monkeys! These genetic mutations which happened between these millions years totally made our brain distinct from monkeys.

 

13 minutes ago, BlightedFox said:

The answer to this question lies entirely in US history.

Native American Genocide (what humble beginnings)
US Colonialism/Imperialism began pretty much the moment we were no longer under British control (it has never stopped)

Expansionary practices always involved atrocity, mass murder, and the cultural/social/economic rape of the ensnared nations.
If we were going to criticise the Brits/etc... For their misdeeds, we would instantly be hypocrites to not acknowledge our own atrocities that were committing at that time, and have continued to this day.
German mass genocide was too public and too exposed to be ignored. So the hypocrisy was necessary. The whole debacle happened as the whole world watched, and regular people were never going to take a different stance on such vile, and wretched crimes against humanity.

Britain and the colonialist nations also existed in a different time in information dissemination. In those times, it was a lot easier to control the narrative.
And atrocity after the fact doesn't seem to gain public interest nearly as much. Conservatives can pretend it never happened, and liberals can ignore it. Pictures coming from cameras taken last week are a lot harder to ignore, people feel connected to events happening in the now.
Germany also, was a total failure. They were perfect scapegoats for right-wing trash across the planet. The evil enemy that isn't "US." The fascism of the 3rd Reich could be hand waved at political opponents of any flavor, and the meme's could roll for a hundred years.

Controlling the information as it seems, is more important than the truth, when an uninformed populous is concerned.

Maybe we really ask the bigger question?!
How is it that Americans are so ignorant to our nation's long history of atrocity and human rights violations to many, many nations around the world? (spanning our entire history)
It's almost like people go to Banana Republic to buy overpriced t-shirts, and they completely miss the irony. #UnitedFruitCompany

US foreign policy has been almost entirely human rights violating for our entire history. Maybe the moral of the story, is that ALL of the violations are of equal evil, and bad. And the bad-faith disgusting argument "Daddy, Daddy, they did it too." is wretched!!!!

---

Consider the bad-faith argument about the impending doom of "refugee caravans at the border."

El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras

Maybe, just maybe, you go read about US interventionism and actions towards those 3 nations for many, many years?!?!?!?
The propping up of mass murdering militia groups,
The propping up of puppet dictators and despots,
The wholesale rape of indigenous peoples' lands and resources (not to mention the rape and murder of those people)
-And that is just the tip of the iceberg that is the history of US foreign policy affairs... (You won't find many Latin nations we didn't fuch over)

Spreading Democracy, as it seems, is just a phrase they use when they actually mean "You will do as we say."

Yes Americans love to critized other nations when it comes to human rights and morality. But they still have death penality, their CIA used torture, still have Guantanamo, start stupid wars and rascism issues.

 

 

Edited November 23, 2021 by Der_Neugierige

[studiot]

1 hour ago, BlightedFox said:

Native American Genocide (what humble beginnings)
US Colonialism/Imperialism began pretty much the moment we were no longer under British control (it has never stopped)

From the rest of your post I assume you are a US citizen.

I think you are overdramatising the situation, partly by ignoring substantial parts of your own History, and like the OP, partly by confusing racial (the stated) subject of this thread with tribal and with personal discrimination.

For instance I see no mention of the purchase of Alaska or the creation of the Indian Territories.

 

On 11/21/2021 at 11:53 PM, Der_Neugierige said:

What about the potato genocide of the Irish people. Did the Brits have said sorry?

There was no genocide.
There certainly was tribal and personal discrimination that led to major hardship including starvation.
This also happened in England.

(Who were 'the Bits' by the way ? My family suffered as much under the same regime, but in mostly England and Wales.)

1 hour ago, Der_Neugierige said:

Science can not do everything. Some things are not possible like making an autistic person to a non autistic person, even if we would understand the biology behind it. 
 

and very recently this ,,gene therapy“ thing. If you have read this story about  this very expensive gene therapy (Zolgesma)from Novartis. Now they figured out that it doesnt cure spinal muscular antrophy! 
 

science can not do everything, you see the very well when it comes to biological/medical issues.

