[kenberg]

OK, and I was hesitant about posting my comments. But I think that I have a point.

Imagine that I wrote an article in which I spoke of "Black Man's World", saying among other things that it is in terminal decline and generally implying that it was a total disaster. No one would care what I meant, and really I cannot think of much of a good interpretation of what I could have meant. I would be banished from society and rightly so. I probably wouldn't be served at a Burger King.

I found his argument to be all over the map. One minute he is speaking of refugees as a threat to White Man's World, the next he is speaking of gender parity and sexual minorities. Quite different issues I think.

As far as "ethnic definition of a nation", that's a bit tricky, depending on what is meant by "ethnic". I claim to have given up religion long ago, but what I really gave up was the theology. I have no interest in whether Mary was or was not a virgin, it's not my business, but I am fine with "faith, hope and charity, but the greatest of these is charity". I take "charity" in the sense of keeping a charitable view of another person rather than as giving them money. I believe this was the original meaning. So if ethnicity involves some common belief on fundamentals, I would see that as useful to building a nation.

Anyway, I looked up a bit more about Fischer and found another article. He is an idealist, with all that means, both good and bad.

[akwoo]

I think you're just arguing over a bad translation from the German (even if the translation was by the author), Ken.

[y66]

From For Republicans, Mounting Fears of Lasting Split

Quote

The Republican Party is facing a historic split over its fundamental principles and identity, as its once powerful establishment grapples with an eruption of class tensions, ethnic resentments and mistrust among working-class conservatives who are demanding a presidential nominee who represents their interests.

At family dinners and New Year’s parties, in conference calls and at private lunches, longtime Republicans are expressing a growing fear that the coming election could be shattering for the party, or reshape it in ways that leave it unrecognizable.

While warring party factions usually reconcile after brutal nomination fights, this race feels different, according to interviews with more than 50 Republican leaders, activists, donors and voters, from both elite circles and the grass roots.

Never have so many voters been attracted to Republican candidates like Donald J. Trump and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, who are challenging core party beliefs on the economy and national security and new goals like winning over Hispanics through immigration reform.

Rank-and-file conservatives, after decades of deferring to party elites, are trying to stage what is effectively a people’s coup by selecting a standard-bearer who is not the preferred candidate of wealthy donors and elected officials.

And many of those traditional power brokers, in turn, are deeply uncomfortable and even hostile to Mr. Trump and Mr. Cruz: Between them, the leading candidates do not have the backing of a single senator or governor.

“I haven’t seen this large of a division in my career,” said Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican first elected to Congress in 1982. “You probably have to go back to Ford versus Reagan in 1976. But that was only two people.”

The issues animating grass-roots voters — opposition to immigration, worries about wages and discomfort with America’s fast-changing demographics — are diverging from and at times colliding with the Republican establishment’s interests in free trade, lower taxes, less regulation and openness to immigration.

The fractures could help a Democrat win the White House if Republicans do not ultimately find ways to unite, as one candidate, Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, warned last week.

The divide was evident at a recent Greenville, S.C., gathering of bankers and lawyers, reliable Republicans who shared tea and pastries and their growing anxieties about where their party is going. In a meeting room near the wooded shore of Furman Lake, the group of mostly older white men expressed concern that their party was fracturing over free trade, immigration and Wall Street. And they worried that their candidates — mainstream conservatives like Jeb Bush — were losing.

“It’s all really hard to believe that decades of Republican ideas are at risk,” said Barry Wynn, a prominent Bush donor at the meeting.

Hard to believe anyone thinks this is really hard to believe.

[kenberg]

McCain mentions Ford-Reagan. I agree, although I mainly recall the marginalizing of "Rockefeller Republicans". Roughly the same era.
We may be seeing the logical conclusion of that split.
Very unfortunate.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2016-January-10, 09:32, said:

McCain mentions Ford-Reagan. I agree, although I mainly recall the marginalizing of "Rockefeller Republicans". Roughly the same era.
We may be seeing the logical conclusion of that split.
Very unfortunate.

I see an eventual break in the party as a positive, as the crazies have gained some kind of legitimacy on the coattails of mainstream Republicans.

