Anthony D'Costa writes:
I can think of several national models (with some internal regional
variations) that display a range of articulations of the native with the
rest: Japan (most native), Denmark/Scandinavia (but Denmark especially) a
relatively healthy balance between native and outsiders, India (native
versus other natives, love-hate relationship with outsiders, the US (least
native). In all of these countries anti-immigrant, anti-other groups
exist
but Japan is a different case (not overt racism as we know of it in the US
but fear of the unfamiliar in every sphere--business, society, etc.)
Denmark has its share of anti-Muslims and so does India. Interaction is
absolutely necessary to do certain things and for other things perhaps
not.
Despite my inability to interact with ordinary Japanese I am fascinated by
their social unity and just plain courteousness shown by ordinary
Japanese.
But I do know Japan will have to deal with outside influences, they get
away
with it variously and as long as they have a large internal market.
On Jun 23, 2008, at 7:08 PM, Perelman, Michael wrote:
Anthony's question about to the right to mobility, made me wonder if it
is
possible to support localism [protecting the resources of a small
community]
without falling into nativism?
How can it be? The "local" has to be defined against outsiders, doesn't
it?
And what community can be independent? A small community would dry up and
blow away without interaction with the outside world.
==============================================
Is it not the case that when there's little interaction with outsiders, they
are seen as exotic and the object of curiousity by the host population, but
when there is a great influx of outsiders and they begin to constitute a
significant minority, they come to be seen as a threat to community cultural
and economic standards, prompting a backlash? The French, Scandinavians, and
Dutch not that long ago prided themselves on their "tolerance" until the
great wave of immigration to Europe from the Muslim nations, Africa, and
East Asia provoked less enlightened responses. This phenomenon seems to be a
universal one; in relation to less developed societies, the xenophobic
reflex is referred to as tribalism.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
