As Nicolas Sarkozy plans to tighten the noose around the Roma community's neck, Berlusconi continues his populist anti-Gypsy rhetoric (often purposely confused with anti-foreigner rhetoric), some east-central European states (for example, Hungary under the right-wing populist government of FIDESz) continue their legal ostracising of Gypsy communities, and 'sensible' countries such as Sweden, Denmark, and Germany add to the expulsion frenzy of Roma, the prejudices against them (just as one example of many 'black sheep' in Europe) increase.
Indeed, as 'sensible' countries are taking these measures, it only seems natural to deduce that there must be something afoot for said countries to act in such a draconian manner. But this is merely the perverse logic of yesteryear.
Apologies for evoking parallels to the interwar period, but when more and more anti-Jewish laws were being passed, more and more fascists and rightists were gaining control in Europe, would it therefore have been sensible to deduce that indeed there was a 'Jewish problem' that needed dealing with? In hindsight (and then, at least to 'sensible' people) this is of course an absurd and in fact ridiculous statement to make. However, when the same logic is applied to Gypsies, or of course Muslims (all of them, no less, with France 'leading' the way again!), this appears to be impeccable logic to some of these members of the public.
But it is precisely the same logic applied in the interwar period or indeed in the 'scramble for Africa' (someone had to 'liberate' them from backwardness). This kind of logic was sick then as it is sick now, and it should therefore be rejected. Sarkozy, Orban, Berlusconi et al may be angling for votes (or even believe the nonsense they peddle), but this will simply not do. Europe has tried expulsions and racially informed laws too many times. It only leads to calamity.
30 comments:
Hi Olching,
a dismal day on CiF right enough. Your parallels with the past ring true in so many ways.
What I find particularly disturbing is that in the internet age when you can find out instantly what's exactly behind these measures (Sarkozy and Berlusconi deflecting from their political strife and scandal) that people still jump on the anti "other" bandwagon.
For many, it's a feeling of powerlessness vis a vis their relation to the political and economic elites- it's so much easier to rage against someone of a different colour begging than it is to rage against glass buildings robbing you through abstract banking and economic practices.
We have no excuse in our multi-media age not to know the facts behind these appaling measures, it's the fact that so many choose not to want to know the facts behind them that makes the current situation worrying.
I was always struck by something Pierre Mendes-France said in The sorrow and the pity regarding French anti-semitism in the 1930's and subsequently in Vichy France:
It showed me that there are certain tendencies and habits, which, when they are fired, fed
or stimulated, crop up like weeds, and so we must always be on the defense. We have to
protect our youth from this type of propaganda. We have to talk to them about it more
than we talked about it a generation or two ago.
When the propaganda is coming from Governments, it makes it doubly worrying.
Hi Duke,
Very true, particularly the last bit. It is no coincidence that anti-Roma measures are coming together with 'hard talk' on burqas, Muslims, immigrants etc...and as you say, when political parties in authoritative positions (e.g. government) offer such rhetoric to the general public and this is then reciprocated, it makes it especially problematic.
In that sense, you are right of course: the battle against far-right strands, xenophobia etc is never over, but one that needs to be revisited continuously.
And it's not really a web-based phenomenon, as demonstrated by the EDL, Vlaams Belang, Jobbik, and the populist diatribes of Sarkozy, Berlusconi, Orban et al.
I don't understand why Britain (especially) and Sarkozy and Berlusconi particularly aren't defending Gypsies freedom to exercise their consumer right by choosing a lifestyle and constructing their own identities within the extremely tolerant and perfect model that is liberal democracy...
...it sure is a mystery...surely liberal capitalism isn't encouraging fascism and apartheid?!?
...surely the freedoms so roundly trumpeted include freedom of thought and the freedom to exercise investigation of new potential lifestyles?
...surely the Market environment isn't discouraging creativity and innovative lifestyles???
...surely our democracies aren't solidifying structural inequality?!?
...wow I sure am confused here!
Sorry...don't mean to be flippant...
