Over the past few months, I’ve noticed a new round of references to the white supremacist “great replacement theory,” so I thought I’d offer a post to explain the dark corners from which this came and the nightmares to which it can lead. At its heart, the “replacement theory” argues that immigration — usually of non-white groups, but some sort of menacing “other” — is a carefully orchestrated conspiracy. Immigration is not, in this paranoid view, the result of individuals and families seeking to better their own lives, but the result of a sinister scheme to ruin
It would be a lot faster if you just said you hate the Chinese.
I don’t, I hate culture, race and religion used as tools to differentiate between people and to create divide.
Culture as foundation to build character and actions of single individuals is fine and dandy (same goes for religion, race, uses and costumes, etc.). The same concepts used to determine the innate superiority of a certain group in respect to all the others must be eradicated as quickly as possible.
Furthermore my previous example was about an Indian, yet you didn’t assume I hated Indians. Are you an Indian hater yourself? Or, would I have used an European being born in Saudi Arabia as an example, would you have assumed I hate Europeans?
You provide so many bad faith arguments it would take far too long to address all of them. I went with your most recent because it was the most recent. if you want me to review all your nonsense ask nicely and I’ll consider it.
Oh please wise man from the soap mountain, tell me how culture is not a false concept equal to heritage or race when used to define a certain group of people as being better than any other. I surely cannot think of past heads of states using race to justify their horrendous actions against other nations, we have no doubt only fought wars for culture in our history!!
Same old, same old, when confronted with an argument you cannot address always go for “there’s too much work to do and I’m too lazy to do it so I’m leaving the discussion while pretending I’m right”.
Never play chess with a pigeon, it will scatter the pieces on the board, shit around and walk around with his puffed chest as he won the game
“when used to define a certain group of people as being better than any other.”
There is another bad faith tactic you are using. You keep appending that on to fit the scenario you want. Race and culture are different things. They can influence each other but they are different. Both shape identity but that doesn’t mean that either most inherently inform a person that they are better than someone with a different race or heritage. Has it often been used that way in the past, yes, but it’s not inherent to the notions of race and heritage.
Your examples paint you as awfully convinced that foreigners are completely incapable of integrating into a new society. That’s pretty bigoty. People can participate in multiple cultures. They can pick and choose and blend them.
“It’s like saying that Chinese immigrants to Europe will be European because they live the European culture”
So is the conclusion you come to that they will never be European? They will always be foreign?
You shit on the chess board a little prematurely.
Please, provide examples of heritage and/or colture being used for the betterment of society.
Protip: you can’t.
Heritage and colture are frozen in time and will never be used to improve society because they need a strict set of boundaries to remain heritage and colture. Should a colture be poisoned by external factors it would immediately cease to be the same culture it was a minute ago and would become something different, thus being rejected by those who practice said colture in a religious way.
To make a simpler example you may be able to understand: I am Italian. The thing italians hate the most is ananas on pizza because “this goes against our culture!”
Should I dare to say that I enjoy ananas on my pizza tomorrow (I don’t, but that’s what a thought experiment is) most of my friends would be appalled by my statement and would fight me on that.
Culture or heritage intended as a set of characteristics stereotypical of a certain subset if humans are a cancer to society and should be eliminated.
Of course they could become European, should they decide to leave their culture behind and to homogenise in the society they live in. Unfortunately peer and societal pressure do not allow for such a change and therefore they are doomed to remain marginalized because they cannot accept their culture, heritage or race not being “the best”
Wow dude, you really are a bigot and don’t even realize it. Those poor weak willed soft minded foreigners just can’t think for themselves or change. They are doomed to live only in the context of their scary different culture.
If ananas on pizza is the extent of what you think culture is then you are profoundly ignorant. If you know that culture extends to things beyond that, like music and art as examples, then you are disingenuously misrepresenting culture. If you want to make the case that the entirety of art and music has done nothing good then I’ll listen… skeptically.
There is Culture with a capital C (music, arts, literature, etc.) which is a universal way of expression and then there is culture with a lowercase c (heritage, dialects, common beliefs, traditions, etc.) which are typical of a very distinct group of people being part of a well-defined territory.
The first can and has since always helped human beings create bridges between different groups, since it is a common way to express ones’ feelings and can overcome the language and culture barriers.
The second is used to keep these group apart with the subtle yet very present assumption that each people has “the best” culture when compared to others.
If you cannot understand this difference I think we have a very big communication problem.
Not every foreigner is unable to change, yet many remain stoic in their willingness to not assimilate by regrouping in ghettos when they move abroad. The issue is double-faced, on one side there are the immigrants who are not strong enough to pull out from their social group due to peer pressure and to the beliefs they were programmed to follow from a very young age; on the other side there are the receiving societies which tend to avoid the assimilation of new “cultures” (I’m using brackets to differentiate culture and Culture from now on) because they are afraid of new perspectives and ways of being and would avoid mixing with those to preserve their native “culture”.
Erase culture (intended as heritage) and humankind has only to gain from shedding these old ideas. If we would focus on what we have in common with the others instead of what are the differences between us we would all live much better, don’t you think?
Typical bigot point of view, I know…
So there’s two cultures one that embodies everything you don’t like and one that embodies everything you do like. Convenient. Maybe you should have led with that obtuse distinction.
So some portion of foreigners are stuck in their culture and some are not. We can guess what your estimations of the percentage is, but if you know that it’s not universal then what were you trying to say with the whole Chinese will never be European and Indians will never be German?
Are you aware of the history of state sponsored schools designed to erase cultural identity like you praise? It’s a pretty disgusting path you are skipping down.