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2016-January-10, 11:08, said:

I see an eventual break in the party as a positive, as the crazies have gained some kind of legitimacy on the coattails of mainstream Republicans.

Yes. My "very unfortunate" was meant to apply to the fact that we have come to such a state of affairs. Some sort of upheaval could produce positive results. It is in the nature of an upheaval that the conclusion is uncertain, but there must be many people who are not all that comfortable with Democrats bur abhor Trump. If some strong leadership emerges from this area, it could be very interesting.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2016-January-10, 11:25, said:

Yes. My "very unfortunate" was meant to apply to the fact that we have come to such a state of affairs. Some sort of upheaval could produce positive results. It is in the nature of an upheaval that the conclusion is uncertain, but there must be many people who are not all that comfortable with Democrats bur abhor Trump. If some strong leadership emerges from this area, it could be very interesting.

Many years ago, I thought who you express would turn out to be John Kasich - but now I don't know. Perhaps he has been forced to act much more firmly right in order to survive politically.

[barmar]

 kenberg, on 2016-January-09, 14:09, said:

Just a word or two more about the guest post from Fischer.

He speaks of "White Man's World". The scorn is dripping from his pen. It invites responses of various sorts. For example, a million or so refugees have risked their lives to get to "White Man's World" and many more hope to come. Could we just back off a little on the contempt? Trump says the problem is the Mexicans, Fischer says it is White Men (not himself of course, but presumably me). Jerry Falwell thinks Satan is the problem. I don't think it is the Mexicans and I don't think it is Satan. I also don't think it is me.

The way I read it, "White Man' World" referred to the old status quo -- in the West, white men really were in charge. These people are reacting to all the extreme changes taking place in society, many of which have reduced their status.

What I question about that article is the suggestion that this is something really new. Society has always been changing radically -- the shift from agriculture to industry in the 19th century due to the Industrial Revolution, the rise of democracy in various parts of the world at different times, women's suffrage, all the different social movements of the 60's (women's lib, African-American civil rights, hippies), the list goes on. As the saying goes, the only thing constant is change.

What's happening this time that makes The Donald more palatable?

[Al_U_Card]

 barmar, on 2016-January-10, 16:21, said:

The way I read it, "White Man' World" referred to the old status quo -- in the West, white men really were in charge. These people are reacting to all the extreme changes taking place in society, many of which have reduced their status.

What I question about that article is the suggestion that this is something really new. Society has always been changing radically -- the shift from agriculture to industry in the 19th century due to the Industrial Revolution, the rise of democracy in various parts of the world at different times, women's suffrage, all the different social movements of the 60's (women's lib, African-American civil rights, hippies), the list goes on. As the saying goes, the only thing constant is change.

What's happening this time that makes The Donald more palatable?

Read the Steyn article above to see that paternalism is still viable as long as the head honcho is seen as a rugged individual and independant of the influence of the PTB.

[kenberg]

 barmar, on 2016-January-10, 16:21, said:

The way I read it, "White Man' World" referred to the old status quo -- in the West, white men really were in charge. These people are reacting to all the extreme changes taking place in society, many of which have reduced their status.

What I question about that article is the suggestion that this is something really new. Society has always been changing radically -- the shift from agriculture to industry in the 19th century due to the Industrial Revolution, the rise of democracy in various parts of the world at different times, women's suffrage, all the different social movements of the 60's (women's lib, African-American civil rights, hippies), the list goes on. As the saying goes, the only thing constant is change.

What's happening this time that makes The Donald more palatable?

I will get to my thoughts on your last sentence, but Fischer is a European and naturally he is particularly addressing issues involving refugees. I quote part of an article this morning in the Washington Post

Quote

But four months after European leaders agreed to the plan following long and bitter negotiations, the program has been crippled by a lack of cooperation — from countries and the refugees themselves. Out of an intended total of 160,000 asylum seekers, the E.U. has relocated a paltry 272.

Things are not going as planned. If nothing else is clear, that seems to be clear.

Now let's turn to how this applies to Trump and compare him to Fischer.
Short version:
Fischer: "Meanwhile, at home, the White Man's World is threatened by immigration, globalization of labor markets, gender parity, and the legal and social emancipation of sexual minorities. In short, these societies are undergoing a fundamental shock to traditional roles and patterns of behavior."
Trump: "I can do something about that"

So Mr. White Man sits there and hears one person tell him that he is doomed and hears another person say that he can do something about that. He has to decide whom to follow. Tough choice!

