I'm not American but i've worked in Western Europe. I don't know why but there seems to be a lot of taxes for everything. You have to get govt permission for everything. People seem to rely on the govt to provide things rather than have some agencies fill niches that aren't filled by the govt (for example I saw signs like don't help homeless people, the govt is helping them).
I'm from an Asian country, we don't have much tax, we don't rely on the govt for anything (we can't), and we have many NGOs. I think it's similar in America.
As an Asian, there are a few things I can note about Europeans.
Europeans seem to have lost their sense of traditions, to me as an Asian it doesn't make sense since keeping our traditions and values is a huge part of our culture and society.
Europeans also accept blame for bad things they did in the past (which is a good thing) but I think they can go overboard to compensate for that (to their detriment). I don't think accepting blame for things in the past is a thing that's done in Asia; we rewrite history instead. It would help if we acknowledged what we did and can have better relations with others moving forward.
Europeans identify more with nationality than ethnicity. For example, someone from Czech Republic moving to France is considered French. In North America I think they would be considered Czech-French. In Asia they would be considered to be a Czech expat living in France. Our ethnicity matters a lot.
People seem to rely on the govt to provide things rather than have some agencies fill niches that aren't filled by the govt (for example I saw signs like don't help homeless people, the govt is helping them).
I'm from an Asian country, we don't have much tax, we don't rely on the govt for anything (we can't), and we have many NGOs.
Most (but not all!) Europeans consider NGOs to be undemocratic, whereas the government is (theoretically at least) under democratic control.
Europeans identify more with nationality than ethnicity. For example, someone from Czech Republic moving to France is considered French. In North America I think they would be considered Czech-French. In Asia they would be considered to be a Czech expat living in France. Our ethnicity matters a lot.
But at what point would you stop doing so? I'm Dutch yet can trace back my ancestry to the 16th century in Belgium and northern France, what ethnicity do I have? And some have an even longer and more dispersed pedigree.
Also, you gave the example of French but what is now called France was made up from a large variety of ethnicities. Being French then is not defined as being a particular ethnicity but as belonging to the French Republic. It's a cultural thing that matters a lot to them.
what does it mean that europeans consider NGOs to be undemocratic?
if your ancestry is from belgium/north france then you would be belgian/french with dutch nationality. I suppose when we refer to France we mean French before the 19th century immigration.
It differs a bit where I'm from. I have a friend from Malaysia who identifies as "Tamil-Malaysian" (Tamil being the ethnic group and Malaysian being the country). In HK we have a lot of ethnic minorities. Speaking frankly, if you look chinese, you would be considered HKer right off the bat, if you look any other skin colour (white, other asian, etc) you will be considered a foreigner living in HK even if your family has been there for generations. Here is a video i found as an example where some Indians who were born and raised in HK struggle to be seen as HKer
what does it mean that europeans consider NGOs to be undemocratic?
An NGO has its own policies and its own governance, which may or may not align with the wishes of the wider populace (for instance, a religious NGO in a secular society, or an NGO treating particular groups preferentially). A majority disagreeing with the policies of that NGO would achieve nothing, whereas with a governmental body they could exert democratic control.
if your ancestry is from belgium/north france then you would be belgian/french with dutch nationality.
Why? Good grief, do you have any idea how complicated that would be? Secondly, I don't identify with that ethnicity you're foisting upon me at all!
I suppose when we refer to France we mean French before the 19th century immigration.
Why? As I said: France was always a mixture of ethnicities, the 19th century didn't change anything other than the skin colour of some of the French citizens (or is that what you're hinting at?).
For me personally, someone being Dutch is based more on their attitude towards the Netherlands and other Dutch people: anyone who is loath to run into other Dutch people when abroad and who loves to complain about specific stupid policies of the Dutch government counts as Dutch to me.
