Definitions like 'The West' are surely vague and can be discussed in many ways, but are still understandable.

As we have these Western values of democracy, human rights, some see it as a mission to uphold them. If you ask those Americans who critisize the US about these values, they will likely say that they are defending these values and it is their mission, just like Chomsky defined the responsibility of the intellectuals. And here's where that vagueness comes so handy: Michael Moore can say that he is for the values that America stands for just as the total opposite of him. Both progressives and the alt-right find something to theirselves in 'America' for themselves. And both can even say that they defend these Western values.

If I put my argument in another way, it is that people become prisoners of the agenda in the way that anything that might 'hurt' the agenda, here namely that you wouldn't be so critical of the West/the US all the time, would be as if they 'betrayed' those ideals you have. And while people do like to 'do the right thing', be righteous and compassionate and not be seen as being racist or imperialist, the discourse veers off from reality. And this creates the hubris. Because when you start to look at everything from a certain critical point of view, you start overemphasizing that what you are criticizing.

It's like the problem with a university student that basically is taught postmodernism. The student is surely learns to be critical about things like objectivity etc, but if the student doesn't know what modernity means or what the philosophers of the enlightenment really thought, his or her arguments simply aren't balanced to make really a coherent point.

But the existence of narratives of western responsibility (especially when put in the service of determining one's own responsibilties as westerners) does not entail that those who create or consume such narratives must necessarily discount other narratives. — csalisbury

It doesn't entail that, but it does have a big effect on the discourse. The thing is that unlike with the effects of Leather working, where the topic and perspective are quite narrowly defined, the discourse here is general.

I'll take an example of NATO enlargement. One dominant narrative is that Russia was weak, Clinton wanted votes of those with East European ancestry and didn't think that Russia would ever be a problem. The points are true, how this nice US centric narrative forgets totally the other countries involved: the countries wanting to join NATO and the other NATO countries. For example with the Baltic States, the US (and actually the UK) approached behind closed doors Sweden and Finland first if our countries could give security guarantees for the newly independent again Baltic states. Our answer was "HELL NO!!!" and both countries were genuinely happy that the Baltic states did join NATO.

So let's drop the obsession with sexism, racism, imperialism, nationalism, and all that. We are all about equally guilty, and equally innocent. — Bitter Crank

If we only could. The present day discourse goes against this. Because if you say that we are all equally guilty, equally innocent, you are actually sexist or racist etc.

Thanks for the comments, people!

Wait. What is the thesis of the initial post? I can't figure out what you want us to focus on/address. — Terrapin Station

Lousy me for this. Hope the answers to your comments make this more clear.

My initial thought from what you posted is that unless the West is involved, often times if the US isn't involved, conflicts go unnoticed or under noticed. I am not sure if that is what you are saying but maybe you can expand on your thought. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

This is part of it, Tiff. Now it's understandable for Americans to focus on the actions of their country, but what I'm arguing is that it goes beyond that. As I stated, it's good to be critical about policies of one's government. Yet just being critical, not seeing any things positive, creates a serious bias. Also, when the starting point is "How has the US made things worse on this or that issue / country?" gives likely a negative US centric answer. This naturally opens the doors for a guilt syndrome. Why I picked as an example Noam Chomsky is because he at least is very consistent and quite open about his agenda. For example this video below tells it well what I tried to portray in the OP:



So, is it really so that the US hasn't done anything good other than Dubya helping fighting AIDS in Africa? That really is the only thing that comes to mind? I would think that there exists a South Korea was a good military action on the behalf of the US, just to give one example.

It seems that giving and answer that is both critical and approving confuses people too much.

I meant no offense. Just because I stated white supremacy does not mean I think they were the only one to blame. But yes, I accept my mistake, poor choice of words. And yes, you're right — there is no innocent country. — SethRy

No offense taken. My point was that both things, patriotism and nationalism, are quite common phenomenon around the World.

And are there 'innocent' countries?

I think Andorra and San Marino might be quite innocent. And my neighbouring countries like Estonia and present day Sweden, Denmark or Norway aren't so bad either nowdays. Yet Iceland isn't innocent: they got carried away with aggressive banking enterprises and made a huge mess. :nerd:

Do you think that poor, not well off 'do-gooders' are arrogant?

I think that the arrogance here is about something else than 'doing good' to others. People can have a condescending attitude that they even don't notice. Perhaps that is the 'arrogance'.

