If you only read this far (I know you're out there, admit it) then make sure that you at least get this: check out Aspen's new panties for sale at the SG shop and buy some!
I read an article today that was fairly depressing, and got me thinking about something. Granted, I think the writer takes the alarmist "neo-nazis Oh No!!!111!!!" approach that I often see when used while referencing groups like this, which I believe is counterproductive. I'm certanly not defending neo-nazism in any way, shape or form, as its antithetical to my entire belief system. But I think that rather than constantly using ominous references to the dark spectre of a return to the 1930's (which don't seem to pan out - remember the "skinhead" scares of the early 90's?) it might be a more useful exercise to try and understand the appeal of groups like this to otherwise regular people.
First and foremost, groups like this are anti-foreign. By definition then, they presuppose a core group of "natives" (an especially interesting term in a place like America) who claim rightful ownership over both land and culture, with virtually everyone else an "invader." What creates this division seems to be more or less abitrary - it can be based on actual foreign origin, skin color, religion, ethnicity, or even ideology. So "foreign" then becomes a code word for anything different than the "native" core group already defined. These types of movement spring up periodically, and typically as rates of immigration into whatever country in which they reside are up, and from new sources. It's therefore not surprising then that we see a resurgence of this sort of movement in Europe, which is experiencing an unprecedented influx of immigrants from Turkey, North Africa and the Middle East (differing in religion, cultural traditions and often skin color). Not only do these new immigrants provide more grist for the mill, as it were, by supplying a steady stream of scapegoats for the rabble rousers, but the fact that they're visibly different from the "traditional" (that is, white, Teutonic and Christian in the case of Germany) people makes their presence obvious.
That these groups are a front for hate filled, racist, antisemitic, xenophobic ideologies is perfectly transparent to me, and likely the rest of the people reading this entry. And yet, as is demonstrated in the article, people buy into it. Why? Well, for one, people have a need to feel as if they belong to something. It's a normal human psychological characteristic - whether it's following a band, hanging out in a particular bar, associating oneself with a country or region or any number of other ways people socialize in groups. With association comes a feeling of ownership - and a feeling of usurpation when someone else who is "different" (read: has different values than oneself) also makes a claim to ownership. It's not really all that different from the fanbois sitting around saying how much they liked a particular band "before they were popular" (meaning; before all those different people also liked it), how much they liked hanging out at a bar "before all those hipsters/losers/snobs/etc. started coming," or how good things were "before all those foreigners came into the country."
This position is based on two mistaken assumptions - the first one is typically an overly romantic and nostalgic view of things used to be. The chances are good that there were "losers" who liked the same band you did, "assholes" who hung out in your bar or "foreigners" who lived in your country even in those good old days, but maybe not as many as now. The second is that the existence of these different people within your social group somehow changes its dynamic. Regardless of who else likes that band, they're still the same band. Whoever hangs out in your bar usually has little to no effect on your own enjoyment of the place, whoever moves into your country can have little to no direct impact on your experiences there. But the perception exists that things have somehow changed, and movements such as these hijack that feeling and steer it into the most negative direction possible.
While Europe seems to be having a resurgence of the more overt xenophobic political movements in places like Germany, France and the Netherlands, I would submit that in the US the Republican party has effectively harnessed this political power for its own ends. I am not making the claim that the GOP wants to put people into death camps or resurrect national socialism, but I think one of their most successful political tactics thus far has been the ability to tap into that feeling of alienation that I've described . It's not an accident that the majority of supporters of the GOP are white and christian (and men, to a lesser extent.) For a long time it was no secret that white, christian men owned the US, both figuratively and literally. They were cultural icons, business tycoons, leading politicians. Even your average, working class white, christian man (who had no access to any of the priveliges that these icons did) could, by association, take a measure of pride in who he is. But changing demographics, women's liberation, the ascent of a multicultural outlook, and an ever increasing rising popularity of culture associated with other, non-white ethnicities has eroded that feeling of ownership over society. While in point of fact, the vast majority of politicians and big time CEOs are still white, christian men. But that isn't important - what's important is the perception of an erosion of power and a threat some established way of life. It's all over the GOP attempts to court the "regular guy," the "NASCAR dad" (NASCAR being one of the few major sports whose contenders are almost exclusively white) and the endless appeals to "family values" (read: 1950's white, christian values).