...the point is that there is a fundamental failure in Liberal capitalism that creates the circumstances for fascism...this is cyclical and never ending within the current system...
...I agree with Pierre Mendes up to a point...there are certain tendencies and habits but these are not innate, these are the products of both the economic environment and the social conditioning within liberal capitalism...
Dukes description of the "feeling of powerlessness" is essential to understanding the alientation of even those most integrated, the middle classes, it is they who reveal the extent of the failure...
(sorry for the abruptness of these posts but I'm firing them out between other things...)
Hope you are both well :)
Hi Lester,
But you didn't sound flippant. I agree, of course, that this highlights inherent problems in liberal capitalism that may indeed create such circumstances.
And cyclical, yes, as said above: It's a fight that must always be revisited.
Hope all is well with you!
(PS Of course aspects of Roma identity have already been appropriated and branded - so 'they' can feel included in that vague, dispossessing sense.)
Hi Olching, Duke
Was just having a thought about Dukes suggestions that "We have no excuse in our multi-media age not to know the facts behind these appalling measures, it's the fact that so many choose not to want to know the facts behind them that makes the current situation worrying "...
...theres a fascinating book called "Don't Think of an Elephant, Know your Values and Frame the Debate" by George Lakoff - as you probably know he's a US progressive who writes (amongst other things) about the language used by politicians to frame debates...
...he says (quite intriguingly) that "the truth will set us free" is a myth...that the idea that rationality in politics should work is counter to what we already know about rationality in, say, consumerism where we are happy to say that people do not act rationally - so why do we expect facts to set them on the right road in politics? Facts as we see them are not any use if they do not tally with an already held frame of the world - facts in themselves are not enough - so the idea that information heavy societies should be naturally heading in the right direction is wrong...
Hi olching,
Cyclical, indeed. Any target group is vulnerable when the fascist mentality takes hold. The multi-media, as Duke suggests, is no excuse - rather it is the conduit that allows infection - and, I suppose, a sense of complicity. It's a miasma that permeates and we antipodeans are party to that pollution.
The Romani people as a target group are *quarantined* in a European setting (so where will they go? Hounded across borders to where? Aren't they by desire peripatetic? Don't they just want freedom to move - or is the problem? that the social state, that we applaud, entraps them? It's fraught - do we want their children to enjoy the benefits of *society* and removed?) Their very disenfranchisement will mean that they will be forced beyond and beyond and beyond ...
As much as I'd like to imagine otherwise, Australia will not succour them - (this is laughingly imaginary, I doubt the Roma would want to emigrate from their Euro-trails and of course there's the blindingly obvious fact that our immigration policy is so fucked that by default Aus repels almost any non-commercial productive agent as a prospective citizen).
If anything, Aus' history suggests that applying cultural norms inevitably leads to annihilation or assimilation or a crap system of cultural recognition that fails both the imposers and the imposees.
No, as you can guess, I don't have an answer.
Hope you're well - cheers, parallax
Not much to add to this piece and comments except to say to Olching that apologies are unnecessary for drawing parallels with the inter-war experience of European Jews. I say this just because one of the most irritating - no, worse than that, malign - of things on cif (etc) is the pathetic retort of "Godwin's Law" when any comparisons and parallels of this sort are drawn. There is a kind of wilful anti-history about that sort of response and inside it I think a refusal to face up to Bauman's challenging (albeit debated) thesis that the Holocaust was immanent within, rather than an aberration of, modernity.
On the issue of availability of information and political rationality, Lester's reference to Lakoff reminded me of a book I read a long time ago, Murray Edelman's Constructing the Political Spectacle (1988). Here's the synopsis from the publisher's (Chicago University Press) website:
"Thanks to the ready availability of political news today, informed citizens can protect and promote their own interests and the public interest more effectively. Or can they? Murray Edelman argues against this conventional interpretation of politics, one that takes for granted that we live in a world of facts and that people react rationally to the facts they know. In doing so, he explores in detail the ways in which the conspicuous aspects of the political scene are interpretations that systematically buttress established inequalities and interpretations already dominant political ideologies."
