"People are absolutely not what you’d expect french to look like ( and i’m not talking about size)"
What would you "expect" the French to look like, that they do not look like in Paris (while cities in Europe are all much more non-white than the countryside, which for the commenter does not have the same problem)? This is a dogwhistle.
That interpretation would only make sense, charitably, if OP for whatever reason thought that people look like those images anywhere else in France (unless you're joking, and I'm missing out on the irony).
This is a slightly ridiculous position if it is taken genuinely - just look at the other comments in this thread complaining about "melting pots" and "cultural erasure".
More to the point - dogwhistles are meant to give subtexts with plausible deniability. That you can find an alternative meaning for them is precisely their intent. It is not a compelling argument to claim that the original commenter was, in fact, innocent - you should instead be able to absolve them beyond all doubt.
I have a fantasy of Paris as a city of beautiful, elegant people, effortlessly fashionable who walk from outdoor cafe to outdoor cafe where they order espresso and croissants while carrying baguettes under their arms. So when I read the original comment, that (admittedly childish) impression came to mind.
The fact that other people immediate jumped to "melting pots" and "cultural erasure" doesn't indicate that that's what the original comment was referring to.
> More to the point - dogwhistles are meant to give subtexts with plausible deniability. That you can find an alternative meaning for them is precisely their intent.
Human communication is difficult. The original comment wasn't specific and so it acted as a rorschach test. It isn't possible to know what the original poster meant without asking.
> It is not a compelling argument to claim that the original commenter was, in fact, innocent - you should instead be able to absolve them beyond all doubt.
No. It isn't possible to "absolve someone of all doubt" when the accusation is "vague racist dog whistle". You have to deal with uncertainty in these situations and your inability to do that, to understand that the meaning of a sentence as intended by the author is almost always partially undefined and open to interpretation, is seriously disturbing.
> I have a fantasy of Paris as a city of beautiful, elegant people, effortlessly fashionable who walk from outdoor cafe to outdoor cafe where they order espresso and croissants while carrying baguettes under their arms. So when I read the original comment, that (admittedly childish) impression came to mind.
The linked article says:
> Renoux indicates that Japanese media, magazines in particular, often depict Paris as a place where most people on the street look like "stick-thin" models and most women dress in high fashion brands such as Louis Vuitton.
So when OP said he wasn’t talking about size, presumably in reference to that, I read it as a dog whistle too. Especially given the whole “great replacement” conspiracy out there and Trump’s “Paris isn’t Paris anymore.” The whole point of a dog whistle is plausible deniability though, so who knows for sure.
I could be wrong, but it is my understanding that it was a deliberate policy of the French government after WW2 to invite them in. It is also natural that French-speaking people of the world would prefer to migrate to France.
But if French governments wanted to limit migration from Algeria or elsewhere, they could have done so. It was certainly not an inevitable consequence of colonialism.
They were brought in as guest workers. French governments tried to restrict or revert immigration a few times (in the seventies I think) but it did not work.
And now, in Brest, deep down (or west) into Breton (Celt) territory, we have a radical Sunni mosque. And woke Americans lecturing me about it's supposedly a great thing.
French is very much not a race, and France was very much forged in a melting pot, celts, romans, franks, vikings (the latter both germanic but not exactly the same) etc etc.
It's extremely odd that you assume it's Americans who would be the only ones to call out a racist dogwhistle, when some of the most "progressive" countries in the world are in Europe. I'm skeptical of the idea that a French person is necessarily white - nationality, race, ethnicity and citizenship can (and many times are) not all the same, yet "French" can refer to any one or more of them.
French, Chinese and Nigerian are nationalities, not races. If you think China is ethnically homogeneous, you're quite wrong. Just look at a linguistic map: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/China_li... The government does classify 90% of the population as a single group "Han", but that's partially a political move to discourage local separatism. Despite increased mixture between regions since the introduction of faster transportation, cultural differences are still visible, such as northerners eating more noodles, while southerners eat more rice.
I'm not an American, but I think that France should be a melting pot because of its colonial history.
Many immigrants in Paris who "don't look French" are from former colonies that still speak French to some extent. Keeping Paris white would be denying part of France's history.
I know what you mean. Gallia Celtica has been ruined by all these Franks with their funny foreign ways. Gallia Celtica for the Celts, that's what I say.
It is not racism or xenophobia to want to preserve what is good about a nation's culture, and limit the import of other nations' and culture's problems.
Could you please answer the following questions:
1. Is there a limit at which you believe mass migration into France would be undesirable?
2. If you believe that there is such a limit; what would a legitimate movement to argue for limiting mass migration look like, such that you would not be accusing them of xenophobia and racism? How would their arguments differ from core-questions'?
>1. Is there a limit at which you believe mass migration into France would be undesirable?