Unfortunately, the opposition to political movements such as these almost inevitably take the tack that the participants in these movements are uneducated bumpkins (movements like these flourish in rural areas, interestingly enough usually the least culturally and ethnically diverse) and that they should just be ignored. What ends up happening is that the movements then silently gather momentum until it is too late to do anything and the leaders of the movements are then free to pursue whatever their real ideological goals happen to be. In the case of the GOP, those goals are not mass death and political conquering but economic expansion, a reorganization of the middle east in a way that best benefits big business and the institution of reactionary laws based on biblical scripture and judges sympatetic to that viewpoint. What gets lost in the interim is whatever concerns the actual supporters of these movements have for themselves; the average German in 1930 didn't want to exterminate the jews, the average German supporter of this new political movement doesn't want to expel all the Turks from Germany, and the average Republican has no interest in conquering Iraq. But by embracing a strict defintion of native/foreigner as the party decides it, any attempt to go against party wishes is automatically an alignment with foreign elements - punishable by expulsion from the group, and remember that belonging to a group was the original goal that got people to support the party in the first place.
Rather than belittling people for not immediately embracing all that is different, modern progressive movements need to figure out a way to approach people who feel as their way of life is being eroded in front of them without alienating them. A lot of this can come in the form of interaction with other people. Diverse urban areas are less likely to perpetuate stereotypes because being forced to have close, daily interaction with different kinds of people is the fastest way to see that people are just people - all ethnicities, religions and nationalities have nice people and assholes. It's much easier to believe a blanket stereotype when one doesn't know any victims of that steroetype who could dispell it. Until progressive movements are able to counter these types of fear based political appeals, they will only continue to gain ground.
I read an article today that was fairly depressing, and got me thinking about something. Granted, I think the writer takes the alarmist "neo-nazis Oh No!!!111!!!" approach that I often see when used while referencing groups like this, which I believe is counterproductive. I'm certanly not defending neo-nazism in any way, shape or form, as its antithetical to my entire belief system. But I think that rather than constantly using ominous references to the dark spectre of a return to the 1930's (which don't seem to pan out - remember the "skinhead" scares of the early 90's?) it might be a more useful exercise to try and understand the appeal of groups like this to otherwise regular people.
First and foremost, groups like this are anti-foreign. By definition then, they presuppose a core group of "natives" (an especially interesting term in a place like America) who claim rightful ownership over both land and culture, with virtually everyone else an "invader." What creates this division seems to be more or less abitrary - it can be based on actual foreign origin, skin color, religion, ethnicity, or even ideology. So "foreign" then becomes a code word for anything different than the "native" core group already defined. These types of movement spring up periodically, and typically as rates of immigration into whatever country in which they reside are up, and from new sources. It's therefore not surprising then that we see a resurgence of this sort of movement in Europe, which is experiencing an unprecedented influx of immigrants from Turkey, North Africa and the Middle East (differing in religion, cultural traditions and often skin color). Not only do these new immigrants provide more grist for the mill, as it were, by supplying a steady stream of scapegoats for the rabble rousers, but the fact that they're visibly different from the "traditional" (that is, white, Teutonic and Christian in the case of Germany) people makes their presence obvious.
That these groups are a front for hate filled, racist, antisemitic, xenophobic ideologies is perfectly transparent to me, and likely the rest of the people reading this entry. And yet, as is demonstrated in the article, people buy into it. Why? Well, for one, people have a need to feel as if they belong to something. It's a normal human psychological characteristic - whether it's following a band, hanging out in a particular bar, associating oneself with a country or region or any number of other ways people socialize in groups. With association comes a feeling of ownership - and a feeling of usurpation when someone else who is "different" (read: has different values than oneself) also makes a claim to ownership. It's not really all that different from the fanbois sitting around saying how much they liked a particular band "before they were popular" (meaning; before all those different people also liked it), how much they liked hanging out at a bar "before all those hipsters/losers/snobs/etc. started coming," or how good things were "before all those foreigners came into the country."
