This is not intended as a post about President Trump’s recently reported remarks about “s**thole countries,” but about what a Catholic cardinal, Timothy Dolan, said in response to those remarks. The Cardinal tweeted that Martin Luther King Jr., were he alive today, would remind people that “no country is a ‘hole,’ no person unworthy of respect.” In this post, I’d like to explain why I think the Cardinal is perfectly right on the second point and absolutely wrong on the first. I’m also going to try to define a “hole,” and make a tentative list of countries which I think would qualify, at the present time. Readers are welcome to disagree, of course.
Background
Claims that President Trump, in a meeting with lawmakers last week, described Haiti, El Salvador and various African nations as “s**thole countries” have been described by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham as “basically accurate.” Let me note for the record that Senator Graham, unlike Senator Richard Durbin, who was also present at the meeting, stood up to President Trump directly when he asked why America was taking so many immigrants from these countries instead of countries like Norway. “Diversity has always been our strength, not our weakness,” declared Senator Graham. Trump has since walked back his comments, saying that he wants immigrants to come to America from everywhere. Not being an American, I have absolutely no desire to lecture Americans about which countries they should accept immigrants from, or how many people they should take. I’ll just mention in passing that about 60 million immigrants have arrived in the United States since the Immigration and Nationality Act was passed in 1965, and that of the 1,051,031 immigrants who became new legal permanent residents of the U.S. in 2015, just under 10% came from Africa, compared to 42% from other American countries, 40% from Asia and 8% from Europe. I should also add that of the 244 million international migrants worldwide, 19.1% reside in the U.S., where they make up 14.5% of the population, compared to just 10.3% of the population of Europe (2015 UN figures). In short: claims that America is not pulling its weight do not seem to be warranted by the facts.
Frankly, I was baffled by the U.S. media’s characterization of President Trump’s reference to certain countries as “s**thole countries” as racist. Have they forgotten what the term means, I wonder? OxfordDictionaries.com defines racism as “prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.” Trump’s angry outburst was (a) directed at countries, not at “someone”, (b) directed at nations rather than races, and (c) completely devoid of the ridiculous claim that some races are “superior” to others. Likewise, Republican Rep. Mia Love’s vehement insistence that people in struggling countries are “good people” was perfectly correct, but beside the point: good people do not necessarily make a good country. A country, like a cake, is more than the sum of its constituents. Culture matters. Systems of government matter. Good people can have the misfortune to live in a country whose culture is toxic or whose government is tyrannical and evil. That doesn’t reflect on them as individuals, but it does reflect on their country.
There seems to be a strange idea circulating about that if you insult a country, you automatically insult its people. Nonsense. If you insult a country, you insult its government, not its people. The Soviet Union was a terrible country. That doesn’t mean the people living in it were terrible; it means that its government was terrible (in fact, downright evil). The same goes for Mao’s China.
So, how should we define a “hole”?
After reading about Cardinal Dolan’s response to President Trump’s recent remarks, my first reaction was: “You’ve got to be kidding me.” So North Korea is not a “hole”? Seriously? You must be joking, Your Eminence.
But then I started thinking, “How would one define a ‘hole’?” The definition which first sprang to my mind was an intuitive one: a “hole” is a country that you would never want to visit, even with all expenses paid (including plane fares, food, accommodation, trains and buses and time off work). However, I soon realized that you might be willing to visit any country, no matter how awful, if you had a nice enough hotel and plenty of armed security guards accompanying you, to protect you from danger. So I decided to stipulate that if you were visiting these countries, you had to take your family with you, and you could not travel as part of a guided tour, or take a bodyguard with you, or stay in a luxury hotel. That would be cheating – as would spending all your day hanging around inside expensive stores, museums or churches, or riding around in a chartered taxi. Instead, you had to spend as much time as possible outside, in the company of the local people. Also, you could take a guidebook, a phrase book or an electronic dictionary with you, but not one of those fancy smartphones that spits out whatever you want to say in the local language (how lazy is that!) How many countries would you cross off your list then? And which ones?
There were some countries I was pretty sure I’d never want to visit, even if you threw in some extra cash: North Korea, Afghanistan and El Salvador, to name a few. But I realized that despite my travel experience (I’ve been to over 30 countries), there were a lot of African countries which I didn’t know enough about to be able to decide whether I’d want to visit them or not. Would I want to visit Nigeria, for instance? It’s a vibrant, go-ahead country with a booming economy, but it has also been subjected to raids by the militant group Boko Haram in the north. Hmmm.
Crime and violence
So I did some digging around. I looked at the list of countries by intentional homicide rate, and I found that of the top 20 countries, a total of 17 were either in the Caribbean [US Virgin Islands, Jamaica, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Trinidad & Tobago, Bahamas, Anguilla, St Vincent & the Grenadines, St Lucia and Montserrat], Central America [El Salvador, Honduras, Belize and Guatemala] or South America [Venezuela, Brazil, Colombia and Guyana]. Just two of these 20 ultra-violent countries (South Africa and Lesotho) were in Africa. One (Tuvalu) was in Oceania. Topping the homicide list was El Salvador, with a homicide rate of 108.64 – over 22 times higher than America’s and nearly ten times that of the Central American nation of Panama (11.38). The intentional homicide rate for number 20 on the list (Guyana, in South America) was 19.42 per 100,000 or about four times that of the U.S. (4.88), 20 times that of Australia and the U.K. (0.98 and 0.92, respectively) and over 60 times that of Japan (0.31). But if one is going to draw a line, it shouldn’t be an arbitrary one, so I decided to make an intentional homicide rate of 20 per 100,000 my cutoff point, leaving me with 19 countries, since Guyana was the only country on the list that fell just below that threshold. I would regard the level of violence in these top 19 countries as unacceptably high, meriting “hole” status in my book. Poverty does not account for it: as we’ve seen, as the very poorest countries in the world (which are mostly in Africa) don’t even figure on the list. Culture seems to be a more likely cause, when we consider the geographic distribution of the countries in question.
