Main Edition
US
FR
Main Edition
US
FRAzov members in Kyiv (Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images)
Azov members in Kyiv (Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images)Over the past decade, and especially since the political shocks of 2016, there has been an increasing tendency to see both domestic and international politics in terms of a set of binary opposites: democracy and authoritarianism, liberalism and illiberalism, internationalism and nationalism, and so on. Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine last February, this predisposition — a story of good guys against bad guys — has grown even stronger. As comforting as this narrative is, however, it obscures all the complexities and contradictions of the current moment.
The European Union plays a particular role in this dominant narrative. The bloc is usually seen as one of the good guys: it stands up for democracy and liberalism, two values which are threatened by Russia, a country on the side of authoritarianism and illiberalism. The EU is also viewed as the embodiment of cosmopolitanism, the opposite of the nationalism of Russia and its Eurosceptic “populist” supporters.
In reality, however, the EU occupies a much more complex space within the binaries that dominate our political thinking. As an examination of its history shows, it stands for liberalism rather than democracy, while replicating some of the features of nationalism on a larger, continental scale. Crucially, rather than limiting these tendencies, the war in Ukraine may actually be strengthening them.
The history of the European project is more problematic than the idea of it as a symbol of democracy suggests. Few “pro-Europeans” know that it began as a colonial project — what might be called its original sin. As Peo Hansen and Stefan Jonsson have shown, the first phase of European integration in the Fifties was partly intended to consolidate Belgian and French colonies in central and west Africa, which needed an injection of West German capital. Many in West Germany, on other hand, saw it as a chance to get back into the colonial game from which they had been excluded since the end of the First World War.
From the Sixties, however, when Belgium and France lost their remaining colonies in Africa, the six countries that had created the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Economic Community turned inwards and forgot its colonial origins. Thus the narrative that emerged around what became the EU centred on the internal lessons of European history (that is, the centuries of conflict between European countries, culminating in the Second World War and the Holocaust), rather than the external lessons of European history (in particular European colonialism). Europe was increasingly imagined as a “closed system”.
The EU, as it became with the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, increasingly saw itself as a vehicle through which authoritarian states could make democratic transitions. It was seen as crucial to the democratic transitions of Italy and West Germany in the early phase of European integration, and then again with Greece, Spain and Portugal, which joined in the Eighties. In reality, what the EU actually did was to constrain popular sovereignty in its member states.
Yet in the post-Cold War period, the founding story of an EU that stood for democracy continued to strengthen as the bloc enlarged to include central and eastern European countries. The post-1989 revolutions in the countries of the Warsaw Pact were seen, above all, as democratic revolutions. But as Branko Milanović has recently reminded us, they were also nationalist revolutions that aimed to create ethnically homogenous nation states. Joining the EU meant that the national and popular sovereignty of these countries was immediately constrained. In the medium term, this produced a backlash against the EU, the effects of which we now see in Hungary and Poland.
Moreover, the inclusion of central and eastern European countries strengthened the identity of the EU as a white bloc. New members viewed the accession process as a “return to Europe”. But if the “Europe” they were joining was simply the post-war integration project, it was not a “return”, because they had never been part of it before. The “Europe” they thought they were “returning” to was a much older idea of Europe — a civilisational one. The EU, for its part, saw it as completely natural that central and eastern European countries should join it — once, that is, they had carried out reforms. Morocco, on the other hand, applied to join the European Community, as it then was, in 1987, but was told it could not do so, regardless of what reforms it carried out, because it was not a European country.
During the 2010s, as the EU faced a series of cascading crises, it came to feel much more threatened and, as a result, became more defensive, which led to a revival of the concept of a “geopolitical” Europe that first emerged in the Twenties. That idea was a response to a sense of European decline after the First World War — namely, a fear that Europe was losing power relative to the Soviet Union and United States. The pan-European movement — the inspiration for the post-war “European project” — urged Europeans to unite to become a “third force” in international politics and maintain their position of power in the world. Central to this thinking was the idea of Africa as Europe’s “plantation”.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI bear an inherent distrust toward any academic or think-tank wonk who blames ‘whiteness’ for societal ills or undesirable political outcomes. It’s a blanket term often used to bully conscientious people into voting or acting against their own best interests.
Be fair, once all our descendants are all mixed race the instapundits can continue to earn a living writing about the sad cultural death of folk traditions.
/sarcasm
I’m afraid you’re importing American cultural signifiers into your understanding of European history and politics. Europe has a history of colonialism and ideas of ‘whiteness’ played an important role in that history. It’s naive to assume that these ideas no longer have a bearing on the politics and policies of the EU.
I think that’s true, but the problem that brings about his knee-jerk reaction is that all real issues have been coopted and twisted into either silencing and empowering in a very corrupt way.
This is also not just an American issue, we even saw this in Europe with those in power who favord the migrations. What did they accuse those who opposed them of being?
Now, as the migration stuff is falling out of favor, is there an apology coming to those who are vindicated by what they tried to warn everyone of?
One thing African leaders have recently said at the BRICS confrence is that they are tried of is being just considered a “resource” place, where nations just take those resources back to thier own nations and add value.
The IMF never really invested or helped them build infrastructure, power facilities, or factories to make their own products. This is why China made such progress there with their Belt and Road, trading infrastructure for resources.
One thing we’re seeing though is in regards to Europe, this is all working its self out anyway, as we can see Niger just overthrew its French masters. No more all you can have easy gold or uranium for France. This is going to hurt the French economy.
The IMF never really invested or helped them build infrastructure, power facilities, or factories to make their own products.
Because they kept stealing the money?
The IMF never really invested or helped them build infrastructure, power facilities, or factories to make their own products.
Because they kept stealing the money?
“ Thus when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, it was inevitably seen as a civilisational Other against which Europe must defend itself.”
Most of the EU had no imperial possessions. Less so now that the U.K. has left.
Some of these countries were in fact invaded by Muslim powers, many were invaded by other European powers. If whiteness existed as overarching idea it doesn’t appear in European history as force that stops war.
The colonial powers didn’t need whiteness either, Rhodes for instance believed that the Anglo Saxons should dominate the world. He didn’t say white. He bemoaned inferior German immigration to the US. The French believed that France was superior, the Germans that Germany was.