Speaking frankly, if you look chinese, you would be considered HKer right off the bat, if you look any other skin colour (white, other asian, etc) you will be considered a foreigner living in HK even if your family has been there for generations.
Excluding people based on how they look, irregardless of what else (intelligence, special talents) they bring to the table, is widely considered to be racism and not acceptable in European society. I'm sure there are Europeans who think like you do, however, it's not something that wider society considers acceptable (not to mention can be illegal).
Why? As I said: France was always a mixture of ethnicities, the 19th century didn’t change anything other than the skin colour of some of the French citizens (or is that what you’re hinting at?).
"France's population dynamics began to change in the middle of the 19th century, as France joined the Industrial Revolution. The pace of industrial growth attracted millions of European immigrants over the next century, with especially large numbers arriving from Poland, Belgium, Portugal, Italy, and Spain.[10] In the wake of the First World War, in which France suffered six million casualties, significant numbers of workers from French colonies came. By 1930, the Paris region alone had a North African Muslim population of 70,000. Right after the Second World War, immigration to France significantly increased. During the period of reconstruction, France lacked labor, and as a result, the French government was eager to recruit immigrants coming from all over Europe, the Americas, Africa and Asia. "
This is what i'm referring to (the quote is from wikipedia). People from Poland, Belgium, Portugal, Italy, Spain, North Africa, Asia, and Africa would be considered French to a French person right? but to us they are expats who've moved to France. We wouldn't consider them French necessarily.
For me personally, someone being Dutch is based more on their attitude towards the Netherlands and other Dutch people: anyone who is loath to run into other Dutch people when abroad and who loves to complain about specific stupid policies of the Dutch government counts as Dutch to me.
Yes, this is the kind of thing that seems distinctly European to me.
Excluding people based on how they look, irregardless of what else (intelligence, special talents) they bring to the table, is widely considered to be racism
ethnic minorities being segregated/excluded is a separate issue (this ties with being able to speak Cantonese, govt policies for education, etc.). I wouldn't say that ethnic minorities/skin colour minorities are excluded from things in society per se, it's that they are viewed as foreigners and not "real HKers". Racism is very much a thing in Asia, i would say more so from older generations, i think younger generations are more open minded and understanding.
Thanks for the other explanations as well
what does it mean that europeans consider NGOs to be undemocratic?
In a democracy power should allways be held by the people. If you have a NGO -even when it does very good things- there allways is a danger that it could go against the peoples ideals or even their interests.
You (as in the people as a whole) are also not as soverign when relying on NGOs for basic societal needs like a social saftey net as the voluntary donations founding them could stop any time. Thereby the power is transfered the donors (althought luckily most small-mid sized donors do not really exercize that power) who are mostly the wealthy as they just have more money to spend.
A better solution is taxing fairly and using the common found gained throught that in a way the majority decides.
I recently watched an interesting video from Adam Conover on that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Cu6EbELZ6I.
Altgought I do not agree with everything said (I don't think the Patagonia nonprofit in particular is problematic in my opinion the focus should have been set even more on the issue of something like that beeing possible) I agree with the key message for the reason provided above.
there allways is a danger that it could go against the peoples ideals or even their interests.
isn't this the same reasoning for govt though? politicians will say one thing for votes and do another thing. If anything it's worse to trust a govt who will more likely go against people's interests. At least an NGO has a stated aim.
not really. In an ideal democracy you could simply vote those people out in the next election . In a well working democracy there is only so much they can do before they are not reelected.
The difference to NGOs is that in a democracy one person (ideally) has exactly one vote while your influence on non profits -especially when you are wealthy enought to afford your own- is mkreso connected to what you (can) donate, so how wealthy you are.
In my opinion that makes relying on government more egalitarian whereas a system built on charities is more seceptable to oligarchigal structures.
(I understand that in many places Governments are (very) currupt or not democratic to begin with and there are many NGOs that are democratic (or meybe just plain better for the interests of the people) compared to those governments. And in those cases these NGOs are -for now- obviously better then the government.