Do you guys think nationalism would have some sort of correlation to white supremacy? I think they are somewhat synonymous. — SethRy

Tell that to some Hindu nationalists or the North Koreans or practically anybody else. (Iranians are actually quite proud to be Aryans, btw.)

Yep, everything bad comes only from the white man.

So, where does one draw the line between patriotism and nationalism? — Wallows

Patriotism = people refer to something positive
Nationalism = people refer to something negative

Of course, the most simple line to be drawn is that love of something doesn't mean you find it superior to everything else and look condescendingly or have hostility towards others. For example, I've noticed that one of the most patriotic people, those who do cherish their country and culture, are ex-pats. And they, as aliens working in a foreign country, usually don't behave 'nationalistically' among the foreigners.

I think it's a bit confusing how today the word 'nationalism' is tried to be made a synonym to patriotism.

Do they necessarily mean that those are uniquely western values? — Terrapin Station

It goes to that.

Now if we would say that a society, a group or lets say people in the PF value politeness, yes, people would understand that politeness is obviously an universal value. Yet when defining western values, you do have to assume that there indeed is something unique.

Here’s a list of the values of Western Culture from the web:

Democracy.
Rational thinking.
Individualism.
Christianity.
Capitalism.
Modern technology.
Human rights.
Scientific thinking. — T Clark

I really find these lists of Western/Non-Western or liberal/conservative values rather annoying. Because those promoting them typically have this hubris about themselves, which makes them to have a condescending attitude towards others. It nearly approaches intellectual dishonesty. What is simply lacking is the acceptance of universal values. And that when something is indeed an universal value, it simply cannot be owned by some group.

Just to take the above list of Western values, how is 'rational thinking', 'scientific thinking' and 'modern technology' a trait of only the West?

The hubris can be seen from these people assuming that cultures that indeed do value similar traits have then just "Westernized". Those promoting Western values are at present fixated at Islam being this non-Western entity and leave out the elephant in the room, notably the non-Muslim Asian cultures of China or Japan. In fact, nobody mentions anymore Japan or South Korea in these debates as simply the two countries would show how shallow the whole argument of distinct Western values is.

And this problem is sure to surface is some left leaning person here starts to define what is leftist/liberal compared to right wing/conservative values.

To believe that your ethnic group is superior to others, white supremacy is a fine example of this. You also need a group where you have conditioned the minds of people of your in-group to believe this to be true. This is something Hitler has done. He has taken the mythological rhetoric of ethnic superiority, and use his enemies to promote their ethnic inferiority. Taking "junk science" to further promote this rhetoric by conducting skewed research to validate confirmation bias. People of the in-group with no ability to reason for themselves and who lack any foundation of a college education are more likely than not to believe such rhetoric. — Anaxagoras

Don't assume that university graduates didn't fall for national socialism in Germany. College and university educated, students especially, fall very easily to totalitarian nonsense, be it National Socialism or Marxism-Leninism, if the conditions are correct. When it's just hip to be so.

What you are forgetting to mention, that was very crucial to the rise of Hitler, is that Germany lost the Great War. Yet the Allies didn't march to Berlin, hence the defeat wasn't so total to truly rethink everything as after WW2. Also Germany wasn't solely responsible for WW1 in the same way as with the sequel. Many Germans believed in the Dolchstoss myth. The hyperinflation of 1921-1923 can be at least partly blamed on war patriations. All this created a fertile ground for the bitterness to be exploited and the people accepting a truly radical change from the past, which otherwise would be crazy. And of course, when you are dealing with a totalitarian regime that truly wants to change the world by killing people, once in power there is stopping them by democratic means.

I think the whole idea of the present "supremacy of a group" comes as a reaction to otherwise a negative self image where one thinks one's group is somehow subjugated or has fallen behind or lost it's lawful because losing one has lost one's own roots, be it race or religion or something. Thus asserting "the truth" that one is superior solves the problem.

I've decided to become a hard brexiteer in order to further the causes of Irish unification, Scottish independence and the break up of the United Kingdom. — unenlightened

Ah, the break up of the United Kingdom! People formerly know as 'the British', be ready to rip your clothes, hide yourself in a closet and sprinkle ash on yourself while mourning there about the unfathomable that happened.

