site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   35215 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 26, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The ongoing French riots bring into sharp relief the fantasy that if we just don't talk about race or religion, the issue will disappear. To be clear, I still prefer the French approach because if you don't measure something you can't really do much about it. The main beneficiary of France suddenly going the US/UK route of meticulously collecting racial and religious statistics wouldn't be the far-right but rather the far-left. Racial and possibly religious quotas would soon follow with official state-sanctioned discrimination as the end result.

Yet the rioters clearly view themselves as apart from French society. Even genteel liberal journalists concede as much.

What are the long-term effects going to be? Perhaps I am cynical but I suspect nothing much. France had these kinds of riots in 2005 and they changed nothing.

I remembering reading a lot about Islam and immigration in the 2010-2012 time period, during which many UK conservative personalities were praising the French approach of "aggressive assimiliationism" as opposed to the supposedly feeble multiculturalist approach preferred by the UK. It seems to me that there's no functional difference. The UK had its own riots in 2011. One could plausibly make the case that the BLM riots in the US during 2014 and then 2020 fall under the same rubric.

Whatever the system, these periodic events happen in diverse societies and then they are forgotten until the next outbreak. The system isn't strong enough to overcome racial and religious differences completely but it's also much stronger than many right-wing doomers seem to think. After the kerfuffle everyone moves on. There's no reason to think it will be different this time.

France has been rioting forever , well before even the French Revolution...it does help to put in perspective how for all the ink spilled over blm, that it's way worse elsewhere in the world. America's left-wing unrest tends to be much more astroturfed compared to elsewhere , which is why there are such long gaps in-between occurrences, or why such unrest ends so abruptly, or why BLM and antifa choose to protest some deaths but not others (minimal protesting over the death of Jordan Neely).

Whatever the system, these periodic events happen in diverse societies and then they are forgotten until the next outbreak.

A key point you're ignoring here is that such racialized rioting doesn't happen nearly as frequently in the US. When it does happen it also never comes from any sort of immigrant group that failed to assimilate---it's not at all fair to try to fit summer 2020 in the US under the same framework and use it to make arguments about assimilation. Immigrants in the US tend to assimilate extremely well and usually do better than the native population in various statistics.

There's an alternate framing of the narrative that actually supports the liberal point of view here (I think you're aware of this?). Yes, the French method of forcing assimilation is silly and doesn't work, but this doesn't mean that assimilation is doomed and will never happen. Rather, we already have a model of assimilation---race aware and everything---that works extremely well in the US. The French should copy this instead of sticking their heads in the sand about human nature and ignoring the necessity of actively combating the insidious power of irrational bias against people that look different.

Immigrants in the US tend to assimilate extremely well and usually do better than the native population in various statistics.

They do better than blacks. Crime statistics for Latinos in this country are significantly worse than whites on every metric; the fact that they do better than native blacks is a sign of just how low blacks set the bar, rather than any sort of salutary reflection on Latinos.

There is some evidence that legal immigrants - people who went through the whole process of obtaining citizenship, rather than people who came here illegally and were then retroactively made into citizens - commit crimes at reasonably low rates; however, their children generally regress to the rate of criminality one would expect based on their racial background.

This was also true of Irish and Italian immigrants for many decades - their rates of criminality were considerably worse than native Anglo whites - and they really only began to assimilate to Anglo norms after the 1924 Immigration Act cut off the supply of further immigrants from their home countries. At some point I’m going to do a big effort post about how the fact that the Irish and the Italians eventually became more like Anglos, only after many decades of not doing that, and after massively contributing to the shocking levels of corruption and inter-ethnic violence which blighted American cities during the Gilded Age - is not in fact the sunny and optimistic pro-immigration story that 21st-century immigration advocates think it is.

Furthermore, if you want to come and see non-assimilated multigenerational immigrant communities in America, come to my home city of San Diego and spend some time around the East African neighborhoods; you’ll see loads of women in hijabs and men in traditional dress, and I went to public school with these people’s kids and saw how different they were from the “assimilated” groups. They are not a useful data point in favor of your thesis.

Can you be more specific about what exact differences you see between East Africans in San Diego and the general population? The one example you gave---dress---is pretty superficial and doesn't really seem relevant unless you have some very strong and idiosyncratic aesthetic preferences. I'm also not going to count examples where East Africans do better than the general population since these would be examples of successful assimilation.

What are the non-superficial/non-appearance-based points where East Africans immigrants in San Diego are significantly worse than the general population?

The one example you gave---dress---is pretty superficial and doesn't really seem relevant unless you have some very strong and idiosyncratic aesthetic preferences.

So, I actually strongly disagree with this, because dress is the easiest way to signal to locals that you are eager to assimilate. It’s incredibly difficult to learn a new language as an adult, to change one’s moral assumptions and values, to pick up all the various folkways and pop-culture knowledge which distinguish locals from outsiders; it is not difficult at all to go to Goodwill or Salvation Army and purchase a $2 t-shirt and some secondhand jeans. If I were to emigrate to, say, Iran, the very first thing I would do is buy a couple of outfits to wear in public that would signal “I know I’m a guest in your country, and I’m making a basic effort to indicate that I respect your local customs and am trying to fit in.”

The fact that these East Africans immigrants do not adopt local modes of dress and comportment is not due to a simple oversight or laziness on their part; their women dress the way they do because of specific strong religious and cultural injunctions to do so. So, right off the bat, they wear their reluctance to assimilate right out on their bodies for everyone to see.

And it’s not like the foreign mode of dress is a false indicator, and if you talked to these women you’d find they’re just like us. They are far, far more devoutly religious than basically any native resident of this city, and their religion very obviously influences their behavior and their relationship to their families, their husbands, and strangers. These women are very quiet and submissive, at least to men, and often have large families of children, aged closely together.

And to be clear, I’m not even saying these are bad behaviors! I’m no feminist, and I wish that white American women would temper their outlook to become more like these woman in certain select ways. I think that conservative dress and a quiet demeanor around men are usually net-positive qualities, although I don’t think they should be enforced via domestic abuse, which as I understand is pervasive in the particular communities in question. But these all mark these people as very distinctly different, in ways that can’t be read as anything other than defiance, since they can easily look around then and see that the vast majority of people here dress a certain way, and it would be trivially easy to imitate that if one wanted to.

As to their children, they too - especially the daughters - tend also to be very religious; the first person I ever knew who refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance was a classmate of mine in first grade, a child of Muslim East African refugees, who had a religious objection. (Again, not saying the Pledge of Allegiance is based - I don’t say the Pledge of Allegiance nowadays - but it’s certainly a strong indicator of not wanting to assimilate.) The boys seem less so, and my experiences with East African guys has been almost uniformly (though not entirely) negative. The first kid who bullied me in middle school was of East African descent, as was the first one who actually physically hit me for the first time in my life. Later on, the guy who robbed me in public was also a second-generation East African from the nearby East African neighborhood.

So, again, if your claim is that immigrants to the US are overwhelmingly eager to assimilate to local norms of behavior, then I think this particular community is a notable example of one who very visibly defies that assumption. We can argue about whether the ways in which they deviate from local norms are positive or negative, but the important thing is that they’re real and obvious.

Ok, I think we have two different standards for what assimilation means. To me, assimilation is just adapting well enough to the host country that you provide more benefits than harms. If I'm not mistaken, you seem to require something more: a level of conformity to the culture that's already there in as many ways as possible---dress, food, religion, etc.

Benefiting more than harming of course does not mean completely ignoring whatever the native culture is at the time. There's a good example brought up on SSC here.