The island you live on (I assume) has had inter ethnic conflict between the Anglos, and celts. This is continuing to this day in Northern Ireland. No amount of American inspired rhetoric derived from the US would explain the conflict in Northern Ireland using ideas like whiteness.
It’s generally the left who import ideas from the US, like whiteness and other racially or gender absurdities, and when there’s any conflict or pushback accuse the other side of importing us ideologies. ♂️
The US was the student, not the master.. now the students have taken over and naivety has replaced cynicism.
The US was the student, not the master.. now the students have taken over and naivety has replaced cynicism.
And yet that ‘whiteness’ doesn’t exist in isolation – it is connected to other things- the continent of Europe, it’s nation states, Christianity, as much as ‘Arabness’ is associated with the Middle East and Islam.
So what exactly is your point?
To return to the article, compared to Ukraine, Morocco is most definitely not European in any meaningful sense, and not just because most Moroccans are ‘brown’.
Another example would be Turkey; while similar to parts of Europe that are close to it, it is also not European for similar reasons – partly geographic, but mostly cultural and historical and religious.
The OP’s point is that using ‘whiteness’ as an explanation is hopelessly simplistic and also grossly offensive – can you imagine discussing the problem of ‘blackness’ or ‘yellowness’ in the public square in this way?
Quite correct! but very depressing that it has garnered 23 ‘thumbs down’ so far.*
(*ie: at 14.29 BST.)
I subtracted one for you. Consider it therapy.
I subtracted one for you. Consider it therapy.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you. There was a time when skin color was considered a signifier of intelligence or brutish savagery. Thankfully, we have for the most part left those dark days behind us. I don’t deny that the colonialist impulse continues to exist – it does, but it’s been subsumed by big corporations and the welfare state. In effect Westerners are in the process of being colonized.
The term ‘whiteness’ (which is now used as a pejorative) no longer just refers to skin color, but is broadly applied to anyone holding a political or philosophical view that runs counter to the aims of big government and corporations. It’s a convenient way to dismiss the concerns of political opponents and therefore side-step democratic processes. After all, why should we listen to bigots and racists?
The biggest identity problem at the moment is not whiteness, but the creation of ‘victimized’ identities. Many of these are completely made up, but by pledging to protect them, the State legitimizes increased modes of surveillance and speech control. It behooves the State to create victims of us all, so that we all become dependent on it. Hence the promotion of narcissistic therapy culture, mental health issues, and sexual disorders, etc. It is akin to the US health care system which relies on keeping people sick in order to make profits.
I apologize for rambling on a bit. I tend to write as I think.
And I just read an article by Lisa Bortolotti that would suggest you could add conspiracy theorists and their followers to the list of groups afflicted with a disorder requiring interventions. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13634615231187243
Yes
And I just read an article by Lisa Bortolotti that would suggest you could add conspiracy theorists and their followers to the list of groups afflicted with a disorder requiring interventions. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13634615231187243
Yes
“Whiteness” as a concept ONLY existed in the colonies to any meaningfully degree. It was never a thing in Europe at all until after 1945 and the non-white population of several western European countries skyrocketed due to an inability for the nationality legal regimes to keep up until the 1970s. You are the one importing Americanisms into European history and culture.
Correct.. thin veneers to cover up a brutal, racist exceptionalism, eg Christian (what?), Cultured (yes, here and there), Civilised ..give me a break! Liberalism, yes provided you were ‘in’ – brutal suppression was the norm in the colonies.
I think that’s true, but the problem that brings about his knee-jerk reaction is that all real issues have been coopted and twisted into either silencing and empowering in a very corrupt way.
This is also not just an American issue, we even saw this in Europe with those in power who favord the migrations. What did they accuse those who opposed them of being?
Now, as the migration stuff is falling out of favor, is there an apology coming to those who are vindicated by what they tried to warn everyone of?
One thing African leaders have recently said at the BRICS confrence is that they are tried of is being just considered a “resource” place, where nations just take those resources back to thier own nations and add value.
The IMF never really invested or helped them build infrastructure, power facilities, or factories to make their own products. This is why China made such progress there with their Belt and Road, trading infrastructure for resources.
One thing we’re seeing though is in regards to Europe, this is all working its self out anyway, as we can see Niger just overthrew its French masters. No more all you can have easy gold or uranium for France. This is going to hurt the French economy.
“ Thus when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, it was inevitably seen as a civilisational Other against which Europe must defend itself.”
Most of the EU had no imperial possessions. Less so now that the U.K. has left.
Some of these countries were in fact invaded by Muslim powers, many were invaded by other European powers. If whiteness existed as overarching idea it doesn’t appear in European history as force that stops war.
The colonial powers didn’t need whiteness either, Rhodes for instance believed that the Anglo Saxons should dominate the world. He didn’t say white. He bemoaned inferior German immigration to the US. The French believed that France was superior, the Germans that Germany was.
The island you live on (I assume) has had inter ethnic conflict between the Anglos, and celts. This is continuing to this day in Northern Ireland. No amount of American inspired rhetoric derived from the US would explain the conflict in Northern Ireland using ideas like whiteness.
It’s generally the left who import ideas from the US, like whiteness and other racially or gender absurdities, and when there’s any conflict or pushback accuse the other side of importing us ideologies. ♂️
And yet that ‘whiteness’ doesn’t exist in isolation – it is connected to other things- the continent of Europe, it’s nation states, Christianity, as much as ‘Arabness’ is associated with the Middle East and Islam.
So what exactly is your point?
To return to the article, compared to Ukraine, Morocco is most definitely not European in any meaningful sense, and not just because most Moroccans are ‘brown’.
Another example would be Turkey; while similar to parts of Europe that are close to it, it is also not European for similar reasons – partly geographic, but mostly cultural and historical and religious.
The OP’s point is that using ‘whiteness’ as an explanation is hopelessly simplistic and also grossly offensive – can you imagine discussing the problem of ‘blackness’ or ‘yellowness’ in the public square in this way?
Quite correct! but very depressing that it has garnered 23 ‘thumbs down’ so far.*
(*ie: at 14.29 BST.)