Actually, if it would happen, I would love just hearing the utter gloom and the overwhelming sorrow, the effusive misery and the absolute destitution of optimism that the now ex-British born-again English would have to say, delivered hopefully in their affluent yet meticulous Oxford English, about the break up of the UK. Losing the Empire was one thing, but losing the British Isles? Not only that, losing the island where England lies, broken to what it was last time in the Middle Ages? Yes, and don't forget the Welsh. Move over, Oswald Sprengler.

And I can say that I would love this… because it's not going to happen.

But perhaps I can walk in your moccasins and have similar anxiety. In my case it's about the next elections just around the corner..and the "fear in what country I will wake up some day". The Green Party is purposing giving automatically every Iraqi a residence permit that comes here. So I guess, wellcome former ISIS fighters here. :razz:

Well, actually, no. This isn’t an apparent trend however we shuffle the data.Of course I am talking on a longterm scale here not merely from year to year. — I like sushi

First of all, if you consider colonization and globalization, your data ought to be a far more longer time than a period where there isn't anymore colonization. The perspective has to be centuries

You have to here look at how the economy increases. The typical way how ordinary people have become more wealthier has been for example a) they have the ability to lend to buy a home, which then retains it's value or b) through educational and technological advancement work changes to more productive work (the huge decrease in manual labour) and thus more income.

You see, ealier a sugar plantation in the Caribbean or now a electronics plant in Vietnam doesn't make the people in Chesire, UK, more wealthy. If the plant owner lives for some reason in Chesire, he surely gets more wealthy. Actually the only argument how people in Chesire would become more prosperous thanks the UK having colonies is if they produce something that then can be sold to the people in the colonies. This of course is globalization, or in the case of the imperialist British Empire, forced globalization on the colonies like India.

And the above example tells how globalization helps or hinders a society: if the economy of the society can compete well in the global market, globalization creates a lot of wealth to the society. If it cannot, then globalization and open borders just makes things worse. To close the borders, to stop globalization won't help: typically an industry that is protected doesn't use the calm to modernize in order to compete later in the global market, but just reaps the profits from in it's protected market.

I meant that the MOST powerful nation has historically had a higher level of inequality of wealth compared to other nations — I like sushi

It's no wonder if this is so. You see wealth has allways been distributed very unequally and the profits of globalization and empire building are even more unequally distributed. Prosperity for the masses happens quite differently.

It interesting to see that inequality does see to increase for the country (leading power) with the highest average income. — I like sushi

It's the typical argument that you can implement nearly everywhere where there is economic growth.

Inequality decreases in a recession. If the stock market would drop -50%, inequality would decrease instantly.

The reason is because we don't measure povetry in absolute terms.

We need an entirely new conception of truth, since the traditional notion of correspondence to the world in itself is no longer feasible. — Joshs

Nonsense.

Enlightenment rules. No urgency here for Heidegger. Even Pierce and pragmatism would do (in my view), but it isn't really needed. The critique is just fashionable nonsense.

And the reason why it's nonsense is that when you teach and read only the critique, you don't actually understand the thing that you are criticizing and, above all, you don't put the critique itself into context, into some perspective with the whole. Heidegger knew the science of his day and the philosophy of the Enlightenment. Today people seldom do. This is the basic problem. Or as one Asian academician put it aptly: "In order to criticize Western science, you actually have to know and understand Western science".

There answer basically what the government legal considers them of the country. (Citizenship)
I said that seems empty to me. — hachit

Note that it isn't empty for a lot of people. Go to a foreign country and the people there will define you being from the country you have originated from. You'll first notice this when you have to give your passport to the immigration official or the border guard. And your citizenship is quite crucial for the society of your country. The tax officials make a big fuss about you being a citizen of your country. (Especially if you are an American, they won't even stop caring about you even if you live abroad.)

Think about it like a marriage. When married, you can have a lot of feelings to the one who you are married to (good or bad feelings). Hence it can mean a lot to you emotionally to be married (or single or a widow). But marriage is also this legal issue. Again the tax official (and other officials) looks at you in a different way if you are married or not.

Is science wrong? No, it isn't. Materialist fundamentalism however is completely wrong. I seek an explanation that will be consistent with both scientific fact and the facts of my and other people's spiritual experiences; and I am continuing to look for this explanation in any number of paths. — Ilya B Shambat

The extreme materialist philosophy or point of view is quite naive and simply silly.