So very much on the lines Lester indicated. It seems to me, and I'm thinking of CiF again, that the proliferation of internet sources of information has done very little, if anything, to improve political debate. The worst posters on CiF seem to be those such as MAM, Waltz, Bracken who aren't, in a functional sense, stupid but who almost wilfully use their knowledge in perverse ways. I suppose what I am trying in a rambling way to get at is that the idea that better knowledge/education leads to enlightenment in the way envisaged by liberals is flawed by its failure to see how knowledge is always coralled through interests. In some ways, the proliferation of information simply proliferates the way that it is taken up to bolster such interests - the 'debate' over climate change science perhaps being an example, where every man jack can go to the internet and find some source to support their case that the science is flawed or dishonest. But they seek out and deploy that information not in order to enlighten themselves or anyone else, but to pursue pre-existing interests.
@Lester:
I suppose the problem with the information age is the overload of information. It is very noticeable (and I suspect many of us have fallen into this trap occasionally) that online (where this information is coming from) people are far more likely to get really hung up about little topics. This is perhaps why 'little issues' gain such prominence in discussion forums; it's a kind of acceleration and accentuation.
@parallax:
Hi there and good to ehar from you.
Yes, I think you are right. Australia wouldn't be a great homeland for Roma. In any case, Europe is 'theirs' as much as anybody's (and bizarrely, a lot of the east-central European pop and beyond (think of Gogol Bordello or Beirut) is influenced by Gypsy culture and music).
But as you say, it is deeply worrying that the are being marginalised (quite literally, too) without having anywhere to go. Not a good situation.
Hope all is well with you.
Sorry for multiples, something going wrong
Hello all,
parallax,
The multi-media, as Duke suggests, is no excuse - rather it is the conduit that allows infection - and, I suppose, a sense of complicity. It's a miasma that permeates and we antipodeans are party to that pollution.
On Tuesday, the Dutch media monitoring agency Nieuws Monitor reported on the run up to the 2010 Dutch Election. It's conclusions were that the media had a fundamental effect on the success of Geert Wilders PVV party at the election.
Both positive and negative media attention on Wilders (media attention which far outstripped the attention given to similar sized parties such as D66 and Groenlinks) allied with Wilders canny media savvy meant he was consistently able to hammer home his anti-Islam message on all platforms.
Lester's point (hello Lester):
theres a fascinating book called "Don't Think of an Elephant, Know your Values and Frame the Debate" by George Lakoff - as you probably know he's a US progressive who writes (amongst other things) about the language used by politicians to frame debates
typifies Wilders brilliantly. In the head to head leaders debates Wilders would say something along the lines of "Moroccan youths are the cause of crime in Rotterdam", to which the retort would come "not all Moroccan youths are involved in crime".
This puts the message in the viewers head that there is a problem with Moroccan youth crime which Wilders then jumps on and dictates debate around this.
It brings into play all different questions regarding the media's conduct and how much media time or attnetion extremist groups should be given. There is no doubt Wilders is an extremist- his manifesto was entitled
Not for Fatima or Ali but for Henk and Ingrid
the question is how willingly or unwillingly the media is complicit in fuelling anti immigrant and racist passions, but at the same time the internet and information age does mean the real stories behind anti immigrant policies etc can be found easily.
Peter
Couldn't agree more with Edelman's point about "interpretations that systematically buttress established inequalities and interpretations already dominant political ideologies"...and I definitely agree with your point about pursuing pre-existing interests, but (possibly pedantically), I'd go further and say that instead of interests people are re-establishing deeply held cognitive concepts and values about the world...so in fact they might actually be working against what seem to be their own interests (I realise that you mean the powererful are pursing their interests, but as to why people readily vote against their own interests (this is in relation to your point as well DUKE)), people readily seek out metaphors and values they admire or aspire to or they merely feel an affinity with because like a cosmic jigsaw certain radical right-wing policies click perfectly in place with their own insecurities and fears etc...