I don’t necessarily disagree with you. There was a time when skin color was considered a signifier of intelligence or brutish savagery. Thankfully, we have for the most part left those dark days behind us. I don’t deny that the colonialist impulse continues to exist – it does, but it’s been subsumed by big corporations and the welfare state. In effect Westerners are in the process of being colonized.
The term ‘whiteness’ (which is now used as a pejorative) no longer just refers to skin color, but is broadly applied to anyone holding a political or philosophical view that runs counter to the aims of big government and corporations. It’s a convenient way to dismiss the concerns of political opponents and therefore side-step democratic processes. After all, why should we listen to bigots and racists?
The biggest identity problem at the moment is not whiteness, but the creation of ‘victimized’ identities. Many of these are completely made up, but by pledging to protect them, the State legitimizes increased modes of surveillance and speech control. It behooves the State to create victims of us all, so that we all become dependent on it. Hence the promotion of narcissistic therapy culture, mental health issues, and sexual disorders, etc. It is akin to the US health care system which relies on keeping people sick in order to make profits.
I apologize for rambling on a bit. I tend to write as I think.
“Whiteness” as a concept ONLY existed in the colonies to any meaningfully degree. It was never a thing in Europe at all until after 1945 and the non-white population of several western European countries skyrocketed due to an inability for the nationality legal regimes to keep up until the 1970s. You are the one importing Americanisms into European history and culture.
Correct.. thin veneers to cover up a brutal, racist exceptionalism, eg Christian (what?), Cultured (yes, here and there), Civilised ..give me a break! Liberalism, yes provided you were ‘in’ – brutal suppression was the norm in the colonies.
Don’t know why the good readers at Unherd and Europeans as a whole haven’t figured out that ‘Mr Kundnani’ isn’t on their side.
You need only look at the other side of the coin to understand what is at issue.
Is that a kind of reverse, reverse racist comment? Surely skin colour is nothing but a convenient label when, in fact, the issue is one of a (very corrupted) christian culture.. I use a small ‘c’ because that ‘culture’ bears little resemblance to anything Christ had to say.
Beneath the rhetoric was a vicious, brutal, greedy exceptionalism which is now prevalent in its protégé the US. We in Europe at least have discovered rightful guilt and shame for Europe’s horrible past while the US seems oblivious to its relatively recent genocidal and slave history.
The claimed difference in skin colour is irrelevant (just as the claimed difference in religion in NI was irrelevant to that conflict).. Just compare the skin colour of a person from Northern France to Southern Italy or Greece.
It’s time to fess up and stop grasping for academic fig leaves to cover up a wicked past.
You’re kidding, right? White Americans can’t get enough breast-beating over slavery (ended 150+ years ago) and bewailing the sins of their ancestors.
It means they – like the Europeans – can pretend to be virtuous while their own generation slaughters & maims millions in MENA.
You’re kidding, right? White Americans can’t get enough breast-beating over slavery (ended 150+ years ago) and bewailing the sins of their ancestors.
It means they – like the Europeans – can pretend to be virtuous while their own generation slaughters & maims millions in MENA.
Be fair, once all our descendants are all mixed race the instapundits can continue to earn a living writing about the sad cultural death of folk traditions.
/sarcasm
I’m afraid you’re importing American cultural signifiers into your understanding of European history and politics. Europe has a history of colonialism and ideas of ‘whiteness’ played an important role in that history. It’s naive to assume that these ideas no longer have a bearing on the politics and policies of the EU.
Don’t know why the good readers at Unherd and Europeans as a whole haven’t figured out that ‘Mr Kundnani’ isn’t on their side.
You need only look at the other side of the coin to understand what is at issue.
Is that a kind of reverse, reverse racist comment? Surely skin colour is nothing but a convenient label when, in fact, the issue is one of a (very corrupted) christian culture.. I use a small ‘c’ because that ‘culture’ bears little resemblance to anything Christ had to say.
Beneath the rhetoric was a vicious, brutal, greedy exceptionalism which is now prevalent in its protégé the US. We in Europe at least have discovered rightful guilt and shame for Europe’s horrible past while the US seems oblivious to its relatively recent genocidal and slave history.
The claimed difference in skin colour is irrelevant (just as the claimed difference in religion in NI was irrelevant to that conflict).. Just compare the skin colour of a person from Northern France to Southern Italy or Greece.
It’s time to fess up and stop grasping for academic fig leaves to cover up a wicked past.
I bear an inherent distrust toward any academic or think-tank wonk who blames ‘whiteness’ for societal ills or undesirable political outcomes. It’s a blanket term often used to bully conscientious people into voting or acting against their own best interests.
I stopped taking the writer seriously when he bridled at the temerity of the EU for not accepting Morocco into the bloc as somehow indicative of racism. He then points to the acceptance of geographically contiguous countries like Poland to validate his (extremely dodgy) arguments. ‘Nil Points’ from me and another example of UnHerd’s slow descent into word-salad, leftish meh-ness.
Maybe it’s because it’s August?
I agree with your (implied) views that this whole ‘racist’ thing is stupid and that UnHerd has changed it’s articles, with a movement to the left.
But for me the whole problem with politics today is that all things are labelled as ‘left’ or ‘right’. Therefore, if you agree with allowing more immigration you are ‘left’ or if you disagree you are ‘right’. Politicians have become more and more concerned about these labels, in fact more worried about labels than actual solutions to the problem. The esteemed Mayor of London dismissed the opposition to his ULEZ schemes as ‘just fascists outside the building’.
I have been with UnHerd for 3 years and have seen a more balanced choice in essays but the comments have become more extreme. If I was a young person I wouldn’t go near the site because it seems so ‘fixed’ in the views of the commenters. Sadly, everyone criticises but no-one comes up with solutions.
Also the editing has become more vigorous. Yesterday, I disagreed with the majority and my comments ‘upset’ somebody, so they were removed. What is the point of UnHerd today?
I used ‘Left’ lazily and I apologise. Like many UnHerd readers, my political views don’t map neatly into left and right. Unfortunately, this binary is where we are. And so, apparently, I’m on the ‘Right’ (despite having a boatload of hitherto liberal values). Hey, I don’t make the rules or decide which direction the Overton Window shifts – even if it is only in one direction.