In all fairness, however, I should mention that there are plenty of Latin American and Caribbean countries which are not “holes” by the definition I’ve proposed above: in South America, Guyana, French Guiana, Bolivia and Suriname (with rather high homicide rates of 10 to 20 per 100,000), as well as Paraguay, Uruguay, Ecuador, Peru, Argentina and Chile (with fairly moderate homicide rates of less than 10 per 100,000); in Central America, Mexico, Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Panama (homicide rates all between 10 and 20 per 100,000); and in the Caribbean, 14 countries with homicide rates ranging from 17.39 (Dominican Republic) down to 2.78 (Martinique). Haiti belongs in this group, with a homicide rate of 10.04.
I was not successful in finding an online ranking of countries by their overall crime rate (which, by the way, is hard to measure, as international statistics are not always reliable, so it’s a bit like comparing apples and oranges), but I finally came across an article by the insurance company Clements Worldwide, which listed the five countries with the highest crime rates (excluding theft) as South Africa, Honduras, Venezuela, Belize and India. The Wikipedia article on crime in South Africa is pretty sickening:
Around 49 people are murdered in South Africa every day.[6]… In the 2016/17 year, the rate of murders increased to 52 a day, with 19,016 murders recorded between April 2016 to March 2017.[11]…
The country has one of the highest rates of rape in the world, with some 65,000 rapes and other sexual assaults reported for the year ending in March 2012, or 127.6 per 100,000 people in the country.[14][15] The incidence of rape has led to the country being referred to as the “rape capital of the world“.[16] One in three of the 4,000 women questioned by the Community of Information, Empowerment and Transparency said they had been raped in the past year.[17] More than 25% of South African men questioned in a survey published by the Medical Research Council (MRC) in June 2009 admitted to rape; of those, nearly half said they had raped more than one person.[18][19] Three out of four of those who had admitted rape indicated that they had attacked for the first time during their teenage years.[18] South Africa has amongst the highest incidences of child and baby rape in the world…
Kidnapping in South Africa is common in the country with over 4,100 occurring in the 2013/2014 period, and a child going missing every five hours.
In the light of these facts, I find South Africa’s recent protest against President Trump’s “s**thole” comments to be disingenuous and hypocritical.
Regarding crime in India, the same article notes:
Sexual assault is a major concern in India. More than 33,000 rapes were reported in 2014.
The rate of these assaults is increasing. Rape is one of India’s most common crimes against women.
When evaluating whether a country is a “hole,” one obviously needs to consider whether it is a safe country for women and girls to visit. At the present time, India fails to meet this criterion. See also here.
The Safety Index and the Global Peace Index
I also had a look at the Safety Index developed by the travel company SafeAround. Of the 34 countries identified by SafeAround as dangerous or extremely dangerous, 19 were in Africa (actually, SafeAround lists 20, but Yemen is actually in Asia), 12 are in Asia, 2 (Ukraine and Russia) are in Europe, and 1 (Venezuela) is in the Americas. The 12 Asian countries are Syria*, Yemen*, Afghanistan*, Iraq*, North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, Lebanon, Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikstan, Myanmar and Uzbekistan, while the 19 African countries are South Sudan*, Central African Republic*, Somalia*, Democratic Republic of the Congo*, Libya, Sudan, Burundi, Mali, Eritrea, Nigeria, Mauritania, Cameroon, Guinea-Bissau, Niger, Rwanda, Ivory Coast (Cote d’Ivoire), Egypt, Djibouti and Guinea. I’ve asterisked the 8 countries which are very dangerous (deep red) and have a Safety Index of 20 or below. By comparison, Denmark’s is 94.7 (at the top of the list), the USA’s is 67.6, and even El Salvador’s is 50.7, while Mexico’s is 45.8 and Haiti’s is 41.9. I would unhesitantly classify the 8 asterisked countries as “holes,” and some of the remaining 21 dangerous countries as well. Since Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Pakistan all have a Safety Index of well below 30, I’ll count them as “holes” and make 30 my cutoff point. The remaining dangerous countries are more closely bunched together, and have a Safety Index of 30 to 40, so I won’t count them as “holes.” Actually, I’m being very lenient here: countries such as Burundi, Ukraine, Mali, Eritrea, Venezuela, Nigeria, Russia, Iran and Lebanon all fall on or slightly above the cutoff point, with values ranging from 30 to 35.
The Global Peace Index, in its 2017 report, lists 14 countries which it defines as having a “very low” state of peace: North Korea, Russia, Pakistan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ukraine, Central African Republican Republic, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, South Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria (in descending order). A further 19 countries were listed as having a “low” state of peace: Bahrain, Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, Chad, Eritrea, India, Philippines, Egypt, Mali, Burundi, Mexico, Venezuela, Israel, Palestine, Colombia, Turkey, Lebanon and Nigeria (again, in descending order). Two African countries (Botswana and Sierra Leone) received a rating of high, as did five Asian countries (Bhutan, Singapore, Malaysia, Qatar and Taiwan) and two Latin American countries (Chile, Costa Rica and Uruguay). Interestingly, the United States’ ranking was 114 out of 170 countries, while China’s was 116. I think it’s fair to categorize countries with a very low state of peace as “holes.” That includes Russia, Ukraine and Pakistan.
A list of “holes” that we’ve identified so far
So where are we now? Using intentional homicide rates, the top five crime rates, the Safety Index and the Global Peace Index, we have arrived at the following list of “holes”:
Europe (2 countries):
Russia and Ukraine.