This position is based on two mistaken assumptions - the first one is typically an overly romantic and nostalgic view of things used to be. The chances are good that there were "losers" who liked the same band you did, "assholes" who hung out in your bar or "foreigners" who lived in your country even in those good old days, but maybe not as many as now. The second is that the existence of these different people within your social group somehow changes its dynamic. Regardless of who else likes that band, they're still the same band. Whoever hangs out in your bar usually has little to no effect on your own enjoyment of the place, whoever moves into your country can have little to no direct impact on your experiences there. But the perception exists that things have somehow changed, and movements such as these hijack that feeling and steer it into the most negative direction possible.
While Europe seems to be having a resurgence of the more overt xenophobic political movements in places like Germany, France and the Netherlands, I would submit that in the US the Republican party has effectively harnessed this political power for its own ends. I am not making the claim that the GOP wants to put people into death camps or resurrect national socialism, but I think one of their most successful political tactics thus far has been the ability to tap into that feeling of alienation that I've described . It's not an accident that the majority of supporters of the GOP are white and christian (and men, to a lesser extent.) For a long time it was no secret that white, christian men owned the US, both figuratively and literally. They were cultural icons, business tycoons, leading politicians. Even your average, working class white, christian man (who had no access to any of the priveliges that these icons did) could, by association, take a measure of pride in who he is. But changing demographics, women's liberation, the ascent of a multicultural outlook, and an ever increasing rising popularity of culture associated with other, non-white ethnicities has eroded that feeling of ownership over society. While in point of fact, the vast majority of politicians and big time CEOs are still white, christian men. But that isn't important - what's important is the perception of an erosion of power and a threat some established way of life. It's all over the GOP attempts to court the "regular guy," the "NASCAR dad" (NASCAR being one of the few major sports whose contenders are almost exclusively white) and the endless appeals to "family values" (read: 1950's white, christian values).
Unfortunately, the opposition to political movements such as these almost inevitably take the tack that the participants in these movements are uneducated bumpkins (movements like these flourish in rural areas, interestingly enough usually the least culturally and ethnically diverse) and that they should just be ignored. What ends up happening is that the movements then silently gather momentum until it is too late to do anything and the leaders of the movements are then free to pursue whatever their real ideological goals happen to be. In the case of the GOP, those goals are not mass death and political conquering but economic expansion, a reorganization of the middle east in a way that best benefits big business and the institution of reactionary laws based on biblical scripture and judges sympatetic to that viewpoint. What gets lost in the interim is whatever concerns the actual supporters of these movements have for themselves; the average German in 1930 didn't want to exterminate the jews, the average German supporter of this new political movement doesn't want to expel all the Turks from Germany, and the average Republican has no interest in conquering Iraq. But by embracing a strict defintion of native/foreigner as the party decides it, any attempt to go against party wishes is automatically an alignment with foreign elements - punishable by expulsion from the group, and remember that belonging to a group was the original goal that got people to support the party in the first place.
Rather than belittling people for not immediately embracing all that is different, modern progressive movements need to figure out a way to approach people who feel as their way of life is being eroded in front of them without alienating them. A lot of this can come in the form of interaction with other people. Diverse urban areas are less likely to perpetuate stereotypes because being forced to have close, daily interaction with different kinds of people is the fastest way to see that people are just people - all ethnicities, religions and nationalities have nice people and assholes. It's much easier to believe a blanket stereotype when one doesn't know any victims of that steroetype who could dispell it. Until progressive movements are able to counter these types of fear based political appeals, they will only continue to gain ground.
VIEW 25 of 33 COMMENTS
happy birthday!!