| User | Comment |
|---|
| Dino | | posted 27-Apr-2004 2:20pm |
It will be quicker to list the ones I didn't tick.
"Western citizens opposing current levels of immigration in their countries." - some levels are very high. Being oppossed to 'current levels' isn't strictly zenophobia. Its asking if your country can support the extra people, many of whom are unskilled.
"Israelis wishing to live in settlements in the occupied territories." - just because I'm not too sure about that one so refused to tick it.
"Canadian Francophobes" - a very specific thing, too specific infact. |
| thevelvetcure | | posted 27-Apr-2004 2:20pm |
None, Maybe the various groups are nationalists, maybe isolationists, some are religious nuts, but this doesn't mean that they hate all outsiders.
btw- what's a Canadian francophone??? |
Enheduanna  | | posted 27-Apr-2004 3:45pm |
I wouldn't consider any of these groups inherently xenophobic; they all have far deeper reasons for what they believe. None of these issues deserves to be boiled down into the overly simplistic explanation of xenophobia. |
Irene007  | | posted 27-Apr-2004 8:42pm |
They all are to some extent but the Japanese take the cake. They have always been a very closed community, having embraced all Western ideas - they still don't accept who's not Japanese... |
| kitti723 | | posted 27-Apr-2004 9:02pm |
All of the above |
| Irene007 |
A francophone is a French speaking Canadian - Comme moi!  (like me)
Kaleb has bought into the world wide reporting about the upsets here (just like many other ignorant French Canadians). They think it's a language issue - dumb fudges! It's about control of resources. One has to know the history here to really understand what it's all about. It's much more complex than just a language issue - in fact; it really has nothing to do with it as most educated, politically inclined French Canadians do speak English and any politician worth his weight in English Canada also speaks French. Quebec wants to control its resources, just like Alberta does and if anyone should separate from Canada (with good cause); it should be British Columbia. They're thousands of miles away from the capital and often are overlooked and do most of their business with the States anyway (it's geographically easier!) It's really not a civil issue, it's just that politicians often resort to sentiment and use issues like language to rile the stupid people up... And, unfortunately, it works because there are more of them voting than there are informed ones... 
The funny thing about Quebec, many travellers have come here with this misinformation about the people and have been delightfully surprised by the warm reception they get. People in Quebec are a special breed - created from the loosing French colonists, integrated with the rejected, English speaking Irish (both are Catholic) and managed to reinvent themselves as a real, down-to-earth people.
I'm 6th generation Irish and only 3rd generation Belgium (from the French speaking Walloons but our name if of Flemish origin - someone in my ancestry must have "jumped the river" ) Our name is very unusual so it's easy to find relatives on the net and those I do find, almost all speak English... I wonder why?
I once met a girl with flaming red hair at a French Canadian wedding so I asked her if she was of Irish or Scottish origins (I now know that she was Scottish - I didn't know better back then...). She replied that she was Québecoise!! I said; "Well, yeah but what are your ancestors?" She insisted that her Mom was Québecoise, her grandparents, her great-grandparents and etc... I thought to myself; "If you were such a real North American - you hair would be black and your skin would be red! You stupid c....!" Needless to say, the conversation ended there... Like I said, these stupid people have the privilege to vote...  |
| thevelvetcure | | (reply to Irene007) posted 27-Apr-2004 11:51pm |
Thank you for the brief history, political lesson Irene. Unfortunately, I'm a dumb American that knows very little of Canadain history (or Mexican for that part). I have known a few Canadians, one of them would have been classified as the "stupid c..." The other was of Irish descent, like you described (I'm Irish myself  ) However I don't know which province he was from, though it does sound like it was Quebec.
In regards to your unfortunately experience with the Scottish lass, this is why we love you Irene. You have great stories and you tell it how it is |
| Irene007 |
At least you don't get to vote here!