The issue isn't at all that if you would consider something else than material to exist, you are a proponent of the supernatural. Nonsense: you can make quite valid points about for example mathematical entities and surely those entities don't exist in the material form. Yet they can be absolutely important to solve 'real world' problems. And so is the thing with questions of spirituality, morality and aesthetics. There is a pragmatic need for these kind of questions, hence you do need them to understand and operate in the material world around you.

. But it is strange that you would have observed the same thing, because the inner city slums of the US are presumably quite different than Finland. — Bitter Crank

Of course they are, but the phenomenon that I mentioned is actually observed by sociologists. Unfortunately I can't remember now which studies to refer to, but there is this kind of self reinforcing of one's own class. One just has to look at the most class conscious society in the West, the UK. Those belonging to the working class are quite proud of their own class. And what should be noted that it isn't at all about reinforcing failure: Yes, you might punish those who are "teachers pets", but where you can excel is especially in sports and a totally accepted objective can be traditional blue collar jobs, to be a car mechanic or to work at the construction site. These aren't the jobs where mathematics, biology or history lessons help you, so the disinterest in school is logical. And if there are those fathers around to give the example for the youngster to choose a blue collar job, it's not such a bad thing at all. Unfortunately, there are less of those jobs around. The crucial thing is there to be those jobs around.

In the US there are more factors in this, things like many know being brought up in single parent households, the crime and drug problem and things like what you mentioned, the thing of 'acting white'.

I think that people who do work or who have an academic background seldom understand just how big it can be mentally for people to not have a job, to not have an education. The disillusionment, the apathy can truly affect a person. You apply for work just so many times and then it starts to work on you. Just like loneliness can truly cause problems, so can unemployment or being uneducated do also.

I see no benefit in dwelling on one's ancestor's status as slaves. Slavery is now 160 years, or about 8 generations distant. Later, more recent history matters more. Dropping out of high school will cause an individual far more problems than being the descendent of slaves. In fact, if one drops out of school, it won't matter all that much whether one's ancestors were black or white; it is a very stupid move. It's also a stupid move to learn nothing in high school. — Bitter Crank

The problem is that the slavery/Jim Crow issue dominates the discourse even if the are things of the past. It's a convenient way emphasize the victimhood of the minority and not to look at the current problems. What I've noticed that there are similarities in the attitudes with African Americans and Finnish children and youngsters that relate to the working class or to a bluecollar background. Basically studying hard and succeeding in school isn't, especially with boys, looked upon as being a great or a natural thing.

I myself attended a so called elite school where the pupils graduated from the gymnasium with grades close being highest to the country. There everybody studied hard, the teachers were great and usually had written the course books themselves (which were used in other schools too). Hence it came to me as a shock when I went to a Church confirmation camp at the age of 16 that had the teenagers coming from another "ordinary" school. These boys from the local school used the term 'engineer' as a swearword and were against learning in school, which simply "sucked". Good grades meant that you were the teachers pet and an 'engineer'. I tried to keep a low profile until I happened to make a too sophisticated (or something) comment that they didn't like, and I was then deemed to be an engineer and was ridiculed the rest of the days in the camp.

I noticed the similar phenomenon in the army when the soldiers noticed that one of them had graduated from the gymnasium and started to pick on him because of this. Yet then of course I was officer candidate and my peers, other officer candidates, were nearly all university students and of "my class". (Actually military service presented the most starkest example how classes are formed in our meritocratic society as everybody started from the same level and then through testing and performance reviews picked to be enlisted, sergeants and officers)

Now this happened in Finland, which has one of the most level educational systems in the World. So I just can imagine how bad it is when there indeed are true differences with the schools and in the performance of the teachers. When you have the concept of race added to this, it creates a problematic environment.

Distribution in small public housing units that are well managed and maintained is a desirable strategy. — Bitter Crank

Yes, there are good policies to be implemented. Naturally the policies do have also their negative aspects, like that the whole system does create apathy and if you are OK with a meager living, you don't have to work. Still I think that the positive aspects are far larger. Starting from things like social cohesion and low crime.



Social cohesion has also been important. The big question is if those that don't work and live off the welfare aren't the stereotypical "blonde haired Finns with an alcohol problem" that we are used to, but foreigners, what happens then?

