|
Post by pieter on Mar 9, 2020 12:27:52 GMT -7
Academia’s mission is to build the platform that brings the world's scientific research online and available to all, anywhere, on any device, in any language, for free. ( triplebyte.com/company/public/academia-edu )Diversity challanges in EuropeIn 2001, violent conflicts between native British and Asian Muslim youth took place in northern England. In 2005, the civil unrest amongst France’s Muslim Maghreb communities expanded all over the country. In 2006, the publication of pictures of the prophet Muhammad in Denmark generated the so-called ’cartoon crisis’. Muslim communities have come under intense scrutiny in the wake of the terrorist events in the United States (2001), Spain (2004) and Britain (2005). Extreme right wing politicians such as Geert Wilders in the Netherlands and parties such as the Northern League in Italy gained votes playing on the electorate’s fears of the ‘Muslim’ or the ‘immigrant’. The current economic crisis provides further fruitful ground for racist and discriminatory behaviour towards minorities: the massive expulsions of Roma populations from Italy in 2008 and from France in 2010 have been sad examples of rising xenophobia and racism. During the first decade of the 21st century, politicians and academics have been intensively debating the reasons underlying such tensions and what should be done to enhance societal cohesion in European societies. The question that is being posed, some times in more and others in less politically correct terms, is what kind of ethnic, cultural or religious diversity can be accommodated within liberal and secular democracies and in what ways (see also Vertovec and Wesserdorf eds. 2010; Triandafyllidou, Modood and Meer, eds. 2011; Zapata-Barrero and Ewijk, eds. 2011). A number of thinkers and politicians have advanced the claim that it is al-most impossible to accommodate certain minority groups, notably Muslims, in European countries because their cultural traditions and religious faith are incompatible with secular democratic governance. Others have argued that Muslims can be accommodated in the socio-political order of European societies provided they adhere to a set of civic values that lie at the heart of European democratic traditions and that reflect the secular nature of society and politics in Europe. Others still have questioned the kind of secularism that underpins state institutions in Europe. Some writers have also argued that citizen attitudes towards religion in Europe are not secular but rather tend towards individualised forms of religiosity. Hence the tension with Muslims lies at the level of public or private expression of religious feelings rather than on religiosity as such.
In september 2005 the dansih newsppaper Jyllansposten published 12 cartoons of Mohammed. The beginning of the Muhammad cartoons crisis.
The debate has been intensive in the media, in political forums as well as in scholarly circles. In policy terms, the main conclusion drawn from such debates has been that multicultural policies have failed and that a return to an assimilationist approach (emphasising national culture and values) is desirable. The Netherlands for instance that had been a forerunner in multicultural policies since the 1980s has shifted, at least at the symbolic level, towards such a view establishing integration courses for newcomers to the Netherlands and a civic integration test to be undertaken by pro-spective migrants before departure from their country of origin (Ter Wal, 2007; Vasta, 2007). In the face of mounting civil unrest and social exclusion of second-generation immigrant youth, the French government has reasserted its Republican civic integration model banning religious symbols from schools in 2004 (Kastoryano, 2006; Guiraudon, 2006) and the wearing of the in-tegral veil (burqa or niqab)in 2010. Germany, home to one of the largest Muslim communities in Europe, is a somewhat ambivalent case. On the one hand, politicians officially acknowledged that Germany is an immigration country and a multicultural society making integration the new buzzword during the last decade; on the other, the restrictive implementation of the liberal citizenship law of 2000 led to a decrease in naturalisations (Schiffauer, 2006; Green, 2004). Britain and Sweden are perhaps the only European countries that have maintained in practice (even if they changed the terminology used) a political multiculturalism approach. Concerns for cohesion, however, and an underlying need to retrieve an inclusive un-derstanding of Britishness - particularly in the aftermath of the July 2005 London bombings – have led recent governments to introduce a ‘Life in the United Kingdom test’ (a civic integration test) and civic ceremonies (Meer and Modood, 2008) . While traditional immigration countries in central and western Europe experience an identity crisis confronted with jihadist terrorism and social unrest among immigrant communities, the so-called ‘new hosts’ like Spain, Italy, Greece or Portugal are left to their own devices. The multiculturalism crisis comes at a time when these countries just started acknowledging their de facto multicultural and multiethnic composition. The perceived failure however of the cultural diversity approach adopted by the ‘old hosts’ discourages multicultural integration policies in southern Europe, reinforcing the view that immigration may be economically a good thing provided that immigrants become assimilated into the dominant national culture (Zapata-Barrero, 2006; Triandafyllidou, 2002; Calavita 2005). The question of ethnic minority integration becomes more complicated, perhaps paradoxically, due to the European integration process. Old and recent member states strive to accept diversity within Europe as well as to define their geopolitical and cultural position within the continuously en-larging European Union. National identities are under pressure by the Europeanisation process – especially as regards the former Communist countries that joined the EU in 2004 and 2007 (Kuus, 2004; Triandafyllidou and Spohn, 2003, dell’Olio, 2005; De Bardeleben, 2005). The question of Turkey’s accession into the EU has given rise to fervent debates about: the Christian roots of European values; the compatibility between a predominantly Muslim country with a secular constitution and an Islamic governing party (The Justice and Development Party (Turkish: Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi, the AK Parti of president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan) and the rest of the EU; and the borders of Europe – the question of where does Europe essentially end? (Zapata-Barrero, ed. 2010)Source: www.academia.edu/33874777/Addressing_tolerance_and_diversity_discourses_in_Europe_A_Comparative_Overview_of_16_European_Countries?email_work_card=title
|
|
|
Post by pieter on Mar 9, 2020 12:32:09 GMT -7