My beef with UnHerd is its noticeable change in talent. Too many re-treads, tired post-Marxists and leftist refugees mugged by reality. There are now only three regular contributors I consider must-reads. I am perfectly happy to concede I might not be ‘clever’ enough for UnHerd, but too many of the articles read like cultural studies MA assignments at the moment.
As it is, I’m not renewing my subs but might in the future. It’s just, at the moment, there are too many Substacks out there more deserving of my money, time and engagement.
A bit off-topic, but continuing the general line of being rather disappointed by UnHerd:
I miss the guy who came up with extremely witty captions to the pictures.
I am sure he would’ve suggested something brilliant for this article.
His contribution was one the things that helped UnHerd stand out, compared to other media outlets.
Alas! Apparently, they didn’t manage to keep him…
Just out of curiosity, which are your three?
A bit off-topic, but continuing the general line of being rather disappointed by UnHerd:
I miss the guy who came up with extremely witty captions to the pictures.
I am sure he would’ve suggested something brilliant for this article.
His contribution was one the things that helped UnHerd stand out, compared to other media outlets.
Alas! Apparently, they didn’t manage to keep him…
Just out of curiosity, which are your three?
Consummatum est.
Ever read through the comments in the Free Press? Hard to find a bigger disconnect between article content and audience.
I used ‘Left’ lazily and I apologise. Like many UnHerd readers, my political views don’t map neatly into left and right. Unfortunately, this binary is where we are. And so, apparently, I’m on the ‘Right’ (despite having a boatload of hitherto liberal values). Hey, I don’t make the rules or decide which direction the Overton Window shifts – even if it is only in one direction.
My beef with UnHerd is its noticeable change in talent. Too many re-treads, tired post-Marxists and leftist refugees mugged by reality. There are now only three regular contributors I consider must-reads. I am perfectly happy to concede I might not be ‘clever’ enough for UnHerd, but too many of the articles read like cultural studies MA assignments at the moment.
As it is, I’m not renewing my subs but might in the future. It’s just, at the moment, there are too many Substacks out there more deserving of my money, time and engagement.
Consummatum est.
Ever read through the comments in the Free Press? Hard to find a bigger disconnect between article content and audience.
As usual nowadays, my reply is ‘Awaiting for Approval’.
My replies/comments often have “Awaiting for Approval” and I would put myself into the libertarian/right(whatever right means) corner.
My replies/comments often have “Awaiting for Approval” and I would put myself into the libertarian/right(whatever right means) corner.
Quite right. On the basis of Minister Badenoch’s post-Brexit pursuit of an “enhanced” trade relationship with Morocco, including apparently a possible privileged visa scheme, he could plausibly be advocating that it should be joining the UK.
“…another example of UnHerd’s slow descent into word-salad, leftish meh-ness”
I’ve noticed this too. Sad really. I hope it is just August…
Right, its best writers are on vacation, leaving those who have day jobs waiting on tables.
I certainly agree with the “slow descent into word-salad, leftish meh-ness. I felt this quite strongly at an Unherd event two weeks back, headed “the War against Farming”. The Unherd host introduced with little talk of war, more about the right wing French and Dutch farmers, the first dropping manure on the Place du Concorde, the latter forming into the PPP and likely to end up winning or holding power in the coming Dutch election. There was little talk of food security. The evening did then move on to more specifically related food issues and castigated the alliance of government, environmental agencies and big business in allowing the production of crap at ridiculously low prices for us all to eat. no wonder half the country is ill. The EU is highly complicit in this.
More importantly, the underlying criticism of criticism of farmers, which by extension included anyone who produces food or makes something was that they were all nationalist and right wing – “far” did once or twice creep in – denying the liberal-progressive consensus that pervaded the evening.
As Julian Farrows puts it so well and succinctly : “I bear an inherent distrust toward any academic or think-tank wonk who blames ‘whiteness’ for societal ills or undesirable political outcomes. It’s a blanket term often used to bully conscientious people into voting or acting against their own best interests.”
Conquest’s Second Iron Law obviously applies to websites like UnHerd too.
Conquest’s Second Iron Law obviously applies to websites like UnHerd too.
It’s a mixed up article which tries to link historical happenings with today and comes over as completely nonsensical. Where do they find these people?
I agree with your (implied) views that this whole ‘racist’ thing is stupid and that UnHerd has changed it’s articles, with a movement to the left.
But for me the whole problem with politics today is that all things are labelled as ‘left’ or ‘right’. Therefore, if you agree with allowing more immigration you are ‘left’ or if you disagree you are ‘right’. Politicians have become more and more concerned about these labels, in fact more worried about labels than actual solutions to the problem. The esteemed Mayor of London dismissed the opposition to his ULEZ schemes as ‘just fascists outside the building’.
I have been with UnHerd for 3 years and have seen a more balanced choice in essays but the comments have become more extreme. If I was a young person I wouldn’t go near the site because it seems so ‘fixed’ in the views of the commenters. Sadly, everyone criticises but no-one comes up with solutions.
Also the editing has become more vigorous. Yesterday, I disagreed with the majority and my comments ‘upset’ somebody, so they were removed. What is the point of UnHerd today?
As usual nowadays, my reply is ‘Awaiting for Approval’.
Quite right. On the basis of Minister Badenoch’s post-Brexit pursuit of an “enhanced” trade relationship with Morocco, including apparently a possible privileged visa scheme, he could plausibly be advocating that it should be joining the UK.
“…another example of UnHerd’s slow descent into word-salad, leftish meh-ness”
I’ve noticed this too. Sad really. I hope it is just August…
Right, its best writers are on vacation, leaving those who have day jobs waiting on tables.
I certainly agree with the “slow descent into word-salad, leftish meh-ness. I felt this quite strongly at an Unherd event two weeks back, headed “the War against Farming”. The Unherd host introduced with little talk of war, more about the right wing French and Dutch farmers, the first dropping manure on the Place du Concorde, the latter forming into the PPP and likely to end up winning or holding power in the coming Dutch election. There was little talk of food security. The evening did then move on to more specifically related food issues and castigated the alliance of government, environmental agencies and big business in allowing the production of crap at ridiculously low prices for us all to eat. no wonder half the country is ill. The EU is highly complicit in this.