What was not an accident is the racial distribution of populations and home ownership in metropolitan areas (where most Americans live). As Richard Rothstein shows in The Color of Law, the FHA (Federal Housing Administration) pursued a strict policy of racial segregation from its inception in the 1930s going forward. — Bitter Crank

This is actually one crucial issue. Here one of the most successful welfare policies has been right from the start the avoidance of concentrating subsidized housing for the poor in one place. If you would concentrate welfare accomodation in one place, it would create social problems and give the area a bad name, basically you would have the possibility of creating a ghetto in the future. Hence you have had subsidized housing in the more affluent parts of Helsinki. It has eradicated differences between areas and even if some parts of Helsinki are seen less prestigious than others, the real estate prices don't differ so much.

Debating wealth redistribution is another thread but provided there's no racial element, I am a strong believer in it. — Judaka

Yet it isn't so simple. If there wasn't any difference between racial groups and being a welfare recipient or unemployed, it wouldn't matter. But the difference is there, and differences are large.

And this comes to my point in racial or ethnic relations: if one group seems to be a "free rider" in the system, then racism and xenophobic thoughts emerge.

Political questions seldom touch directly the individual, only indirectly. Like what should we do about climate change or should we do something?

I don't believe that there are any normative facts, so I'm not looking for normative answers from anything. — Terrapin Station

That's the problem!

Normative questions cannot be answered objectively. Yes, you can partly use some objective observations (that have been done using science), but then the normative part: what to do to make things better has nothing to do with science.

Yet this doesn't mean that the normative questions aren't important. On the contrary. Answers to these kind of question are far more in the realm of philosophy.

How could the science of philosophy spill down to make good statements about "political correctness"? Could even the philosophical institutions have good things to say about things like "political correctness", "global warming", "Trump" and stuff like that? Philosophy is the love of thinking and knowledge, so I guest philosophical research should give that kind of knowledge? Should there be philosophical engineers who brought the knowledge to the "real world"? — Ansiktsburk

C.P. Snow, a chemist by profession, wrote a famous book called "Two Cultures" in 1959 where he argued that the intellectual life had divided to the sciences and humanities, where the latter basically was the problem and had gotten lost and the sciences still had it in themselves the beautiful objectives. Yet in the end of his book, he purposed that science could perhaps be used to find solutions to current problems, like the Cold War.

In hindsight we know how the Cold War between the two Superpowers was solved. It ended with the collapse of the Soviet Empire. So the question is, what kind of solution science could have given like C.P. Snow argued? If we think about science as a method, then the "scientific" answer, which would have correctly forcasted the future, would have been "the other Superpower will collapse basically by it's own fault and thus the Cold War will end". Hardly an idea that Snow had in his mind and hardly an answer people would have cheered to back in the 1960's. In fact, the whole idea that C.P. Snow introduced is quite bizarre and simply reflects his condescending attitude towards fields like political science.

You see, answers to political questions based on philosophy or that use the scientific method will simply be treated similar as answers based on political ideologies. Actually, we do use already a lot of science to guide our policies when it comes to the environment etc. (at least in Europe). Yet the answers cannot escape the realm of the political environment, because people will simply choose the facts they want.

the First Science should be able to do better. — Ansiktsburk

Yes. But do understand that we want normative answers: how should we act that things would be better? It is a totally different question than what science replies to, the objective question: "what is the reality?". Science should not and cannot give us answers to normative questions. Politics is all about answering to normative questions. Politics simply cannot be answered by science, and people have known this at least since Voltaire made ridicule out of Leibniz with Dr. Pangloss.

Helping to reduce poverty becomes a political, racialised issue with all kinds of unnecessary baggage. — Judaka

Reducing povetry happens with creating prosperity. Yet usually what policies we are talking about when "reducing povetry" are welfare policies, wealth transfers etc. These policies, who gets money and who doesn't, create these arguments when race is used to decide who gets what, just like with 'affirmative action'.

Because what would help people to get out of povetry? Simple, that they get a good paying job and stand on their own feet, which itself creates wealth to the society. Yet those jobs don't emerge out of charity. Charity and government handouts similar to charity do not eradicate povetry. They do have a positive aspects also, yet the negative aspects shouldn't be forgotten.