...and this is why...to you point about the media Duke...I absolutely agree that the media is complicit in furthering right wing interest...BUT...the failure is on the Left in failing to frame the metaphors and values in the same successful way the Right has done for the past (and now almost mythical period of time) 30 years...it's not that the media are ignoring or underplaying the Lefts world view...but rather that the Left has failed to stand strongly and resist being drawn into a Wilderesque-style defensive battle...
...so the problem might not be the volume of the information (as you rightly point out OLCHING), nor even the increasing levels of minutia, but rather that there is not a coherent metaphorical world that stands, not in relation to already established Rightist ideology, but stands independently establishing it's own values and metaphors...
...we are always blaming the media but to some degree this is a cop out from accepting the fact that the argument is being driven (and has been for the last 3 decades (at least)) by a better organised and more resourceful intellectual school...it doesn't make them right but it sure allows them to capture elections and air time because they are creating a simpler and more effective narrative...
...and narratives and metaphors are not about facts and truths but about human behaviour...we fail to accept this to our own detriment...
The immigration/Gypsy debate illustrates this perfectly as you say Duke...
Lester
Yes, agree. I didn't really mean (or not only) 'interests' in the marxist sense but, as you say, cognitive concepts etc. To which I think should be added 'emotional commitments' e.g the way a certain kind of person, whilst in all objective ways highly vulnerable, will insist on their own invulnerability ('I'd never take handouts' etc) and in the process denigrate those whose vulnerability is manifest (e.g. the disabled, the asylym seeker etc). So in this way they are speaking to their emotional interests even when it may well cut completely across their class interests.
Peter
Exactly...
...perfectly put...
Hi,
I agree about people^ being manipulated by, and the proliferation of channels that allow, the media to focus on the negative - as both the Duke and Lester point out. This outpouring of anxiety, about future safety, is a re-assertion or a re-affirmation of the negative (constructed) problem, which is primevally : " Show us the enemy and we will fight them*"
I think Peter is right about the knee-jerk dismissal of Godwin's Law. If we're not careful it will be a denial of the problem rather than fighting for ... a solution.**
I have no solution, but I'd rather search for one - one that doesn't allow scapegoats to be banished or disappeared - and I'd rather think about how to help these people# and then, after that, pontificate about how fucked the system is that allows this to happen.
So where is the priority on this issue? Does the system needs fixing first? - and in the meantime we apply bandages to the civilian fallout?
^ who are these people? why are they indeterminate masses? (Baudrillard)
*on the beaches if the rhetotic allows (Churchill)
**A SOLUTION (Godwin et al)- now that, by name and by desire, is a HUGE fascist problem
#now that's a different debate - why are Roma precious? (devil's advocate question)
@Peter:
Yes, you are right about the abuse of 'Godwin's law'. It is of course in itself open to abuse. Where comparisons are applicable and inform debate, it is undoubtedly one of the most disruptive thing to do (to call Godwin).
I suppose there's an underlying criticism, namely that ill-informed debates often fall back on 'cod knowledge' on Hitler (again, in itself an interesting commentary on popular perceptions of history and the popularity 'big man's history').
But when comparisons are used appropriately, Godwin's law is corrosive and, as you say, malign (and here of course we agree: Comparisons to the interwar period are valuable precisely because they tell us about our society; it is no chance that Mark Mazower's Dark Continent and Hitler's War were written with the present-day in mind).
olching,
Mazower's 'Dark Continent' is an outstanding book. The bleak central thesis that post war Europe wasn't shaped by a 'noble plan for a better future' but was kept in place by exhaustion and M.A.D means that in the post communist world, greater vigilance is required.
His explanations of the race theories' of the progressives in the USA, France and Britain between the wars was somewhat of an eye opener also.
A book recommendation if you haven't already read it is 'Human Smoke' by Nicholson Baker. Rather than Mazower's polemics, Baker simply uses evidence with very little analysis to paint a montage fundamentally questioning WWII as 'the good war'.
It's caused outrage since it was published and is an exceptionally powerful and provocative read. It's central thesis is that there was no 'noble cause' and that all Powers were involved in a clash of empires with racism inherent on all sides.