Of course this is not exact. Most White Men (in the U.S.) have never heard of Mr. Fischer. I had not, until his guest post here. Nonetheless, I think the above contrast of views is a pretty good starting explanation of Trump support. In fact, this seems to be Mr. Fischer's point.

Back to refugees for a moment. Back when this first became a topic on the WC, I was of the general opinion that this would overwhelm Europe. I recall looking up the population of Syria and wondering where they could all go. Being on my side of the Atlantic I went easy on advice giving, but it seemed headed for trouble. Fischer's views come across, to me at least, as blaming everything on the White Men. Not all white men, of course. He himself is a Good White Man, very wise and very very high minded. The problem lies with the Bad White Men who simply have not accepted that their time has passed and they should follow the elephants to a suitable graveyard and die.

Bottom line: I regard both Trump and Fischer as simplistic and insulting. They differ in whom they choose to insult. I can just hear Fischer saying, about White Men, "and some of them might be good people, I suppose". My hope is that we can move forward without demonizing either Mexicans or white males.

[barmar]

 kenberg, on 2016-January-11, 09:11, said:

I will get to my thoughts on your last sentence, but Fischer is a European and naturally he is particularly addressing issues involving refugees.

I guess this is a relatively new phenomenon for Europeans. But we've seen it before in the US: Irish coming from the potato famine, Jews escaping the Nazis.

They encountered discrimination when they arrived, but eventually they assimilated.

[Winstonm]

I think this is the most important takeaway from the Fischer quote: (emphasis added)

Quote

The rise of extreme nationalism and fascism in the 1930s is usually explained in terms of the outcome of World War I, which killed millions of people and filled the heads of millions more with militaristic notions. The war also ruined Europe’s economy, leading to a global economic crisis and mass unemployment. Destitution, poverty, and misery primed publics for toxic politics.

In areas like I live in, Oklahoma, a severely red state, even the McDonald's and WalMart employees tune in to Fox News and vote GOP. There are a great number of lower middle class and working poor who support the GOP candidates - and these people are still feeling the effects of Reaganomics and the Great Recession and globalization but are not sophisticated enough or educated enough to realize the harm done to them by the very people and policies they support but who are struggling as if still in deep recession, while in the upper middle class, there is a genuine fear of loss of a way of life in which they sit near the top of the food chain. The poorer are fearful that there is no hope; the better off are fearful that there will be change. Both groups want more.

With a population that has dismissed the benefits of delayed gratification, simplistic answers are bought because they are "now" answers.

[cherdano]

 barmar, on 2016-January-11, 10:04, said:

I guess this is a relatively new phenomenon for Europeans.

LOL.
Seriously, I am not sure I have ever seen a statement as wrong as this one in the WC.

[helene_t]

 barmar, on 2016-January-11, 10:04, said:

I guess this is a relatively new phenomenon for Europeans.

Not so new. The Hun and Mongol invasions pushed large numbers of refugees into Western Europe, to the extent that it changed the demographics and the political landscapes significantly, to say the least.

After the reformation, lots of French Huguenots came to the Netherlands and elsewhere.

The Russian revolution and civil war, WW I, holocaust, WWII and the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe also caused large numbers of refugees.

It may be new in the sense that we haven't often had many refugees comming from outside Europe. But we have the Molucans in the Netherlands, and in Denmark we received many refugees from Vietnam in the 1970's.

[hrothgar]

 barmar, on 2016-January-11, 10:04, said:

I guess this is a relatively new phenomenon for Europeans. But we've seen it before in the US: Irish coming from the potato famine, Jews escaping the Nazis.

They encountered discrimination when they arrived, but eventually they assimilated.

Assimilation and discrimination are done by different groups of people.

Minorities are discriminated against
Minorities assimilate

The way in which you are framing things suggests that minorities need to assimilate in order to avoid discrimination.
I'm not sure if this is true, nor that you intended to say this.