And how else could I say it? It is what it is and I is what I is... I AM CANADIAN!! (not just Québecoise - in fact; I wasn't even born in this freakin' province! I was born in the capital of Canada; Ottawa, Ontario!! Stuff that in your pipe you French Canadian schmucks!  ) |
| Zang | | posted 28-Apr-2004 1:45am |
I would have to know more about the individual circumstances. I don't tend to lump groups of people together and then psychoanalyse them. If pressed, I'd pick the second (European) one as the most likely probability, but even then, I'd have to know more about the specifics.
Just for fun, I'll look at each of these groups and take a crack at explaining why I think they might be doing that.
The first one, Iraqis attacking foreigners, I'm wondering if this might be a reference to the people who are presently DEFENDING their country from a foreign invasion and occupation. I wouldn't even call that "attacking". When foreign armies invade your country, defending it is usually considered appropriate by most sensible people. If this is about some other incident; I don't know what it might be.
The second one, Europeans attacking immigrants, as I said, I might consider this xenophobic. From what I've heard about specific incidents, it is often young, unemployed males who commit these assaults. Probably encouraged by negative media portrayals and such.
The third, Israelis wishing to live in settlements; I understand these people are given finacial incentives by their government to do this. I suspect the money is in fact the reason behind it.
Four, Palestinians establishing a state. There has been a Palestinian state for decades. It just hasn't been recognised as such by most other nations.
Five, western citizens opposing immigration. This could be due to any number of things. There are plenty of people who are "western citizens". I'm sure that they have any number of reasons for their opinions. Xenophobia is probably just one among many.
Six, African governments confiscating land. I'm only familiar with this sort of thing happening in countries where there had previously been laws enacted which precluded black Africans from owning any of the "good land" which was pretty much all of it. I think this has a lot more to do with redressing very specific historical laws which any sensible person would recognise as being human rights violations. We're talking about laws which were enacted during the lifetimes of living people. This isn't ancient history or anything.
Seven, Antiglobalisation. This has nothing to do with xenophobia at all. This is an issue that deals with the democratic rights of people of all nations versus the rights of huge corporations to force their agenda on them.
Eight, Radical Islamists. Islam is one of the largest religions in the world. Nations which are predominantly Islamic extend from West Africa to the East Indies and from Western China to the Southeast coast of Africa. I'm not sure what sort of "Radical Islamists" are being referred to here, but it seems to me that nationalities and ethnicity are not likely to be big issues for most Islamic people. The Faith is WAY more important.
Nine, Japan refusing to accept refugees. Japan is one of the most densely populated nations on the planet. They also have a fairly unique culture which refugees would probably have enormous difficulty adapting to. This is a very ancient nation and culture. Japan is also ethnically homogeneous. I just don't see the point in pressing something like this. It makes no sense. There is probably no better example of a nation which would be an inappropriate destination for refugees.
Ten, Canadian francophones. If by this I am to assume we are talking about "Quebec Separatists", you are doing a considerable disservice to Canadian francophones in general, the majority of whom are not Separatists. Even if we were to count as Separatists those who vote as such, we wouldn't really be talking about people who want to completely separate from Canada. Most of these people are simply looking for a better deal for their province within confederation. Some of the really hard-core Separatists could probably be called "xenophobic", but they are certainly not representative of Canadian francophones as a whole.
Good survey!  |
| thevelvetcure | | (reply to Irene007) posted 28-Apr-2004 1:57am |
*pats you on the head* Calm down...it'll be ok Irene |
bill  | | posted 28-Apr-2004 6:50am |
I see xenophobia sort of differently, I don't link it to specific events as this survey has done in its answers. So, it's hard to answer. I see it more as a general tendency of a populous. Also, I really don't know first hand about any of these. I've heard that Japanese are xenophobic toward more than just refugees. But, I really don't know that for sure. |
| judgescratch | | posted 28-Apr-2004 7:09am |
All, I think...
..if a "francophone" is one who doesn't like the French, then yes, All.