(one more hypothetical, to clarify what I’m talking about – imagine a culture where the color of someone’s clothes tells you a lot of things about them – for example, anyone wearing red is a prostitute. This may work well as long as everyone follows the culture. If you mix it 50-50 with another culture that doesn’t have this norm, then things go downhill quickly; you proposition a lady wearing red, only to get pepper sprayed in the eye. Eventually the first culture gives up and stops trying to communicate messages through clothing color.)

I do count immigration breaking a norm like this as causing harm. Similarly, I would usually only count immigrants who learn English as fully assimilated.

Why do I think my standard for assimilation is better? The short answer is first that western countries, in particular and even more so the US, haven't had a homogenous culture to conform to for a very long time. Talking again about clothing, people aggressively refusing to conform through fashion is one of the most central things in American society---like how much do you remember from high school? Why does it matter whether they stand out by wearing all black and spiking their hair or by wearing traditional East African clothing?

I really think the article linked above is the right way to think about it---"western" culture is just a bunch of the most compelling parts of all cultures in the world mashed together into one plus some overarching "Noahide laws" to optimize it for assimilating others. I would in addition claim that this culture is superior to all others because it's the best we have for promoting technological and scientific development. Therefore it's good that this is what dominates the country and we shouldn't return to whatever there was before.

More specifically, extreme tolerance for non-conformity and diversity is one of the most important part of the Noahide laws that make it work. You need a broad spectrum of weird and unexpected, and possibly even threatening ideas for there to be innovative breakthroughs---simply put, innovation can't occur unless there are enough people that are actually thinking differently. I don't think it's a coincidence that Silicon Valley grew out of the most non-conformist part of the US. Any requirement that immigrants assimilate by conforming breaks this important part of the greatness of western culture.

At some point I’m going to do a big effort post about how the fact that the Irish and the Italians eventually became more like Anglos, only after many decades of not doing that

I for one look forward to it, since it's an argument a lot of anti-HBDers make that I haven't seen a good answer to.

If you want to read about turn-of-the century Italian homicide rates, Jeffrey Adler's First In Violence, Deepest in Dirt talks about the Italian community in Chicago which had murder rates upwards of 40/100k in the 1910s. This was a pattern that extended to other cities. IIRC it was Philadelphia where one-third of prisoners were of recent Italian background in the 1910s or 20s but I can't remember where I read that at the moment. Notably southern Italy where the great majority of Italian-Americans came from also had a very high homicide rate in the 19th - early 20th centuries, and when you remember that crime data in 1850s Italy was probably less than complete, it was likely even higher. Southern Italy of course no longer has homicide rates like this. They're still higher than in the north but it's like 0.7 vs 0.5 or something like that.

When I have tried to engage with the 'HBD' controversy in the past I always run against a wall of statistical and mathematical arguments that I don't think I'm smart enough to evaluate, but this huge and rapid drop in criminality would seem to me pretty difficult to explain through any framework where criminality is mostly a function of genetics.

Coleman Hughes is a big advocate for the idea that African-American culture (as distinct from African-American DNA) is deficient in ways which makes young African-American men prone to criminality, and IIRC he's repeatedly drawn the parallel with mid-twentieth century Italian-Americans.

To be fair, that hypothesis isn’t incompatible with HBD. African American homicide rates are shockingly high by stable first world country standards and there can be multiple ingredients in that recipe.

Absolutely.

More comments

this huge and rapid drop in criminality would seem to me pretty difficult to explain through any framework where criminality is mostly a function of genetics.

Another argument is often the difference between Mexicans living in border towns between the US and Mexico. The same people, culture and genetics yet murder rates are often vastly different.

Sure, I'll grant you that this seems to be evidence against HBD. However, I think it's still a highly effective theory, and certainly more parsimonious than bullshit like systemic racism and the like. The evidence, at least IMO, seems to be pretty net positive overall.

Maybe there's something interesting going on here, like the lead ban and decreased criminality in all demographics but didn't close the black-white gap. I'm waiting for that effort post myself!

Something I’ve never seen accounted for in discourse about the decline in criminality is the shift towards firearms using smaller bullets being the default available in America- when criminals used magnum revolvers and sawn-off shotguns their victims were less likely to survive than they were from a 9 mm round.

Not sure the difference is that significant for handguns even if it's only a single round -- and one should probably take into account that popular nines tend to hold ~3x as many rounds as a magnum revolver. (which would probably be on the expensive side for a fifties criminal anyways? The stereotypical crime gun from the era for me is a "Saturday Night Special" in .38, max)

Shotguns are probably still used quite a bit in crime? And if one were to replace a sawed-off shotgun with something with more gangster cred, that thing would probably be a MAC-10 or something, so I wouldn't really say it's necessarily less destructive.

Criminals use larger bullets nowadays- most gunshot wounds pre 1990s were from small caliber pistols like a .25ACP or .22. Very few crimes were committed with a .45, which is very common today.

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

Relative to shootings involving small-caliber firearms (reference category), the odds of death if the gun was large caliber were 4.5 times higher (OR, 4.54; 95% CI, 2.37-8.70; P < .001) and, if medium caliber, 2.3 times higher (OR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.37-3.70; P = .001)

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2688536#

That's a fair point, but I don't know if historical records are that granular, but if anyone wants to dig into it I'll be looking on.

I don’t see it. One, there was an exogenous shock in the reduction in lead exposure. Second, isn’t the problem somewhat self correcting in that the really violent often end up dying young and thereby decreasing the odds of passing on kids

I would assume that the kind of violent people with low inhibition and self control would be more likely to reproduce due to a propensity for unprotected sex.

Of course, that's the case today, but perhaps fertility rates were high enough back then that it wasn't significant.

And we have a very different idea of what really violent looks like now compared to back then, just to add another confounder to the mix.

Do we?

Did you mean to respond to my comment?

Latino crime rates have converged with white. This is old data and I know they updated it the past few years to show even a smaller gap.

https://marginalrevolution.com/?s=Latino+crime+rates

There might even be less age adjusted crime today in Hispanic populations than white.

I have a lot of concerns with crime but Hispanic crime doesn’t seem to be a real issue in America (education gaps are).

Middle Eastern and African migrants making it to the US are incredibly filtered as opposed to the dregs who wash up on European shores. Oceans tend to be handy in that regard.

The one group that causes the greatest uproar is arguably the segment of the US population that has been the least successful at integration (still better than the EU! At least Ebonics isn't an outright different language) are the ADOS.

The latter are a case of broad cultural assimilation except for sticking points that are unlikely to ever be sanded down in the near future, because of HBD or culture (I strongly think the former).

Middle Eastern and African migrants making it to the US are incredibly filtered as opposed to the dregs who wash up on European shores. Oceans tend to be handy in that regard.

I never really bought this argument. The US has also had a pretty big inflow of unfiltered immigration from Mexico/Central America recently. Previously, the US had an even larger (proportionally) unfiltered flow from Ireland/Italy/Eastern Europe. These immigrant groups seem to be doing pretty fine---definitely much better than MENA immigrants in France.

The one group that causes the greatest uproar is arguably the segment of the US population that has been the least successful at integration (still better than the EU! At least Ebonics isn't an outright different language) are the ADOS.

This particular group had been actively kept in poverty in deprivation until the late 60's and is still effectively (though not forcefully) segregated away from the general population. Obviously this group isn't going to be assimilated very well---HBD/culture are not the only plausible explanations! Furthermore, this in fact doesn't really contradict my original point. Groups that are treated as the US treated voluntary immigrants do fine and assimilate great. Groups that aren't don't.

Our east asian and european immigrants are also doing great. Don't need any advice for them, they took to the forceful assimilation well. I know a son of vietnamese immigrants, he was almost too patriotic. Funny, smart kid, but when he asked for the french flag to be flown on bastille day at the school, people rolled their eyes. He's a tank officer in the french army now (he's short). The french do not have a problem with this kind of frenchman, they love him. Whatever 'ethnic french racism' there is has never made him burn a school.