BTW, as Cherdano points out, your first sentence is ludicrous. (We'll ignore the fact that centuries of European history were referred to as the "Migration Period". After all, that happened ages ago)

Over the years, Europe has seen any number of wars that devastated the continent. Many of these wars (notably The 30 Years War, the expansion and collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the Napoleonic Wars, and World War II / the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe) resulted in massive population shifts. I'm somewhat surprised that something as significant as the Second World War could slip your mind...

[Zelandakh]

 helene_t, on 2016-January-12, 04:56, said:

It may be new in the sense that we haven't often had many refugees comming from outside Europe.

Completely new to be getting non-Europeans coming to Europe.

[gwnn]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-January-12, 06:50, said:

Completely new to be getting non-Europeans coming to Europe.

She said "not often", not "never."

[helene_t]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-January-12, 06:50, said:

Completely new to be getting non-Europeans coming to Europe.

I don't think the Moores generally count as refugees.

Of course we have always had plenty of immigrants from Africa and Asia, from Homo Ergaster and onwards.

[kenberg]

If we are going back into history we could note that the arrival of Europeans in the Americas did not work out well for the Iroquois, the Aztecs, the Incas and others. A quick summary was given by a Native American guide at a museum in New Mexico: "The Spanish came and said we had to give them our gold, give them our women, and convert to Christianity. We said we don't have any gold, you can't have our women, and we are happy with the gods that we have. So there was trouble."

At a personal level, most people I have known in my life have been easygoing about assimilation. Most people really don't spend their time hating other people, for ethnic reasons or for other reasons. The trouble comes when we group ourselves as this, that or something else, and today we do that much more often and in much more detail than at any time I can recall. I really dislike being labeled, I avoid labeling others, I think it leads to nothing good.

There was an amusing bit it the paper the other day. A reporter was talking to a woman and figured she would be supporting Rubio for ethnic reasons. The woman could not understand why she would do that. "He's Cuban, I'm Mexican".

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2016-January-12, 08:39, said:

If we are going back into history we could note that the arrival of Europeans in the Americas did not work out well for the Iroquois, the Aztecs, the Incas and others. A quick summary was given by a Native American guide at a museum in New Mexico: "The Spanish came and said we had to give them our gold, give them our women, and convert to Christianity. We said we don't have any gold, you can't have our women, and we are happy with the gods that we have. So there was trouble."

At a personal level, most people I have known in my life have been easygoing about assimilation. Most people really don't spend their time hating other people, for ethnic reasons or for other reasons. The trouble comes when we group ourselves as this, that or something else, and today we do that much more often and in much more detail than at any time I can recall. I really dislike being labeled, I avoid labeling others, I think it leads to nothing good.

There was an amusing bit it the paper the other day. A reporter was talking to a woman and figured she would be supporting Rubio for ethnic reasons. The woman could not understand why she would do that. "He's Cuban, I'm Mexican".

Here is an explanation from Robert Reich:

Quote

But America’s new tribalism can be seen most distinctly in its politics. Nowadays the members of one tribe (calling themselves liberals, progressives, and Democrats) hold sharply different views and values than the members of the other (conservatives, Tea Partiers, and Republicans).

Each tribe has contrasting ideas about rights and freedoms (for liberals, reproductive rights and equal marriage rights; for conservatives, the right to own a gun and do what you want with your property).

Each has its own totems (social insurance versus smaller government) and taboos (cutting entitlements or raising taxes). Each, its own demons (the Tea Party and Ted Cruz; the Affordable Care Act and Barack Obama); its own version of truth (one believes in climate change and evolution; the other doesn’t); and its own media that confirm its beliefs.

The tribes even look different. One is becoming blacker, browner, and more feminine. The other, whiter and more male. (Only 2 percent of Mitt Romney’s voters were African-American, for example.)

Each tribe is headed by rival warlords whose fighting has almost brought the national government in Washington to a halt. Increasingly, the two tribes live separately in their own regions – blue or red state, coastal or mid-section, urban or rural – with state or local governments reflecting their contrasting values.

I’m not making a claim of moral equivalence. Personally, I think the Republican right has gone off the deep end, and if polls are to be believed a majority of Americans agree with me.

But the fact is, the two tribes are pulling America apart, often putting tribal goals over the national interest – which is not that different from what’s happening in the rest of the world.