I have a hard time, though, putting this kind of clinical label on these behaviors. It seems askew somehow to label a natural part of human thought/behavior with such a harsh label.
|
| Irene007 |
*sigh*.... Thanx for listening.  |
| ROCKMAN | | posted 28-Apr-2004 8:37am |
I really don't know. |
| Irene007 |
Francophone just means someone who speaks French and a francophile is one who loves everything that's French.
In Canada, everyone uses anglophone to denote English and francophone for French. I thought everyone used those words because it's used so commonly here. I guess we use them so much because we really need them! |
| Irene007 |
I just checked the definition in MW;
Anglophone;
"consisting of or belonging to an English-speaking population especially in a country where two or more languages are spoken"
See? That's why most people don't use them - they don't need 'em! |
| Irene007 | | (reply to Zang) posted 28-Apr-2004 8:44am |
Thanks for backing me up!  |
| mandy | | posted 28-Apr-2004 9:10am |
Humans |
| Zang | | (reply to Irene007) posted 28-Apr-2004 10:14am |
I hadn't read yours when I posted that. All those examples strike me as short-sighted. Some considerably moreso than others. |
| judgescratch | | (reply to Irene007) posted 28-Apr-2004 10:23am |
*murmur*
We are SO used to not sharing in the US. It's an interesting survey question.
So yeah, we don't use them because we don't need them.
Hey, though. I got pretty close with my guess!!! |
LindaH   | | posted 28-Apr-2004 11:45am |
I don't know about anyone else, but I think Americans in general have more fear of unusual behavior than of foreigners. |
| anoddoblivion | | posted 28-Apr-2004 11:53am |
Other: I really have no idea. Doesn't sound like any of the middle eastern countries USA is up against, because they're only afraid if change if it means they are no longer in charge- they as in Al Qeuda(sp?), other terrorist groups and/or religious fanatics. |
| Cain | | posted 29-Apr-2004 6:18am |
I'm not sure I could pigeonhole entire nations/groups like that.
It may be that they really are ALL xenophobic, but I suspect not. |
| Irene007 | | (reply to Zang) posted 29-Apr-2004 8:11am |
Well, it is Kaleb's survey after all!! I didn't have time for a full blown reply to each comment, but I picked Japan not because of their treatment of refugees but because, historically, it's always been a closed community. |
| moonstone | | posted 30-Apr-2004 10:29am |
I don't know..I'm sure there are people in these groups who are...I dunno... |
| iamdonte | | posted 1-May-2004 12:08am |
the human race |
| kaleb777 | | (reply to Zang) posted 1-May-2004 6:41pm |
So it's Ok to kill foreigners in your country if you're an Arab but not if you're white trying to defend your culture like the Japanese do and apparently are permitted to do by not allowing migrants. OK. So because Japan is ethnically homogenous they should be excused from taking immigrants? That would have also excluded Scandinavian countries, Italy, most of Europe in fact before large scale immigration began. As for Japan being densly populated, I think you'll find there are many European countrie expected to take refugees with higher population densities than Japan. So the main difference between European countries that fit your own exclusions and Japan is that Europe is white. What a surprise! Boy, you really are a racist left winger aren't you? |
| Zang | | (reply to kaleb777) posted 3-May-2004 11:22am |
You have an interesting way of taking elements of what I've said and juxtaposing them with other bits, without taking the entire statement into consideration.
One would have to be extremely simple-minded to think that there is any comparison between being invaded by an army and having your government allow immigrants and refugees to legally take up residence.
Japan being ethnically homogeneous is only one of the factors I mentioned. If that were all, I would have a completely different opinion on the topic. I mentioned a number of important issues. They all factor into my stance on that. So you take one element out of that and compare it to something else I said. It doesn't wash.