Maybe increase welfare, since the root cause for senseless destruction must be poverty and lack of chances? It's already higher than yours.

Furthermore, this in fact doesn't really contradict my original point. Groups that are treated as the US treated voluntary immigrants do fine and assimilate great. Groups that aren't don't.

Are you sure you didn't reverse your reasoning process here? You first look at which groups do badly, and then assume their treatment must be terrible.

Consider the possibility that they were treated the same - they had access to free school and university, generous welfare, a passably functioning job market - , and yet still behaved in a dramatically opposite manner as the vietnamese and europeans.

I think the more interesting comparison is between MENA immigrants in France and Mexican/Central American immigrants in the US. The US also has significantly poorer, more violent, and less stable countries to the south that send a large inflow of unfiltered, not always legal immigration. However, these immigrant populations assimilate well and do not cause nearly the same problems as MENA immigrants in France. Clearly something is working with the American system that is not working in France. Even other places in Europe do better than France---Vienna seems to assimilate immigrants just fine for example.

One possible explanation is that the French idea that you can just by law declare that everyone is the same and then forget about race is hopelessly naïve. However much you claim everyone is equally French, some people are going to just look dramatically different. The way human nature is, unless you take serious effort to educate people about the reality of race and discrimination and actively pass explicitly race-based policies to counteract it, de facto, social discrimination is going to make it impossible for immigrants to assimilate no matter what the laws from up high actually say. However well the law treats them, civil society is not going to treat them well. Who cares if you have the same access to welfare and schooling if no one will hire you or rent you an apartment in a nice neighborhood? If the teachers are horribly biased against you when grading?

I see a qualitative difference in willingness to assimilate, or at least be good citizens in Latin immigrants to the US versus the ones going to the EU. Latin America is still far more stable than Africa or the ME is at any rate.

You can get by with poor quality migrant stock if you filter aggressively enough, while the average African migrant might be net negative, restrict yourself to middle class or wealthy Nigerian Igbos and you're going to do a whole lot better, like the US does, and the EU can't.

This particular group had been actively kept in poverty in deprivation until the late 60's and is still effectively (though not forcefully) segregated away from the general population.

I grant that they were poorer till the 60s and the end of segregation. However, I think it reflects worse on the ADOS than the US that they keep themselves segregated, or behave so badly that everyone runs away, as is the case with white flight. They certainly complain very hard when white people move back into the neighborhood, calling it gentrification.

Further, ADOS blacks don't exist in isolation, there are plenty of other ethnic groups that were dirt poor when they came to the US at a similar time frame, and yet managed to entrench themselves as productive members of society. Just off the cuff, Vietnamese, Japs and Chinese immigrants coming to the US before the 60s or even shortly afterwards were even worse off than the native AA population.

You inevitably end up with things as stupid as Structural Racism (or racism of the gaps as I prefer to call it) posited as explanations for the same, where a combination of HBD and culture are far more parsimonious. Especially when hundreds of billions in affirmative action have failed to close the gaps.

Furthermore, this in fact doesn't really contradict my original point. Groups that are treated as the US treated voluntary immigrants do fine and assimilate great. Groups that aren't don't.

I struggle to see how it's even possible to falsify this, since ADOS are the only significant "involuntary immigrants" in the US, and the closest analogy, Native Americans, can't be called immigrants, even if they also do terribly as a group.

I see a qualitative difference in willingness to assimilate, or at least be good citizens in Latin immigrants to the US versus the ones going to the EU. Latin America is still far more stable than Africa or the ME is at any rate.

Are you certain that this is an intrinsic quality of the populations? You can just as well argue that this is because the US is better at making immigrants want to be good citizens and assimilate because of the differences between the way it deals with race and the way France does. I also don't think it's that obvious that Mexico/Central America are more stable than the Middle East and North Africa. Murder rates are way higher for example. I'm not saying there isn't a difference in populations, but I've never really heard a convincing argument that there was. I have on the other hand seen many arguments and plausible theoretical justifications for why the US method of assimilation is better.

I struggle to see how it's even possible to falsify this

There's a sort of meta point here. This is sociology, not science and you can't really ask for rigorous things like falsifiability. Talking way outside my field here, but from whatever classes I took, it always seemed the best you can do is try to fit a bunch of examples into a narrative and just argue about which one is most compelling, maybe using whatever it is sociologists call "theory".

The "US is better at assimilating" narrative is consistent with all the examples (the claim I made above was that the ADOS example doesn't contradict it). It also has theoretical justifications---the whole thing about immigrants in the US actually being given a fair chance since the country isn't blind to unfair biases against them, for example. The "populations are different" narrative still needs some sort of justification why Mexican/Central American immigrant populations in the US are actually meaningfully, intrinsically different from MENA immigrant populations in Europe beyond just "I see a qualitative difference in willingness to assimilate".

Are you certain that this is an intrinsic quality of the populations? You can just as well argue that this is because the US is better at making immigrants want to be good citizens and assimilate because of the differences between the way it deals with race and the way France does. I also don't think it's that obvious that Mexico/Central America are more stable than the Middle East and North Africa. Murder rates are way higher for example. I'm not saying there isn't a difference in populations, but I've never really heard a convincing argument that there was. I have on the other hand seen many arguments and plausible theoretical justifications for why the US method of assimilation is better.

Even as someone who thinks HBD is almost certainly true and major, I wouldn't go so far as to say that it explains all discrepancies, just most of them. Culture certainly plays a part, and bad attractors end up dragging countries down. Certainly, measures like strict enforcement of the law can make a massive difference, as El Salvador attests.

I don't really have a very strong position on whether the US or France does assimilation better, but the former seems to benefit from both a better quality of applicants and well as a more strict immigration process, though not very much more on the latter. I could be wrong, since I only have passing familiarity on the topic, and mainly regarding skilled immigration, which is far more relevant to my own interests.

There's a sort of meta point here. This is sociology, not science and you can't really ask for rigorous things like falsifiability. Talking way outside my field here, but from whatever classes I took, it always seemed the best you can do is try to fit a bunch of examples into a narrative and just argue about which one is most compelling, maybe using whatever it is sociologists call "theory"

Popperian notions of falsifiability are vastly inferior to a more nuanced Bayesian approach where there's no way to literally 100% prove or disprove anything as a fundamental mathematical impossibility unless you initialize an agent with malign priors of 1 or 0, making them immune to further evidence.

When I say "falsify", I use the standard of overwhelming evidence such that only motivated reasoning would argue otherwise, either via outright dishonesty or simply by making an error (perfectly possible when the mainstream only pushes one view and suppresses others). I prefer to be charitable and think of the latter when arguing with most Motte users; unless the issue is that we agree on all the facts but disagree on their implications, which is likely an unresolvable values difference.

Even if sociology is harder to study than the harder sciences, it's still possible to operate outside a state of total epistemic uncertainty.

I think the Native Americans serve as a great second example. Forcefully immigrated? Not exactly. Forcefully moved and made part of the US? Definitely. The fact they also do poorly is a second data point in favor.

I feel bad for the poor bastards who were minding their business till they ended up a rarity in their own country. I'm sure they think that everyone else who came along later did a pretty terrible job of assimilating ;)

That being said, yes, I agree it supports the idea that HBD can overcome almost any well-meaning intervention that doesn't engage in eugenics to some degree.

On the other hand, there hasn’t been any serious effort to assimilate the African American population since the end of Jim Crow. And their culture is really bad.

I would point to groups that started out with poor cultures and self-domesticated, which would cover a lot of examples.

It certainly is the case that the stench of slavery and segregation provides a strong shield to dismiss any attempts at cultural uplift as being irredeemably racist and paternalistic, with guaranteed claims of the white man's burden.

