Great column from Dec 2014 ... hitting it right at home, esp, anti-immigrant sentiment keeps increasing (large anti-immigrant rally in Italy yesterday) in 2015, anti-Muslim sentiment in Europe & North America etc. The rise in these "prejudice" sentiment is due to hopelessness in people's lives. The majority of people don't see a better future for themselves & their kids & they are hitting out at anyone who is different from them (ethnically, racially, religiously, linguistically etc.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The British shadow minister for Europe, Pat McFadden, recently warned members of his Labour Party that they should try to make the most of the global economy & not treat immigration like a disease. As he put it, “You can feed on people’s grievances or you can give people a chance. And I think our policies should be around giving people a chance.”
What can American Tea Party enthusiasts, Russian chauvinists, fearful Dutch & Danes, & Singaporean leftists possibly have in common that is driving this anti-immigrant sentiment?
Retaining one’s job in a tightening economy is undoubtedly a serious concern. But the livelihoods of most of the middle-aged rural white Americans who support the Tea Party are hardly threatened by poor Mexican migrants.
Anti-immigrant sentiment cuts across the old left-right divide. One thing Tea Party or UKIP supporters share with working-class voters who genuinely fear losing their jobs to low-paid foreigners is anxiety about being left behind in a world of easy mobility, supranational organizations, & global networking.
It would be a mistake to dismiss anxiety about immigration as mere bigotry, or apprehension about the globalized economy as simply reactionary. National, religious & cultural identities (for lack of a better word) are being transformed, though less by immigration than by the development of globalized capitalism.
In the new global economy, there are clear winners & losers. Educated men & women who can communicate effectively in varied international contexts are benefiting. People who lack the needed education or experience – & there are many of them – are struggling.
In other words, the new class divisions run less between the rich & the poor than between educated metropolitan elites & less sophisticated, less flexible &, in every sense, less connected provincials.
Populist rabble-rousers like to stir up such resentments by ranting about foreigners who work for a pittance or not at all. But it is the relative success of ethnic minorities & immigrants that is more upsetting to indigenous populations.
Americans know that, before too long, whites will be just another minority, & people of colour will increasingly be in positions of power. At this point, all that Tea Partiers & others like them can do is declare, “We want our country back!”
Of course, this is an impossible demand. Short of unleashing massive & bloody ethnic cleansing – Bosnia, on a continental scale – Americans & others have no choice but to get used to living in increasingly diverse societies.
Mr. McFadden has pinpointed the central solution to globalization’s challenges: giving people “the tools to reap the benefits” of the globalized world, thereby making the “connected world work better for people.” The problem is that this call is more likely to appeal to the highly educated, already privileged classes than to those who feel disenfranchised in today’s global economy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The British shadow minister for Europe, Pat McFadden, recently warned members of his Labour Party that they should try to make the most of the global economy & not treat immigration like a disease. As he put it, “You can feed on people’s grievances or you can give people a chance. And I think our policies should be around giving people a chance.”
What can American Tea Party enthusiasts, Russian chauvinists, fearful Dutch & Danes, & Singaporean leftists possibly have in common that is driving this anti-immigrant sentiment?
Retaining one’s job in a tightening economy is undoubtedly a serious concern. But the livelihoods of most of the middle-aged rural white Americans who support the Tea Party are hardly threatened by poor Mexican migrants.
Anti-immigrant sentiment cuts across the old left-right divide. One thing Tea Party or UKIP supporters share with working-class voters who genuinely fear losing their jobs to low-paid foreigners is anxiety about being left behind in a world of easy mobility, supranational organizations, & global networking.
It would be a mistake to dismiss anxiety about immigration as mere bigotry, or apprehension about the globalized economy as simply reactionary. National, religious & cultural identities (for lack of a better word) are being transformed, though less by immigration than by the development of globalized capitalism.
In the new global economy, there are clear winners & losers. Educated men & women who can communicate effectively in varied international contexts are benefiting. People who lack the needed education or experience – & there are many of them – are struggling.
In other words, the new class divisions run less between the rich & the poor than between educated metropolitan elites & less sophisticated, less flexible &, in every sense, less connected provincials.
Populist rabble-rousers like to stir up such resentments by ranting about foreigners who work for a pittance or not at all. But it is the relative success of ethnic minorities & immigrants that is more upsetting to indigenous populations.
Americans know that, before too long, whites will be just another minority, & people of colour will increasingly be in positions of power. At this point, all that Tea Partiers & others like them can do is declare, “We want our country back!”
Of course, this is an impossible demand. Short of unleashing massive & bloody ethnic cleansing – Bosnia, on a continental scale – Americans & others have no choice but to get used to living in increasingly diverse societies.
Mr. McFadden has pinpointed the central solution to globalization’s challenges: giving people “the tools to reap the benefits” of the globalized world, thereby making the “connected world work better for people.” The problem is that this call is more likely to appeal to the highly educated, already privileged classes than to those who feel disenfranchised in today’s global economy.
No comments:
Post a Comment