Humans are not monkeys! These genetic mutations which happened between these millions years totally made our brain distinct from monkeys.

Thank you for this reply to my post you quoted.

I'm sorry but I can't see any connection to what I said  ?

Of course Science cannot do 'everything' That is why we have the Arts, Humanities, Sports Gardening and many other activities.
It should be noted that Science can offer matters of note to enhance these subjects.

 

I am unclear if this thread is meant to be about genocide alone or to include lesser forms of discrimination.

It is a huge topic so I will leave a few examples of racial and tribal genocide and a mixed version of religous genocide to illustrate the difference.
I am not aware of any personally inspired genocide, such activity tends to be limited to lesser discrimination.

Racial Genocide:  Carthage, Nazi jewish programme, Uighers

Tribal Genocide:   Ruanda

Religeous Genocide:  Cathars , Inquisition, Yugoslavia

[Der_Neugierige]

10 minutes ago, studiot said:

From the rest of your post I assume you are a US citizen.

I think you are overdramatising the situation, partly by ignoring substantial parts of your own History, and like the OP, partly by confusing racial (the stated) subject of this thread with tribal and with personal discrimination.

For instance I see no mention of the purchase of Alaska or the creation of the Indian Territories.

 

There was no genocide.
There certainly was tribal and personal discrimination that led to major hardship including starvation.
This also happened in England.

(Who were 'the Bits' by the way ? My family suffered as much under the same regime, but in mostly England and Wales.)

Thank you for this reply to my post you quoted.

I'm sorry but I can't see any connection to what I said  ?

Of course Science cannot do 'everything' That is why we have the Arts, Humanities, Sports Gardening and many other activities.
It should be noted that Science can offer matters of note to enhance these subjects.

 

I am unclear if this thread is meant to be about genocide alone or to include lesser forms of discrimination.

It is a huge topic so I will leave a few examples of racial and tribal genocide and a mixed version of religous genocide to illustrate the difference.
I am not aware of any personally inspired genocide, such activity tends to be limited to lesser discrimination.

Racial Genocide:  Carthage, Nazi jewish programme, Uighers

Tribal Genocide:   Ruanda

Religeous Genocide:  Cathars , Inquisition, Yugoslavia

Do you see how religion cause harm in history?

[Area54]

On 11/21/2021 at 11:53 PM, Der_Neugierige said:

What about the potato genocide of the Irish people. Did the Brits have said sorry?

The indifference to the suffering of the Irish during the potato famine was reprehensible. Characterising that as genocide is arguably too strong. The same indifference to suffering was a commonplace attitude in that period. Rather than indifference it might be more accurate to describe it as acceptance that bad things happen. I refer you to the writings of the Reverend Thomas Malthus who felt overpopulation and subsequent widespread deaths, through disease, famine and war were inevitable aspects of life. His ideas were widely respected by the middle and upper classes of Georgian and Victorian England.

Would we approve such indifference today? Supposedly not, but I suspect much of the anguish over the plight of the poor anywhere on the planet is superficial. Many people, of all races, creeds and nationalities, do outstanding work to support the downtrodden, but most of us are too focused on our own problems, be they large or small.

Just out of interest, have the Swiss apologised to the world for facilitating the laundering of drug money through Swiss bank accounts? I think at least as many have died from drugs, as from the Irish potato famine.

Perhaps you are familiar with the English saying, "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones". We might all get on a little better if we looked at how solve problems rather than finding the best way of condemning others. Something for you to think about and, perhaps, comment upon.

[Der_Neugierige]

51 minutes ago, Area54 said:

The indifference to the suffering of the Irish during the potato famine was reprehensible. Characterising that as genocide is arguably too strong. The same indifference to suffering was a commonplace attitude in that period. Rather than indifference it might be more accurate to describe it as acceptance that bad things happen. I refer you to the writings of the Reverend Thomas Malthus who felt overpopulation and subsequent widespread deaths, through disease, famine and war were inevitable aspects of life. His ideas were widely respected by the middle and upper classes of Georgian and Victorian England.