I think such measures could do something to ameliorate the issue and are worth pursuing, but the evidence from the outcomes of black kids adopted out to white parents suggests that without some kind of eugenic intervention it's unlikely to close the gap. No reason not to try though!

Out of curiosity has there been any talk of semi permanently keeping a military-police presence in the banlieus? If they truly behave as a different nation, before you resort to bullets or violence, merely establishing your untouched presence(gangs) in a foreign land is enough to spiritually castrate the feelings of the native prowling males.

What are the army going to do? The army policing takes away from war readiness and turns the French army into just another developing world military largely deployed for internal ‘peacekeeping’ as an auxiliary force for the police. And the French already have the gendarmerie. If they just sit in base with strict rules of engagement, they’re useless and the locals will soon learn to ignore them.

Once you step back and remember that unlike America, France IS an active colonial power ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Françafrique ) having big riots every 10 to 15 years actually seems like an endorsement of having a legal system which is blind to race.

After the kerfuffle everyone moves on. There's no reason to think it will be different this time.

There might be indication of this being an unusually severe flare-up, or that forces on the ground feel otherwise, when we read the following communiqué by the main French police unions, essentially declaring France is in a civil war and that the police is in the resistance against the government:

"Now that's enough...

Facing these savage hordes, asking for calm is no longer enough, it must be imposed!

Restoring the republican order and putting the apprehended beyond the capacity to harm should be the only political signals to give.

In the face of such exactions, the police family must stand together.

Our colleagues, like the majority of citizens, can no longer bear the tyranny of these violent minorities.

The time is not for union action, but for combat against these "pests". Surrendering, capitulating, and pleasing them by laying down arms are not the solutions in light of the gravity of the situation.

All means must be put in place to restore the rule of law as quickly as possible.

Once restored, we already know that we will relive this mess that we have been enduring for decades.

For these reasons, Alliance Police Nationale and UNSA Police will take their responsibilities and warn the government from now on that at the end, we will be in action and without concrete measures for the legal protection of the Police, an appropriate penal response, significant means provided, the police will judge the extent of the consideration given.

Today the police are in combat because we are at war. Tomorrow we will be in resistance and the government will have to become aware of it."

I haven't verified the authenticity of this (I found it off some nobody on Twitter, and they were a left-leaning pro-capitulation to these ethnics), or know enough facts on the ground to interpret it. I've attached a screenshot of the original French.

/images/168830496294208.webp

You have to understand that in France all public rhetoric is much grander than it is in the Anglosphere, which seemed to have had a self-conscious moment sometime in the 1960s or 1970s after which grandiose speeches were declared eternally "cringe". Even Obama only partially got away with it, and that was mostly when he was quoting MLK or JFK or Lincoln or a founding father. This extends to everything (even corporate memos or emails from the CEO if you've ever worked with the French). By itself it doesn't mean anything. Macron himself makes grandiose speeches all the time about France's civilizational mission blah blah blah and nothing happens.

So when you hear this, and you imagine, like, a prominent police official in the US or UK saying this:

Facing these savage hordes, asking for calm is no longer enough, it must be imposed!

..and it representing this huge moment of change where the wool falls from their eyes and the civilizational meaning of all this becomes clear,

well, you're kind of thinking of it the wrong way. That's just how the French speak, loudly and with a very small stick.

I get this same feeling watching Putin speeches. Even through subtitles, there is a sort of aesthetic appeal that is wholly missing from the speech of American politicians.

I haven't verified the authenticity of this (I found it off some nobody on Twitter, and they were a left-leaning pro-capitulation to these ethnics)

It's on the UNSA Twitter (with a follow-up post saying that the 'we are at war' phrase was a reference to Macron saying the same about COVID.)

Thank you, and looks like French domestic media is already weighing in as well.

The mass delusion that is 'Integration' and 'Assimilation' keeps on giving.

These two concepts mean the same thing, functionally. Do I have enough plausible deniability to call the obvious outsider I am ingrouping an insider?

Note that this definition has nothing to do with real life. It's purely conceptual.

Outside of that these terms hold no meaning at all. Have I assimilated into a country when all I do is participate in its economy? That seems to be the barometer for most. It's hard for anyone with practical experience to get behind that definition but after we've deconstructed most of our societies down to economic blocks there's not much else to go on. So our newly arrived Syrian who just got gifted a new home renovates a newly furnished living room and kitchen on the local governments dime to separate them with a wall so he does not have to see his wife cook is just as 'assimilated' as any local because... OK, maybe not in real life. But he shows up for work and seem nice so my tend and befriend instincts tell me there are inroads to be made here. So I'll weave a fictional representation of reality in my head to support my instincts and admonish any representative of my ingroup who doesn't conform as being an evil person. I mean, who doesn't want to make friends? Such combative instincts can only lead to conflict and are obviously dangerous. The Syrian is assimilating, even if he talks arabic at home, even if he changes nothing of his behavior, even if he lives nigh entirely on the governments dime and gets treated to luxuries most people can hardly afford nowadays, like a single family home, whilst working a minimum wage job...

This is not 'assimilation'. This is a bribe. Please be my friend.

I've wondered the last few years ago, regarding China's treatment of the Uighurs, if there was a geopolitical rhetorical function to that treatment.

Basically, or so the argument would go, the number of states that would consider using concentration camps or muscular ethnic reshaping or even cleansing policies on their undesirable internal demographics is almost certainly much, MUCH higher than the number of states that are willing to publicly acknowledge it or actually overtly enact it as long as American unipolar hegemony is the order of the day. And so letting their own internal demographics shift in undesirable ways while forswearing certain ugly policy choices that they would prefer to use is a specific cost of accepting American hegemony.

In such a world, China blatantly engaging in, say, the use of concentration camps, and then suffering no meaningful consequences for it, could be an intentional, provocative signal of weakening American power, as well as an invitation to other countries to pull away from the current American led order and shift towards a multipolar international order where states can more aggressively manage their own internal ethnic demographics exactly as China does, all with China benevolently claiming "China promotes a world where state sovereignty is respected and the internal affairs of states are their own business".

I'm not saying I believe this, exactly, but I can see a certain logic to it.

(You could imagine an alternate history version of "Russia blitzkriegs Ukraine in 2022, grabs a bunch of territory, and then winds the SMO down" serving a similar provocative international signaling function about the diminished role of American power and a new era of states militarily contesting old borders, but the history we're currently in a much messier and more ambiguous than that)

When I was reading Tony Judt's "Postwar", about Europe after World War 2, one of the points he made is that (though no one wants to admit it because it is so uncomfortable to admit) Hitler to some extent got at least some of what he wanted in Europe, at least for a time; in the Europe that came out of World War 2, there was generally much more ethnic coherence in nations than there had been before World War 2, largely because of mass population displacement and ethnic cleansing. The role of that shift in the general (all things considered) European peace that followed and the rise of solidarity-based welfare states is, again, a seriously uncomfortable topic. See also Robert Putnam and the costs of multi-culturalism on social trust.

China blatantly engaging in, say, the use of concentration camps, and then suffering no meaningful consequences for it, could be an intentional, provocative signal of weakening American power,

When has the United States ever had the power to impose its will on the internal behavior of another great power? Did the Soviet Union suffer meaningful consequences for operating the gulags?

They specifically talk about "American unipolar hegemony", so I think they're specifically thinking about 1991-now (or whenever you want to argue that American hegemony breaks down).

Specifically, the dynamic is different because pre-1991, countries could get away with things the US didn't like as long as they were willing to suck up to the USSR.

Specifically, the dynamic is different because pre-1991, countries could get away with things the US didn't like as long as they were willing to suck up to the USSR.

The opposite is also true, states that sucked up enough to the US did get away with committing such atrocities, for instance Pakistan's genocide in Bangladesh.