Part of my take on race relations derives from living in Minneapolis, MN. — Bitter Crank

By the way (a bit off topic), to compare the US with anything else is challenging, but to compare an US state to separate countries does give a comparative perspective. Actually I found that by population size and by many other variables the closest equivalent to my country, Finland, would be... Minnesota. Before you laugh, just hear me out:

...........................................Finland............Minnesota
Population (in millions):........5,520...………5,679
land area (square km):.....338,424.........225,163
climate:...................subarctic climate, humid continental climate
per capita (nominal USD):..50,068.........64,675
gini coefficient:.....................0.277..........0.452
(racial composition)
White:...……………………...+/- 97,8%.......84,3%
infant mortality rate (per 1000):..2,3...……5,1
life expectancy (years):.......81,386.......... 81,05
tertiary education (25-64y):..42%..............48%
number of Nobel prizes:........5.................5
intentional homicide rate:.....1,42.............2
Somali diaspora:...................20 000......50 000 - 80 000(?)

Hence it puts into perspective when you just look at Minnesota, and not the whole US. Hawaii or Louisiana are quite different from Minnesota, just as is New York or California. Minnesotans favour democrats, hence the state is closer to the 'socialism' found in a Nordic welfare states. And with several indicators Minnesota is among the top of the US states and doesn't have the most problems in the US. Just like, uh, Finland compared to Europe. So in a way comparing Minnesota (to Nordic countries) tells a lot in my view. For instance, what I've read and Bitter has said that the Somali diaspora in Minnesota is said to have adapted quite well to the state and even has produced a politician to Capitol Hill. In Finland, a half smaller community, has been the most hated ethnic group in the country. This of course makes an interesting comparison on just how xenophobic or intolerant Finns are to Minnesotans.

They share the racialised perspectives, they emphasise racial differences, they think in terms of racial/ethnic histories and their defence is a historical interpretation. White people talking about how to advance some kind of agenda for furthering the wealth and success of white people is wrong but they are advocating for doing that for black people and they see no hypocrisy. — Judaka

The fact is that the whole field of identity politics and multiculturalism simply veers the debate into issues about race, simply because it's all about race, racial identity, ethnicity, the differences of ehtnicity or race. This is the problem. There is no emphasis on people as individuals and the so-called 'colorblindness' is deeply rejected as hypocrisy. And that especially in our time of extreme globalization cultures are quite close to each other is perhaps heresy. And everything bad is because of white people, slavery, colonization, white racism. So much, that I like sushi gave the perfect examples of 'racism' is defined solely to be a white trait, thanks to a different new definition.

If YOU had the choice, what would your nation look like? — OpinionsMatter

I like my own country. Things are quite fine, the only thing I would like is a bit more of the entrepreneurial spirit, some libertarian ethos and laws like in the US or in Switzerland. With a vibrant economy a welfare state can be upheld. And one should understand that with a welfare state there comes also drawbacks and negative consequences, which should be addressed honestly.

We should copy things from Switzerland, and absolutely not from Sweden! Luckily we haven't repeated the worst brainfarts that Sweden has done.

Surely the government can confiscate either the income or even the wealth of the wealthiest 0.1%. After all, in the US it's just 160 000 families or so that have an income of few million on average and basically pay at present roughly 1/5 of all the tax income. Of course, after this either 100% income confiscation or 100% wealth confiscation, likely those next in line would draw conclusions. And likely many that have an income or wealth above the median income level will note what is going to happen to them too.

Of course it's a disastrous tax policy, but who cares. The objective isn't to improve the economy or the government incomes, but please those who hate the rich.

Comes to my mind how a kulak was defined during the Russian revolution: the peasants with the most land picked from an arbitrary selected group was deemed kulaks, class enemies, that were then deported or killed.

I think what Dr Glenn Loury says about political correctness goes to the heart of the issue well:

"Political correctness is at the end of the day is a cognitive and intellectual cul de sac where we are trapped by the need to not be seen as on the wrong side of history and therefore we say things that we don't actually believe ourselves, but are the things expected of us to say."

Basically political correctness stifles debate when some argument, which can be a totally objective observation, is picked up by the "worst people", the racist supremacists, the xenophobe nativists, the islamophobes, misogynists or homophobes or whatever. Then this argument comes to be a sign of the 'hate speech' of the extremists and to bring it up is interpreted that the speaker has sympathies for the extremist views. As few have sympathies for extremist views, they shun away from the subject. And then some issue, which can indeed be important, becomes 'politically incorrect'.

When someone says "political correctness" they may mean a variety of different things. No one of these uses is the "proper" usage. — Fooloso4

We simply ought to use different words to describe what actually we are talking about.