Would we approve such indifference today? Supposedly not, but I suspect much of the anguish over the plight of the poor anywhere on the planet is superficial. Many people, of all races, creeds and nationalities, do outstanding work to support the downtrodden, but most of us are too focused on our own problems, be they large or small.

Just out of interest, have the Swiss apologised to the world for facilitating the laundering of drug money through Swiss bank accounts? I think at least as many have died from drugs, as from the Irish potato famine.

Perhaps you are familiar with the English saying, "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones". We might all get on a little better if we looked at how solve problems rather than finding the best way of condemning others. Something for you to think about and, perhaps, comment upon. This 

Yes Swiss officials have apologized.

Edited November 23, 2021 by Der_Neugierige

[StringJunky]

7 hours ago, CharonY said:

I would add a couple of caveats to that. First, perceived immigration rate is often very different from actual rates. Surveys through the world have shown that in most countries immigration is vastly overestimated (e.g. in the US and UK 2018 values indicate that the share of immigrants is about 14% in both countries, but folks assume that it is actually 36-32%). 

And related to that, how visible (this includes also how visibly "foreign" the immigrants are). There are different ways to measure acceptance of immigration, and asking e.g. whether you are in favour of more immigration can yield different results from asking whether you would like to have immigrants as neighbours. Asking the former many countries with traditionally high levels of immigration have overall more positive attitudes, though there are some outliers with e.g. Japan recently have become very much in favour of more immigration despite (or because of) low immigration rates. The UK is surprisingly high in terms of seeing immigration as a strength (in line with relatively high immigration rates) but is only middling (but still above average) in the acceptance score (asking e.g. about immigrations becoming neighbours or marrying one).

Some studies indicate that acceptance is not strongly related to immigration rate (or is positively correlated). Rather, the way immigration is debated in terms of policy seems to heavily influence perception. E.g. in countries where debates are almost exclusively about economic cost (in many European countries, for example) resistance against immigration is high (though it could be a chicken and egg situation). In others where it is framed as a larger part of economic opportunities, it is generally more positive. But some areas (e.g. Italy and to some degree Germany) have a profoundly schizoid situation where immigrants are accepted on an economic basis with high participation in the labor market as business owners etc. but are often culturally rejected. Invisible immigrants are sought after, but if they become visible (in any number), they are often seen as a threat. It is an interesting, but complex dynamics.

What about level of dispersal within the host country; the tendency to gather or disperse in where one lives with others of the same culture/ethnicity? Some groups seem to take up whole streets. Having high mono-ethnic densities might be an aggravating factor for the indigenous population?

Edited November 23, 2021 by StringJunky

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Der_Neugierige said:

Do you see how religion cause harm in history?

Yes and I mentioned a few cases and....?

 

54 minutes ago, Area54 said:

The indifference to the suffering of the Irish during the potato famine was reprehensible. Characterising that as genocide is arguably too strong. The same indifference to suffering was a commonplace attitude in that period.

Totally agree.

If The English establishment had not treated the Irish so badly over several centuries we would still be one country.

But then the English establishment treated the English, along with everyone else, just as badly.

11 minutes ago, Der_Neugierige said:

How many Irish people died because of this famine?

Its debated if it wasca genocide or not

Genoncide implies a deliberate murder in an attempt to exterminate. (Daleks ahoy)

Indifference is quite a another matter.

[CharonY]

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

What about level of dispersal within the host country; the tendency to gather or disperse in where one lives? Some groups seem to take up whole streets. Having high mono-ethnic densities might be an aggravating factor?

That goes to the visibility part. Interestingly, in many cases aggregation of folks are caused by limitations set by the host country, so it can also be policy driven.

But overall, it seems that certain events (e.g. Migrant crisis), policy and public framing has a huge influence. For example in the 80s despite much lower immigration rates, the public in many parts of Europe were much more adverse to permanent migration, even from within Europe. 

[Der_Neugierige]

7 minutes ago, studiot said:

Yes and I mentioned a few cases and....?