That doesn't seem like something the US didn't like. It seems like something the US didn't care too much about, and Pakistan was useful during the Cold War.

Well, let me try to run with your question, because I think my speculation is a bit orthogonal to it.

Sure, as a great power, the Soviet Union didn't suffer meaningful consequences for operating gulags. Rather, the fact that it was a super power and operated gulags meant that all other nations in its sphere of influence certainly could use similar tools with impunity, AND the U.S. was often forced to turn a blind eye, in the case of various unaligned or less aligned nations, to similar local policies that were offensive to U.S. sensibilities when the U.S. was competing for influence against the Soviet Union. The fact of the Soviet Union having and enacting different policies and norms changed the political environment that all other nations were operating in, especially in places like Sub-Saharan Africa or Southeast Asia that were decolonizing and not in the firm orbit of either superpower. Great powers shape norms in their sphere of influence, and those norms can be an attractive draw for possible members of their orbits. They can be a crucial form of soft power.

So my speculation isn't that China (a rising great power) demonstrates that it can do things that are offensive-to-U.S.-norms, and thus random nation x (a small, non-great power) can also now do things offensive-to-U.S.-norms without consequence. My speculation is that China (trying to end U.S. hegemony and shift to a new world order of multipolarity, with China being one of the poles) could, among many other initiatives, be offering up support of the use of demographic management approaches the U.S. current forbids as one of many carrots for smaller nations to pull out of the U.S. orbit and consider transitioning into a multipolar future where they see their interests draw them closer to China's orbit.

As I say, this is all just idle speculation, of course.

India got closer to the US while at least talking about sterilizing Christians. Saudi Arabia and the UAE were targeting the civilian Houthi population until Iran made them stop, not the USA. And of course Israel.

Hitler to some extent got at least some of what he wanted in Europe, at least for a time; in the Europe that came out of World War 2, there was generally much more ethnic coherence in nations than there had been before World War 2, largely because of mass population displacement and ethnic cleansing. The role of that shift in the general (all things considered) European peace that followed and the rise of solidarity-based welfare states

And this is yet another reason to hate mustache man (not like we needed any more).

I genuinely think the best solution is to just start shootin’. Muslim youths in France respect force, just like their prophet used and just like their rap idols extol in their music. If you just start shooting them, even just with rubber bullets (but lots), or even better with paintballs that smell horrible when they break, they will stop rioting.

The key missing topic in the discussions on the French riots is that these guys really want and enjoy to light things on fire and loot. I would too, if I hated the people in the country and could get away with it. There is fundamentally no way to counter that except with punishment, ie violent. The punishment has to come with no social approval — prison, while bad, comes with social approval among their culture. But pelting them with rubber bullets, going into their neighborhood and smashing their cars, going into their neighborhood with a helicopter filled with a gallons of durian juice to drop on their apartments… they very quickly realize that the benefit is no longer worth the cost. You essentially have to humiliate and subject them. Just like any of us would feel living in Singapore or Hong Kong, that we would be swiftly punished for malefaction.

I have a dog and one of the things most interesting to me is how reinforcement and punishment is so clearly on display in its most primal way. You have to think like a dog with her. I can’t chase her when she steals something, because she likes to be chased. Yelling is ineffectual, because she likes yelling (barking). Even slapping her paws would do little, because the way dogs play with each other is more aggressive than that. If I’m dealing with a creature that likes aggressive play, being chased, and risk, the punishment has to be very much not pleasant. So a good one is crate time, but if you can’t do that you can give a painful physical punishment — I don’t do the latter because I love my dog, but I think it’s fitting for people blowing up libraries and so on.

I think the idea the “French people will move on” is wrong. This is a blow to the morale of the French people. They have received a serious injury to their identity. Living among people who can destroy your car and shop whenever they want is demoralizing and in some invisible way probably leads to an 80k monetary injury per every affected Parisian resident. It decreases sum total happiness and induces a feeling of helplessness. So it’s really serious. It’s not the same as if it were 10000 unrelated instances of minor theft.

If you just start shooting them, even just with rubber bullets (but lots), or even better with paintballs that smell horrible when they break, they will stop rioting.

As far as Irish culture is from Islam, both have tended to make good use of martyrs. If we can learn from the wealth of experience the former has with rubber bullets the inevitable deaths that will result from large scale use will cause the more radical types to gain support amongst their own.

The Irish also made use of sympathetic Americans, but my guess is that present-day Americans have about as much or more sympathy for brown people being oppressed by police these days.

British policy during the Troubles was kind of the worst of both worlds. Oppressive enough that Northern Irish Republicans often had genuine experiences of police harassment, violence, discrimination, general hostility, but not brutal enough that they were actually scared. The Brits didn’t have it in them to go full auth, full Xinjiang, and why would they - the ethnoreligious conflict in Northern Ireland had zero salience to the rest of the UK where protestants and catholics had gotten along peacefully and with equal rights for a hundred years at least.

But Northern Ireland was always peripheral territory, not the metropole, despite it being part of the UK. English politicians, even on the right, usually supported unionism in Ireland only halfheartedly.

I'm sorry to go off on a tangent here, but in my experience yelling and scolding work perfectly fine on my two dogs. They certainly seem contrite about it from what I can tell!

It hasn’t been too successful for stopping mine from looting the closet for shoes. Although I think posture could factor in too (exerting a dominant position over dog)

I think the idea the “French people will move on” is wrong. This is a blow to the morale of the French people. They have received a serious injury to their identity. Living among people who can destroy your car and shop whenever they want is demoralizing and in some invisible way probably leads to an 80k monetary injury per every affected Parisian resident. It decreases sum total happiness and induces a feeling of helplessness. So it’s really serious. It’s not the same as if it were 10000 unrelated instances of minor theft.

The first riots in the banlieues were in 1981. In subsequent decades these regions were ethnically cleansed of their native and Jewish populations, as was widely documented in major movies, on TV and in the papers. Nothing about this is new. There have been some major stories. The French did nothing for 40 years, they're not going to start now.

as was widely documented in major movies

As of 2022, the movies were sending a slightly different message:

Abdel, an Algerian-French soldier, holds a press conference outside a police station after his 13-year-old brother Idir dies in hospital, the result of three apparent policemen beating and leaving him for dead. He appeals for calm, but a group of youth, led by Abdel’s brother Karim, disrupt the press conference by tossing a Molotov cocktail and raiding the police station. After stealing a weapons locker and a police van, the youth head back to their banlieue, Athena, where Abdel also grew up. They begin to barricade themselves - and the residents of Athena - inside the housing complex.

CRS riot police are sent to put down the uprising, while the youth respond by shooting fireworks and other improvised missiles at the police. In the middle of the chaos, a drug dealer named Moktar tries to move bags of contraband out of Athena. With the youth refusing to let him leave, Moktar and his gang take shelter in Athena’s shisha lounge, where they dig a hole to stash the contraband until the uprising has passed.

Abdel returns to Athena to attend a memorial service for Idir. He sees Karim and tries to speak to him, but the latter escapes where the memorial service is disrupted by the ongoing violence outside. Abdel then helps to organize an evacuation and shelter for Athena’s residents, including a former terrorist named Sebastien, whom Abdel shelters in Athena’s daycare center. While leading a group of residents past a group of riot police, an altercation begins, and Abdel and other residents of Athena are kettled and arrested.

On and on the tearjerker goes, until – rather endearingly– the whole thing is pinned on the truly agentic evil, The Chuds:

In the final scene of the movie, a man in a van is shown recording the beating of Idir, which is later posted on social media. The “policemen” are revealed to be far-right instigators in disguise; they enter the van, drive into the woods, and burn the uniforms they had worn, revealing that the beating was a deliberate attempt to incite racial unrest.