But imo with a stable democracy the government is a fairer morer stable and more equal solution.
Most European countries are EXTREMELY conservative culturally. They are very concerned about preserving “tradition”. Specially in Southern and Easter Europe. Even Germans listen mostly to German music, French to French music etc.
Talk to an avarage Portuguese or Dutch about colonialism… see how much they “regret” or “accept the blame” for the shit they did.
Most countries in Europe are not mono-ethnical, and haven’t been for a long time, like hundreds and hundreds of years. This is also true of Asia in some parts, but mostly Asia has a lot of mono-ethnicity countries. Your example of France, it’s had the Bretons, Basque, Occitan, “French”, Belgians, Flemish and Germans since it’s inception as a country. It was born as a nation by subduing those identities for French maximalism. The same for Italy, Spain, Germany etc etc.
Talk to an avarage Portuguese or Dutch about colonialism… see how much they “regret” or “accept the blame” for the shit they did.
Dutch here. Yeah, nah, we don't. Maybe some lip service is being made towards the descendants of enslaved peoples in Surinam, but otherwise not really.
When I was young the period when the Dutch VOC flowered was taught as having been a really good thing, something that we could be proud of; the fact that this was accompanied by morethanone episode of mass murder was entirely glossed over. I'm pretty sure it's still mostly like that.
Most European countries are EXTREMELY conservative culturally. They are very concerned about preserving “tradition”. Specially in Southern and Easter Europe. Even Germans listen mostly to German music, French to French music etc.
Definitely not true for Germany.
For the shit they did? Who was alive 2 centuries ago? And taking responsibility for past actions is a huge thing in the Netherlands for at least since the past 5-10 years.
2 centuries?
European colonialism continued well into the mid 20th century. There are still people alive who directly participated in them.
Besides that, even thought most alive today did not participate directly they still benifit immensly from the colonial past of their countries as anouther comment allready mentioned.
And taking responsibility has been very slow/late and limited, often being limeted to apologies without reperations.
The Belgian Crown for example only apologized for its involvement in forced labor and exploitation in the Congo three years ago.
Germany only recognized its genocide in Namibia two years ago and refuses to pay reperations.
So yes for the shit they did (or bear a responsibility for if you wanna be more percise).
2 centuries?
European colonialism continued well into the mid 20th century. There are still people alive who directly participated in them.
Besides that, even thought most alive today did not participate directly they still benifit immensly from the colonial past of their countries.
And taking responsibility has been very slow/late and limited, often being limeted to apologies without reperations.
The Belgian Crown for example only apologized for its involvement in forced labor and exploitation in the Congo three years ago.
Germany only recognized its genocide in Namibia two years ago and refuses to pay reperations.
The wealth of the colonial countries is entirely due to wealth extracted from the colonies. If they don’t want the responsibility, they should also give away all their wealth.
You can’t have one and not the other.
Either a free consciousness or the stolen wealth.
entirely
Uh huh. Go away and come back when you're done with slogans and want to have an actual conversation based in reality.
Yes, certain countries have taken quite a bit of wealth and discussion can be had about that.
Claiming that these countries got all their wealth "from the colonies" and need to give it all back is just just not true and disingenuous and poisoning the discussion
I'm not American but i've worked in Western Europe. I don't know why but there seems to be a lot of taxes for everything. You have to get govt permission for everything. People seem to rely on the govt to provide things rather than have some agencies fill niches that aren't filled by the govt (for example I saw signs like don't help homeless people, the govt is helping them).
I'm from an Asian country, we don't have much tax, we don't rely on the govt for anything (we can't), and we have many NGOs. I think it's similar in America.
As an Asian, there are a few things I can note about Europeans.
Europeans seem to have lost their sense of traditions, to me as an Asian it doesn't make sense since keeping our traditions and values is a huge part of our culture and society.