Asia (7 countries):
India, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea and Pakistan.
Latin America and the Caribbean (16 countries):
Caribbean: US Virgin Islands, Jamaica, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Trinidad & Tobago, Bahamas, Anguilla, St Vincent & the Grenadines, St Lucia, and Montserrat.
Central America: El Salvador, Honduras, Belize and Guatemala.
South America: Venezuela, Brazil and Colombia.
Africa (8 countries):
South Africa, Lesotho, South Sudan, Central African Republic, Somalia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Libya and Sudan.
Oceania:
Tuvalu.
Why poverty makes more “holes”
Are we done yet? No. Extreme poverty can also make a country a “hole.” So I had a look at the Wikipedia’s list of countries by GDP per capita, as measured by PPP. Actually, there were three lists, put out by the IMF, the World Bank and the CIA. In the end, I decided to use the CIA’s list, because it contained the most countries (198 altogether). I then pondered where to draw my cutoff point. Some useful reference points were provided by the following countries: North Korea 1,800 dollars, Afghanistan 2,000 dollars and Zimbabwe 2,100 dollars. I think most people would consider these countries to be economic hellholes, quite apart from their political systems or their lack of safety. But then again, Uganda’s per capita GDP in PPP terms was the same as Zimbabwe’s. I finally decided to make 2,000 dollars per capita my non-arbitrary cutoff point. It’s a pretty modest cutoff point, really, when you consider that Bangladesh has a per capita GDP (in PPP terms) of 3,600 dollars. That of Africa as a whole is 6,136 dollars. India’s is 6,200 dollars, that of the Philippines is 7,300 dollars, while even El Salvador’s is 8,500 dollars. Of the 26 countries with a per capita GDP of 2,000 dollars or less, 22 are African countries (South Sudan, Benin, Rwanda, Burkina Faso, Mali, The Gambia, Ethiopia, Comoros, Sierra Leone, Togo, Guinea-Bissau, Madagascar, Mozambique, Guinea, Malawi, Eritrea, Niger, Liberia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi, Central African Republic, Somalia), two are Asian (Afghanistan and North Korea) and one is in the Americas (Haiti).
So the bad news is that Africa now has 26 “hole” countries: South Africa, Lesotho, Libya, Sudan, South Sudan, Benin, Rwanda, Burkina Faso, Mali, The Gambia, Ethiopia, Comoros, Sierra Leone, Togo, Guinea-Bissau, Madagascar, Mozambique, Guinea, Malawi, Eritrea, Niger, Liberia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi, Central African Republic and Somalia. That’s nearly half of the countries of Africa. (These 26 countries have a combined population of around 523 million, or around 43% of the total population of Africa.) Also, Haiti has been added to the list of Caribbean “holes,” on account of its very low GDP per capita.
There is some good news on the horizon, however: real GDP growth rates per capita (PPP) for many African countries are spectacularly high. Here are the World Bank figures for annual growth rates for the period 1990 to 2014: Equatorial Guinea 17.79%, Cape Verde 7.81%, Mauritius 5.72%, Ethiopia 5.43%, Uganda 5.41%, Ghana 5.09%, Lesotho 4.88%, Tunisia 4.85%, Burkina Faso 4.76%, Chad 4.74%, Nigeria 4.71%, Rwanda 4.71%, Morocco 4.61%, Seychelles 4.53%, Egypt 4.24%, Namibia 4.22%, Tanzania 4.17%, Zambia 4.07%, Malawi 3.61%, Mali 3.45%, Sierra Leone 3.36%, Benin 3.26%, Mauritania 3.26%, Algeria 3.21%, Swaziland 3.00%. That’s 25 out of 54 countries in Africa with a real GDP per capita (PPP) growth rate of 3% or more. [Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn’t list any figures for the CIA.] [Updated – VJT.]
What that means is that many African countries which are “holes” now, because of their very low GDP per capita, won’t remain that way for very much longer. In ten years, the list of “holes” will be much shorter. (For example: a country with a current GDP per capita (PPP) of 1,228 dollars, which is growing at 5% per year, will reach 2,000 dollars and climb out of “hole” status in the space of just ten years.)
UPDATE: The bad news, however, is that if we look at the world as a whole, we find that its GDP per capita (PPP) grew at an annual growth rate of 4.34%, which was exceeded by just 14 of these African countries. Also, if we look at the 42 countries whose GDP for per capita (PPP) grew at an annual rate of less than 3% for 1990-2014, we find that 19 of those countries were African countries: South Africa 2.82%, Senegal 2.79%, Kenya 2.76%, Republic of the Congo 2.59%, Guinea 2.18%, Cameroon 2.14%, The Gambia 2.14%, Togo 2.08%, Djibouti 2.05%, Niger 1.98%, Gabon 1.89%, Cote d’Ivoire 1.88%, Comoros 1.54%, Guinea-Bissau 1.48%, Madagascar 1.23%, Burundi 0.53%, Zimbabwe 0.39%, Central African Republic -0.07%, Democratic Republic -0.39%. What’s more, nine of these countries belong to the 22 countries identified above as having a GDP per capita (PPP) of 2,000 dollars or less.)
Low freedom ratings make three more holes in Asia, and one in Africa [UPDATE]
A country may also be described as a “hole” if it is totally unfree. Freedom House, in its 2016 Table of Country Scores, gives 10 countries (not counting disputed territories such as Tibet, Crimea and Pakistani Kashmir) the worst possible rating (7) in all three of its categories: political rights, civil liberties and freedom rating. The countries are Syria, Somalia, Eritrea, North Korea, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Sudan, Central African Republic, Equatorial Guinea and Saudi Arabia. Most of these countries are already on our list, but four are not. Three of these (Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Saudi Arabia) are in Asia, while one (Equatorial Guinea) is in Africa.