The process of European integration has been coupled with identity negotiation and geopolitical reorganisation within the member states. In this context, the question of immigrant minorities comes as an additional layer of diversity and complexity, which, if anything, is less desirable and more alien than intra-European diversity. Although the EU indirectly and sometimes even directly supports minority protection and combats discrimination, the overall Europeanisation process has certainly not made the integration of immigrant minorities, and especially Muslims, in specific member states any simpler. On the contrary, longterm migrant residents socially integrated in their country of settlement discover they are sometimes at a disadvantage compared to citizens of other EU member states who may be newcomers but who enjoy the advantages of European citizenship. Moreover, whilst most EU citizens are being encouraged to think of themselves less in national terms, migrants are encouraged to assimilate to the dominant national majority. In this context, the case of Central and Eastern European countries that have joined the European Union in 2004 and 2007 is also particularly challenging. These countries have had to adopt, among other measures, specific policies protecting native minority rights in order to fulfil the Copenhagen criteria for accession. At the same time, they have had to adopt migration policies that are geared towards securing the external EU borders disregarding regional specificities of crossborder trade and labour mobility. The 2004 member states do not face a serious challenge of incoming migration; hence migrant integration is not a prominent issue in their agendas. Rather, their concern is with emigration of their nationals towards other member states. However, the EU migration policy emphasis on border control contributes to making these countries reluctant to address cultural and religious diversity issues. Thus, while the rights of native minorities are guaranteed, there are no provisions for integrating newcomers under similar conditions of tolerance and/ or respect. There is a clear division thus between diversity that is considered to belong to these countries in historic terms and ‘alien’/foreign diversity. In Southeastern Europe, in the Balkan peninsula and in Turkey, the issue of ethnic and cultural diversity is further complicated. While these countries aspire to become members of the European Union, they are still struggling with issues of internal cohesion, accommodation of ethnic or religious diversity in their institutional make-up and respect of human rights, not to mention collective minority rights. In most cases, democratic consolidation is still incomplete and overcoming the recent violent conflicts that broke up Yugoslavia and that still torment Turkey with regard to its Kurdish minority is not an easy task. Nonetheless, it should not be forgotten that these regions have an important (albeit neglected today) heritage of respect, tolerance and recognition of cultural and religious diversity which is part of their imperial legacy. The Ottoman Empire to which most of these countries belonged, recognised and tolerated – as this concept was defined and understood in that particular historical context - religious and cultural diversity, elevating religious communities to political self-governing entities, the well known millet system. Thus, it is relevant to consider whether and to what extent this heritage may not be lost, since it appears to have been overshadowed by the ideological hegemony of the nation state and its presumption of cultural and ethnic homogeneity within a state. In other words, there are probably important lessons to be learnt from the history of the wider Southeastern Europe region even if the present situation appears quite bleak in terms of tolerance and respect for diversity. It is in this socio-economic and political context that this book approaches the question of diversity in 16 European countries: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, the UK, and one associated country: Turkey. The book surveys immigrant and native minority groups in these countries and concentrates on the specific diversity challenges that have a currency in each of them. It discusses the ways in which different states have dealt with similar diversity dilemmas and analyses the relevant discourses. The book is equally concerned with native and immigrant minorities depending on their relevance for each country. A distinction between ethnic minorities and migrant populations is in order here as usually these two different types of minorities enjoy different sets of rights and different levels of public recognition. Native minorities are defined as populations that have been historically established in a given territory and which took part in the formation of the (national or multi-national) state in which they live (such as Catalonian population within Spain or Flemish in Begium). In many cases their participation in state-building is recognized in the Constitution and they are guaranteed special rights regarding the preservation of their cultural, religious, or linguistic heritage. In some countries, there are special provisions regarding the political representation of a native minority in cases where that minority is so numerically small that it risks being left out of the political system (like in Poland where the German Minority Electoral Committee (Polish: Komitet Wyborczy Mniejszość Niemiecka, German: Wahlkomitee der Deutschen Minderheit) represents the German minority in Poland in the Sejm, or the lower house of Polish parliament. It is not a political party, but an organization by which Poland's political system gives political representation to national minorities.) This book’s theoretical focus is not only on diversity but also on whether we reject, tolerate or accept/respect specific diversity claims. We question tolerance as a concept, discuss its meaning in different contexts, and look at the practices of tolerance in different countries and towards different minority groups. We propose tolerance as a middle class concept and practice that stands between intolerance (the non acceptance of individuals, groups or practices) and acceptance, respect and public recognition of minority individuals, groups or practices. We distinguish thus both empirically and normatively between:
1) Non-toleration: Individuals, groups and practices who seek or for whom/which claims of toleration are being made but to whom/ which toleration is not granted, and the reasons given in favour of or against toleration; 2) Toleration: Individuals, groups and practices who seek or for whom/ which claims of toleration are being made and to whom/which tol-eration is granted, and the reasons given in favour of or against toleration; 3) Recognition, respect as equal and admission as normal: Individuals, groups and practices who seek or for whom/which it is claimed that toleration is not enough and other normative concepts, namely those that focus on majority-minority relations and the reform of institutions and citizenship, are or should be more relevant. They also include claims and processes towards the reconsideration of difference as a ‘normal’ feature of social life. Such concepts include equality, respect, recognition, accommodation and so on, and the reasons given in favour of or against these propositions.