More importantly, the underlying criticism of criticism of farmers, which by extension included anyone who produces food or makes something was that they were all nationalist and right wing – “far” did once or twice creep in – denying the liberal-progressive consensus that pervaded the evening.
As Julian Farrows puts it so well and succinctly : “I bear an inherent distrust toward any academic or think-tank wonk who blames ‘whiteness’ for societal ills or undesirable political outcomes. It’s a blanket term often used to bully conscientious people into voting or acting against their own best interests.”
It’s a mixed up article which tries to link historical happenings with today and comes over as completely nonsensical. Where do they find these people?
I stopped taking the writer seriously when he bridled at the temerity of the EU for not accepting Morocco into the bloc as somehow indicative of racism. He then points to the acceptance of geographically contiguous countries like Poland to validate his (extremely dodgy) arguments. ‘Nil Points’ from me and another example of UnHerd’s slow descent into word-salad, leftish meh-ness.
Maybe it’s because it’s August?
The 27,000 people who died trying to enter Europe illegally chose to take that risk. The 400 people killed and thousands more injured in terrorist attacks on European soil perpetrated by first or second generation immigrants from north Africa or the Middle East during the same period had no choice in the matter.
Yes, that was ridiculous statement from the author.
Wr should be sinking boats of invaders instead allowing them in and providing shelter and money to millions of low IQ savages.
Yes that stuck out to me as well. Millions have been let in with terrible consequences, hardly the attitude of ‘let them die’.
Yes, that was ridiculous statement from the author.
Wr should be sinking boats of invaders instead allowing them in and providing shelter and money to millions of low IQ savages.
Yes that stuck out to me as well. Millions have been let in with terrible consequences, hardly the attitude of ‘let them die’.
The 27,000 people who died trying to enter Europe illegally chose to take that risk. The 400 people killed and thousands more injured in terrorist attacks on European soil perpetrated by first or second generation immigrants from north Africa or the Middle East during the same period had no choice in the matter.
“White bloc” is such an empty statement. The US may have taught itself to think in terms of simple colours, but European ‘whiteness’ is full-on ethnically diverse. It’s history is of different white ethnic groups interacting, fighting, trading, coalescing, separating – Vikings, Normans, Franks, Saxons, Goths, Romans, Slavs, Celts. 17 EU countries have been through some form of independence struggle to get where they are, and others have internal independentists in their midst. On to this smorgasbord of cultural, religious and ethnic diversity, Europe also has a history of elite-driven empires, starting with the Romans, but including Charlemagne, Hapsburgs, Bourbons, Denmark, Spain, Britain, Austria, Napoleon, Hitler, Soviet Union along with pacts, treaties, ententes cordiales that bind countries together and create rivalries. The tensions of centralisation and decentralisation are a huge part of European history – are you going to tell the Dutch nationalists of the 16th century, that they should remain Spanish? Or praise Bismark or Garibaldi for unleashing hard warmongering nationalism from the unification of German and Italy? The simplistic narrative of Europe as a unified coherent bloc is as nonsensical as thinking of Africa as one nation just because of skin colour.
“White bloc” is such an empty statement. The US may have taught itself to think in terms of simple colours, but European ‘whiteness’ is full-on ethnically diverse. It’s history is of different white ethnic groups interacting, fighting, trading, coalescing, separating – Vikings, Normans, Franks, Saxons, Goths, Romans, Slavs, Celts. 17 EU countries have been through some form of independence struggle to get where they are, and others have internal independentists in their midst. On to this smorgasbord of cultural, religious and ethnic diversity, Europe also has a history of elite-driven empires, starting with the Romans, but including Charlemagne, Hapsburgs, Bourbons, Denmark, Spain, Britain, Austria, Napoleon, Hitler, Soviet Union along with pacts, treaties, ententes cordiales that bind countries together and create rivalries. The tensions of centralisation and decentralisation are a huge part of European history – are you going to tell the Dutch nationalists of the 16th century, that they should remain Spanish? Or praise Bismark or Garibaldi for unleashing hard warmongering nationalism from the unification of German and Italy? The simplistic narrative of Europe as a unified coherent bloc is as nonsensical as thinking of Africa as one nation just because of skin colour.
I can read this kind of specious nonsense in The Guardian, in fact I already have (it’s just been repurposed to include Ukraine). The point being, what’s it doing here?
”Eurowhiteness”, good grief
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/12/europes-fear-of-refugee-has-shattered-the-illusion-of-a-cosmopolitan-haven
Mr Kundnani seems to have built a career around his notion of Eurowhiteness. I wonder what proportion of Chatham House is of his ilk?
Why do we need Kundnani types in Europe at all?
Why do we need Kundnani types in Europe at all?
Mr Kundnani seems to have built a career around his notion of Eurowhiteness. I wonder what proportion of Chatham House is of his ilk?
I can read this kind of specious nonsense in The Guardian, in fact I already have (it’s just been repurposed to include Ukraine). The point being, what’s it doing here?
”Eurowhiteness”, good grief
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/12/europes-fear-of-refugee-has-shattered-the-illusion-of-a-cosmopolitan-haven
“brutally push back migrants”?? Could the author please tell us about a non-brutal push back method? The only alternative to push-back is the UK government’s Stradey Park 4 star hotel approach to controlling migration.
‘They’ should ALL be transported to Scapa Flow immediately.
I calculate that it could hold between 8-10 million of ‘em, and additionally it would provide much needed employment for the Orkney islanders.
Each of the detainees should be provided with a smart phone so they may send photos of the joys of living in Scapa Flow back to their chums back home.
Bird watching lessons should also be provided.
Guess, the “brutal push back of migrants” also happened in Australia, and I don’t think it had anything to do with Eurowhiteness, but rather with trying to stem the flow of mass migration to protect Australia’s social systems, which couldn’t cope with the huge influx anymore.
In Europe the push back of migrants has similar reasons and of course additional cultural ones. Countries with millions of migrants from Third World Countries, who bring with them their inherited problems, will end up having bloody street fights in their own cities. In Germany Ethiopians migrants recently fought street battles between pro (Ethiopian) government supporters and anti government protesters. Many Germans asked themselves, why the pro government group was seeking asylum in the first place. Also Syrian and Kurdish-Libanese clan families fought daily in the Ruhr area (a typical former coal mining community) with baseball bats and knives, destroying local restaurants and bars. The various clans are deeply involved in drug trafficking and money laundering and finally appointed their own peace negotiators, totally disregarding German courts and police.