So, what counts as a “hole” and how many countries are “holes”?
We now have two European “holes,” 10 Asian ones, 17 from the Americas, 27 from Africa and one from Oceania, making a total of 55, out of 200-odd countries. (Updated) That’s about a quarter of the world’s countries. A “hole” can be non-arbitrarily defined as a country which:
(i) has an intentional homicide rate of at least 20 per 100,000 people; or
(ii) has a very high [top five] overall crime rate (excluding theft); or
(iii) has a Safety Index of 30 or less; or
(iv) has a Global Peace Index of “very low”; or
(v) has a GDP per capita of 2,000 dollars or less in PPP terms; or
(vi) has the worst possible rating (7) from Freedom House in political rights, civil liberties and its Freedom Rating. (Updated)
Whose fault is it, and does it matter?
Finally, I’d like to reiterate that calling a country a “hole” doesn’t necessarily mean that its misfortunes are entirely, or even principally, its fault. Some countries are innocent victims of meddling by foreign powers; others are victimized by dictators that seize power.
Nevertheless, if we’re really being honest, I think we’d have to admit that in today’s world, most countries’ troubles are largely home-grown, being generally caused by dysfunctional cultural values, religious bigotry and political corruption. It is easy to point the finger of blame at outside forces: the legacy of Columbus, or of slavery, or of colonialism, or of Pax Americana. And let us acknowledge that tens of millions died as a result of the conquest of the Americas and the slave trade, not to mention the awful toll of colonialism in the Belgian Congo and in British India.
But let’s face facts: Columbus lived 500 years ago, slavery was abolished in most countries well before 1900, and the majority of African countries have been independent for at least 50 years. There has to be a time limit on blaming past injustices for present misfortunes. If 50 years isn’t enough time for a country to turn itself from a “hole” into a thrifty but economically and politically stable country, then I ask: what is?
“What about poverty in Africa?” you ask. Surely the West is principally responsible for that? The Wikipedia article Economy of Africa paints a different picture, however. Consider this inconvenient fact, taken from the article: “Although Africa and Asia had similar levels of income in the 1960s, Asia has since outpaced Africa.” It’s surely fair to ask why. The article continues:
“One school of economists argues that Asia’s superior economic development lies in local investment. Corruption in Africa consists primarily of extracting economic rent and moving the resulting financial capital overseas instead of investing at home; the stereotype of African dictators with Swiss bank accounts is often accurate.”
That sounds like a home-grown problem to me.
Colonialism is often blamed for Africa’s woes. But consider this fact:
“Analysis of the economies of African states finds that independent states such as Liberia and Ethiopia did not have better economic performance than their post-colonial counterparts.”
The effects of colonialism were decidedly mixed. The colonialists did lots of evil things, but it was what they didn’t do that caused more harm to Africa, with many historians arguing that they should have done more to develop Africa’s infrastructure and open up the continent:
Historians L. H. Gann and Peter Duignan have argued that Africa probably benefited from colonialism on balance. Although it had its faults, colonialism was probably “one of the most efficacious engines for cultural diffusion in world history”.[30] These views, however, are controversial and are rejected by some who, on balance, see colonialism as bad. The economic historian David Kenneth Fieldhouse has taken a kind of middle position, arguing that the effects of colonialism were actually limited and their main weakness wasn’t in deliberate underdevelopment but in what it failed to do.[31] Niall Ferguson agrees with his last point, arguing that colonialism’s main weaknesses were sins of omission.[32]
Language diversity is also a huge problem in Africa:
“African countries suffer from communication difficulties caused by language diversity. Greenberg’s diversity index is the chance that two randomly selected people would have different mother tongues. Out of the most diverse 25 countries according to this index, 18 (72%) are African.[40] This includes 12 countries for which Greenberg’s diversity index exceeds 0.9, meaning that a pair of randomly selected people will have less than 10% chance of having the same mother tongue. However, the primary language of government, political debate, academic discourse, and administration is often the language of the former colonial powers; English, French, or Portuguese.”
Maybe some readers would still argue that the West (including America) should give more money to Africa. Not so fast:
“Growing evidence shows that foreign aid has made the continent poorer. One of the biggest critics of the aid development model is economist Dambiso Moyo (a Zambian economist based in the US), who introduced the Dead Aid model, which highlights how foreign aid has been a deterrent for local development.”
Economic protectionism in developed countries hampers Africa’s growth, as well:
“When developing countries have harvested agricultural produce at low cost, they generally do not export as much as would be expected. Abundant farm subsidies and high import tariffs in the developed world, most notably those set by Japan, the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy, and the United States Department of Agriculture, are thought to be the cause. Although these subsidies and tariffs have been gradually reduced, they remain high.”
Trade, rather than aid, is the best way to help Africa escape poverty. To the extent that the West is harming Africa, it is largely by refusing to trade with it. And if there is one country that deserves much of the credit for Africa’s astonishing growth in recent years, it is China, which has stepped up its volume of trade with Africa and invested heavily in local infrastructure.
A plea for balance
As for US intervention in El Salvador: let us remember that its UN-brokered peace agreement was signed back in 1992, more than a quarter of a century ago. Despite decades of peace, the GDP growth rate in El Salvador averaged a measly 0.72 percent from 1990 until 2017. That can hardly be America’s fault. Nor can the sky-high homicide rate be blamed on America.