Looking into the director's background, I was surprised to find something rare in such cases in the US:

Costa-Gavras was born in Loutra Iraias, Arcadia. His family spent the Second World War in a village in the Peloponnese, and moved to Athens after the war. His father had been a member of the Pro-Soviet branch of the Greek Resistance, and was imprisoned during the Greek Civil War. His father's Communist Party membership made it impossible for Costa-Gavras to attend university in Greece or to be granted a visa to the United States, so after high school he settled in France, where he began studying literature at the Sorbonne in 1951.[1]

I was surprised to find something rare in such cases in the US

Greeks are quite overrepresented in Hollywood actually, given the tiny number of Greek-Americans.

On and on the tearjerker goes, until – rather endearingly– the whole thing is pinned on the truly agentic evil, The Chuds:

I'm not claiming the French movie industry of all things is secretly conservative, only that the French public are well aware of the issues with violence and crime in the banlieues.

I actually like French movies, both on the merits and due to appreciating this now-quixotic «existence of sovereign, living non-Anglo civilizations» idea. It's very much a shame that, as Zack M. Davis says about him somehow genuinely being a woman, is a scintillating but ultimately untrue thought.

Anyway, I wonder if the public – most of all the disproportionately aged, native public, like this woman – also believes the ongoing tumult to be some sappy melodrama downstream from a bit of entirely optional chud mischief, or maybe misunderstanding due to the insufficiently vigorous mandatory introduction to the State cult of Reason (that starts at 3 for the French).

Didn’t LePenne come in second in the most recent elections? With a serious chance as well? Seems like this just boosted her odds

Have you looked Le Pen's plans for the banlieues? They might surprise you with their relative modesty.

If you just start shooting them, even just with rubber bullets (but lots), or even better with paintballs that smell horrible when they break, they will stop rioting.

This is absolutely the way to stop the rioting animals, but unfortunately westerners are way too pussy to ever contemplate doing such a thing, and even if they were to do so the very next day there would be dozens of articles in newspapers deploring the "barbarity" of the state, conveniently ignoring that the rioters are the true uncivilized huns who would have run live bullets on the police without a second thought were the situations reversed.

They already have a martyr, so I don’t think adding 100 more will do them any good. France may get a terrorist attack in the future if they pushback on the North Africans, but the cost of these riots is already worse than the cost of the median terrorist attack in Western Europe. Right now, from any measure, it’s the lack of real pushback that is leading to increased rioting.

How do the Indians manage their public unrest, I wonder? Pussy or gigachad-like?

Burdensome is out for the count. @self_made_human, might you have any wisdom to share in his place?

Depends on who's rioting. If they're in the good graces of the government, they're usually allowed to rampage freely while the cops drink tea in the background.

If not, the police in India, while not nearly as militarized, are certainly not gentle. We can't afford actual riot gear for the most part, so expect the cops to wield bamboo shields and charge with batons, with tear gas and rubber bullets being a relative rarity. At least they don't shoot people particularly often, which is one of the few good things I can say about them.

And the media doesn't usually support rioters, most of the time. It's a big country so I can only speak generally.

This is absolutely the way to stop the rioting animals, but unfortunately westerners are way too pussy to ever contemplate doing such a thing

Normally I'd just say something about not using maximally inflammatory language - yes, you can advocate shooting rioters, yes, you can say you think Westerners are unwilling to use such harsh tactics even though they should, yes, rhetorical flourishes are allowed, but we'd prefer you not deliberately use pejoratives intended to provoke negative reactions and distract from your actual point.

However, you do this on purpose, and you do it for the explicit purpose of riling people. We know this, because you have a lengthy and terrible track record of posting comments like this just to giggle at how you stirred the ants' nest.

Last time you were banned for a week. This ban will be for two weeks. You are becoming burdensome and will probably not be here much longer unless you decide you'd like to start participating in good faith.

A charitable reading of @BurdensomeCount comment might find it less inflamitory than the police unions reference to the rioters as vermin, a specific class of animals. Or is the objection to the characterization of westerners as pussies?

Are mods susceptible to the 'othering' that can be seen in law enforcement that have repeated exposure to high crime cohorts? In those contexts it seems to result in uncharitable views.

We're not modding the French police union.

No. Obviously not. Nor is inflamitory a binary measure. An inflamitory scale could be vermin > animals > savages > barbarians (a notorious slur against the germanic people and other non greco-romans) > rioters > protesters > teenagers > joggers.

Reasonable people may disagree over the inflamitory nature of any particular word, as it relates to their specific linguistic or cultural context.

Modding for indelicate word choice and labeling as inflamitory when the 'inflamitory' word represents a necessarily small portion of the entire post, seems unnecessarily uncharitable to me. Especially when arguably more inflamitory nouns have already been deployed in the larger public discourse.

No. Obviously not. Nor is inflamitory a binary measure.

That's correct.

Modding for indelicate word choice and labeling as inflamitory when the 'inflamitory' word represents a necessarily small portion of the entire post, seems unnecessarily uncharitable to me.

Feel free to report my moderation as "uncharitable." As is always the case, when someone reports one of my posts, I will let another mod judge.

Feel free to report my moderation as "uncharitable." As is always the case, when someone reports one of my posts, I will let another mod judge.

This is the way.

Whatever the system, these periodic events happen in diverse societies and then they are forgotten until the next outbreak. The system isn't strong enough to overcome racial and religious differences completely but it's also much stronger than many right-wing doomers seem to think. After the kerfuffle everyone moves on. There's no reason to think it will be different this time.

Right, people in the West, in France in this case, are much too comfortable to do anything here. And that’s for a number of reasons.

  1. The threshold for “do something” is absurdly high. The most politically charged question for the French far-right is, of course, repatriation. That means stripping millions (at least 6-7m in France) of people of citizenship based on ancestry and then deporting them to a third country that doesn’t want them (you think Algeria or Morocco want millions more listless, angry young men?). This violates every constitutional statute, the EU, the ECHR. Most citizens still find even the idea of this shocking and distasteful. It is about as beyond the pale in Western Europe as banning women from the workplace or forcing 8 year olds back into factories. Even Zemmour, as I’ve said, doesn’t begin to hint at doing this.

  2. France is a highly ghettoized society. In building the banlieues on the periphery, the French ensured the inner arrondissements of Paris avoided the same fate as the downtown areas of many American cities from the 1960s onward. But the price for that was ignorance. In London, social housing occupied by Somalis sits next to $15m townhouses. In America’s great cities, at least in their downtown areas, you now can’t walk a few blocks without encountering the ravages of the underclass. In Paris, what is out of sight is out of mind. And France is so centralized that what happens outside Paris really doesn’t matter very much.

  3. The “choices” are becoming starker as demographics change. Even though the majority of the population remains native, birth rate disparities mean that a highly disproportionate percentage of young people - of particular relevance, obviously, young men - are from MENA communities. One can imagine a situation where 60% of the population is still native in 20 years, but 50% or even 55% of fighting-age males are from those communities. At that point, the situation is extremely dicey. The military and police have recruited from diverse communities heavily, there’s no guarantee what side they’d be on in a serious civil conflict. Most French with any money would flee elsewhere in the EU or overseas. A weak central government collapsing or maintaining limited control over a military kept in bases or deployed abroad and then roaming bands of young men fighting district by district is a possibility. At that point, one’s money might well be on the Algerians.

  4. Comfort will be prioritized until it’s too late. What is unreasonable will become reasonable too late. What is foretold will become reality too late. A Lebanese Civil War that started in 1958 would have likely been much better for the Christians (who then still constituted a majority, before the PLO was forced out of Jordan) than the civil war that began in 1975 was. Ben-Gurion even offered to carve out a state for Christians in 1956. But the Maronites of 1958 were too comfortable. They never thought their position would be truly threatened. They could not imagine the rivers of blood that would flow through Beirut.

So it goes.