|
|
|
Post by pieter on Mar 9, 2020 12:41:20 GMT -7
It is important to clarify that the relationship between tolerance and respect or recognition of difference is not necessarily a hierarchical one. Respect is not necessarily nor always a better institutional or practical solution for accommodating difference. While tolerance may be appropriate for some diversity claims and may satisfy some requests of minority groups or individuals, respect and public recognition may be a better ‘fit’ for other types of diversity claims. It is our aim in this book to highlight some of the contexts in which tolerance is a better ‘fit’ than respect (or vice versa).The book is structured in three parts according to discussions being held in old host countries, new host countries, and countries in transition.
Part I discusses six ‘old host’ countries in northern and western Europe: France, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom. These are countries that have had small historical minorities but have large migration-related minority populations that have arrived in the post-war and post-1989 period. Despite the predominantly civic definitions of the nation in five out of the six old hosts examined here and their long experience in receiving migrants, the recent decade has seen if not a retreat at least a repositioning of cultural diversity policies and discourses with a view to emphasising a common civic sense of citizenship as the basis on which newcomers should integrate. In-deed, the Netherlands, a country that has been a forerunner in multicultural policies since the 1980s has now imposed not only integration courses for newcomers but also a civic integration test to be undertaken by prospec-tive migrants before departure from their country of origin. In the face of mounting civil unrest and social exclusion of second-generation immigrant youth, the French government has reasserted its Republican civic integration model banning ostentatious religious symbols from schools. Britain and Sweden have upheld in practice (even if they changed the terminology used) a political multiculturalism approach. However, concerns for cohesion have been strong in Britain have led recent governments to introduce a ‘Life in the United Kingdom test’ (a civic integration test) and civic ceremonies for citizenship acquisition. The concerns are however not fully acquiesced as the recent statements by the UK Prime Minister David Cameron show. Nonetheless it is worth noting that Britain, the Netherlands, France and Sweden have upheld rather generous naturalisation policies, seeing citi-zenship as a tool for migrant integration. The German naturalisation poli-cy has become more liberal during the last decade but its implementation remains relatively restrictive. Denmark also has a restrictive naturalisation policy although it has a very open civic integration policy at the local level (migrants can participate in local elections after two years of residence).In these six ‘old host’ countries of northern and western Europe, Christian-ity and its traditions (including also monuments and the fine arts) are part of the national heritage (Catholic religion in France and to a certain extent in Germany and the Netherlands; Protestant religion in Sweden, Denmark, Britain and also to a certain extent in Germany). Catholic and Protestant denominations are also recognised institutionally and given certain privi-leges as regards taxation or education. However, religion is not necessarily part of national identity in these countries. The link between a specific re-ligion and the nation is quite loose, and rather what is distinctive of these countries is the moderate secularism that allows for different religions and their institutions to flourish with some support from the state.
Part II introduces the new host countries, notably Greece, Italy, Spain, Ireland and Cyprus have experienced immigration during the last two decades. Among them, the Spanish and the Italian nation are mostly civi-cally defined while the Irish and the Greek are mostly ethnically conceived. Spain and Italy have strong centrifugal tendencies due to the regional nationalisms in Spain and the regional identities in Italy. In either country the nation is defined predominantly in territorial and political terms and is also largely contested by minority nationalisms in Spain and by regional nationalism in Italy. Interestingly in either country there is a close link be-tween national identity and the Catholic religion even though such link has been losing its importance in recent decades. Overall new host countries are more ethnically oriented in their national identity definition compared to the old hosts, have more restrictive natu-ralisation policies and see citizenship as a prize rather than as a tool for integration. Their integration policies towards migrants have been under-developed and mainly actually guided through grassroots initiatives of civil society actors rather than framed as a state policy. The new host countries in southern Europe and Ireland have not yet re-considered their national identity in any way that would actively embrace cultural, ethnic or reli-gious diversity like some of the old host countries did (notably Britain, Sweden, the Netherlands and to a lesser extent France). By contrast all the new host countries have had to face the cultural and ethnic diversity challenges of Roma and Traveller minorities and have done so with very little success. Indeed Roma populations in Spain, Italy and Greece and Travellers in Ireland are among the most harshly discriminated and socio-economically disadvantaged minority populations in Europe.
Part III deals with the countries in transition. These countries are new EU member states that are mainly affected by emigration towards the old member states and to a lesser extent by immigration from East Eastern Eu-rope. These countries have a long history of native minority integration (or assimilation) and share their recent past under Communism. Thus all the countries in this group (Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, and Romania) are relatively young democracies that have experienced a revival of national and religious identities in the post-1989 period.The 2004 member states do not face a serious challenge of incoming migration; hence migrant integration is not a prominent issue in their agendas. Rather, their concern is with emigration of their nationals towards other member states. However, the EU migration policy emphasis on border control contributes to making these countries reluctant to address cultural diversity issues. Thus, while the rights of native minorities are guaranteed, there are no provisions for integrating newcomers under similar conditions of tolerance and/or respect. There is a clear division thus between cultural diversity that is considered to belong to these countries in historic terms and ‘alien’/foreign cultural diversity.