And let’s hear both sides of the story, too. Quartz magazine has just published a long and indignant tirade enumerating the past wrongs suffered by Haiti at America’s hands, including a 19-year occupation by U.S. marines from 1915-1934, during which thousands of innocent people died under a racist government. But the article fails to mention that the U.S. occupation dramatically improved the island’s infrastructure: “1700 km of roads were made usable, 189 bridges were built, many irrigation canals were rehabilitated, hospitals, schools, and public buildings were constructed, and drinking water was brought to the main cities.” Let’s give credit where credit’s due, I say. And let’s also ask, fearlessly: what is it that continues to hold some countries (like Haiti) back, long after the Marines departed?
And above all: let us not be afraid of calling a “hole” what it really is. Before we can change the world for the better, we need to confront it in all its ugliness. And with that, I’d like to conclude my response to Cardinal Dolan. Over to you.
Neil Rickert,
This reminds me of an exchange I had with a fellow Canadian who waxed eloquent while proclaiming that Sarkozy was a NAZI when in 2009, France deported 10,000 Romani back to Romania and Bulgaria. Sarkozy was behaving no differently than Hitler, dontchya know.
I suggested his remarks in fact were racist, which elicited no little surprise on his part.
I asked him whether his reaction would have been different if several thousand unemployed red-haired freckled soccer hooligans from Denmark had set up illegal camps in France’s public parks in order to receive more generous welfare payments.
He immediately replied “that was different”!
I asked him why? Did he have different expectations for those of Danish ancestry than those of Roma ancestry?
I reminded him that Romania and Bulgaria are members of the EU and therefore the Romani by definition could not claim refugee status. If in fact they were victims of any sort, other than a desire for better welfare payments – they had recourse to the European Court.
Like I said before the racism of reduced expectations.
How is any of this relevant?
Well, how about the migrants? I ask you – is there a Leftist racism of reduced expectations? If so – does mentioning as much thereby make ME a racist?
ITMT How many of those “migrants” are not bona fide refugees but rather economic migrants?
Why is it racist to even ask the question?
DId anyone say that it could not be the case?
The world is full of people who do all kinds of things, some good and some bad. Why are you seeing it all in racial terms?
Only because walto accused me of overt racism and you just agreed.
Meanwhile – I refer you to vjtorley’s original OP – fer crying out loud.
The notion of racism is central to his thesis and mentioned seven times in the original OP, by my count.
Neil Rickert,
It is quite simple really:
If I am in fact guilty of subtle racism, which merely happens not to have crossed the line into “guano-worthy” – I beg you to point any such post out to me;
…that, or withdraw your apparent support of walto’s contention.
I believe a possible misunderstanding may have just occurred which is easily rectified.
my frustration continues
The point is, that you are seeing people as members of racial or cultural groups, rather than as individuals.
Thank you for your reply Neil
I humbly submit
1 – you are constructing a false dichotomy
2 – you have failed to understand my earlier posts
Please note my earlier comparison contrasting Nazis with Germans. We both agree that the two terms are not equivalent.
Then consider my suggestion we not tar all Muslims with the same brush such as racists would prefer. That is why I distinctly suggested, by way of example, we consider Islamists as a different category from Muslims no differently than Nazis and Germans.
Not every German was a Nazi and not every Nazi was a German. Ditto Islamists and Arabs… or even Islamists and Muslims. I submit some Islamists are definitely NOT Muslim but rather brain-washed INDIVIDUALS whose beliefs have nothing to do with the teachings of the Prophet.
we agreed so far?
If you prefer, everything I just said about Nazism could also apply to Stalinism. Again – Stalinism was no less venal than Nazism and Stalinism theoretically opposed racism (although surviving Crimean Tartars may vehemently disagree)
You get my drift
However – every Nazi (or Stalinist) was an enemy of everything Western Civilization holds near and dear?
we agreed so far?
Anticipating your rebuttal – I imagine you to counter that my proposed higher taxonomies really do not constitute “racial” or “cultural” groups when considering your initial dichotomous juxtaposition to “individuals”… those objectionable higher taxonomies are in fact “Political” and NOT “Cultural” or “Racial”.
Whereupon, I would jump up and applaud you with the words – “EXACTLY!”
Yet again we agree so far!
All I am saying is that the cultural epicentre of Europe somehow managed to produce the evil of Nazism, a venal political entity – or if one prefers, another epicentre of European culture produced the evil of Stalinism. Why should the Middle East be somehow different and immune to any similar phenomenon?
All I am saying – cultural epicentres around the world are no different than the European versions
Islamist Ideology is IMHO Islamofascism! Islamofascism is a political ideology no less evil and no less dangerous to Western Civilization than Nazism or Stalinism ever posed.
I really do not see any point of controversy on that point.
Meanwhile, the majority of migrants (excess of 80%) are economic and NOT bona fide refugees.
Meanwhile – MANY (not all) of those unworthy economic migrants are in fact Salafist and even former members of ISIS
None of the above is debatable or “racist”.
Frankly – I do not perceive what the problem is. I suggest we revisit the thesis of vjtorley’s original OP.
ETA
Neil – you may want to accuse me of constructing my own false dichotomies in the post above. So let’s cut to the chase:
The fact is that I always give the benefit of the doubt and I do indeed see people as individuals before applying labels.
Bringing this back to the original thesis of vjtorley’s original intent, I offer this post from a while back on this very thread and as a reminder that all what I just claimed is true.
Not to mention, this earlier challenge to Faizal Ali:
OK, here’s my two cents.
As it stands, the socio-political situation in Europe and the impact of migrant flows…
*sniff* *sniff*
hold on… Is that blonde pussy that I smell?
brb
dazz,
uhmmm… I am gobstopped… and at a loss for words.
Frankly – besides the vulgarity – I am confused and have no idea what point you are attempting to make.