In London, social housing occupied by Somalis sits next to $15m townhouses.

At first blush, this is an absurdity. Then I remember that race relations in the UK are different than in the US, with UK blacks ahead in life expectancy and nearly equal in earnings. I suspect this is largely a selection effect: a much greater share of blacks in the UK are elite immigrants from Africa compared to the US - though perhaps not Somalis.

One can imagine a situation where 60% of the population is still native in 20 years, but 50% or even 55% of fighting-age males are from those communities. At that point, the situation is extremely dicey. The military and police have recruited from diverse communities heavily, there’s no guarantee what side they’d be on in a serious civil conflict.

Guillaume Durocher, a thoughtful French nationalist on Twitter, believes that the most likely scenario in the medium-term is akin to Brasil rather than Lebanon or Yugoslavia. His reasoning is that this underclass has no real political aspirations, let alone organisational skills, and their aims are purely criminal and opportunistically short-termist in nature.

So France will resemble Brasil where a small elite hoard all the wealth and a sizable minority of middle-class whites sit just beneath them. Below those two rungs, crime levels and general dysfunction will proliferate, leading to gated communities etc. We could also see a lessening of France's social model with high taxes as elites will be unwilling to shoulder such a high burden. Given that elite migration will be a very real threat, France's institutions may well oblige.

I guess the only real counter-argument to his view is that race relations in Brasil seem to be more amiable. I know relatively little about either country, but my impression is that the resentment in France (perhaps in part due to the colonial legacy, and partly as a result of ethnic French arrogance) is much greater among the non-white groups. If this is true then your more pessimistic view could well win out.

At first blush, this is an absurdity. Then I remember that race relations in the UK are different than in the US, with UK blacks ahead in life expectancy and nearly equal in earnings. I suspect this is largely a selection effect: a much greater share of blacks in the UK are elite immigrants from Africa compared to the US - though perhaps not Somalis.

No, you were correct in your first understanding. It is a relatively small section of London, but in say, Notting Hill, you have large estates mostly divvied up semi ethnically e.g. Somali, Carribbean, Moroccan, cheek by jowl with £15m townhouses.

The road David Beckham lives on for example, is less than a 10 minute walk to multiple estates, and less than 20 minutes walk to Grenfell tower itself. This is (as far as I'm aware) a uniquely (West?) London thing, where the houses by Ladbroke Grove station will be £10-20m and yet 1 road next door will be a very poor housing estate. I used to think it was great, as an example of semi-integration (Ghettoisation leading to say bad shops, bad services). Nowadays, I'm ambivalent, but I appreciate its uniqueness.

There are relatively few places in London with $10-20m houses as standard (and as you say those are often concentrated in West and North London - Holland Park, Notting Hill/Westbourne Grove, Little Venice where the best villas border the Paddington Green estates, all the way up to St John’s Wood especially on the northwest side as you get up to Swiss Cottage, then also Belsize Park and Hampstead), but on a lesser scale it happens with $2-5m properties in Islington in the north, around King’s Cross, in Hackney and Shoreditch, and in parts of the south like parts of Wandsworth and Dulwich to some extent. There are relatively few prime and semi-prime parts of London that aren’t close to relatively bad estates. Possibly the Chelsea-South Ken-Belgravia-Mayfair continuum, although even there there are exceptions.

Interestingly, in 2011 the more spread out West London estates contributed much less to rioting than the outlying, arguably more Parisian ones in the south in Brixton/Lewisham and to the north in Tottenham.

The most politically charged question for the French far-right is, of course, repatriation. That means stripping millions (at least 6-7m in France) of people of citizenship based on ancestry and then deporting them to a third country that doesn’t want them

Is that the official platform of any French far-right party? I don't know, I'm asking. I don't know anything about French politics.

Repatriation doesn't have to be forced. It can be voluntary and financially incentivized instead. That's the platform of Patriotic Alternative in the UK, for example.

It isn't the official platform of any French far-right party that has achieved electoral success.

As for 'voluntary repatriation', Europeans imagine that it's like 'how much would I have to pay the average Greek-French to go back to Greece?' and the answer is maybe a couple hundred thousand euros or something. The calculus for the average Algerian, Senegalese, Ivorian or Malian Frenchman is completely different. Firstly, even returning to Abidjan with €200,000 isn't enough to make you an Ivorian elite by any means. Secondly, your entire extended family, corrupt local politicians and tax collectors and various other hangers-on will immediately take the money, and you know this. Then you will have no more safety net. You'd have to offer millions, even then it would be a tough choice.

It’s not analysis, it’s just making the case for mass deportation which presumably his entire readership agrees with. The objective analysis would note that, regardless of one’s personal opinion, getting to the stage where stripping people of citizenship and deporting them based on ancestry is inside the Overton window would seemingly involve a colossal shift in public attitudes toward ethnic nationalism, immigration and identity in Western European countries. In France, even collecting data on people’s race is banned, there are people of Middle Eastern and African descent in the highest offices in the land, billionaires, in business, in the arts, in almost every prominent national sports team. People’s acceptance of interracial marriage is extremely high, many French have non-native friends and coworkers.

Consider just how much of a total 180 turn in views on identity, on race and on nation would be required to get to the stage where repatriation is a widespread and popular viewpoint. Then consider that the media, state and other powerful organizations (like the EU) are institutionally opposed. There doesn’t seem to me to be a viable strategy for the far-right activist you link other than hoping the public suddenly “radicalizes”, which they didn’t do after the spate of terrorist bombings from 2001 to 2005 and again from 2011 to 2017, so it seems unlikely they’d do so now.

What do you think?

I read the Wall Street Journal and New York Times almost cover-to-cover (from politics and international to recipes and book reviews and fashion) every single day from the age of maybe 7 until I left home at 19. I also read general interest stuff like NatGeo and Scientific American every single month through my whole childhood. Then in my teenage years I was very online on tumblr, reddit, sometimes other forums. I met people from all over the world through family and in college, and since I started work I've been fortunate to meet some people who have a bunch of great stories. So I have a lot of general knowledge. I very much doubt I'm smarter, though, you've written some well-researched comments and I thought your criticism of some of the QAnon hmmposting a week or two ago was good.

But 'intelligence' is a large component in one's ability to prioritize facts to remember and use them to come up with interesting or novel points to make. And most people who are well read and know a lot across a wide domain still synthesize those facts into mediocre rationalizations of existing ideas or novel babble. On the upper end of that is a Tinkzorg, and on the lower end are internet schizos who ramble into the void. You seem to be one of the smartest mottizens imo, but it's hard to judge intelligence broadly from a single domain, there are plenty of people at the top of mathematics or science whose political opinions are still incoherent culture war stuff.

Agree that the value of a Western Europe citizenship as opposed to Sub-Saharan Africa is millions easily.

Since we're talking outlandish ideas, here's a repatriation scheme that would work: Colonies. Deport people to French-run places in Africa. Living in a French colony in Ivory Coast would not be as great as living in France but certainly miles better than being ruled by Ivorians.

What if France paid Ivory Coast to lease some of their land? It would even be a win-win for both countries. France would lose their least productive citizens, and also develop a source of cheaper labor without the attendant welfare and public safety drain. Ivory Coast would get cash as well as the economic benefit from having a region that doesn't completely suck.

This would be a public relatons disaster (and politics get affected by public relations). Colonialism looks extremely bad in the modern era regardless of the facts on the ground.

Obviously. So is repatriation. I'm just suggesting an "out there" idea that would work if people were actually on board with it. 0% chance of actually happening. Just like repatriation.

Yes, there would be a lot of details to work out in any voluntary repatriation scheme. How much money is involved, what countries are available as destinations, would those countries even accept taking people in, etc. It would be hard to come up with a package that any substantial number of people would accept. But that's sort of the whole point. Living in western Europe really is just that much better than living in these people's ancestral homelands. Which thus damages the credibility of any claims that non-whites are living under an oppressive regime of systemic racism.