I don't know which "European countrie [sic] expected to take refugees with higher population densities than Japan" you are talking about. I don't know what you mean by "expected to take refugees". Expected by whom? |
| kaleb777 | | (reply to Zang) posted 3-May-2004 5:03pm |
I think I read what you said perfectly. You made excuses for Japan because they are ethnically homogenous and densely populated. There are several European countries that (pre-immigration)were as ethnically homogenous as Japan is now (it isn't BTW), and several with higher population densities - the Netherlands for example. Using your own logic it would be safe to assume these European countries should also be exempt from accepting refugees. That would be logical. Leftists like you are rarely logical.How do you think people like you would react if the Netherlands placed a ban on immigration?
Who expects designated "resettlement countries" to accept refugees? The UNHCR who administer the selection of refugees suggests to the relevant authority of each country a composition for that country's annual quota. If that country accepts less than that quota it is placed under pressure by leftist pressure groups inside and outside that country in question. What is common between the "resettlement countries" which is what they are actually known as is that they all ratified and implemented the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees which places them under pressure by the UN. The other common thing, besides being rich first world countries is that they are all predominantly White. The Japanese, which live in a country with a lower population density than some resettlement countries and more wealth, are predominantly Asian. So, like you, the UNHCR and most leftist refugee advocates either think Japanese culture is more worthy of protection from dilution, or that the Japanese, unlike whites, make poor hosts. Your attitude is typically racist. Not surprising for a left-wing fanatic. |
| Zang | | (reply to kaleb777) posted 3-May-2004 9:58pm |
I don't care if anyone places a ban on immigration. I might have an opinion if it were Canada, but otherwise, I don't really care. That's up to them.
I seem to recall that the Netherlands does have a very high population density and they also take in a lot more refugees than Canada or Australia. I certainly wouldn't fault them if they decided that it was time to close the doors.
Most refugees simply cross borders. Other places tend to actively accept refugees as part of a program. There are two very different dynamics involved, but most of them don't move very far. It's not economically feasible.
Your reference to the UNHCR, which I wasn't familiar with, encouraged me just now to do a little research. I certainly don't make any claims to being an expert on this issue. So I had a look at this web page:
http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home
and more specifically to:
http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/basics
and the link near the bottom right: "1951 Convention Q&A" which is too long to post.
So I've got an idea where they're coming from now.
So what's your take on all this? What exactly are you finding fault with? I'm assuming from your comments that you disagree with the way things are now. What do you think would be a better solution?
Oh, and keep your silly accusations to yourself. Given the fact that you hand-picked your options so that you could fire off accusations like that, they don't really carry much weight.
|
| kaleb777 | | (reply to Zang) posted 8-May-2004 10:55am |
I think you're clutching at straws by criticising my options. You didn't seem to be so uncaring about the refugee policies of individual countries a while ago. I recall you criticising my country for its policy on illegal migrants. My accusations aren't silly at all. The more I talk to you the more you fit into the typical leftist way of thinking. The reason Japan is exempt from taking its fair share of refugees is because there is zero pressure from the left. The right already believe that each individual country should be able to decide who they let in as residents and in what numbers. The left aparently only think that way towards Japan. Any predominantly white country that behaved like Japan would be attacked by the left. Remember the Austrian president who won his presidency on a platform of reducing immigration? There was talk of cancelling Austria's EU membership as well as trade sanctions. HAve you ever heard of anyone threatening to stop trading with Japan if they don't take some refugees? No. My "take" on all of this is that I see nothing but racism and double standards coming especially from the left. Where is the pressure on Japan? There is none. What is the main difference between Japan and any European country? Race. Zimbabwe's Mugabe can confiscate property owned by whites who were born in that country and there isn't a peep from the racist left. Australia locks up people who come here illegally from countries that support terrorism and we are called racist. Your attitude towards Japan in comparison to your attitude to Australia simply proves my point. Leftists just don't understand do they? And I very much doubt that you would have nothing to say if ANY predominantly white country came out and said that in the interests of maintaining an undiluted culture and homogenous gene pool they were to stopp all immigration. Be honest with yourself Zang. |
| Zang | | (reply to kaleb777) posted 8-May-2004 1:04pm |
If I recall, my criticism was in regard to the segregation of non-white illegal immigrants into concentration camps. Perhaps I was mistaken. I don't recall making any other criticism of Australia's immigration policies.