Europeans also accept blame for bad things they did in the past (which is a good thing) but I think they can go overboard to compensate for that (to their detriment). I don't think accepting blame for things in the past is a thing that's done in Asia; we rewrite history instead. It would help if we acknowledged what we did and can have better relations with others moving forward.
Europeans identify more with nationality than ethnicity. For example, someone from Czech Republic moving to France is considered French. In North America I think they would be considered Czech-French. In Asia they would be considered to be a Czech expat living in France. Our ethnicity matters a lot.
Most (but not all!) Europeans consider NGOs to be undemocratic, whereas the government is (theoretically at least) under democratic control.
But at what point would you stop doing so? I'm Dutch yet can trace back my ancestry to the 16th century in Belgium and northern France, what ethnicity do I have? And some have an even longer and more dispersed pedigree.
Also, you gave the example of French but what is now called France was made up from a large variety of ethnicities. Being French then is not defined as being a particular ethnicity but as belonging to the French Republic. It's a cultural thing that matters a lot to them.
what does it mean that europeans consider NGOs to be undemocratic?
if your ancestry is from belgium/north france then you would be belgian/french with dutch nationality. I suppose when we refer to France we mean French before the 19th century immigration.
It differs a bit where I'm from. I have a friend from Malaysia who identifies as "Tamil-Malaysian" (Tamil being the ethnic group and Malaysian being the country). In HK we have a lot of ethnic minorities. Speaking frankly, if you look chinese, you would be considered HKer right off the bat, if you look any other skin colour (white, other asian, etc) you will be considered a foreigner living in HK even if your family has been there for generations. Here is a video i found as an example where some Indians who were born and raised in HK struggle to be seen as HKer
An NGO has its own policies and its own governance, which may or may not align with the wishes of the wider populace (for instance, a religious NGO in a secular society, or an NGO treating particular groups preferentially). A majority disagreeing with the policies of that NGO would achieve nothing, whereas with a governmental body they could exert democratic control.
Why? Good grief, do you have any idea how complicated that would be? Secondly, I don't identify with that ethnicity you're foisting upon me at all!
Why? As I said: France was always a mixture of ethnicities, the 19th century didn't change anything other than the skin colour of some of the French citizens (or is that what you're hinting at?).
For me personally, someone being Dutch is based more on their attitude towards the Netherlands and other Dutch people: anyone who is loath to run into other Dutch people when abroad and who loves to complain about specific stupid policies of the Dutch government counts as Dutch to me.
Excluding people based on how they look, irregardless of what else (intelligence, special talents) they bring to the table, is widely considered to be racism and not acceptable in European society. I'm sure there are Europeans who think like you do, however, it's not something that wider society considers acceptable (not to mention can be illegal).
"France's population dynamics began to change in the middle of the 19th century, as France joined the Industrial Revolution. The pace of industrial growth attracted millions of European immigrants over the next century, with especially large numbers arriving from Poland, Belgium, Portugal, Italy, and Spain.[10] In the wake of the First World War, in which France suffered six million casualties, significant numbers of workers from French colonies came. By 1930, the Paris region alone had a North African Muslim population of 70,000. Right after the Second World War, immigration to France significantly increased. During the period of reconstruction, France lacked labor, and as a result, the French government was eager to recruit immigrants coming from all over Europe, the Americas, Africa and Asia. "
This is what i'm referring to (the quote is from wikipedia). People from Poland, Belgium, Portugal, Italy, Spain, North Africa, Asia, and Africa would be considered French to a French person right? but to us they are expats who've moved to France. We wouldn't consider them French necessarily.
Yes, this is the kind of thing that seems distinctly European to me.
ethnic minorities being segregated/excluded is a separate issue (this ties with being able to speak Cantonese, govt policies for education, etc.). I wouldn't say that ethnic minorities/skin colour minorities are excluded from things in society per se, it's that they are viewed as foreigners and not "real HKers". Racism is very much a thing in Asia, i would say more so from older generations, i think younger generations are more open minded and understanding.
