New version
Discrimination is an unfortunate reality that persists in various forms around the world, as previously discussed in my blog. However, an increasingly prevalent phenomenon is what I refer to as “Discriminating Your Own Person.” This blog post sheds light on this peculiar trend and explores examples such as the Black Pete discussion in the Netherlands, neo-nationalistic movements in the United States and Britain, and anti-refugee movements in Europe.
Let’s delve into the Dutch Black Pete discussion, which gained traction after individuals with darker skin raised concerns about it, sparking a major debate on racism in the Netherlands. Interestingly, the Black Pete tradition had been a non-issue for many years, with no general perception of discrimination prior to the complaint. In fact, I’ve had conversations with several Dutch individuals, including those with darker skin tones, who attested to the absence of discrimination. Only a small number of isolated incidents (around 10 cases per year) were reported before the issue gained prominence and escalated into hundreds of cases nowadays. Paradoxically, it was the individuals with darker skin who inadvertently discriminated against themselves by unfairly judging white Dutch people for a cultural tradition they hadn’t previously questioned. While discrimination did emerge as a consequence, it wasn’t inherent but rather instigated by those it affected. They inadvertently discriminated against their own person.
The American and British neo-nationalistic movements and the European anti-refugee movements are closely intertwined. These movements primarily target refugees and immigrants, and it is worth examining them in greater detail. Unlike the straightforward nature of the Dutch problem, this issue is more complex and requires deeper analysis to fully grasp. One of the key assertions made by these groups is that immigrants and refugees pose problems such as job displacement, potential terrorism, and cultural degradation.
The argument regarding job displacement is easily debunked when considering that individuals from almost every country worldwide seek employment outside their own borders. This phenomenon is driven by the fact that certain jobs are not universally viable, and every country’s citizens, including those from “First World countries,” contribute to job displacement in other nations. Ceasing this practice would have catastrophic consequences for many countries.
As for the claim of potential terrorism, it is ironic since terrorism is perpetrated by individuals of every nationality. Expelling immigrants and refugees would not eliminate terrorism but merely redirect it towards a new target—national citizens themselves. This would lead to a substantial increase in domestic terrorism. Moreover, the definition of terrorism encompasses more than just large-scale destruction; it also involves instilling fear and terror in people’s lives.
The third argument revolves around cultural degradation, which is a fascinating aspect to explore. As an immigrant from Ukraine residing in Russia, I have never personally encountered accusations of cultural degradation from any Russians I know. While some might draw parallels to the Soviet Union, the cultural differences between Ukraine and Russia are significant. This issue extends beyond Ukraine and Russia and is applicable to most European and American countries, whose cultures are not purely homogeneous. For instance, the Americas were colonized by Europeans, and the only truly “American culture” belongs to the Native Americans. The current American population is a mix of European, African, Oceanic, and Asian immigrants. The British, too, have a history deeply intertwined with their British Empire, making it difficult for them to claim cultural degradation. These countries bear the historical responsibility for the present, and although some argue that the past should not dictate the present, this remains a valid point. It is essential not to condemn others for actions that mirror our own historical actions.
Repeatedly emphasizing these examples won’t alter the underlying message: one can inadvertently become the source of their own problems. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict serves as another illustration of this self-inflicted cycle. The term “Palestinian” is typically associated with Arab Palestinians, but the reality is more nuanced. Israelis lived in what was known as the “British Mandate of Palestine” and the “Region of Palestine.” Renaming the region doesn’t erase the status of others. Personally, I prefer using the term “State-Palestinians” for individuals from the “State of Palestine.” Criticisms of Israel’s actions in the State of Palestine often overlook historical facts, as there have been instances where the roles were reversed. Furthermore, it is undeniable that a significant portion of support for State-Palestinians stems from religious affiliation rather than a comprehensive understanding of the conflict. This selective support tends to cloud judgment. It is worth noting that many Muslims live contentedly in Israel, and the challenges faced by State-Palestinians result from their separatist tendencies. Similar to the situation in my home country, separatism is a personal choice with individual consequences, and the burden lies with those who choose to pursue it. Israel is a recognized country, a result of Arab actions during their quest to expand their territory. While they may now be victims of mistreatment, it is crucial to acknowledge the conflict’s historical origins.
It is important to clarify that these observations are not meant to condone discrimination or endorse any viewpoint. The examples provided serve to highlight the potential for individuals to contribute to their own challenges unknowingly. Recognizing this aspect is crucial, as people often ignore the possibility and continue supporting causes without considering the broader implications. Instead of being the source of your own problems, strive to become part of the solution.
Old version (You are your own enemy)
Discrimination, we see it everywhere, as I have previously blogged about.
However. what we see growing bigger and bigger is something I would call “Discriminating your own person”.