Modern Turkey is worth a special mention here as the country is characterised not only by important emigration (Turks being among the largest immigrant groups in Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Denmark, among the countries studied) but also by significant immigration from neighbouring Balkan and Asian countries as well as by the historical presence of large native minorities. Indeed Turkey is by definition a multi-ethnic and multireligious country that bears with it both the multicultural tolerance tradition of the Ottoman Empire and the millet arrangements as well as the modern nationalist intolerance towards minorities. Minorities in Turkey (the smaller historical minorities of Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians [Christians by the way] and Jews but most importantly the large minorities of Alevis, Sunni Arab Muslims, Circassians, (Christian) Georgians, Lazes and Kurds) are integrated socio-economically but are treated politically as second-class citizens because they do not belong to the dominant Turkish-–Sunni-Muslim majority. (Comment Pieter. I have witnessed and read about the intolerant behaviour of certain elements of the dominant Turkish-–Sunni-Muslim majority within the Turkish migrant communtiy towards Turkish Kurds, Turkish Alevis, Turkish Armenians, Turkish Assyrians and Turkish jews -and jews in general- in Arnhem. Cancer is a heavy rude swear word in Dutch, and so I regularly heard Turkish and Moroccan boys and young men use the words 'Cancer Jew' and 'Cancer Gay', -Kanker Jood and Kanker Homo in Dutch-))
However, starting from the Helsinki Summit of the European Union in 1999 December, Turkey has become exposed to the celebration of ethno-cultural and religious identity claims in the public space. This process has been going on with certain ups and downs putting to the test the consolidation of Turkish democracy. To summarise, this book seeks to offer a European view of diversity challenges and the ways in which they are dealt with. It highlights important similarities and differences and identifies the groups that are worse off in the countries studied. Future research needs however to dig deeper and consider whether there can be a common European approach to migrant and native minority integration that respects the specificities of each country but also allows for a bird’s eye view of the situation across Europe and identifies the challenges that are common and that can be best dealt with through EU legislation and EU consultations, exchanges of best practices and cooperation. Indeed the question of both the Roma and the Muslim populations is of particular interest here. While it may be difficult to devise policy approaches that are responsive to the needs of all the 16 European countries studied here (let alone the 27 EU member states), it is however possible to develop policies that address a number of European countries that share common or parallel migration and ethnic minority experiences.
|
|
|
Post by pieter on Mar 9, 2020 13:17:39 GMT -7
Chapter OutlinePart I: Old host countries Chapter 1: France
Migrants queue for a free meal distributed by a humanitarian agency on a street near Stalingrad metro station in Paris, France, on October 28, 2016. (Reuters)
The chapter presents the challenge of diversity in France. It describes the formation of a diverse population, resulting from successive waves of immigration and shows how the formation of the French State is connected to the idea of national identity in a manner that emphasizes the notion of individuals over groups. Formally, it does not allocate space for the acknowledgement of diversity. With this challenge in mind, the authors explore the kinds of identities that are perceived as different and/or challenging, and the way diversity has been accommodated in France. They look at the French version of secularism, laïcité , as a way to deal with religious diversity and argue that the perception of an in-creased religious diversity led to the reassessment of the notion since the beginning of the 2000s. They discuss whether the notion oflaïcité pertains to tolerance or acceptance of others as equals.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La%C3%AFcit%C3%A9
Chapter 2: Denmark
Migrants wait for a train to Copenhagen from Flensburg, Germany. Carsten Rehder/AFP/Getty Images
This chapter analyses the cultural diversity challenges in Denmark and how they have been met with intolerance, tolerance, respect and recognition respectively. It starts by analysing the main traits of national identity and state formation, then moves on to Danish immigration history and the various ethnic and religious minorities resulting from immigration and from the changing of territorial borders, before it finally addresses how Denmark generally has handled cultural diversity challenges of the last 40 years.The overshadowing concern with cultural and religious differences in Den-mark today pertains to minorities of immigrants and descendants from non-western countries, most of whom are (identified as) Muslims. Since the mid-1990s, Denmark has seen a long period of politicization of integration and refugee issues, particularly focusing on Muslims. The main diversity challenges that politicians consider important can be summed up in three core themes: 1) Unemployment: non-Western immigrants as a burden on social security, 2) Parallel societies (ghettoisation): non-Western immigrants living in their own secluded communities, 3) Radicalisation/extremism: the growing concern with radicalisation within Muslim communities . In the discourse and law on integration a comprehensive notion of citizen-ship is established, drawing on central elements in the Danish national identity, namely: Christianity, Danish language.
Denmark as a small and culturally homogeneous country, smallness and homogeneity connected to values of egalitarianiand pride in the welfare society. In the last two decades the discourse of integration is explicitly set against the notion of multiculturalism. In the discussion of the hazards of multiculturalism and parallel societies, tolerance has in part been framed as overindulgence or indifference to problematic beliefs and practices among minorities.