Thanks for the other explanations as well
In a democracy power should allways be held by the people. If you have a NGO -even when it does very good things- there allways is a danger that it could go against the peoples ideals or even their interests. You (as in the people as a whole) are also not as soverign when relying on NGOs for basic societal needs like a social saftey net as the voluntary donations founding them could stop any time. Thereby the power is transfered the donors (althought luckily most small-mid sized donors do not really exercize that power) who are mostly the wealthy as they just have more money to spend. A better solution is taxing fairly and using the common found gained throught that in a way the majority decides.
I recently watched an interesting video from Adam Conover on that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Cu6EbELZ6I. Altgought I do not agree with everything said (I don't think the Patagonia nonprofit in particular is problematic in my opinion the focus should have been set even more on the issue of something like that beeing possible) I agree with the key message for the reason provided above.
isn't this the same reasoning for govt though? politicians will say one thing for votes and do another thing. If anything it's worse to trust a govt who will more likely go against people's interests. At least an NGO has a stated aim.
not really. In an ideal democracy you could simply vote those people out in the next election . In a well working democracy there is only so much they can do before they are not reelected.
The difference to NGOs is that in a democracy one person (ideally) has exactly one vote while your influence on non profits -especially when you are wealthy enought to afford your own- is mkreso connected to what you (can) donate, so how wealthy you are. In my opinion that makes relying on government more egalitarian whereas a system built on charities is more seceptable to oligarchigal structures.
(I understand that in many places Governments are (very) currupt or not democratic to begin with and there are many NGOs that are democratic (or meybe just plain better for the interests of the people) compared to those governments. And in those cases these NGOs are -for now- obviously better then the government. But imo with a stable democracy the government is a fairer morer stable and more equal solution.
Dutch here. Yeah, nah, we don't. Maybe some lip service is being made towards the descendants of enslaved peoples in Surinam, but otherwise not really.
When I was young the period when the Dutch VOC flowered was taught as having been a really good thing, something that we could be proud of; the fact that this was accompanied by more than one episode of mass murder was entirely glossed over. I'm pretty sure it's still mostly like that.
Definitely not true for Germany.
For the shit they did? Who was alive 2 centuries ago? And taking responsibility for past actions is a huge thing in the Netherlands for at least since the past 5-10 years.
2 centuries? European colonialism continued well into the mid 20th century. There are still people alive who directly participated in them. Besides that, even thought most alive today did not participate directly they still benifit immensly from the colonial past of their countries as anouther comment allready mentioned.
And taking responsibility has been very slow/late and limited, often being limeted to apologies without reperations. The Belgian Crown for example only apologized for its involvement in forced labor and exploitation in the Congo three years ago. Germany only recognized its genocide in Namibia two years ago and refuses to pay reperations.
So yes for the shit they did (or bear a responsibility for if you wanna be more percise).
2 centuries? European colonialism continued well into the mid 20th century. There are still people alive who directly participated in them. Besides that, even thought most alive today did not participate directly they still benifit immensly from the colonial past of their countries.
And taking responsibility has been very slow/late and limited, often being limeted to apologies without reperations. The Belgian Crown for example only apologized for its involvement in forced labor and exploitation in the Congo three years ago. Germany only recognized its genocide in Namibia two years ago and refuses to pay reperations.
The wealth of the colonial countries is entirely due to wealth extracted from the colonies. If they don’t want the responsibility, they should also give away all their wealth.
You can’t have one and not the other.
Either a free consciousness or the stolen wealth.
Uh huh. Go away and come back when you're done with slogans and want to have an actual conversation based in reality.
Yes, certain countries have taken quite a bit of wealth and discussion can be had about that.
Claiming that these countries got all their wealth "from the colonies" and need to give it all back is just just not true and disingenuous and poisoning the discussion