Let’s call it multiple joys of multiculturalism.
Let’s call it multiple joys of multiculturalism.
‘Brutal push back’ is a white person saying ‘No’ to a non-white’s invasion demands.
‘They’ should ALL be transported to Scapa Flow immediately.
I calculate that it could hold between 8-10 million of ‘em, and additionally it would provide much needed employment for the Orkney islanders.
Each of the detainees should be provided with a smart phone so they may send photos of the joys of living in Scapa Flow back to their chums back home.
Bird watching lessons should also be provided.
Guess, the “brutal push back of migrants” also happened in Australia, and I don’t think it had anything to do with Eurowhiteness, but rather with trying to stem the flow of mass migration to protect Australia’s social systems, which couldn’t cope with the huge influx anymore.
In Europe the push back of migrants has similar reasons and of course additional cultural ones. Countries with millions of migrants from Third World Countries, who bring with them their inherited problems, will end up having bloody street fights in their own cities. In Germany Ethiopians migrants recently fought street battles between pro (Ethiopian) government supporters and anti government protesters. Many Germans asked themselves, why the pro government group was seeking asylum in the first place. Also Syrian and Kurdish-Libanese clan families fought daily in the Ruhr area (a typical former coal mining community) with baseball bats and knives, destroying local restaurants and bars. The various clans are deeply involved in drug trafficking and money laundering and finally appointed their own peace negotiators, totally disregarding German courts and police.
‘Brutal push back’ is a white person saying ‘No’ to a non-white’s invasion demands.
“brutally push back migrants”?? Could the author please tell us about a non-brutal push back method? The only alternative to push-back is the UK government’s Stradey Park 4 star hotel approach to controlling migration.
The author makes some interesting arguments but weakens them with assertions such as: “Even as it (the EU) continued to brutally push back migrants in the Mediterranean.” The EU has the military wherewithal to ensure no boats make it across the Mediterranean, yet clearly does not do so. Gross hyperbole.
As for the ubiquity of Ukrainian flags seen throughout Europe, very much including Britain, the author is projecting his own beliefs on a gesture of solidarity with an underdog brutally invaded by Putin’s latter day Mongol hordes.
As for Europe as a bastion of whiteness, why not? Africa is a bastion of blackness. South Asia is a bastion of whatever hue you wish to ascribe to it. East Asia likewise. What is the alternative? For Europe to join Africa in being a bastion of blackness? No, thank you.
The author’s strongest argument is that Eastern Europe feels a strong nationalist, national democratic, and civilisational component in its EU aspirations, whereas federalist “European Project” EU champions tend to see European nation states being subsumed within a new technocratic, Pan-European entity. Clearly, this causes tensions. This, in turn, in terms of Brexit, begs the question which of those two conflicting models Britain was “leaving,” and what exactly is the EU? Certainly not a static status quo but an entity heading for an undeclared somewhere. Undeclared because it would divide as much as unite.
The author makes some interesting arguments but weakens them with assertions such as: “Even as it (the EU) continued to brutally push back migrants in the Mediterranean.” The EU has the military wherewithal to ensure no boats make it across the Mediterranean, yet clearly does not do so. Gross hyperbole.
As for the ubiquity of Ukrainian flags seen throughout Europe, very much including Britain, the author is projecting his own beliefs on a gesture of solidarity with an underdog brutally invaded by Putin’s latter day Mongol hordes.
As for Europe as a bastion of whiteness, why not? Africa is a bastion of blackness. South Asia is a bastion of whatever hue you wish to ascribe to it. East Asia likewise. What is the alternative? For Europe to join Africa in being a bastion of blackness? No, thank you.
The author’s strongest argument is that Eastern Europe feels a strong nationalist, national democratic, and civilisational component in its EU aspirations, whereas federalist “European Project” EU champions tend to see European nation states being subsumed within a new technocratic, Pan-European entity. Clearly, this causes tensions. This, in turn, in terms of Brexit, begs the question which of those two conflicting models Britain was “leaving,” and what exactly is the EU? Certainly not a static status quo but an entity heading for an undeclared somewhere. Undeclared because it would divide as much as unite.
In 1648, when the Hmelnitzky uprising took place, there were no Jews in England (only in 1655 they got the right to settle) and in France Jews and (after 1685) Protestants were not allowed to live (with the exception of Alsace) until 1787.
Poland-Lithuania had Jewish communities long before Western thinkers tried to figure out how tolerance could work.
I don’t try to oppose East vs West, but it would be useful to know Eastern European history better than its oversimplified and primitive summary. Ukrainian nationalism is much more than a line from Hmelnitzky to Bandera. But that is maybe to subtle for Western minds.
You are mistaken about there being no Jews in England until 1655. The first significant migration of Jews to England came after the Norman Conquest in 1066. By the late 1200s England had a small Jewish population of around 3000. Anti-semitic laws and riots against them were common and in 1290 Edward I banished them.
Yes, Jews were banished from the kingdom in 1290, and it was only in 1655 that they were permitted to return. Thus the only correction that needs to be made to Edit Szegedi’s assertion is that in 1648 there were no Jews legally in England. Nothing was said about the situation earlier.
Quite right, my apologies to Edit Szegedi, I misread your comment.
Quite right, my apologies to Edit Szegedi, I misread your comment.
Yes, Jews were banished from the kingdom in 1290, and it was only in 1655 that they were permitted to return. Thus the only correction that needs to be made to Edit Szegedi’s assertion is that in 1648 there were no Jews legally in England. Nothing was said about the situation earlier.
There were Jewish communities in medieval England. I suggest you need to have a firmer grasp on history before you lecture others.
He didn’t say that.
He said there we no Jews in England in 1648. As an aside he mentioned that they only got the right to settle here in 1655 ( thanks to ‘the blessed Oliver Cromwell MP.).
He made no reference to Medieval England whatsoever, so you castigate him unfairly.
‘She’ mentioned I think. If Edit is the same name as Edith?
‘She’ mentioned I think. If Edit is the same name as Edith?
One of the Edwards, I believe it was the first, expelled the Jews from England in the thirteenth-century. I think he owed them a lot of money.
So did many others, notably the ‘saintly’ Cistercians.
So did many others, notably the ‘saintly’ Cistercians.
He didn’t say that.
He said there we no Jews in England in 1648. As an aside he mentioned that they only got the right to settle here in 1655 ( thanks to ‘the blessed Oliver Cromwell MP.).
He made no reference to Medieval England whatsoever, so you castigate him unfairly.
One of the Edwards, I believe it was the first, expelled the Jews from England in the thirteenth-century. I think he owed them a lot of money.
You are mistaken about there being no Jews in England until 1655. The first significant migration of Jews to England came after the Norman Conquest in 1066. By the late 1200s England had a small Jewish population of around 3000. Anti-semitic laws and riots against them were common and in 1290 Edward I banished them.
There were Jewish communities in medieval England. I suggest you need to have a firmer grasp on history before you lecture others.
In 1648, when the Hmelnitzky uprising took place, there were no Jews in England (only in 1655 they got the right to settle) and in France Jews and (after 1685) Protestants were not allowed to live (with the exception of Alsace) until 1787.
Poland-Lithuania had Jewish communities long before Western thinkers tried to figure out how tolerance could work.
I don’t try to oppose East vs West, but it would be useful to know Eastern European history better than its oversimplified and primitive summary. Ukrainian nationalism is much more than a line from Hmelnitzky to Bandera. But that is maybe to subtle for Western minds.
Europeans adopted Anglo-Saxon ‘democracy’ after the War because it was a condition of Marshall Aid. If you read Monnet or any other of the early movers it quickly becomes clear that the purpose of the EU was to return Europe to traditional forms of government by self-selected elites whilst maintaining a very thin veneer of democratic practice.
Instead, the wobbly peg he hangs his argument on is arcane wrangling over colonial possessions in the 50s and the European Coal and Steel Community. Again, we see someone settling on a conclusion and working backwards.
Perfectly put Sir.
Eh? I think that you will find that there were rather more European countries electing governments in democratic ways in the 1930s than there were in the 1950s, ‘after the War’.
For example Mr Hitler.
For example Mr Hitler.
True. One of the first acts of the Allied Forces as they pushed the NazIs out was to remove the weapons from the Resistance who were usually Communist. There was to be no challenge to the new ‘rules based order’.
Quite right too.
I seem to recall we even had to “put a bit of stick about” in Greece, and later, using superlative Japanese troops, did the same in the Dutch East Indies*.
(*Now Indonesia.)
Not in countries like Poland.
But so called Communist resistance only happened after Soviet Union were no longer ally of Hitler.
Before that, Communists were sabotaging French industry and advocating surrender (why should we fight over Danzig?).
Quite right too.
I seem to recall we even had to “put a bit of stick about” in Greece, and later, using superlative Japanese troops, did the same in the Dutch East Indies*.
(*Now Indonesia.)
Not in countries like Poland.
But so called Communist resistance only happened after Soviet Union were no longer ally of Hitler.
Before that, Communists were sabotaging French industry and advocating surrender (why should we fight over Danzig?).
Instead, the wobbly peg he hangs his argument on is arcane wrangling over colonial possessions in the 50s and the European Coal and Steel Community. Again, we see someone settling on a conclusion and working backwards.
Perfectly put Sir.
Eh? I think that you will find that there were rather more European countries electing governments in democratic ways in the 1930s than there were in the 1950s, ‘after the War’.
True. One of the first acts of the Allied Forces as they pushed the NazIs out was to remove the weapons from the Resistance who were usually Communist. There was to be no challenge to the new ‘rules based order’.
Europeans adopted Anglo-Saxon ‘democracy’ after the War because it was a condition of Marshall Aid. If you read Monnet or any other of the early movers it quickly becomes clear that the purpose of the EU was to return Europe to traditional forms of government by self-selected elites whilst maintaining a very thin veneer of democratic practice.
The author accuses Europe of hypocrisy for welcoming Ukrainian refugees, whilst not welcoming migrants from across the Med. Ukraine has invaded by a foreign power. By contrast, Afghanistan has not been invaded: it has had a change of government, with the present government simply reverting to type. Most of the other migrants are “fleeing” from out-of-control population increase. Practically all of them come from countries where the population had doubled since the 1990’s.
The author accuses Europe of hypocrisy for welcoming Ukrainian refugees, whilst not welcoming migrants from across the Med. Ukraine has invaded by a foreign power. By contrast, Afghanistan has not been invaded: it has had a change of government, with the present government simply reverting to type. Most of the other migrants are “fleeing” from out-of-control population increase. Practically all of them come from countries where the population had doubled since the 1990’s.
“Since 2014, 27,000 people have died in the Mediterranean”. But in that period, well over 2 million migrants have crossed the Med. So an irregular migrant has a better than 97% chance of successfully getting into Europe by crossing the Med.
Precisely, this INVASION must stop NOW.!
The Romans called the Mediterranean ‘MARE NOSTRUM’, – Our Sea.
We should do so again, and defend it as such.
We owe it to our grandchildren and their children.
You’re English, miles from the Mediterranean. It’s not your sea.
How about stop ruining African countries forcing the young to leave. The world does not belong to English speaking whites.
You have had 4 centuries stealing the assets of the rest of the world. Why don’t you lot just buy them, after all you are the ones who want the market in every part of human activity?
..
Are you by any chance a ‘ Plastic Paddy’, it certainly sounds like it, judged by this juvenile rant.
(A full reply to follow, if the Censor allows.)
I presume you are Irish, as that is sort of inaccurate rant you chaps specialise in.
Anyone crossing the Mediterranean is dreaming of getting to the ‘land of milk and honey’ otherwise known as England. Thus better to stop them at the first barricade, eg: The Med, than waiting for them to start paddling across The English Channel no?
Actually you are wrong, the world does belong to “English speaking whites” and just as well looking at the other lot.
Not quite four centuries, more like three and a half*, but yes we had a simply wonderful time plundering the planet as human beings do, but very unusually we did also ‘plough back’ a lot, unlike our FAR more rapacious European competitors.
“Why don’t you lot just buy them” Are you serious, what on earth would we want to do with ‘them’?