I wouldn't argue that any European nation with a similar population density as Japan would be in a good position to refuse more immigration.
"In 1930 a land act was passed which excluded Africans from ownership of the best farming land further enhancing white supremacy. The labour law, carried in 1934, prohibited the Africans from entering skilled trades and professions."
http://www.africanet.com/africanet/country/zimbabw...
I suggest you do a little research into the history before you continue to spout off about Zimbabwe. I pointed this out to you before, but apparently you didn't bother to read it. Or perhaps you conveniently forget anything which doesn't fit your preconceived notions.
|
| kaleb777 | | (reply to Zang) posted 8-May-2004 2:00pm |
You see that's your leftist racism showing. Ever thought the people detained were detained because they destroyed their papers before arrival, tried to sneak into the country by sea with no visa rather than flying in then "overstaying" their visa, and often were found to be from countries that harbour terrorist organisations that have declared war on Australia? Race has nothing to do with it. Also, the use of the term "concentration camps" is offensive. They are nothing remotely like concentration camps. Calling them such is not only completely inaccurate but also belittles what happened during the holocaust in real concentration camps. None of those detained are held there. They are given the option to return to their country of origin with the flight paid for by Australian taxpayers, or they can remain until their status is determined. Real refugees are all given permanent residency. Liars are deported.
Regarding Zimbabwe, what has a pre WW2 act of parliament got to do with the removal of the people who were feeding Zimbabwe in the 21st century? Do you suggest we develop some type of time machine in order to address past mistakes before addressing those that are occuring at this time? Are you saying that the left will not act to prevent current racism if it is considered some sort of retaliation for things that happened in the past? Perhaps (more likely) the left doesn't even consider actions against white minorities to be racism. How typically leftist and expected from someone who thinks affirmative action is a good way of stopping racism. What has an act of parliament passed before these farmers were born got to do with what is happening today? Even if confiscating land that many of the younger farmers worked and paid for simply because they are white was somehow going to fix what happened in 1939, surely even a socialist who thinks famine is a legitimate means of initiating revolution would find an alternative where at least the people didn't have to rely on the capitalist west for food aid. |
| Zang | | (reply to kaleb777) posted 8-May-2004 2:55pm |
Like I said: "Perhaps I was mistaken". Not having inspected the "camps" myself, I'm hardly an expert. Any comments I made were based on the information I had at my disposal at the time. It isn't an issue which concerns me so much that I'm going to go to great lengths to research it. Tell you what, if you say I'm mistaken, I'll take your word for it. However, based on your own comments just now, I have to wonder: How is it known that someone has destroyed their papers? What if they simply didn't have any papers, or their papers were taken from them by someone else? Is it not possible that those who arrive by sea simply couldn't afford an airline ticket? Is it not possible that people "from countries that harbour terrorist organisations that have declared war on Australia" could be trying to escape the very same kind of government which would tolerate such a thing?
Regarding Zimbabwe, a law which was in effect from 1930 until about 15 years ago certainly has a bearing on this issue. We aren't talking about something which occurred hundreds of years ago. Most of the adults living in Zimbabwe today have been directly effected by that legislation. I certainly agree with you that trying to address some kind of ancient grievances is stupid and pointless. One has to draw a line. But that isn't the case here. The period from 1930 to 1990 is plenty recent enough!