For Neil
on the topic of “individuals”. On an earlier occasion I drew everyone’s attention to the efforts of a great INDIVIDUAL
a HERO actually, who has put his own life, as well as his family’s, at great risk, in order to speak out for Truth and Justice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarek_Fatah
צדק צדק תרדוף (Deuteronomy 16:18)
Godwin’s Law.
I hear ya petrushka – you will note that I anticipated any such rebuttal by including “Stalinism” as a ready alternate.
If I understand correctly, you and I are in agreement on first principles.
Invocation of Godwin’s Law aside, do you also agree that I have never uttered any version of racism?
ETA
The problem is, the way power works, all Germans became Nazis, unless they wished to die. That does not mean they wanted to be or were happy with the situation, but there are times when resisting becomes impossible or fatal.
The surest way to find out who is in charge is to ask who it is you are not allowed to criticize.
When in doubt, I’m mocking you
I have not read every word of this thread, but from what I have read, I am in general agreement with you.
Equating fear of Islamists with racism seems like nonsense. Islam is not a race. it is a political ideology masquerading as a religion. For the record, I think the same about all Abrahamic religions. The difference between Judaism, Christianity and Islam is that the first two have, over the centuries, been housebroken. Politically neutered.
No one who is Jewish or Christian fears being killed for apostasy, heresy, or for mocking or publicly criticizing their religion. Nor do Muslims fear criticizing Jews or Christians. There can always be exceptions. There are always crazy individuals. But Europeans can be jailed for saying things like we are saying here. that’s insane.
Uhmmmm… I most vehemently disagree! I once chatted with Raul Hilberg who agreed with the contention the German Resistance was more significant and more heroic than the French Resistance. Mind you – that would be faint praise from him given his opinion of the French Resistance.
Uhmmm… I agree. Explaining why I fear for North America’s future no less than Europe’s
@Alan Fox
I only wish you understood German!
You should do some internet searching on what this link is about
dazz would hang his hang in shame if he could wrap his head around Europe’s new now, as expressed by the anguished pleas of these women
120 Dezibel
I am not in complete agreement – you take a much harder line than I
I refer you to an earlier post I already rementioned
I’m sure it was more heroic, and also less visible.
I grew up in a time and place where it was shameful to believe in integration. I now live in the same place, and it is shameful to say something overtly racist.
This is progress, regardless of how much secret racism there may be. Shame is powerful, and over generations it can erode the old prejudices. It is what we need now to erode some bronze age attitudes and practices.
I do not believe in letting the perfect to be the enemy of the better. None of us need be perfect in order to oppose honor killing or apostasy laws and practices.
Nicely said, petrushka.
Care to share some of those stories?
I’m prefer to not accuse anyone. Rather, I am trying to point out to you what people are seeing in your. Maybe you are leaving an impression that doesn’t properly represent you. But that’s something you would have to fix.
I’m also not liking the impression that vjtorley’s original post has left.
Bravo petrushka!
Je vous tire mon chapeau!
Herein lies the rub:
You are appealing to a sense of common decency, emphasis on the word common
Unfortunately decency is not common
Take Ghandi for example: he was the first to assert that his version of civil disobedience appealing to a British sense of decency would have failed miserably if the same tactics had been attempted with Nazi oppressors
So when naive European youth accompanied by idealistic leaders of the European Left sing John Lennon’s song Imagine, while matching arm in arm along blood stained streets just after a terrorist attack
I admire them… no question their hearts surpass my own. Their brains however are not connected to reality as they assume the role Stalin himself identified as “useful idiot”
The enemy Europe confronts has more in common with the Nazis than the colonial British
Again, I do not want to bring Godwin’s Law crashing down upon my head- I am merely paraphrasing Ghandi himself
Arabs and middle easterners have reasons to hate Europeans. I think many of us are familiar with the history of the last century.
My feelings about the refugees are quite mixed. On one hand they are victims of their current benefactors. The West exploited them for oil and, for reasons that escape me, stirred up civil wars that destroyed several nations, sometimes giving weapons to both sides.
So it makes sense to invite people who hate you with a blind fury into your home?
Well, actually, other people’s homes, because the leaders are not going to allow refugees into their homes or allow them to attack their children.
And because you feel guilty you cannot bring yourself to criticize their behavior? So to preserve diversity you imprison journalists and citizens for having doubleplusungood opinions?
petrushka,
Oh dear… OK, I think I am beginning to understand Neil’s suggestion of how my posts could misrepresent my real views
petrushka, I respectfully suggest your brush strokes are too broad and your real views are being distorted here.
The ME is composed of much diversity besides “Arab” and many who you just labeled “Arab” are persecuted and displaced Copts, Zorastrins, Druz, Bedouins, Armenians, Hashemites, Persians, Maronites, Bahais, Yezidi, Kurds, Alewites and and and… the list doesn’t end! That was just off the top of my head! My Coptic friend who is godparent to my children is a devout Christian and sees herself as embracing the culture of the West no differently than I… and she identifies as “Arab”
I suggest the real problem here is along lines you hinted at: post WW I, the partition of the former Ottoman Empire created a ethnic brew of irreconcilable illegitimate rulers reigning over a mishmash of ethnic rivalries within artificially drawn borders… Hashemite rulers in Jordan and Alewite rulers in Syria… Sunni in Iraq… only the Devil could have been so deliberately malicious
When conflict erupted and genocide exploded: we the West had a moral obligation to intervene. Every member of the UN is signatory to the Convention on Genocide.
Unfortunately, living up to our moral obligations would require boots on the ground.
So instead, and as a sop to our collective consciences, we allowed refugees, well sort of.