He merely presents the evidence and challenges the reader to come to their own conclusions based on the evidence.
It's a very worthwhile read.
Duke
Thanks for recommending this book, I've just ordered it, it sounds fascinating
Cheers
Lester
@Duke:
Thanks, I'm aware of the book but haven't actually read it yet. So, thanks for your recommendation.
It sounds like it tallies somewhat with Mazower, which should really be essential reading to many.
Hi guys. Your Grace, many thanks for the recommendation - am off to Byres Rd shortly will see if it's in the Oxfam bookshop, if not will order it at the library.
Neal Ascherson described Europe as the 'dark Continent' quite a few years ago - he pointed out that the 20th century has seen some of the greatest massacres and displacements of humanity in the history of our species - and all in Europe. Ascherson didn't fall into the liberal trap of just pointing the finger at Europe of course - simply reminding us that some of humanity's worst times were here.
Amazing coincidence after reading this blog: the other night I watched an episode of a US crime soap - can't remember the name - NCIS or Criminal Minds or something like that (don't know if they show those TV programmes over your way) - anyway, it's premise is a bunch of Federal agents dealing with crimes that cross state boundaries and so threaten *the very fabric* of the American way of life. These are the types of crimes that only a cohesive team, consisting of a hard-nosed career cop + a psychological profiler + token hispanic + glamorous but career-focused woman + geeky back-room data collector with quirky Goth fashion sense + brave loose cannon war vet, can solve.
You know, I had no idea until I saw this episode, just how the anti-Roma message is insidiously relayed.
Apparently, a spate abductions of young girls, from homes where both parents have their throats slashed as they sleep, (which the team discover has a history pattern dating back to the early 1900s - coinciding with the first broader influx of European immigrants) is revealed to be the work of what appears to be an insular, secretive and extremely superstitious cult - it's only when a witness reveals that they speak Romanian to each other that the crime is subsequently solved: all these years the Roma tradition has continued unnoticed in the underbelly of American society and the *tribe* expand their numbers by the age-old Roma tradition of murdering people in their beds and stealing their children.
Un-fucking-believable.
Hi Parallax - you've hit on something here. Don't know if you've read any of the Left Behind novels - i read the last one to see what the fuss was about. A dreadful book, in all sorts of scary ways and the Antichrist is a Romanian!
This deadly myth ticks all sorts of boxes, eg
- the Antichrist is a descendant of ancient Romans, enemies of Christ
- Dracula comes from about there, don't he buddy?
- so do the Roma who steal babies and drink blood like Jews
It's a highly toxic myth.
Hi Edwin,
sorry for the d..d..delayed response. I haven't read the Left Behind novels so can't comment but yes, this is how (via: novels, comment pieces, magazines, TV, films, frigging CiF) the myth of continued angst is communicated.
I understand the need to exchange seminal bodily-fluid of great historical chronicles - and will take time to read the 'Human Smoke' and 'Dark Continent' - but given Hayden White's assertion that all non-fiction histories follow the metafiction narratives of literature - I'd have to ask: who is affected/infected by these books apart from the (limited) readership?
The infection runs through the veins of immediate story-telling - which is why NCIS (or whatever) is more invasive than a couple of people on a blog recommending great books of critical analysis that run against the current of *popular* inoculation.
So, are we running from the target and huddling together in a share-house of library material for comfort?
*****
Btw Edwin, are you BagPuss re-named Leopold on the desert planes of Cif? Just checking, I thought I heard your voice :)
Hi Parallax - I thought you already knew I was leopold1904! Reincarnated as i was desperate to comment on something someone said - I actually had something useful to say for once - then drip drip back again.
I'm sure you do yourself a disservice Edwin - I've never heard the *drip drip*. To be honest I rarely visit Cif these days.
Good to know you're well. Cheers.
Parallax, Edwin:
Sorry I didn't respond to your comments; been extremely busy.
Parallax, an incredible anecdote there, but perhaps sadly not that surprising.
Hope all is well with both of you.
Post a Comment