|
|
|
Post by pieter on Mar 9, 2020 15:35:52 GMT -7
Chapter 3: GermanyThe years after 2000, and especially after 9/11/2001, witnessed a height-ened debate about Muslims and the question, if they could be integrated into German society. Other groups, like the Roma, are not as openly de-bated in public discussion, or are even, like certain Vietnamese immigrants, partially portrayed as ‘positively integrating’, but they often have to face rather restrictive immigration policies nonetheless. While tolerance is generally understood as the opposite of discrimination and racism, it can be observed in current public discourses that the concept of tolerance is also increasingly used to draw borders between those who are to be tolerated and those who are not, while the non-tolerance towards a specific group or individual is often legitimised with its own (perceived) intolerance towards others. The slogan “no tolerance for intolerance” is widely used in political rhetoric today, often concerning religious Muslim groups. By portraying certain groups as intolerant, they are labelled as for-eigners with incompatible values and beliefs to whom too much tolerance would be a detrimental attitude. Looking at tolerance not only as a normative value but also as a political discourse that marks insiders and outsiders of the society, allows us to recognise parts of the debate as an attempt to keep up perceived cultural homogeneity in a time of fundamental changes in German understandings of nationality.Chapter 4: The Netherlands In contrast to dominant notions, debates concerning cultural diversity and minority acceptance in the Netherlands do not exclusively focus on the position of Muslims and the role of Islam in society. There isalso an ongoing discussion on the position of native religious minorities. Orthodox Calvinist groups, Catholic institutions and Muslims are publicly challenged with respect to their beliefs and practices, which are often perceived as crossing the boundaries of the ‘intolerable’. A recurring topic in the national elections throughout the last decade has been the call to severely curb flows of immigration to the Netherlands. Overall, the notion of the Netherlands as an immigrant nation has become supplanted by the notion of the Netherlands as a nation rooted in a distinct European Judeo-Christian tradition: a tradition that needs to be ‘defended’ from external influences stemming from immigration. Overall, it appears that the Netherlands is still trying to strike a balance in accommodating various forms of pluralism in a depillarised society of immigration. Throughout this chapter we constantly aim to analyse the ways in which ideas of acceptance, respect, recognition and tolerance, developed in tandem with institutional arrangements and practices.
We begin with a review of the major elements of Dutch nation state formation and then proceed to discuss the main diversity challenges and how they relate to different minority groups. Then we discuss five conceptualisations of tolerance that, so we argue, structure the discursive space in which ideas about toleration and acceptance are being articulated in the Netherlands. Finally, we extract some conclusions and major issues that require further examination and empirical research.Chapter 5: Sweden This chapter presents a historical and current picture of Sweden as a country of migration. Sweden has for a long time had cultural encounters with neighboring countries but it is only in the post war period that the stream of migrants became large and justified the statement that Swe-den is a multicultural society in a descriptive sense. The chapter contains an account of the main tenets in Swedish nationalism, and how Swedish national identity is constructed today. It also contains a description of Sweden’s modern immigration history, from the World War II and onwards, with a focus on the two last decades, and how the migrant legislation has changed during that period. We also give a short account of four minor-ity groups in present day Sweden; Sámi, Roma, Muslims and sub-Saharan Africans, whose claims for acceptance, tolerance and recognition some-times is met with indecision, opposition or – at least at the informal level of everyday life – with outright aversion. In the section preceding the con-clusions, we discuss how questions of tolerance, acceptance and recognition has been articulated and formulated in migration- and minority policy during the last decades, with a focus on the ten previous years.Chapter 6: Great BritainIn the United Kingdom, a significant set of ‘diversity challenges’ can be traced to post-war labour migration from the Caribbean and South Asia. The 20th century is characterized by the struggle of members of these and other minority groups for equality. Non-discrimination, respect and recogni-tion in relation to various dimensions of ‘difference’ have been turned, al-beit slowly and not unequivocally, into political commitments. Recent years saw such commitments coincide with new attempts to conceptualize an idea of ‘Britishness’ that identifies a set of shared values and promotes ‘social cohesion’. We argue that political responses that are required for mak-ing Britain a tolerant, pluralistic and accommodating society need to take account of a moving picture. Recent responses, such as the Equality Act of 2010, go some way towards addressing new situations of discrimination. Public perceptions of cultural difference, in particular of Islam, represent considerable obstacles in the way towards a more complete situation of fairness and equality.Chapter 7: Greece Until 20 years ago, Greece was considered largely a mono-ethnic, mono-cultural and mono-religious country, a true ‘nation-state’ where the domi-nant nation, notably people of ethnic Greek descent and Christian Ortho-dox religion accounted for approx. 98% of the total population. During the last two decades Greece has become the host of more than a million returning co-ethnics, co-ethnic immigrants and foreigners – these groups accounting now for more than 10% of the total resident population. At the face of a 10% immigrant population Greece is slowly and to a certain extent reluctantly adapting its education and citizenship policies. There is however as yet no re-consideration of what it means to be Greek in the 21st century. The still dominant definition of national identity does not embrace minority and immigrant groups, who are largely considered to be (and at a certain extend remain indeed) outside the Greek society. The recent citi-zenship law reform is actually seen with suspicion by many majority Greeks who disagree with the opening up of citizenship to people of non Greek descent. The main concept and perspective adopted in Greece to deal with ethnic and religious diversity is that of integration, while notions such as tolerance, acceptance, respect or recognition are more or less absent from the relevant debates. Yet, integration is used rather loosely to refer more often than not to assimilation and much more rarely to a mutual engage-ment of the different groups to form a cohesive society. Interestingly, the long-existing native minorities of the country are not seen as relevant to this debate as if the two types of diversity – the native and the immigrant – cannot be addressed with the same type of policies.Chapter 8: ItalyItaly took several decades to build up a united nation because of the previous political fragmentation, but now the widely accepted representation is that of a relatively homogeneous ethnic, linguistic and religious population, de-spite some regional socio-economic diversities, especially between the North and the South of Italy. The main cultural diversity challenges that Italy had to deal with in the last 30 years were from linguistic, religious and immigrant minorities. The first two posed linguistic (by native minorities) and cultural (by religious minorities) challenges to the majority, but without destabilizing the common representation of Italy as a relatively homogeneous popula-tion. These minorities were gradually being integrated into the Italian society, including institutional recognition. By contrast, the difficulties in accepting immigrants are linked to their cultural and religious diversity. In contrast with the labour market, where immigrants are accepted and economically inte-grated – albeit in “subordinate integration -” cultural and religious integra-tion is a theme that is rarely discussed and is never considered in political terms. Migrants are accepted as silent workers but the opposition to them increases when they demand public and institutional recognition. The op-position to and the refusal of immigrants are justified by public and political discourses on the necessity to defend social order, the citizens’ security and the Italian cultural identity. This climax, spread by some political forces, has favoured the development of an intolerant attitude towards migrants. So, in Italy the current pattern seems to be characterized by a decrease in toler-ance, by non-acceptance of religious and cultural pluralism, in contrast with an increase in the diversity which is transforming Italian society.Chapter 9: Spain In this chapter, we first examine the main factors that have determined the development of the predominant conception of Spanish identity and its impact on the accommodation of diversity. Second, we outline the im-migrant minority groups and briefly identify the main diversity challenges. These diversity challenges are analysed in terms of categories rather than groups as this allows us to: a) establish a clear link between national iden-tity and diversity challenges; b) focus on the conflict itself and particularly on those issues/practices under discussion; and c) consider diversity in a broader sense, including debates on national cultural and linguistic diversity. Third, we consider how tolerance has been thematised in the Spanish case. We aim to understand which diversity-related conflicts have been understood in terms of ‘tolerance’ and which ones as issues of equality, respect, recognition or accommodation. Finally, we highlight the main distinctive features of the Spanish case from a comparative European per-spective in the conclusions.Chapter 10: IrelandThe Irish president Higgins greeting refugees in the grounds of Aras An Uachtarain, the official residence and principal workplace of the President of Ireland. It is located off Chesterfield Avenue in the Phoenix Park in Dublin.Irish identity was historically shaped by contrast to England as homogene-ously Catholic and Gaelic. The main indigenous minorities are Protestants, Jews and Travellers. While religious minorities are now generally accommodated, significant toleration challenges concern Travellers’ ethnic group status, halting sites and access to education. Ireland’s late and rapid immi-gration, coinciding with economic prosperity from the 1990s, along with its history of emigration, and lack of a colonial history distinguish it from many EU member states. The focus is still on ‘newcomers’ rather than later generations; most migrants have come from the European Union, and are of working age, highly educated and skilled.No significant right wing anti-immigrant party or campaign has yet aris-en, although sub-Saharan Africans particularly experience discrimination in work and other areas. Toleration issues concerning Muslims, who in Ireland are more varied in origin and social composition than in many EU countries, have been limited; Muslims have engaged in dialogue with government, and their religious practices receive some accommodation. Rather than ‘mere’ tolerance, the official response to the new diversity has been framed as ‘interculturalism’. Yet the establishment of secure institu-tional, practical and attitudinal toleration has been mixed. Many issues have yet to arise and to be addressed.Chapter 11: CyprusThe chapter aims at exploring the frames and themes of intolerance in the Cypriot context, using the desk top method to study the diversity challenges of the new millennium, against the backdrop of ethnic conflict that historically torn the country since the 1960s. The ‘Cyprus problem’, underlying the politics of citizenship, impacts all aspects of social, economic and political life. One of its most significant consequence was the post-war model of rapid economic development which structured the economy in such a way that Cyprus had to reluctantly open its doors to migrant workers for what was thought to be a limited period, imposing restrictions and characterised by a rigidity that survived in the new millennium. The various ideologies of ethnic hatred and the rise of the far right, with an emerging racist lobby active in the periphery of mainstream institutions, have led to the intensification of racism and intolerance and to policy reactions rendering immigration control even more rigid. The chapter explores the vacuum created by the “states of exception” and the prospects for a widely termed reconciliation emerging from how the Cyprus problem has evolved in the new millennium.Chapter 12: BulgariaThe following chapter examines issues of tolerance, acceptance and di-versity challenges in Bulgaria. After briefly presenting the processes of state- and nation-building since establishment of the modern Bulgarian state in 1878, the chapter investigates the majority-minority relations in the country from the 1980s to today.The main cultural diversity challenge Bulgaria faced during the last 30 years (the last decade of Communist rule and two decades of democracy) was the integration of the three largest minority groups: Turks, Roma and Pomaks. Each of these three communities has its own and unique set of problems in their relations with the majority population. Turks are well integrated, politically organised and with a very clear and well-expressed self-awareness, but are faced with the increasingly intolerant attitude of the majority population. Roma are almost completely excluded from the society. They are rejected not just by the majority population but other minorities as well. Pomaks are tolerated as a religious minority, but any attempt to assert their different ethnic or national identity is met by a furiously intolerant rejection of such claims. The chapter analyses the chal-lenges, difficulties and successes that have marked these processes.In the concluding part, it is discussed and explained how tolerance and ac-ceptance are understood and conceptualised in Bulgaria. Perceptions of the general society, government and state institutions, political parties, and me-dia are analysed. The chapter challenges the self-ascribed image Bulgarians have about