Convivencia vs Nationalism
This seems to be one of the hottest topics of modern politics, with all the cases of racism, anti-racism, immigrants and emigrants, refugees, and the threat of fundamentalism and non-tolerant cultures and laws etc.
The question I wish to pose as the start of the debate I would like to have in this thread is: which policy should be chosen in the question convivencia vs nationalism? Should immigration be controlled or not, and if yes, how? The two main camps seem to be non-tolerance with a total nationalistic approach, and the total tolerance and unregulated immigration.
Personally, having lived in both locations with mixed cultures and in locations with little mixing, I'd say the only long-lasting alternative is something in between.
- The problems (summarizing both those I see and problems suggested by others) of total nationalism are:
1. refugees have nowhere to go
2. it may lead to racistic thoughts
- The problems (summarizing both those I see and problems suggested by others) of total tolerance or convivencia are:
1. if it was your group that decided tolerance was the way to go, the other groups may not agree. If they can immigrate in an uncontrolled way, they may turn out to become a majority, and thus change laws and culture to their own, giving you no guarantee that you'll find a way to live where your own laws of preference are official
2. it may lead to racism because of no. 1, because people feel threatened that the laws typical to their tradition and culture will be overthrown and replaced by foreign ones.
3. it may lead to racism because of no. 1, because the other people may come from cultures that aren't tolerant and that are very racistic as it is, who would show no tolerance if they started becoming a majority and could take over the country. Comparing with Al-Andalus in the Medieval period, it's fall was among other things caused by the at that time non-tolerant Christians overthrowing the tolerant Muslims, and they were able to do so because their expansion was uncontrolled.
I think the only solution without these problems is something in between. Refugees should be accepted, but if possible return home once things have calmed down on their home front. Non-refugees who want to migrate should be limited. There should be sufficient regulation to always assure that the local population remains majority in the country, because that's the only way of assuring they'll be able to keep their laws and culture in that area. If they feel a threat they may lose their culture and laws to others which may be intolerant and oppressive, they're likely to go racistic and the result can be them persecuting the immigrants, to which the immigrants will respond by persecuting and harassing the local population. I personally think refugees should be helped though, if they aren't fleeing from the law for crimes they've committed. In order to be able to help refugees without the threat of foreigners becoming majorities, the immigration of non-refugees must be limited, and refugees may to some extent need to be sent back home when it's calm. Another motif for avoiding immigration as a way of aid to suffering, is that for the same amount of money you can help one immigrant, you can usually save several thousands from starvation etc. if they remain in their home countries.
I have nothing against foreigners, in fact most of my friends have been from different countries for instance, but learning from history that exaggerated and uncontrolled total tolerance usually led to the destruction of the tolerant, I believe the best thing is to regulate the tolerance so it isn't exaggerated in this way, because I believe that too much tolerance will lead to intolerance, which is what I really want to avoid.
To the overtolerant, I'd like to say this: when another group becomes a majority thanks to uncontrolled migration, you or your offspring will take part in the oppression, persecution and killing of those in order to keep your own laws and tolerance. Similarly, you are most likely the sons and daughters of people who earlier in history took part in such actions. Or alternatively, you'll be overthrown and have to most likely live in a non-tolerant society with non-tolerant laws. If tolerance isn't restricted and can guarantee that it won't tolerate and support non-tolerance, then it'll be defeated by non-tolerance. Face the fact - overtolerance doesn't work. Tolerance must be limited, but if you limit it in the right way, you'll need very few limits. Better to accept those few limits, than exaggerate and face a future counter-reaction with non-tolerance, directed by or against your own group (whether it's a racial, country, religion or whatever-based group). Furthermore, if you claim to be tolerant and understanding, try to understand the non-tolerant - how did they become who they are? You can become one too, and so can your children, if you refuse to see what they're really worried about. If you don't see it, you'll be one of the reasons for future intolerance and violence, which is what you claim you want to avoid.
To the non-tolerant, I'd like to say that once non-tolerance and even hostility begins, there's always an enemy who will fight back, which means you can never have peace. Similarly, if you're non-tolerant or even hostile to some, all others will fear and despise you and gladly see your destruction. When you try to flee from your country while it's thus being destroyed, nobody will welcome you with open arms.
The only sane alternative to me seems to be something in between. The problem is that whenever someone says that, they're claimed to be part of the non-tolerant camp and called racists, which is causing a slow secret grow of REAL racism, which may be a future threat. I think most so-called racists are really scared that their own group will become a minority, and at this time in history, the Europeans and Americans have the most tolerant laws and culture, earlier in history it was the Arabs for instance. Just as I think the rulers of Al-Andalus should have restricted their convivencia slightly in order to avoid future non-tolerance, I think modern rulers should restrict it slightly in order to avoid future non-tolerance. Because history has shown that exaggerated tolerance results in non-tolerance, and non-tolerance results in exaggerated tolerance. Only restricted tolerance doesn't result in non-tolerance, violence and death.
Please ask me about points where I was unclear, as this is a controversial subject and I don't want to offend anyone. I also might have made typos, so if anything sounds insane ask me, and I'll tell whether I was insane or not. Also I'd like to hear your opinions on this. I'm trying to find a middle solution that could be acceptable to all - is this a possible such solution or is it totally unacceptable for some?
Edit: fixed some serious typos...
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia
I'm pretty aware of contradicting with my own view with the rant section. Notice the 
would of clued me in better that you were contradicting yourself.
Bookmarks