So, is it:

a) Avoiding words that can be interpreted as being derogatory (excluding, marginalizing, or insulting) against minorities

b) Enlarging the above from just speech to other actions like policies towards minorities.

c) Making accusations of someone else being hostile to minorites.

One can notice that a), b) and c) are quite different from each other and hence we can easily have a confusion in the debate. Usually the "anti-PC" crowd is basically talking about b) and c) and someone just thinking about a) might not understand their point.

Thing is that white people don't celebrate their racial background, but simply their national background. After all, since the fall of the last empires, Europe has been a collection of nation states. They celebrate being Irish, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Danish etc. The multiculturalism of these national identities is quite new, and although the authorities of these countries are now eagerly promoting some new multicultural identity of their country and search desperately for something that can define as a new common thing, their roots aren't at all so multicultural. The simple fact is that people don't relate to something as general as 'race' when they have had an ethnicity, a nationality to relate to.

Simply put it, people far less trouble in defining a national identity, than they have in defining a continental (European, Asian, African) identity or a racial identity.

As the US is this mixture of various people, there the term 'white' or 'caucasian' have gotten a totally different role to play. Again something that is quite an American phenomenon than anything else (perhaps with the exception of South Africa, where being white unifies the people from British and Boer origins).

The EU should offer a 2 year extension, no strings attached — Benkei

Oh God. This nuisance just pushed forward for 2 years and then started again.
Yes, that would be so typical EU.

Let's get it over with it. Let's have a no-deal Brexit. It's not a big deal.

And while we are at it, lets demand visas from British coming here and similar immigration procedures from those British citizens living in the EU as we demand from others non-EU citizens, like Afghans, Syrians and Somalis or Americans living here. This actually would help the Brexiteers to get the backbone to enforce their objective in a similar fashion to deport all the EU migrant worker scum, all those Poles and Lithuanians, that the for-Brexit people didn't want in their country anyway. When the EU would do it first, they would have a clean conscience of having been forced to do the same.

Anglo Saxons are white, certainly, as are Norwegians and Finns, Latvians, Jews, and Italians. So are the French and Serbs, Greeks, Turks, etc. Caucasians are a large, diverse, multicultural assembly. — Bitter Crank

Exactly. And such a diverse and multicultural lot that within itself this group of people harbor resentment, xenophobia and racism towards each other. Like, uh, humans occasionally do.

Heck, in the early 20th Century Swedish eugenists (who else!) defined Finns to be of an East Baltic race that has racial ties to Mongols. Those with lighter composer (or basically better looking people) found here are naturally of Swedish origin. Having a population with the most blond and blue-eyed people in the World this might sound confusing, but this worried extremely Finns at the time. The fear was that Finns would be considered by other Europeans as (gash!) mongoloids. Hence it was a huge event that created a mass hysteria in Finland when in 1952 a Finnish 17-year countryside girl won the very first Miss Universum contest. And yes, she was a blonde.

You are right. I am merely commenting on the alt-right here in the United States. — Anaxagoras

Not only that.

Basically your view is extremely US-centric, which assumes that the US narrative is the only one that exists and everything follows it. Focus on other issues, like from the fact that not everything in the continent of Africa is explained with Western colonization (and the Trans-Atlantic slave trade), is simply unimportant. This is actually very typical, and basically a bit problematic.

Seems that you indeed are confused.

The thing is that the Ottoman Empire and Ethiopia did exist as sovereign states. And they were not the only states existing in Africa in the 19th Century. Italy actually fought both of them and once got beaten by Ethiopia in 1896. Hence the idea that Europeans invaded Africa and fought there just indigenous tribes is either an ignorant or a condescending view or both.

This is in fact happening. All sorts of tropical pet reptiles that got too big have been let go in peoples back yards where, Florida being sub tropical, they have all done quite well. — Bitter Crank

Yes. And this is the reason why I did propose this. The Florida peninsula could compete in animal richness with the Island of Borneo or the Serengeti. Add to the mix the Floridians and how they would have to cope with their enchanced biodiversity.

Africa has countries, not states for one. Two, tribalism is a lot different than how the early Europeans came and how they treated indigenous tribes. These are false equivalencies you're presenting. — Anaxagoras

State is a totally valid synonym for country: a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.

To think of Africa consisting of 'indigenous tribes' when Europeans came is again a typical condescending view. What kind of tribe as you call it was "Ethiopia" or the "Ottoman Empire"?