themselves as one of the most tolerant nations in Europe.Chapter 13: HungaryThe chapter presents an overview of questions related to the most pressing issues of (in)tolerance in today’s Hungary by focusing on the development of the concept of the nation as well as the history of minority groups and their political, social and cultural accommodation in the country. Social scientific research shows that the Roma are the primary target of the most intense prejudice and racism in Hungary. Hungarians from the neighbour-ing countries constitute an important part of the national ‘self’, however, they have been pictured, somewhat ironically, a national ‘other’. Other immigrant groups in contrast have been less visible simply due to their small numbers. Other minorities in Hungary are not viewed as a challenge to the hegemony of the Hungarian nation. In contrast, anti-Semitism has been (and continues to be) an essential and formative element of Hun-garian national self-understandings, with ‘the Jew’ having filled the role of ‘internal other’ for centuries. The chapter also accounts for the recent resurgence in Hungarian nationalism on discourses and practices of tolerance and explains how the question of Hungary’s internal minorities (and the Roma in particular) has taken a backseat to the question of the transborder Hungarians. The policies devised for Hungary’s minorities and the Roma in particular did not always correspond to the needs or demands of these minorities. Legislative changes in education, the welfare system, and economic structures have often had the effect of further marginalizing the Roma. This continued socio-economic marginalization of the Roma has been further exacerbated by racialized understandings of difference (par-ticularly evident vis-à-vis the Roma) that preclude possibilities for socio-cultural integration and/or accommodation.Chapter 14: PolandChildren at a refugee centre in Warsaw. (Photo: Helene Bienvenu)Polish understanding of multiculturalism differs significantly from that in other European countries, as it is mainly based on historical memory. Ac-tions supporting cultural diversity in society which is recognised as one of the most ethnically homogeneous in the world, are based mainly on the popularisation of folk performances and celebration of the exotic cultural attractions, with virtually no discussion on changes in the ethnic com-position of the Polish society and the marginalisation of ethnic/cultural minorities’ presence in public space and social awareness. The growing standard of living and Polish membership in the EU makes Poland more at-tractive for immigrants which does not affect real situation of immigrants’ functioning within the Polish state, even though there are many efforts made by various authorities towards legislative changes in the spirit of the guidelines imposed on Poland by the European Union.The level of respect for the rights of minorities is improving; legal standards are increasingly congruent with both the social reality and international in-struments for equality and anti-discrimination. Despite these improvements, data on insufficient state action in many areas concerning support granted to culturally distinct groups appear repeatedly, particularly in relation to im-migrants. Public opinion polls indicate that the reluctance of Poles towards people of different nationalities and ethnic backgrounds residing in Poland is slowly decreasing, which can be treated as one of the premises indicating that the tolerance of cultural diversity in Poland is growing.Chapter 15: RomaniaBy looking at what exactly Romanian national identity claims to be and how it got there, the present chapter reviews the main challenges posed by ethnic diversity in Romania and the consequent public discourse on tolerance towards it. Romania’s institutional history stands as undeniable proof of the Balkan, non-Western and Orthodox national identity. The firm definition of national identity as equivalent to Orthodoxy sets the stage for what was going to be the discourse on ethnic tolerance in post-1989 Romania. The interwar national discourse of intellectual elite, which the first part of the chapter discusses, was bound to resurface after the fall of communism. But in what context? And who were its subjects? While the 1990s were dedicated to the battle for rights of the Hungarian minority, it is argued that in the past decade the challenges posed by the Roma minority are stealing the show. The European and transnational dimensions of the challenges posed by the ethnically Roma Romanian citizens seem to be much stronger than the ones of the Hungarian minority. The Roma minor-ity is confronted with a number of outstanding problems – low occupation rates, poor access to services, segregation, extreme poverty and the highest discrimination rates out of all marginalized groups in Romania. However, as deeply rooted as they might be, they are far from homogeneous across local communities. Judging the situation of the Romanian Roma, to what extent can we expect a consociationist “happy-end” as that of the Hungarian mi-nority? Is it reasonable to expect that the public discourse is tolerant enough to allow for a policy approach to collective Roma rights that would lead to an improvement of the situation of this minority in the foreseeable future? Even though definite answers cannot be given yet, the second part of the chapter makes an account of the problems faced by Hungarian and Roma minorities in Romania and the evolution of the tolerance discourse towards them.Chapter 16: TurkeySyrian refugees in TurkeyThe chapter is designed to portray the ways in which ethno-cultural and religious diversity has been so far managed by modern Turkish state with regard to the usage of the discourse of tolerance. Explicating the con-struction of the Turkish national identity and the modern Turkish state, the chapter primarily delineates the constitutive elements of the state machinery as well as the technologies of citizenship. Turkey’s process of Europeanization is also scrutinized in order to pave the way to a throughout analysis of the transformation of the Turkish polity from the Cold War years to the Post-Cold War years. In doing so, major challenges against the traditional Kemalist nation-state building process such as political Islam, Alevi revival, Kurdish revival and Europeanization are discussed. The chapter claims that there is no problem of tolerance in Turkey as long as those non-Sunni, non-Muslim, and/or non-Turkish minorities accept to be second-class citizens. On the other hand, those non-Turks and non-Sunnis, who claim to be the constitutive elements of the modern nation in Turkey, are not in search of tolerance from the majority nation.Bibliography Calavita, Ketty. Immigrants at the Margins: Law, Race, and Exclusion in Southern Europe. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2005.DeBardeleben, Joan. (Ed.). Soft or Hard Borders?: Managing the Divide in an Enlarged Europe . Aldershot, Ashgate, 2005.Dell’Olio, Fiorella. The Europeanization of Citizenship: Between the Ideol-ogy of Nationality, Immigration and European Identity . Aldershot, Ash-gate, 2005.
|
|
|
Post by JustJohn or JJ on Mar 10, 2020 4:54:51 GMT -7
An excellent work and important read. One item came out as the most significant of today's democracies and Republics.
