This article in The Guardian has been doing the rounds on my Facebook (lol) feed again, and it annoyed me even more now than it did 3 years ago.
For those who don't know, I considered myself a pure Left-leaning individual when it comes to politics (rather than my physical stature which is clearly right-leaning). As time went by, the left started to annoy me - as I'm sure it has the majority of the world - and push me more towards the centre.
I'm still a classical lefty by any means, but the growing phenomenon of Social Justice Warriors re-defining 'left' is something I abhor increasingly by the day. Here is such an example why.
Why are white people expats when the rest of us are immigrants?
This seems like a fair question that many might not actually know. When you Google Expatriate you get:
a person who lives outside their native country.
When you google Immigrant you get:
a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.
Seems to be more or less the same right?
So the Guardian lays into this.
In the lexicon of human migration there are still hierarchical words, created with the purpose of putting white people above everyone else. One of those remnants is the word “expat”.
This seemed odd to me, since I quite often see dark-skinned expatriates here in Shanghai. Maybe I'm delusional and they don't exist? I'm not entirely sure.
To hammer this point home, The Guardian repeats:
...you should expect that any person going to work outside of his or her country for a period of time would be an expat, regardless of his skin colour or country. But that is not the case in reality; expat is a term reserved exclusively for western white people going to work abroad.
To hammer it again, The Guardian repeats:
Africans are immigrants. Arabs are immigrants. Asians are immigrants. However, Europeans are expats because they can’t be at the same level as other ethnicities. They are superior. Immigrants is a term set aside for ‘inferior races’.
To really hammer it home, The Guardian repeats:
Some arrivals are described as expats; others as immigrants; and some simply as migrants. It depends on social class, country of origin and economic status
Wait a minute. This, taken as a quote from Wall Street Journal, is not The Guardian's argument. It specifically says it depends on social class, country of origin and economic status. You can see it in the quote above. It doesn't mention skin colour/race.
Though the BBC is slowly morphing into The Guardian over the years, their (thankfullly more recent) article gives a definition that is less retarded (Oops, offensive word):
“It’s not about the colour of your skin, and it’s not about the salary that you earn... A business expatriate, she says, is a legally working individual who resides temporarily in a country of which they are not a citizen, in order to accomplish a career-related goal (no matter the pay or skill level) — someone who has relocated abroad either by an organisation, by themselves or been directly employed by their host country.
The BBC then points out that it's not always the way the connotation plays out. We typically refer to people as expats if they are elite, wealthy and well educated, they say.
Well... yeah! This is pretty accurate. We refer to qualified, college educated elites as expats. Fair enough. What about immigrants?
Well, we don't need a journalist to tell us this. An immigrant is often perceived as an individual who moves to a country first, and looks for a job later, or; the less elite, less educated and less wealthy individuals that come to a wealthy, developed nation.
Now you can, of course, find subjective nuance in these terms, but I have to ask... Why did the Guardian attach skin colour to this? Why aren't black people in Shanghai expats? Why is my currently illegal immigrant white friend not an immigrant? What about the white Polish immigrants coming to the UK to find work? Are they not white?
Why, I ask you, is skin colour involved? Is it:
A) Because skin colour actually has something to do with it
B) Because The Guardian among all the other SJWs want to set a narrative of professional victimhood to promote the defamation of white skinned people?
Maybe I'll rant about this stuff more later, but if an Immigrant with dark skin comes to England, they will find a female head of state - the Queen - a female Prime Minister, a Female Scottish First Minister, and a Muslim Mayor of London. The country is run by minorities (Because females are a minority, don't forget).
People with different skin colours are afforded the same opportunities regardless - it would be illegal to do otherwise in England, in the US, Europe, Australia and other white-majority locations.
The fact that white people happen to be the most numerous of the wealthy, educated elites is a story for another day, but it has little bearing on this evil, patriarchal grasp us whities have on the word 'Expat'.
In 2018, you'd think most people would have just kind of moved on from this whole skin colour narrative. At the very least, you'd imagine this discrimination would be dying out as people grow up to give less of a sh*t. For me, literally the only time I think about skin colour is when the far-left demonises white skinned people.
Journalists in papers like The Guardian are doing their damnedest to bring segregation back (no exaggeration), and they'll lie through their teeth in articles such as this one to make it happen.
I'm obviously not saying racism doesn't exist or whatever. Just... stop adding it where there is none. Let it die. Jeeze.
Maybe I'll make a series out of this. Ranting.
You are a fucking white male rapist. Do humanity a favour and either kill yourself or cut your dick.
Even if I did, I'd still be privileged, so then what?
Actually, in the latter case you will get + 1 privilege points for being white and - 2 points for being transgender, which would make you less privileged then a white female but yeah, you would still be quite high in the privilege ladder.
You sure know your privilege calculations
You can always identify as black or even better an Indian for extra minus points!
I actually do identify as a cuck, so I think I end up on top here
:D
As a German, I can confirm that.
😂😂😂😂😂😂
Emigrant: Anyone who leaves his country.
Immigrant: Anyone who arrives in a foreign country.
Migrant: Anyone who moves from one country to another.
Expat is literally an emigrant synonym. If you are a Mexican in the United States for example. In the United States, you will be an immigrant. In Mexico you will be an emigrant or expatriate. And in general, for statistics, you will be a migrant.
It is evident that for the United States and Europe, expatriates are white, because they are mostly white, and that immigrants are multiracial, because other continents are multiracial. Africa is mostly black, and Latin America is mostly mestizo or Amerindian.
In Latin America, where I live, Europeans are called immigrants, because they are not from here, and Latin Americans who leave their countries are recognized as emigrants or expatriates. In Venezuela, it is said that expatriates must return, that is, to the Venezuelans who left the country due to the crisis. These expatriates are not necessarily white, only a minority is, because the word has no racial connotation.
It seems to me that the only ones who are being racist, and who are having a eurocentric vision of the world, are The Guardian and the MSM.
Bang on, logical and straight-cut comment!
Why? Because many journalists are idiots on several levels. Not very intelligent, not educated, without logic and lazy to actually do some research.
On the contrary I think they know exactly what they're doing because they know it gets views and fame and glory, pandering to an audience that will follow their every last word, providing that word is the exact narrative in demand
WHile this may be true in some cases, many journalists are quite intelligent and educated and also want to do their research.
However they also need money. Money from newspaper (or TV) companies for who research is costs and as such reduced to the absolute minimum.
In the newspaper market it means (exampel Germany) that nearly all the "regional" newspapers are owned by just 4-5 companies. And most of the content is made in central offices (mostly Berlin) and just branded.
German satire show "Anstalt" did a nice research job just in the last show.
Look at the many different newspapers at the start and then at time 4:23 and 7:07
I am surprised to read something from you that actually makes sense. You should try that when you write in German, as well...
My writing always has sense. And mostly does make sense (everybody fails sometimes). But, alas, communication always requires two sides ;)
The definitions don't sound the same at all.
If I immigrate to a country, then I am an immigrant. If I'm living outside my country, then I'm an expat. If I'm living outside of my country and migrated permanently to another country, then I am an expat and an immigrant. What the BBC is calling an expat is actually a migrant worker. Though technically they are a migrant and an expat.
You are only an immigrant if you intend on immigrating permanently.
You raise a good point - they are not mutually exclusive! Expat literally translates as 'Gone out from one's country' - but words are fluid and the more we can change them to be offensive, the better, I say.
Well, it comes from Latin "ex patria" and means from and/or out of the fatherland".
I never thought this deeply about these terms before.
Your definition satisfies me. I guess, because of the media, when I hear the word "immigrant" my mind does conjure up images of Hispanics or something. It's weird, considering that where I live I probably never saw a Hispanic immigrant. This is what TV does to you.
I think whenever I had to refer to a person's status, I just described exactly what they did: "he came here to study" or "he came here to make money and go back after he's earned a lot" or "most of what he earns he sends back to his family in X country".
I can see the Guardian's point, and it's probably one worth making, just to raise awareness. But I'd prefer it in the form of a paper making an academic or linguistic or feminist point, rather than an attack to raise oneself morally above others. I think people have an agonistic nature that no longer finds an outlet (sports are stupid and being a polemical atheist is, for some reason, bad), so they got nothing left but to attack people on subtleties. I often find myself agreeing with liberal points, but thinking "why all the fuss about this minor issue? aren't there more important topics worth our attention?"
I think these PC times we're living in are just a fashion that'll go away. If I know anything about humans, they get bored easily. This won't last. They'll get bored and switch to the Bill Maher side.
I beg to differ. Most of the voices of SJW's complaining about racism, cultural appropriation and so forth are typically coming from those ironically privileged, college educated wealthy middle class. Their lives have been set up by the previous generations to be incredibly comfortable and free, and they use that position increasingly to push a narrative that defies reality.
They cry foul when a woman wears a traditional Chinese dress to a wedding because she's white and thus it is racist. Ask any Chinese and they'll say it's totally fine - it shows appreciatioon for their culture.
You will see them cry foul at the 'racism' Einstein has recently been caught out writing on the Chinese. The Chinese themselves say it's fine, just sounds like he's describing factual events. But it doesn't matter what the 'victims' of the narrative think, that doesn't fit the narrative.
This phenomenon is growing, where the middle class wealthy 20-somethings are forcing groups to feel what they tell them to feel, lest they risk being an outcast and a bigot. It's really quite bizarre and if it IS a fashion, it has a long way to go before it dies out. At least a generation or two...
I can only see the Guardian's point in that Immigrant and expat have certain connotations from stereotypes - based in fact - but to say expat is a term for white people just isn't true. I really don't know why they felt the need to do that. Frustrating =/
Big part of the blame belongs to those who are too eager to apologize. So many celebrities do nothing wrong and yet express profuse remorse after their tweets or whatever have been intensely scrutinized and subtle mistakes perhaps found. This is like backing down before a troll. Fear makes them stronger, like the new Stephen King IT movie. They, or the movement, see all those celebrities—otherwise untouchable, belonging to a different realm—backing down before accusations made online, and they feel they've now discovered a way to match them in status: "I can tell a celebrity they're wrong and have them fall on my feet and beg for forgiveness!" If celebrities instead told them to screw off like someone like Ricky Gervais does, there'd much less force to the movement.
I am a university educated, business owner who pays more tax and generates more wealth for my clients than the average. I am classed as an immigrant or a migrant, even by many people I know in Australia. In 15 years abroad, the number of times someone has referred to me as an ex-pat I can count on one hand.
The whole argument is ridiculous though and those that get victimized, polarized and affected by the words of others are generally weak of mind which is generally, anyone who thinks that MSM actually gives a shit about anything other than advertising sales.
Aren't 51% of children born, female?
Yeah, the minority of females is just an observation on how they often behave.
I'm not denying expats get called immigrants, as people's subjective and personal experiences shape words like these which is why it's so loaded to begin with, but to say it's a white-only word and whites are all expats is pretty absurd since a 4 second browse of nationalities will give you the idea that this simply isn't the case...
No, 51% are born male (actually close to 52% I think).
Males die more often young though and life less long, so you have more old woman, which may have confused you.
Expats in my country is defined as any skilled personnel that is not a citizen. So regardless of skin color or race, you are automatically an expat if you are a non resident skilled worker in my country.
Using the definition the way it's properly defined?? How ridiculous
The Guardian definition is weird.
Yes. Skin colour has a lot to do with the difference between these two words.It is defined that way since the time unknown. But the thing is the world has changed a lot and hopefully the difference is now continuously shrinking.
Nah it has never been about skin colour. People have added that on their own but the reality is it's about economic status of one individual in their temporary working residency. It just so happens that, for the most part, non-whites make up the majority of non-wealthy individuals (though whites are certainly not exempt from poverty, even in England or the US), and so stereotypes perpetuate this false idea that immigrant = dark skin. Time to get rid of that idea, imo!
Curated for #informationwar (by @openparadigm)
Relevance: The Media's Obvious Attempt To Push Racism.
Our Purpose
I have often seen people called "expats" (and even more often called themselves expats) when they were indeed immigrants - expecting to live the rest of their life in their (sometimes not so new) country.
Not in the definitions I know (Germany), but maybe that is for US?
Ah yeah I worded it badly it was meant to be grouped with the idea of connotation - fixed, thanks
Just lean back and watch the left eat itself. Its fun!
True... but I don't wanna go back to my home country one day to find It's illegal to be white or something =(
Such conversations remind me of certain animal instincts:
Haha, you raise a good point...
I think Matt Stone sums it up the best ' I hate conservatives but I really fucking hate liberals.' White SJWs aren't the worst people out there, but they are intensely annoying. Maybe it's the hypocrisy? I can look at some racist redneck dude and think well at least he's honest, even though I would agree with the SJW much more often.
A redneck is likely racist out of lack of education, having been brought up that way and seen not much else other than a perceived threat of 'others'. It does have some grounds of understanding. SJW's are college educated, wealthy middle-class individuals afforded all the opportunities in the world they claim they're being oppressed from. Their only excuse is being spoilt brats at this point... sigh
Good point about the differences in education and opportunities between those two groups. I think that does account for most of the disproportionate annoyance I feel towards their wanky views!
I've seen this video and strongly disagree with it. It seems nice on the surface with that uplifting music and the know-it-all coach, but beneath the surface, it's pretty troublesome.
All it's really pointing out is due to living in a free society we all make choices and consequences come from those choices. The choice of a mother and father to stay together, the choice of the father to leave the mother, these things set the stage for the future of a child and is the nature of freedom and individuality. The future choices may be made well or poorly, this is up to the individual to make themselves poor or successful.
The video instead seems to make this a racial propaganda video. This is a poor form of 'privilege'. Everyone has the freeom and indeed the right to make these bad decisions in life.
The only solution to what they're saying - and indeed the SJW movement is pushing - is to artificially equalize society via restriction; pulling back those who are ahead thanks to the choices their parents made until the ones at the back catch up, or pushing the ones at the back forwards tto catch up with those at the front despite being undeserved; putting them in positions of power that they didn't work towards.
It's a shame that some people's lives suck, but that has nothing to do with any problem with society which is what this video seems to imply. This is shifting the blame to society when things don't go your way because of the choices people in a free country made freely.
If you're born into shit because of your parents, you have to work your ass off to make up for it to the best of your ability. The government will pick you up under situation of absolute failure, but once you're on your own two feet, it's up to you; not us.
I didn't look at it that way, because he specifically says: "There is no excuse. They still gotta run their race."
I agree, though, that a nanny state doesn't help at all, but makes matters even worse. In America it is not as bad as it is in Europe, I believe. At least it wasn't 10 years ago, and I don't think it changed fundamentally. Artificially equalizing differences is not only impossible to achieve, but it also has a deep negative impact on any society.
One can't ignore or talk away those differences and they apply to everyone, everywhere. If your ancestors came to America already loaded with old money, then of course their descendants are likely to be in a better position 200 years later than the descendants of others, who came to America in chains. There is no way to give equal opportunities to everybody in the same way. The racial component in this video is purely circumstantial, I think. The reason is that while most other immigrants who went to America, went there by their own will, the Africans - and to some extent also the Irish - were brought there as a commodity. This does, of course, make a huge difference on their development for decades and even centuries after that. The only way to achieve equal opportunities is to not put obstacles in their way and let them catch up according to their abilities.
And that's exactly what social welfare doesn't do. Taking money from those who work and giving it to those who don't is part of the problem, not of the solution. It is a matter of common sense to realize that everything that is subsidized, will grow. If you pay poor and uneducated people for having children - as this is what is done in Europe - the result is an ever growing population of poor and uneducated people, while the ones paying for this insanity can't afford to have kids.
I always like to compare it to a school class in which the decision was made that there be no Es and Fs, and, that points are taken from the other students to make sure that the E- and F-students get enough marks to pass.
The best students will probably leave the school pretty soon. Those who would have gotten a D if they'd make an effort will choose go play outside, since they know they'll get a D anyway. The B- and C-students will struggle a while to keep their grades, and in the end there won't be enough marks to transfer, so that everyone will end up with an E - or worse. That is social welfare explained...
Kanye west recently said, to much hatred: 'When you hear about Slavery for 400 years? That sounds like a Choice'. People didn't really want to listen to what he was actually saying and instead hate on him, but it simply meant 'black people need to let go of the chains of their past now, and move on'.
My point is, though both the video and Kanye may indeed have had that kind of intention - the way and context it has been used is more to justify one's failings and blame others - We both seem to agree on the nanny state situation though, I was just rambling.
Moving on...
Your welfare argument seems to make sense but I don't think it plays back like that in the numbers. The economy is still growing, and people by and large don't actually want to be under welfare. Welfare is a tough, miserable life and given the choice, the vast majority want to get back to work if they can.
The problem is actually much deeper than that, at least in the UK. Once somebody is on welfare, it's incredibly hard to get out no matter how much you want it because the very act of going back to work forces you to take a major pay cut - who would sensibly ever do that?
So there is a bit of a trap, but it doesn't create an ever growing population of uneducated people; on the contrary, the generation after me have demonstrated they are far more eloquent and sophisticated in thought than I could hope to be; even the conversations I past of homeless guys was politically more informed than myself.
There is surely a shabby community of lowlives that feed off their right to live a miserable, poverty-borne lifestyle, but that number is minimal, I'm fairly sure
I agree that most people actually want to work. The problem is that to many of them it wouldn't make sense. If you don't have any skills, you'd have to work for minimum wage, right? That means, the money you make will buy you the same as the money you get from the government if you stay at home, because then the rent and the bills are paid for. You only have to worry about food. Now let's say you create one kid. Then you get money for that kid, plus you can apply for extra stuff. Like, if you want a baby buggy and you work, you will have to buy one. If you are on welfare, you can apply for one - then use the one you got from your cousin and sell the brand new one on eBay. If you have three kids, you get the equivalent of someone working for almost 20€ an hour, which for an unskilled worker is a salary impossible to achieve.
In the end it is a system that punishes those who make an effort and rewards those who don't - provided they know how the system works. It's not that people are lazy or that they are lowlifes. In the majority of the cases they are just not stupid enough to start working, as that would be stupid from the financial point of view.
And I guess that is kind of what you meant when you wrote:
Correct? If yes, then here we have the actual problem with social welfare. And - yes - it does create an ever growing population of uneducated people. I wasn't talking about uneducated in the sense of stupid. They are often better informed than working people because many actually do have the time to do their own research. They are mostly anything but stupid. I meant uneducated in the sense of "not fit for the work force", meaning, those kids will grow up learning where to get them money from the government and they will know that the government isn't your friend, but an enemy, but they won't grow up to be engineers, architects or university professors, because the very environment they grow up in is unable to teach them the value of acquiring a good education.[1] www.erstlingsausstattung24.de (n.d.) Hartz IV Empfänger – Antrag stellen auf Babyausstattung, was ist zu beachten? [Online].
Available at http://www.erstlingsausstattung24.de/hartz-iv-empfanger-antrag-stellen-auf-babyausstattung-was-ist-zu-beachten/ (Accessed 25 Jun 2018).