Racism Targets Immigrants

“We want our country back.” That was what thousands of Britons chanted in the streets several times in recent months. The phenomenon infected different parts of Europe. They complain of poor immigrant integration into British mainstream life. Yet they go about funding ethnic minorities for their individual identities. In deference to the public frame of mind, British Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood in November blamed migration for making the United Kingdom “a divided place”. 

Until the turn of the millennium, Denmark had tightened its immigration laws. Political parties all over Europe are responding to the decline in voter support. During Angela Merkel’s four terms as Germany’s chancellor, hundreds of thousands of migrants were welcomed with open arms. Now her Christian Democratic Union regrets the decision. 

They openly air consternations about immigrants and refugees creating “unpalatable” and “incompatible” conditions. Trump complained that Europe was racing towards “civilisational erasure”. Their definition of modernity and civilisational conditions for others is not necessarily universally accepted.

The Dutch grudge against migrants is the difficulty local people have in distinguishing who is who and from which culture.  France is introducing language tests for immigrants in addition to banning symbols of religion displayed prominently at public places or institutions. Japanese, too, are perturbed by Indian immigrants’ boisterous behaviour. Some protest. They felt a condition of disturbance—a different lifestyle.

 Diversity is apparently not ingrained in them. It is the same in countries that spoke full-throated for years about the importance of diversity in a vibrant and dynamic society. Apparently, that was in the past and is no longer relevant, or even appropriate. Had others held such an attitude until a few years ago, they would have been castigated unsparingly as if they hailed from another century. 

Five years ago, such utterings from especially countries that did not see eye to eye with Europe’s views on other issues would have been met with virulent criticisms and threats of sanctions. Approaches are being walked back to prevent non-European and non-Christian immigrants. It all sums up to narratives that mass immigration divides society and contributes to disintegration. Others argue that such views build distrust against social capital. 

Us-versus-them attitude intensifies identity crises. France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States…echo voices against immigrants. The trend might spread to the entire European continent. There will be a new definition and interpretation of human values and rights.   Renting a prison, renting space for a military base, and renting troops. They even recruit mercenary warriors.

Diversity debate 

Denmark worried about being an ethnic/religious minority. Refugees and migrants are “completely different from Danes”. So, Ukrainians in Denmark as refugees would have to return to their country after the war. They will not be given a permanent visa. “Diversity means division, weakness, and destructiveness.” 

Countries most supportive of diversity elsewhere are themselves the least diversified. Diversification is agreed upon, but without adversely affecting the fundamental values for keeping a society unified. Social trust and mutual respect for one another’s practices are the elements that keep society harmonious and cooperative.

Diversity in thought but divisive at the ground level is a perverse state of attitude and practice. Identity, diversity, and a collectivist society are aspects that need careful address. The wheel of society should move forward. Respect, tolerance, and equal opportunity should pull the social cart ahead. 

Human envy, greed, and jealousy over someone’s success produce bias against the spirit of diversity. Since migration is “dividing” the EU, some want to regain independence and abandon the collective sovereignty that the EU envisages. They complain that “immigrants did not assimilate”. Therefore, they want to put a break to the “slow death of Europe”.

In 2023, Latvia introduced a regulation mandating that all public media produce content in Latvian or “languages belonging to the European space”. Russian does not qualify, though a third of the country’s population speaks it as their first language. Enforced assimilation is no champion of cultural identity. Yet economically advanced countries that sermonised the world about the issue until recently have changed their emphasis. Integration is the motto at home, while “identity” is the agenda for foreign lands.  

Caution in order

Events are changing fast. The world we believed we were living in together is changing forever. Emphasis on identity is welcome; too much concentration on it shifts the familiar normal to a different order, for good or worse, that will tell. Reforms strengthen dynamism. But not all new initiatives guarantee success and harmony. There are many a slip between a pledge and the actual delivery in any field. History and contemporary experiences say so. 

There will be a new definition and interpretation of human values and rights. Cultivating proactive strategic interests and defining them in accordance with given contexts and conditions is the height of hypocrisy. Validity of strategic interests should not be based on proactive expansion of its scope and interpretation reeking of expediency and supportive of raw power. 

Leaders of lofty reform campaigns should not just prescribe diversity but learn to live it for their own good and its positive demonstration effects.

(Kharel writes on int'l affairs & media.)