We have many examples of this, like the Black Pete discussion at The Netherlands, the American and British neo-nationalistic movements, and the European Anti-Refugee movements being great examples of…
Let’s reflect at them, the Dutch Black Pete discussion started after those with darker skin complaining about it, starting a huge racist movement at The Netherlands, which however couldn’t be classified as bad, because the Black Pete at The Netherlands has been no problems for many and many years, and only started being racist when one person complained, before that, and I have asked quite some Dutch people about it, including those with darker skin colours, no form of discrimination was there in general, only a number of about 10 cases each year, which has grown to hundreds nowadays…
The only one who discriminated, were the ones with darker skin colours themselves at this, as they judged the white-Dutch people for something they basically didn’t even think about.
It did results into discrimination the other way around, but it wasn’t there all this time, it was started against those with darker skin colours by those with darker skin colours…
They discriminated their own person…
The American and British neo-nationalistic movements, and the European Anti-Refugee movements are 100% related to each other.
The main target regarding these movements are refugees and immigrants.
This is actually a far more interesting one as the one above, as the Dutch problem is plain and simple, very straightforward, this one is however a tougher one, as many won’t even notice after I am done explaining it.
One of the main statements said by these groups are that immigrants and refugees will bring problems, like taking away jobs, possible terrorism, and degradation of culture.
The first one is really easy, which is the fact that of almost every country worldwide, people are working outside their own borders, this quite obviously has already to do with one fact, which is that some jobs are not able to be done at every country…
Every country’s people takes away jobs from other countries, that is factual, but also unchangeable, as when this would stop, many countries would collapse, especially “First World countries”…
Second is possible terrorism, which is most certainly funny, as terrorism is actually practised by citizens of every country as well, and at some countries, like the USA, we would actually see a huge increase of terrorism at their own country when they would kick out immigrants and refugees, as now it are immigrants and refugees who are terrorised, but once they would be gone, the people who terrorise others wouldn’t suddenly change, they would just search new targets, which at that moment would be their own nationals, meaning that terrorism would increase massively, as currently terrorism against “foreign nationals” is not classified as terrorism at many countries, and while some might only recognise bombs as forms of terrorism, terrorism could in fact be smaller, as the word is about terrorising people, not about destruction…
The third is degradation of culture, which is to me a very interesting one.
At this moment, I am an immigrant, as Russia is not my country, it is my residency, but not my nationality.
Now, as Ukrainian, I have never been recognised as someone who is destroying culture by any Russian I know, now some would reflect this to the Soviet Union, but in reality, Ukraine and Russia are not that much alike.
Apart of this, most European countries, but also every American country, is not actually able to be classified to (only) have their “own culture”…
The American one is easy, as whether we look at South America or North America, both continents were “colonised” by Europeans, the only true “American culture” is that of the Native Americans, the ones who have more ability to call their culture degraded by foreigners than any other American, as they were the “NATIVE” Americans, they were native to the land, not the Americans of today, who are officially a mix of European, African, Oceanic, and Asian immigrants…
The British I could use one term at, which is “British Empire”…
They aren’t truly the ones who could complain about having their culture degraded, and same counts for many European countries, as they are the ones who could be complained about as well…
Their countries have responsibility of what happens today by what was done at the past, and you may say we don’t live at the past, but at this that doesn’t matter.
Don’t ask others to don’t do something when you did the same already…
Still, I could repeat this many times, and it won’t change.
As to take another example, it is the exact same as we see when it comes to Isreal-Palestine…
The term “Palestinian” for example is only used for Arab Palestinians, while in reality, Israelis lived at the “British Mandate of Palestine” and the “Region of Palestine”, that the name was rehashed doesn’t mean that others will lose their status, it is why I personally prefer the term “State-Palestinians” for those of the “State of Palestine”.
Also, there is a lot of complaining about Israel causing troubles at the State of Palestine, even though when we look at history, it happened the other way around for many years as well, only has become less noticeable after some time as people changed their focus…
And even more to the point, there is no way of denying that most support State-Palestinians for just one reason, which is the fact they’re Muslims, and apparently they feel like it makes it better for all the hurt that the same people’s countries cause at the other Middle Eastern countries, as currently the United States of America gets criticised for being “Anti-Arab”, but in all fairness, most supporters of the State of Palestine are exactly the same, only unnoticed because of their support to Palestine, and supports tend to cloud people’s mind…
One of the facts that is unnoticed is that Muslims very often live happily at Israel, the only reason why State-Palestinians don’t is for their “Separatism”, and like we see at my own home country, separatism is a choice, and the consequences are your own, not of the one who is trying to avoid the separatism…
As Israel is the recognised country, caused by Arabs themselves, as during their continuous quest for taking over all of Israel, they lost the areas that were the State of Palestine, and while they’re now the ones who are acted wrongfully towards, it all started before that.
Now, at all of the above, I don’t want to say it is right, all but that, however, like the examples show, you could be the cause of your own problems.
It is that which also should be recognised more often, that you could be your own enemy, as that is what people tend to ignore, and just continue their supports regardless of anything…
Don’t be your own problem, become your own problem’s solution instead.