And BTW, what ever happened to that level-headed tolerant fellow that I used to be able to have debates with and we would disagree but still remain cool and polite? I don't insult you or characterise your attitudes as "typical..." or make personal comments. I must say that your recent tone is causing me to lose some respect for you. Since when is name-calling an appropriate way for intelligent people to engage in a lively debate? (Okay, I'll admit that comment was personal, but I feel that you've forced me to respond to these continued attacks on my character.)
|
| kaleb777 | | (reply to Zang) posted 10-May-2004 5:03pm |
It is known that people destoyed their papers because many people have told Australian authorities that the reason they have no papers is because the people smugglers told them to get rid of them. There are also people trying to hide their past who destroy their papers. Last year an individual who had no papers was later identified by real refugees as a member of Iraq's Republican Guard who had been involved with torture. Excuse Australia for not wanting such a person to wander the country. Maybe people who come by sea from Cuba to Miami take a boat because they are poor, but the AFP and our media have shown many times that people who board unseaworthy fishing boats in Indonesia often get there by plane - Many flying first class! They are told by the people smugglers the best way to sway Australian public opinion is to arrive in poverty. local 60 Minutes showed hidden footage taken of a group of illegals who spent a week sunning themselves in Bali waiting for enough people to arrive from the Middle East to fill a crapty fishing boat. How many real refugees are allowed to fly out of the country they are supposedly escaping from and hang around Bali drinking cocktails before pretending to be poor refugees on an old boat? The real refugees that Australia routinely accepts can't afford to eat let alone pay a people smuggler US$10,000 to get to Australia. Many REAL refugees, especially from Africa, have to be flown here by the Australian Government. It could be possible that people "from countries that harbour terrorist organisations that have declared war on Australia" could be trying to escape the very same kind of government which would tolerate such a thing. It could also be possible that a person who hates the west could pretend to be a refugee and once a resident of Australia perform terrorist acts here. That's why we detain people until we can determine their status.
Many Zimbabwean farmers who have had their land stolen paid for that land themselves. The simple fact they are white means their land is confiscated no matter how they acquired it and their livlihood, not to mention the food supply of the country, is cut off. Talk about refugees!
What happened to the level headed guy? He probably got frustrated trying to drill some logic into the heads of the extreme leftists that infest SC. Respect? I lost respect for you when I realised you were actually serious about your adoration of that socialist monster Marx. You either know very little about Marx and the type of person he was or you think nothing of the millions of lives lost by leftist fanatics trying to force his flawed ideas on them. I'm sorry but it's very hard to respect a Marxist. I would also have little respect for a person who thought Hitler was an economic genuius or anyone else who thins the best way to increase wealth is to kill the people who have the means to invest and create it. |
| nasale | | posted 23-May-2004 11:36am |
It seems to fit the world today. You can include me at times too. I get very upset when immigrants come to my country and bring their horse manure with them If they want to assimilate, more power to them and welcome. Don't come here and choke me with your religious bigotry |
| nasale |
Francophone? Dat's my honcle Emile' n'est-ce pas? (I'm sorry, you had to be there). |
| thevelvetcure | | (reply to nasale) posted 23-May-2004 2:01pm |
(I believe so)  |
| nasale |
You see, its a long story. I married a Quebecer, and he introduced my to his 'Uncle Emil' See, Unc couldn't speak very good English, and I couldn't speak French. So, it came out sounding like " 'Allo, dis is your Honcle Emile" NOW, you n'est -ce pas? |
| thevelvetcure | | posted 24-May-2004 1:17am |
So...Francophone is like Spanglish |
| autumnlight |
Europeans attacking foreigners and western citizens having a cow about immigration. |
| anonymous | | posted 19-Jul-2004 7:36pm |
No, I'm xylophonic, fear of musical instruments, especially those played with sticks with little balls on the ends. |
LJD  | | posted 16-Aug-2004 11:05pm |
I think the word fear would be fitting for some of the groups. They have a right to be fearful. I believe we, Canada, Australia, Europe have a right to the fear of third world peoples coming into our country. I don't hate them, but I think it causes confusion, and strife as is being witnessed today in this country as well as the other ones mentioned. We have a different culture, language, religion, than the other peoples which causes confusion. God is not the author of confusion, satan is, and look around us and all the confusion. in the other countries now. |