It's a rhetorical gesture more than anything: "We were going to pay you to leave, but you chose to stay here of your own free will. Thus by continuing to stay here, you agree that you are fundamentally a guest in a society that belongs to us first and foremost. We're not going to actively antagonize you, but you should understand that our society is set up to cater to the interests and preferences of our native people, not yours."

I’m not French, and I don’t think that kind of deportation is at all viable. I’m also not an ethnonationalist of any real description, although for my sake I’m quite glad Israel exists.

I’m more of a believer in law and order and a fan of functioning, stable societies. I certainly don’t believe those are impossible in multicultural countries, thought they often require special effort.

and they changed nothing

It made multiculturalism less attractive for people elsewhere. It is a common talking point in Poland, with no good counter.

The Polish government, despite pretending to be tough on immigration, is charging full steam ahead into the same direction as France. There's also talk of radically loosening visa rules for countries such as Nigeria, Pakistan etc. The logic is simple. It's an aging country with very low unemployment. The voters may not like it, but the business interests don't care and the government listens to the latter. The ruling party in Poland talks a big game about not letting in "illegals" or allowing "EU refugee quotas", but they are importing tons of third worlders legally for work and the pace is just increasing.

Belgians are still split after 211 years in the same country. Northern Ireland can't overcome differences so small that the average western European would have difficulties telling them apart. Czechs and Slovaks couldn't function together. Turks and Kurds have tried for a millennia. Sri Lanka had major terrorist attacks committed by people whose ancestors came there during Charlemagne's lifetime. Sunni and Shia arabs have spent 1400 years fighting over a minute doctrinal difference and the conflict is so infected that some believe it is a divine will to exterminate the other. Russia has tried to integrate Chechens for centuries. 70 years of Soviet propaganda washed off in a few years.

People are wildly optimistic concerning integration. While most people realize that they would not become Ugandan by taking a language course or reading about Ugandan values, people assume that Ugandans can become middle class westerners simply by being informed. There is a deep underlying Chauvinism behind the western view of assimilation. It is simply assumed that our way of life is superior and once the barbarians have been instructed in our superior ways they will adopt them. Meanwhile, the west is busy deconstructing the same "racist, patriarchal, oppressive social structures" that we are bewildered that the migrants don't adopt.

Integration is exceedingly difficult, takes multiple generations, and often doesn't occur at all. The lack of miracles is not failure. France has succeeded far beyond Syria, Mexico with its natives revolting, Kashmir or Ukraine.

I honestly think much of the debate is driven by wishful thinking caused by the fear of accepting that the multicultural project won't work.

The USA assimilated most white immigrants quite well given enough time. France assimilated its fairly diverse white cultures over centuries (like the south and Bretons in the west). China took manifold Chinese peoples and turned them mostly into "Han". A similar process is occurring in India right now with Hindu Nationalism.

While pessimism is warranted towards assimilation in general, blanket pessimism is not. Assimilation can happen faster or slower given certain characteristics. Two big ones that make assimilation much harder are:

  • Differing religions. Religions evolved to be sticky and xenophobic towards other faiths. The total impact depends largely on how much conflict there are between the religions, e.g. Catholic vs Protestant used to be a huge faultline, but now its almost irrelevant in many places.

  • Obvious physical characteristics that can be used as a proxy for lower socioeconomic status. Think blacks in the USA, whose skin color marked them as lower-class. Anyone who isn't delusional will then use skin color as a shorthand for "poor", and take all ordinary precautions one would normally take with poor people, e.g. seeing them as more lazy, more crime prone, etc.

It is simply assumed that our way of life is superior and once the barbarians have been instructed in our superior ways they will adopt them

This assumption was largely correct and as long as it was correct, assimilation happened relatively quite successfully.

It is not so correct anymore so you see an increasing number of cracks in the system. There is not much more to it.

And yet people who came to the US voluntarily as settlers and not asylum seekers integrated themselves just fine, even when they came as huddled masses. If you keep stirring, your sauce emulsifies just fine. The French state used to stir hard and actually blended most of the local ethnicities into the French nation. It could've done the same to the Algerians: ban the use of Arabic, force the migrants to take French names, break up and resettle any ethnic enclaves.

There was no assimilation. The decline of WASP-majority American institutions had a profoundly damaging and destabilizing impact on American political and economic life. Entire cities like Boston and Philadelphia were lost wholesale to the Irish and Italians. We can't imagine an America where the European population remained 70% Anglo, but it would certainly be a very different place.

The decline of WASP-majority American institutions had a profoundly damaging and destabilizing impact on American political and economic life. Entire cities like Boston and Philadelphia were lost wholesale to the Irish and Italians.

Oh, yes, I remember reading about the terrible places that Boston and Philadelphia have become after being invaded by the Catholics and the Jews. /s

What exactly went wrong with Boston and Philly? Bossism? I wouldn't lay the blame solely at the Catholic feet. William Tweed, arguably the most notorious political boss, was a Scottish Quaker,

I’m not saying they got “worse”, clearly by many metrics (not least GDP/capita) America is much better than it was in 1840. But it is different. The Irish and Italians did not become Anglos, they didn’t become English or Scots-Irish or whatever. They established their own communities that slowly blended together with other white ethnics and the pre-existing (largely British) cultures in the US which itself over time gave way to modern American identity and culture. The social fabric that once existed disappeared, it was its own culture war at the end of the 19th century, the people of the time saw it happening, they lamented it. It was damaging in the sense that the old culture of those cities ceased to exist, vanished no less surely than the culture of Ottoman Greeks or German Ostsiedler. And sure, the presence of European immigrants in urban organized crime in the early 20th century was obviously substantial.

That the largely new country, new nation that adopted the name and flag and constitution of the USA ended up being wealthy and powerful and generally a good place to live is indeed fortunate, but it doesn’t mean the old America did not fade away.

Irish and Italian Americans never assimilated? How do you propose we measure assimilation, and what groups do you think have assimilated that the Irish and Italians fall short of?

They have “assimilated” in the sense of intermarriage (by this measure Brazil’s the all-time greatest success of diversity), but they didn’t adopt Anglo culture, they changed it to accommodate many of their own mores, habits and ideas.

Wait, so fourth generation Americans in Boston who add a lilt to their voices as they get drunker are actually just Irish because they don't pointedly refuse to talk about their divorces and put jam on their peanut butter sandwiches instead of marshmallow fluff?

Yet race is a constant major topic in the US that hasn't been solved despite decades of trying. There are vast differences in outcome, there is high level of segregation, there are large differences in crime. What would even be the point of removing all Algerian elements from Algerians? Why go through a massive social engineering process to try to strip people of their culture?

Why go through a massive social engineering process to try to strip people of their culture?

Social harmony, of course. And the US doesn't have a problem with race, it has a problem with the descendants of slaves. Their arrival wasn't voluntary, so it's not surprising their segregation was able to prevent successful assimilation.

Right, and even in Singapore - for all the state’s attempts to force integration - the government has tried very hard to maintain a Chinese majority. You can’t work miracles, at best you can pacify groups of violent young men by making the authorities appropriately scary. That’s probably the last thing France has yet to try, but there are complications there, too, as the current riots show.

Meanwhile, the west is busy deconstructing the same "racist, patriarchal, oppressive social structures" that we are bewildered that the migrants don't adopt.

This doesn't look right to me. The people deconstructing "racist, patriarchal, oppressive social structures" aren't bewildered at the fact that migrants aren't becoming devoted Christians, but the fact that they aren't becoming secular feminist progressives.

Well sure, because secular feminist progressives probably aren’t even a majority of native French.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats