Are Minorities Treated Poorly in Europe?
By • 5/23/08Someone calling himself “Anti-Racist Action” commented on yesterday’s post, Italy’s Turn to the Right, that Italy’s unfriendliness to Gypsies was motivated by irrational racial bias. He suggested that high rates of crime and other types of social dysfunction among Gypsies were due to discrimination against them by the Italian public. Predictably, he accused not only Italians, but me, of harboring “hate” towards Gypsies.
Of course, the discrimination bromide is the standard way of explaining all discrepancies in socio-economic status among races and ethnic groups, despite the fact that it is scarcely ever justified. It is quite easy to respond to accusations that black and Hispanic underperformance in the United States is due to racial bias. The fact that these populations have been the beneficiaries of affirmative action in hiring and education for forty years immediately renders such accusations absurd.
Since such racial preference policies do not exist in many European states, including Italy, responding to Anti-Racist Action’s accusation is slightly more difficult. However, responses are not hard to find. Note that the points I make below respond not only to the particular charge that Anti-Racist Action is making, but to all claims that minorities in Western Europe lag behind native populations because of discrimination against them by the natives. If anyone ever tells you that Muslims riot in France or that blacks shoot each other up in Britain because the French or English are mistreating them, you can trot out these points:
- All Western European nations, including Italy, offer generous welfare services to their citizens, including publicly subsidized health care, housing, and unemployment insurance. Western European nations spend between 20 to 30 percent of their gross domestic product on welfare, substantially more than the United States does. Since about half of gypsies in Italy are Italian citizens, they have received the full benefits of the welfare state. The interests of European minorities are also defended by the European Union. Minorities can scarcely claim to have been treated poorly.
- If non-Italian Gypsies believe they are ill used, why did they come to Italy in the first place? Why don’t they go back to Eastern Europe, or wherever they came from?
- One European ethnic group that has historically been the victim of quite severe racial discrimination (and, of course, much worse) is the Jews. Treatment of Jews was particularly harsh in 20th century Italy; during the World War II period, 20 percent of Italian Jews were killed. Nevertheless, Jews throughout Europe, including Italy, are thriving today. If racial discrimination couldn’t hold the Jews back, why are the Gypsies still lagging? Moreover, can a nation that allows Jews to thrive treat minorities that poorly?
- Nations are founded on a shared ethnicity, and the duty of the state is, consequently, to advance the interests of native ethnic groups, not those of minorities. No nation has any obligation to integrate a minority group. The Italian people should be free to decide whether it is in their interests to integrate their Gypsy population or to send them home. Of course, all states are obligated to treat immigrants humanely.
So that’s my answer to Anti-Racist Action and others of his kind. Do the rest of you have anything to add?
If you want this article to be exposed to a wide audience, take the time to recommend it at digg. Millions of readers traffic the site, and the more recommendations an article gets, the better its chance of being read. If you don't have digg account yet, registration is easy. Just click submit to get started. |
Click here to join the Inverted World mailing list. You'll get an e-mail notice whenever IW publishes new entries.
It appears that “Anti-Racist Action” is a product of the liberal schools that teach the reason for all the woes of the world are the fault of White Western Christian Europeans. He has these ideas because they were put there and he wants to show all of us how well he has learned these ideas so he is parroting them here for us. He has been told that all of us are just ignorant racist rednecks and as soon as we are informed of the truth that we will see the light as he and all his other brainwashed minions see it. That is why he is spreading the “we are the world” gospel to us, to enlighten us poor boobs. He has not taken the time to look for himself at the real world around him, so not matter what he sees he blocks it out because he has been told his eyes are lying to him. So what we have is garbage in and garbage out just like you would have in a computer. Let’s take a look at the Asians in this country (USA) they suffered greatly from all forms of discrimination during the late 19th and early 20th century. Does this group appear to be suffering under the boot of White Western Europeans? No! They are flourishing and prospering like no place on earth. In college academics they are the putting all the rest of the nation to shame, there business community is prospering as well and there are no boarded up buildings or crack houses there and there crime rates are the lowest in the nation. So my question to “Anti-Racist Action” is in face of all this discrimination from the evil White Western Christian Europeans the Jews and Asians can flourish in the Western system and other minorities can not, WHY?
By on 5/23/08 at 9:39 pm
Oh come now! The gypsy element has been known for centuries that they have it in the blood to be what they are…stealing, uncivilized in many areas of what Western Civilization is, and refusing forever to be any different than they are.
Let us not lament at what this ‘ethnic’ group dramatically calls prejudice…for who is more prejudiced than the gypsy himself in that he likes what he is/does and yet likes to facetiously play the victim.
Don’t fall for it…..a Redneck who likes what she is!
By on 5/23/08 at 10:33 pm
Here is my suggestion:
Consensually absorb the gypsies, wherever they are less than 2 or 3% of the population. The much larger gypsy population should be given a small homeland in Southern or Eastern Russia. If their population is too large, they don’t have to mix with us, but they are now, Christians (I believe). They could be on a border area of non-Christian groups, as they would help us culturally. We could work together, without them smutting out our blood.
The genetic absorption and/or homeland (country of their own)would be voluntary. They have a right to preservation, although these two options would help us, tremendously.
By on 5/24/08 at 12:31 am
Note: By the term “smut,” I didn’t mean ‘stain’ or entail an inferior kind. What I meant by smut, was significantly change the genetic character of Europe and/or the White parts of the Middle East.
I found the use of the word by a (dead) former American politician, who supported Whites intermarrying with American Indians (for rightful claim of the U.S. and genetic absorption), without ‘smutting’ out the European-American ethnicity. I think he was talking about Whites having “token” amounts of Indian ancestry, but still being well over 15/16th’s White; not Indians being “inferior.” The foreign blood being too diluted, to significantly impact the phenotype. [This no longer seems to be a conventional definition for this word.]
By on 5/24/08 at 2:32 am
EA Steve, I myself, as many American whites do, have such an invisible and essentially irrelevant sliver of American Indian ancestry. Many of the First Families of Virginia, pillars of segregation at its height, do as well (and made sure that Virginia’s definition of white allowed for such).
So I agree with you that an overwhelming proportion of whites can create an overwhelming proportion of white ancestry, eliminating for practical purposes any genetic impact by non-whites.
It’s the same with the idiotic myth of the “Black Irish” and/or washed-ashore sailors from the Spanish Armada intermarrying with the Irish. Any who would have survived to land would have been gleefully butchered and robbed by the locals. In the highly unlikely event of any intermarriage, the relative size of the two population groups would have made the Spanish a drop in staggeringly huge bucket, disappearing without a trace. Still, myths die hard.
Furthermore, assuming for the sake of argument the highly doubtful point that expelling the Gypsies from Europe and establishing a separate homeland for them is politically possible, why not prefer that option rather than introducing such an alien and low-performing element into the white gene pool?
In any event, romantic fiction to the contrary, the Gypsies are widely seen by non-Gypsies are highly undesirable, and the Gypsies themselves strictly, even rigidly, control their own marriage and reproduction with the primary goal of preventing intermarriage.
As for religion, the Gypsies readily nominally adopt whatever faith is locally dominant: Islam, Orthodox Christianity, Protestantism, Catholicism. Do not be fooled into seeing this as a sign of their fundamental compatibility with us or Western Civilization. Their own folk superstition and culture (which enforces their isolation and justifies their lifestyle of indolence, ignorance, and criminality directed at outsiders) has a far greater influence.
By on 5/24/08 at 5:13 pm
My computer deleted my whole post, so I will try repost in a smaller version, if necessary. I don’t remember the original post, but here is most of it. (The part left out doesn’t contradict what is shown below.)
In response to Irish:
Interesting perspective.
I seek the preservation of virtually pure or almost pure Whites. However, I never bought and still don’t buy the “one drop of mud makes you a dud” slur. Not all Europeans entered Europe all at once. We came in waves, so we can accept migrants, as long as they don’t drastically change our genepool’s makeup. Hypothetically speaking, I can’t prove beyond a possible doubt that an Asian or an Arab didn’t rape and impregnate my ancestor with my hypothetical ancestor, during the invasions centuries ago. I don’t even know my whole genealogy, even in America; I know only about 30%. So, for all I know, even I could have an Indian or even a Black ancestor, myself. I have no documentation and/or evidence even suggesting such, but I know only a minority of my ancestry. (I would even be willing to marry somebody with as much as a 1/16 sixteenth non-White ancestry.)
I believe in submergent populations.
On the Gypsy Question, I don’t know enough to support an official decision. I was only throwing out ideas, although I certainly don’t want them to significantly change our genepool, either.
I also support Christian interests, which actually coincide with White preservation.
By on 5/25/08 at 1:13 am
While the Nazis’ treatment of the Gypsies during World War II was monstrous, and resulted in the murder of 1.5 million of them, many scholars don’t consider it to be technically genocide, because of the Gypsies’ criminal actions in Romania, Slovakia and throughout Europe and their refusal to settle down and assimilate, an option the Nazis’ would have granted them.
By on 5/26/08 at 2:19 pm
Actually Ian, Mussolini was not anti-semitic and only enacted anti-semitic measures during the desperate days of World War 2 when Italy was being torn apart by both the Allies and Axis - with Mussolini being a virtual prisoner of Germany in the German ‘protectorate’ in northern Italy. Mussolini resisted all anti-semitic laws and policies until Hitler absolutely forced him - bny that time Hitler held the whip-hand over Mussolini. In fact prior to 1939 Mussolini was well-disposed towards Jews and had many Jewish supporters. It is said that his mistress Clara Petacci - who loyally demaned that her own life be taken when Mussollini was murdered by British agents and communists, was Jewish.
By on 5/30/08 at 9:05 am
The problem of the Gypsies is particularly nettlesome because there’s nowhere to send them away to, and even if there were, there’s little chance they would prosper there.
The Jews were able to return to their historic homeland and carve out a new state for themselves there. Having been slandered for centuries as nothing but parasites with no ability to create and thrive on their own apart from their “hosts”, the Jews vindicated themselves in Israel with an extremely impressive job at filling niches in society that they historically have not had for centuries, including farmer, soldier, and manual laborer, as well as world statesman.
(For those who dismiss Israel as a dependent on US foreign aid, I would point to the modern state of Egypt, the #2 aid recipient. Has it accomplished anything remotely close to what Israel has? And have such critics examined the relative size of such aid to the size of the economies of those two countries?)
In contrast to the Jews, the Gypsies lack a written tradition that documents, traces, and explains their origins. Nearly all reliable evidence in that area has been gathered by outside researchers, examining fields such as linguistics and DNA to classify the Gypsies as South Asians.
Nuclear-armed India and Pakistan, already riven by deep ethnic, linguistic, and religious fissures, are unlikely to permit a Gypsy homeland to be carved out of their state.
And why would the Gypsies, with Europe’s lowest IQ by far, want to be cosigned to such a reservation? They demonstrate little potential to replicate the Jewish achievement, and seemingly fully merit their reputation as entirely dependent on a productive and successful host society for their livelihood.
Still, even if Gyspy-stan were to be an entirely dysfunctional, foreign aid dependent entity (much like the “Palestinian” statelet, just with less fanaticism and terrorism, but with almost as much street crime), it might be worthwhile to pack them into such a world ghetto were they could consume the world’s largesse to their heart’s content .
At least they would not be mixed in with anyone else, and their status as massive burdens would be internationalized or globalized, rather than falling heavily on a handful of unfortunate European states and localities.
By Irish on 5/23/08 at 9:24 pm