Europe eventually put up obstacles to stainch the flow of refugees thereby creating an artificial selection of younger stronger males who could overcome the impediments deliberately placed in their way; recalling my Danish Soccer comparison earlier. Imagine if roles were reversed and a flow of Europeans needed to overcome barriers to find refuge in the ME. Our finest and best would not be the first to arrive.
Of course, fewer than 20% were bona fide refugees and many were our declared enemy as you point out
Is such a statement of the facts racist? I do not perceive it so… but I do concede Neil has a point. Sometimes an unfortunate turn of phrase sure makes it sound so.
Hmm! I know about the White Rose organisation. Otherwise I’ve heard little about German resistance to Nazi rule during the Second World War. What I do know is that French resistance was organised to coordinate with and support the Allied invasions. The rôle of resistance groups was to pin down, block and delay troop and supply reinforcement to the embarkation points in Normandy and Saint Tropez. This they did with great success. I pass Lieutenant Paul Swank‘s grave on the main road between Limoux and Alet les Bains on a regular basis. Here’s a little anecdote of a resistance action that he helped coordinate.
Sure there’s plenty of talk about the September resistance and the many who joined late and loudly when it was obvious the Nazis were beaten, but let’s not belittle the thousands who fought and died.
For the full story, here it is: A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East.
No they aren’t! Anyway Sweden hasn’t set one! 🙂
Shame (if she listens to you).
I’m not a strict determinist so I disagree fundamentally, there. (Impossible that identical antecedents occur!)
The essence of what I was trying to say is that opportunities for compromise between Catalans and Spanish have been missed. But Rajoy held most cards and played them badly.
I’m curious, too. Barcelona, like any large city, draws its share of pickpockets and thieves. Admittedly, though blond and called beautiful by some, I’m not young and female so my many strolls around the streets of Barcelona could result in different experience. It’s far from lawless (or was – I admit to not having been back since the latest street demonstrations).
Yeah, Rajoy is terrible. He’s the spanish George Bush, known for his hilarious quotes & nervous twitches.
My favorite one is the “inversobres” freudian slip at 0:27. Right when the media broke the news of government members getting illegal commissions handed to them in envelopes (“sobres”) he mistakes “inversores” (investors) for “inversobres”. I remember watching that debate on the state of the nation live on TV, just couldn’t stop laughing
Actually I’d love it if Spain followed Sweden’s example:
I was about to give up on this thread, given everybody seems to be repeating themselves and going about in circles.
But now behold these specious non-sequiturs about Sweden, and I immediately recalled Thomas Henry Huxley’s apocryphal remarks before destroying analogous strawman ad hominems of Bishop of Oxford Samuel ‘Soapy Sam’ Wilberforce,
Sweden?! – you want to bring up Sweden?! Let’s haf at ‘er!
First of all – there is no longer freedom of speech nor a free press in Sweden, and the government statistics you cite from Wikipedia have no more bearing on reality than those of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea!
First Link for your perusal
Second Link for your perusal
Third Link for your perusal
OK OK… embedded hard data aside – what is the scoop with free speech and free press in Sweden?
It doesn’t help that SNOPES, politically correct and Leftist in outlook and will tow the Left-Wing Party Line, all according to dazz’s preferred sources cited in the Wikipedia article above. It also doesn’t help when the Swedish Press is run by a Liberal Praetorium – veterans of the students riots of 1986, who are guilty of deliberate self-censorship, at least according to Sweden’s Police Chiefs.
So what is really going on – and can we find hard data that has not been censored by Sweden?
Hundreds protest in Sweden after police told women to ‘stay inside or walk in pairs’ after series of violent gang rapes of teenage girls
No construction company dares to take risks in the troubled immigrant-heavy and violence-prone district of Stockholm to build a new police station.
Here is a link to an out of character mainstream media’s report on the same
Swedish police warn Stockholm’s main train station is now overrun by migrant teen gangs stealing and groping girls
head of the Swedish Ambulance Association ALARM, Gordon Grattidge told Swedish DGS TV – It’s too dangerous to enter” areas in Sweden where majority of the people are immigrants
Malmö school ‘too dangerous’ for staff & students
Malmö once had Europe’s oldest and largest Jewish communities but no more!
… and not just Malmö
Half of survey respondents who live in Malmö suburbs not to mention Sweden’s other major cities like Stockholm and Gothenburg feel that the area is too dangerous to go out at night
And not just major centers – A surge in migrant sex attacks and assaults has forced police in the small Swedish city of Östersund to advise women not to go outdoors alone or after dark. Östersund no longer celebrates Earth Hour – it is too dangerous!
Sweden’s largest music festival, the Bråvalla Festival, have canceled the 2018 event after failing to stop sexual assaults by newcomers
Don’t take my word for it – British band Mumford & Sons vowed to boycott the festival after being one of the headliners in 2016. “We won’t play at this festival again until we’ve had assurances from the police and organizers that they’re doing something to combat what appears to be a disgustingly high rate of reported sexual violence,” the band declared on FaceBook after playing at the 2016 festival. Mumford and Sons are objecting to the sudden multicultural expansion of Swedish vocabulary including new exotic phrases such as “Taharrush Gamea”
This is just a small sampling of news items indicating Sweden’s descent into insanity. I invite you to search out your own.
OK OK… so why is this news to so many participants here? The answer is simple, Sweden passed new laws in 2014 which would make me and petrushka criminally libel for hate-speech
Since then – freedom of the press and of free speech have gone from bad to worse. Police chiefs are censored and threatened with job termination for daring to express their concerns publicly
Since then – freedom of the press and of free speech have gone from bad to worse. Police chiefs are censored and threatened with job termination for daring to express their concerns publicly
If you cannot be bothered to confront the data provided above: I suggest you merely peruse these links below!