Too much mass immigration to anywhere would be undesirable, but for economic and population density reasons. I am skeptical of the idea of the idea that culture is fixed and immutable.
> what would a legitimate movement to argue for limiting mass migration look like
It would exist in a time where mass immigration is causing the problems I mentioned above.
> Too much mass immigration to anywhere would be undesirable, but for economic and population density reasons. I am skeptical of the idea of the idea that culture is fixed and immutable.
There is clearly more to it than just economic and population density reasons. Culture matters. Consider, for example, that female genital mutilation is now a European problem. Or that Europe today has de facto implemented Islamic blasphemy laws - where people are afraid to criticize Islam publicly for fear of being murdered. Or that the number of rapes has gone up significantly in Sweden, with more than 80% of rape assaults being carried out by foreign-born individuals? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden) Or that 52% of British muslims believe that homosexuality should be illegal, and that close to half of British muslims believe that wives should always obey their husbands? (https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/publication/doc...)
So mass immigration can clearly change society for the worse outside of simply economic and population density reasons.
But suppose that it is perceived by the public that the net benefit from mass immigration is negative. How should they organize into a political movement or even voice their concerns, such that they do not get accused of being racist, xenophobic, populist, fascist, far-right?
> Too much mass immigration to anywhere would be undesirable, but for economic and population density reasons.
This seems like a very... austere, perhaps even autistic lens to use on the problem. It sounds like if we were just able to pack people in as perfectly as possible, like apples in a box, and somehow still maintain an average tax profitability from them, you'd be okay with whatever was happening inside the apple box.
Clearly that's a mis-characterization of you or any other reasonable person's viewpoint. The welfare of individuals, their life experience, their safety, their freedom, their ability to express themselves and find their niche... all of this matters.
> I am skeptical of the idea of the idea that culture is fixed and immutable.
Of course not. However, it moves slowly! There's a viscosity to it, and part of that resistance to change is something like an implicit Chesterton's Fence:
> Chesterton's fence is the principle that reforms should not be made until the reasoning behind the existing state of affairs is understood.
Just because you _can_ change a culture (in this case by force, by changing the cultural makeup of a region, often by fiat) does not mean that it is a moral act, or that the result you get out the other side is some predictable good. It is too complicated, too reactionary, too slippery of a concept to deal with in any way other than the purely speculative. Trends don't always continue - and conversely, pretending a trend or other demographic factor doesn't exist can be just as bad. There are far too many inconvenient truths to learn that illustrate the fallibility of humanity in every form, _particularly_ in terms of how we collectively get along with one another.
> It would exist in a time where mass immigration is causing the problems I mentioned above.
A compelling argument that this is already the case is being made by many. The solution thus far has been to remove them from the public square so we can go on pretending there are no problems.
> The solution thus far has been to remove them from the public square so we can go on pretending there are no problems.
Clearly, this is what is happening with your contributions to this discussion. No matter how carefully written, your original contribution is nowhere to be found now. This only goes to show that these matters can not be debated.
>I am skeptical of the idea of the idea that culture is fixed and immutable.
It's absolutely not fixed and immutable. That's what this whole discussion is about: whether there should be policies directed at preserving culture as it exists.
>It would exist in a time where mass immigration is causing the problems I mentioned above.
That the Far Right has gained power in Germany, Austria, Poland, Hungary, Italy, etc etc (not to mention the US) today is all the evidence I need that we live in that time already.
There was a HN discussion here recently which made me realise, not even Japan is without racism. There is racism there towards all kinds of people, those with family trees originating in the ancient lower caste, people with Korean heritage, the ainu, and most of all, towards people who are visibly different.
This should not be a surprise to anyone who's well travelled. In fact, the least racist countries on Earth are in North America, where it is talked about the most.
Please leave your hatred for Israel out of this. Israel is extremely multicultural. All signs are officially in three languages. The population is 20% Arabic, and 60% of the Jews there come from all over the middle east and Africa.
Please leave your artificial, unfounded judgement calls about "hatred for Israel" out of this. I do not hate Israel, I just recognize it as an ethnic state that is for and by the Israeli people; while others may live there, it is clear from reading any major publication from the region that it is a regieme that operates in its own interests.
I have no issue with that. In fact, I like it so much I'd like to adopt the idea.
Israel didn't seem very welcoming of multiculturalism when they tricked Ethiopian Jewish women into being sterilized in order to keep their numbers down. Apparently some cultures in Israeli multiculturalism are more equal than others.
The Waffen SS was also extremely multicultural. It had units of fighters from Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Hungary, India, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK.
No hate here. No obsession with Israel. I support their right to be an ethno-nationalist state. I just don't deny that's what they're doing, which seems to be an approach too many people take.