The question that is being posed, some times in more and others in less politically correct terms, is what kind of ethnic, cultural or religious diversity can be accommodated within liberal and secular democracies and in what ways (see also Vertovec and Wesserdorf eds. 2010; Triandafyllidou, Modood and Meer, eds. 2011; Zapata-Barrero and Ewijk, eds. 2011). A number of thinkers and politicians have advanced the claim that it is almost impossible to accommodate certain minority groups, notably Muslims, in European countries because their cultural traditions and religious faith are incompatible with secular democratic governance.
In England Public perceptions of cultural difference, in particular of Islam, represent considerable obstacles in the way towards a more complete situation of fairness and equality.
|
|
|
Post by karl on Mar 10, 2020 10:32:24 GMT -7
Pieter
As well do my self agree with the assessment by J.J. of the completness of your research and presentation of a very challenging area of ethnic diversity in Europe.
Withen the confines of Europe, being of the various States that make up the whole of Europe, my self needs be to confine of personal comments to Germany, Nederland {to that of which applies} and Dänmark. To speak out in the manner of social graces to please all, is simply nonsense and a manner of lying, for one person will not please all in every thing...
Diversity of course is very important to most of us, for it makes for many people with diverse skills to fit in very well in our complex society and industry. What will toss the spanner in to the gear box, is a large group of people not native to our land that is attempting of introduce their diverse culture to over ride what is the majority culture and religion. That which my self am speaking of, is Islamic issues introduced by in recent years by the very large groups of Muslims escaping their war torn lands to bring with them, their issues and creating in self, considerable issues to our lands. These issues have evolved in to diverse cultural differences in clothing, religious attitudes not compatible with the present and past Christian values and related culture. With this, the general attitude that Christians are inferior to Islamic values and should submit to their wishes. With this, is the general attitude of Islamics that they should be taken care of by the established social welfare programmes in as well as being funded by available unemployment resources.
Yes of course, there are many of these immigrants that bring with them their respective skills to add to the industrial resources that are compatible to Christian values. But, there area a large majority of many of these immigrants that lack a reasonable education with out the manner to understand and relate to speaking the language of their host states. With this, the lack of intention of intergration in to the both the work force and general population. In this stead, these various numbers of new immigrants in this stead, create their own parrawell society away from intergration maintaining their own language, culture and diversity. This then creates a seporate society that never was the intention of their being invited to reside as new citizens in their respective host state. Thus creating considerable tension and related issues.
If to outsiders being non-citizen that the above is considered racist, then so be it, but, it is nonvarnished truth in the manner of protecting our way of life.
Karl
|
|
|
Post by pieter on Mar 10, 2020 17:49:08 GMT -7
Karl/John,
An excellent work and important read and a completeness of the research and presentation of the people who produced this peace of work for Academia.edu. It is not my personal work. The credits go to the people who wrote the texts. I simply copied and pasted the texts of the source I have posted under here and underlined some statements with colours and searched some images for it to make it more accessable. Only textx would be difficult for some people. The credits for the research and work go to Ricard Zapata-Barrero, Anna Triandafyllidou, Riva Kastoryano, Angéline Escafré-Dublet, Kristian Jensen, Johanne Helboe Nielsen, Morten Brænder, Per Mouritsen, Tore Vincents Olsen, Nina Mühe, Werner Schiffauer, Marcel Maussen, Thijs Bogers, Hans-Ingvar Roth, Fredrik Hertzberg, Tariq Modood, Jan Dobbernack, Nasar Meer, Ifigeneia Kokkali, Maurizio Ambrosini, Elena Caneva, Blanca Garcés-Mascareñas, Nathalie Rougier, Iseult Honohan, Nicos Trimikliniotis, Corina Demetriou, Antonina Zhelyazkova, Maya Kosseva, Marko Hajdinjak, Aniko Horvath, Zsuzsa Vidra, Jon Fox, Michal Buchowski, Katarzyna Chlewińska, Alina Mungiu-Pippidi, Sinziana-Elena Poiana, Ayhan Kaya, Ece Harmanyeri and of course Academia.edu for making this publication possible and free accessable.
People if you have time, interest and energy please open the link below and read further. I couldn't copy and past it all and find images for 397 pages. So please open the pdf below and read the incredible research of these people about "Addressing tolerance and diversity discourses in Europe - A Comparative Overview of 16 European Countries", a very impressive piece of reseach and work by these people and a good insight in the state of Europe today in the sense of the relationship between native Europeans on one side and migrant populations, older European minorities like Sinti- and Roma and refugees (Asylumseekers) on the other side. And the challanges these 16 European countries face with integration, coexistance, economy, their democratic nature and the fact that their societies and Europe are changing.
www.academia.edu/33874777/Addressing_tolerance_and_diversity_discourses_in_Europe_A_Comparative_Overview_of_16_European_Countries?email_work_card=title
Cheers, Pieter
|
|