FTR – I do NOT concur with everything said. However, nobody can deny their anger would seem righteous:
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeWEKCCmVQY
or more recently
Haha. The “data” you provided above.
https://www.snopes.com/crime-sweden-rape-capital-europe/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatestone_Institute
The Wikipedia is simply incorrect about Gatestone publishing false articles! Wikipedia provides three links to support their fallacious suggestion
The first link refers to an article which makes the blatantly false claim that “Nein, in Hamburg werden keine Wohnungsbesitzer für Flüchtlinge enteignet”.
For ample contradiction of that false claim go to this link:
https://tinyurl.com/ycyg9xju
and not just in Hamburg!
http://www.politikversagen.net/rubrik/zwangsenteignung
http://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/unterbringung-von-fluechtlingen-enteignung-in-deutschland/12554902.html
and more here:
https://tinyurl.com/yctbkxpm
The second link is about Denmark and not Sweden. No effort was made by the author to confirm whether the collection of anecdotes was in any way representative of Denmark. Since then, the migrant crisis in Denmark has escalated such that current events readily contradict that link.
The third link “Debunking the Myth of Muslim-Only Zones in Major European Cities” has already been refuted in the links I already provided.
Meanwhile – SNOPES is indeed an unreliable and biased “fact-checker” and it remains unworthy of consideration in this discussion
https://tinyurl.com/y96s4vct
For Tom,
The sky falls in Carcassonne!
Yeah, Tom. We should all put our trust in you and Gatestone.
It has been ever so!
Sweden’s neutrality during Word War II
I have fond memories of working in a Leukemia Research Lab in Marseille… the notion of an “Protestant Work Ethic” in Provence was just as foreign as the notion of a “joie de vivre” would be in the Presbetarian Hebrides
But seriously, your link confirms my earlier suggestion that the Euro experiment has proven disastrous for the small farmer no differently in France than what I described earlier in Croatia
Wikipedia is never considered an authoritative source, and I know of no academic institution which allows students to cite Wikipedia
Wikipedia can be a good source of links to examine
That is all moot: I agree you should not put any faith in my opinion!
That is why I provided you the opinions of the Swedish Police,Ambulance & Fire Services in Sweden
Their opinions should matter
ITMT. I provided enough data to prove that no-go zones are becoming such a problem in Sweden that former migrants are now considering their neighbourhoods more dangerous than the nastiness of the Middle East and are presently seeking refuge from Swedish refuge.
Kafka couldn’t dream this shit up in his worst nightmares
I really do not see Sweden’s behaviour during WW II to have been dishonourable. Switzerland on the other hand was a nation of enthusiastic Nazis!
Sweden witnessed what just happened to Denmark and Norway. Meanwhile Sweden had common cause with Finland against a common enemy of Soviet Union
Sweden had no choice but to play one side off the other, but it’s treatment of Jewish refugees and cooperation with Allied Intelligence demonstrated a decency sorely lacking in Europe
I reckon Sweden and Denmark to be the only two continental European nations who retained national honor during WW II
Well… it would appear that I am able to add “QED!” to my rebuttal of specious suggestions, that all is well in Sweden.
Final public challenge to Neil or anybody else.
I agree – the “impression left” by myself and vjtorley and petrushka is indeed disconcerting and contrary to multikulti politically correct sensitivities of those with bigger hearts than I, but who suffer from a decided lack of hard data, which some of us attempted to provide.
So here is my last question to any and all:
Neil has made an unpleasant accusation. I challenge anybody present to direct me to any post of mine, where I myself stated views, which were hostile to Islam or to Muslims or in any way even hinted at disrespect of any sort to Islam as a faith.
Any such failure on my part would have been inadvertent and I will offer a full retraction and public apology.
To sweeten the deal, I will offer a 100 dollar contribution, in your name, to the charity of your choice.
I will defer to the adjudication of the moderators.
Failure to claim the 100 dollar prize will constitute vindication of my claims above. I am guessing this will be my last post on this thread.
That doesn’t work. You will have succeeded only in convincing yourself.
Personally, I won’t be taking the time to investigate social conditions in Sweden. It isn’t worth the effort, and I can’t do anything about it no matter what I would find. So I’ll readily admit that I make my decisions on less than complete information (as does everybody).
I haven’t investigated social conditions in Europe or anywhere else. I am quite familiar with the seen from a distance phenomenon. I spent a year in Vietnam, and it turned out to be a safer place than my college town.
I am also familiar with the climate of fear that can be aroused by a few violent people. I am guessing that the people who make immigration policies don’t raise their children in the neighborhoods that have problems, don’t send their kids to predominantly lower class schools, and build walls around their houses like those built by Hollywood stars and Joe Kennedy.
My kids went to public schools and state universities. I did not live in a rich neighborhood or a gated community.
Neil- do you even bother to read the thread? How about your own posts?
You agreed with walto’s assessment that my posts were racist ! Show me where anything I said could be misconstrued as racism, that or do the decent thing and offer me a public apology!
Dammit Neil
Do you even bother to follow any of the thread? I offered the opinions of Sweden’s fire, police and ambulance services. I offered the opinion of a majority of Swedes living in affected areas, according to Swedish polls. I offered assessments from Israel regarding the plight of Jews in Sweden. I offered hard data that rock concerts are now banned in Sweden.
I offered all of the above to a most ignorant statement:
In other words, I offered hard data and you Neil, blithely brush it all off with the quip you cannot be bothered to have your ignorance challenged with information.
If you are going to ignore anything I offer in any case, please put me on “ignore”!
Until then, you still owe me a public apology
Why not just pretend he’s made one to you already? That seems to be your thing.
You never get it do you!?