(* Ignoring Ireland, 1603 first Honourable East India Company Factory’ established in Bantam, Sumatra. Incidentally also the home of fabulous, fighting,
feroco-chicken known as the Bantam C*ck.)
A side note from this non-plastic if pedantic Paddy. Keating via Ancestry.com: ‘English: possibly from a Middle English personal name Keting Kiting (Old English Cȳting). Irish (of Norman origin): Anglicized form of Céitinn and Mac Céitinn a Gaelicized derivative of de Ketyng (probably a habitational name) a surname which was taken to Wexford in the 12th century by Anglo-Norman settlers.’
One the ‘depraved English’ mentioned in the circa 1360, Statutes of Kilkenny perhaps?
One the ‘depraved English’ mentioned in the circa 1360, Statutes of Kilkenny perhaps?
A side note from this non-plastic if pedantic Paddy. Keating via Ancestry.com: ‘English: possibly from a Middle English personal name Keting Kiting (Old English Cȳting). Irish (of Norman origin): Anglicized form of Céitinn and Mac Céitinn a Gaelicized derivative of de Ketyng (probably a habitational name) a surname which was taken to Wexford in the 12th century by Anglo-Norman settlers.’
Care to specify in what way we are “ruining African countries”? (As opposed to, say, expending large amounts of capital both financial and political in attempting to offset the effects of their own self-destructive rejection of the stable and prosperous social and economic systems with which we left them.)
..
Are you by any chance a ‘ Plastic Paddy’, it certainly sounds like it, judged by this juvenile rant.
(A full reply to follow, if the Censor allows.)
I presume you are Irish, as that is sort of inaccurate rant you chaps specialise in.
Anyone crossing the Mediterranean is dreaming of getting to the ‘land of milk and honey’ otherwise known as England. Thus better to stop them at the first barricade, eg: The Med, than waiting for them to start paddling across The English Channel no?
Actually you are wrong, the world does belong to “English speaking whites” and just as well looking at the other lot.
Not quite four centuries, more like three and a half*, but yes we had a simply wonderful time plundering the planet as human beings do, but very unusually we did also ‘plough back’ a lot, unlike our FAR more rapacious European competitors.
“Why don’t you lot just buy them” Are you serious, what on earth would we want to do with ‘them’?
(* Ignoring Ireland, 1603 first Honourable East India Company Factory’ established in Bantam, Sumatra. Incidentally also the home of fabulous, fighting,
feroco-chicken known as the Bantam C*ck.)
Care to specify in what way we are “ruining African countries”? (As opposed to, say, expending large amounts of capital both financial and political in attempting to offset the effects of their own self-destructive rejection of the stable and prosperous social and economic systems with which we left them.)
You’re English, miles from the Mediterranean. It’s not your sea.
How about stop ruining African countries forcing the young to leave. The world does not belong to English speaking whites.
You have had 4 centuries stealing the assets of the rest of the world. Why don’t you lot just buy them, after all you are the ones who want the market in every part of human activity?
Precisely, this INVASION must stop NOW.!
The Romans called the Mediterranean ‘MARE NOSTRUM’, – Our Sea.
We should do so again, and defend it as such.
We owe it to our grandchildren and their children.
“Since 2014, 27,000 people have died in the Mediterranean”. But in that period, well over 2 million migrants have crossed the Med. So an irregular migrant has a better than 97% chance of successfully getting into Europe by crossing the Med.
The whole thing is rubbish from start to finish – but the crowning achievement is when he says that “ Thus when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, it was inevitably seen as a civilisational Other against which Europe must defend itself.”
The Russians are white, dude. We need these kinds of guys to be removed from their positions, not because of ideology but because of stupidity.
The whole thing is rubbish from start to finish – but the crowning achievement is when he says that “ Thus when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, it was inevitably seen as a civilisational Other against which Europe must defend itself.”
The Russians are white, dude. We need these kinds of guys to be removed from their positions, not because of ideology but because of stupidity.
I have searched for evidence / quotes in the Swedish writers the author cites of anything like what is proposed. The origins of the Coal and Steel Community, Euratom and the EEC in the 1950 s are very well known. To argue that it was about ( or partly but signicantly about) French and Belgian colonies is demented. Our friends write word salad of the highest order, obsessive about three countries, France, Germany and Belgium, and Africa. Maybe they didnt notice, but post war Benelux, Italy and France, all having been occupied and started again with new Constitutions, came together with a defeated Germany to form alliances. Why on earth would they have had a policy of African migration to these countries? What one can untangle from this nonsense is the very obvious difference between the first 12 EU members, trying to reduce nationalist stresses , and the Eastern European nations, who had neither guilt nor shame in their history. But this also is nothing to do with African migration policies.
I have searched for evidence / quotes in the Swedish writers the author cites of anything like what is proposed. The origins of the Coal and Steel Community, Euratom and the EEC in the 1950 s are very well known. To argue that it was about ( or partly but signicantly about) French and Belgian colonies is demented. Our friends write word salad of the highest order, obsessive about three countries, France, Germany and Belgium, and Africa. Maybe they didnt notice, but post war Benelux, Italy and France, all having been occupied and started again with new Constitutions, came together with a defeated Germany to form alliances. Why on earth would they have had a policy of African migration to these countries? What one can untangle from this nonsense is the very obvious difference between the first 12 EU members, trying to reduce nationalist stresses , and the Eastern European nations, who had neither guilt nor shame in their history. But this also is nothing to do with African migration policies.
This article is left wing garbage. Too much of this dreck appearing in UNHERD lately. May have to unsubscribe.
Off you go. You won’t be missed.
Great article, I was worried Unherd was turning into the Daily Mail and the Spectator. Hood to have some balanced views for once.
Great article, I was worried Unherd was turning into the Daily Mail and the Spectator. Hood to have some balanced views for once.
Do as you think best, but don’t be put off by a nasty little Leprechaun like Mr Keating.
Yes, my time on here is coming to an end as well.
Off you go. You won’t be missed.
Do as you think best, but don’t be put off by a nasty little Leprechaun like Mr Keating.
Yes, my time on here is coming to an end as well.
This article is left wing garbage. Too much of this dreck appearing in UNHERD lately. May have to unsubscribe.