 

Totally agree.

If The English establishment had not treated the Irish so badly over several centuries we would still be one country.

But then the English establishment treated the English, along with everyone else, just as badly.

Genoncide implies a deliberate murder in an attempt to exterminate. (Daleks ahoy)

Indifference is quite a another matter.

I have deleted it prior.

2 minutes ago, CharonY said:

That goes to the visibility part. Interestingly, in many cases aggregation of folks are caused by limitations set by the host country, so it can also be policy driven.

But overall, it seems that certain events (e.g. Migrant crisis), policy and public framing has a huge influence. For example in the 80s despite much lower immigration rates, the public in many parts of Europe were much more adverse to permanent migration, even from within Europe. 

My country has always been immigration country. Switzerland is not homogenetic society anymore! Bigger society like Germans or French are more homogenic.

 

 

[StringJunky]

4 minutes ago, CharonY said:

That goes to the visibility part. Interestingly, in many cases aggregation of folks are caused by limitations set by the host country, so it can also be policy driven.

But overall, it seems that certain events (e.g. Migrant crisis), policy and public framing has a huge influence. For example in the 80s despite much lower immigration rates, the public in many parts of Europe were much more adverse to permanent migration, even from within Europe. 

Right.

[mistermack]

10 hours ago, Peterkin said:

You know they were all the same race, right? What they fought over was resources and territory. That's what humans, and other animals fight over - not differences in skin colour. They do fight over religion, but that has only been going on since the advent of exclusive organized religions belonging to civilized nation-states. (The wars were still over resources and territory, just using different symbols to rally the troops.)  

That's where I would say you are entirely wrong. They fight people because they perceive them to be different. When Manchester United fans fight Liverpool fans, there's no resources or territory involved. They fight because of aggressive insticts that they inherited. Our ape ancestors DID get a benefit from beating off invaders, or invading their neighbours. But that's the reason that the instinct evolved. That kind of aggression had a survival benefit, so the genes that spark it survived, and the gentler early humans were wiped out on a regular basis by the more aggressive ones. That's why humans are very like chimps. They have very aggressive instincts. Chimpanzees don't say to themselves "I will fight my neighbours over resources and territory". They fight them out of fear or hate, or they just enjoy the feeling of dominance when they get the chance. 

 

10 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Where does History show anything about instinct, or indicate which ones are base and which noble? History seems to me a record of collective actions, based on political decisions.  Where you have an antipathy between two strangers of different nationalities, look for its roots in the history of their nations, not their genotypes. 

Sorry, but this is rubbish. As my example of football fans illustrates, all it takes is for them to perceive themselves as belonging to a different clan. 

When I was a school kid, we used to have punch-ups between gangs from different schools. Sometimes, between kid from different HOUSES within the same school. 

It's no coincidence that Jews got picked on historically. Apart from the religion thing, they usually kept a different style of clothing, kept their own language, didn't intermarry much, and kept a jewish accent. All perfectly within their right, but also, risky behaviour, because it made them easy to regard as outsiders who didn't want to mix. The old clan instinct is then awoken, people see them as outsiders taking over, rather than welcome additions to their clan. 

I'm talking about basic inherited instincts, not modern enlightened thought-out attitudes to incomers. We have both, and very often, they are pulling in opposite directions.

[CharonY]

19 minutes ago, Der_Neugierige said:

I have deleted it prior.

My country has always been immigration country. Switzerland is not homogenetic society anymore! Bigger society like Germans or French are more homogenic.

 

 

Most immigrants to Switzerland are Europeans, and in contrast to other countries, getting citizenship is rather notoriously difficult (and below oecd average).

[Der_Neugierige]

We have Arfrican Asian immigrants.

17 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Most immigrants to Switzerland are Europeans, and in contrast to other countries, getting citizenship is rather notoriously difficult (and below oecd average).

 

[studiot]

48 minutes ago, Der_Neugierige said:

I have deleted it prior.

 

Perhaps you might think a bit harder before you post ?

You might then be able to address the things I did say, rather than the things I didn't.