World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
The US is a huge cautionary tale that other countries would do well to heed. I see "Why don't the Americans do something??" all the time, but meanwhile, your country is creeping towards the same conclusion. "We'll do something to stop it if it gets too bad!" Yeah, that's what we said while the far-right continued to gather support.
I thought Nazism, Hitler and WWII was the cautionary tale? I wasn't present at the time, but i heard that Bad Things happened.
I also thought that after WWII, systems were put in place to ensure that it would not happen again. Where are these systems and why aren't they working?
Right after WW2 pretty much every European country that still had colonial holdings in the Americas, Africa, and Asia went straight back to ruling them with a iron fist. Wars swept across the world outside of Europe and the Anglosphere. Wars of independence.
To that point I don't think there were truly any safeguards put in place for minorities. Really it was just ban Nazi imagery and formation of European trade zones that would progressively include more governance cooperation eventually forming the EU.
The safeguards in place were done to prevent EU member states from waring with each other, not safeguards for minorities or anyone outside of EU member states. Solution for Jewish people wasn't to make the EU safer for Jewish people, it was to take land elsewhere and make Israel. Anyone outside of EU member states including colonial holdings were fair game for mass destruction. A lot is made about the civil rights era in the US, European countries had there own versions of that too. The lesson of WW2 was that war sucks, wars should be fought on other continents, move the Jews to Israel. Modern civil rights in European countries had to be fought for as well post-WW2 but I think it was easier there because the minority groups were much smaller in number compared to the US so there was less racist blowback against social safety nets that non-whites could benefit from. Minorities were politically irrelevant until the past couple decades once the children grew up and population sizes grew and they started making it into significant political offices and corporate leadership positions. Now racists started feeling insecure a lot more regularly against the growing number of successful and visible minorities. People that were certain they weren't racist are finding themselves racist as minority populations are now in their surroundings rather than just a passing mention
Colonialism largely collapsed after WW2, with the unwinding of the British Empire (what's left largely consists of Gibraltar and the Falklands) and the end of French dominance in Algeria and Vietnam. It was US policy after WW2 to support decolonization.
Imperialism remained, but more as an arms-length interference in the politics of former colonies (especially by the French in Africa).
Like the Catalans, Basques and Galicians in Spain, who together comprise 13 million of Spain's 48.7 million population? The same could be said of groups in a number of other European countries.
I think you're specifically referring to immigrant-descended minorities. They're not the only ethnic minority groups within a country-- almost all countries have long-term ethnic minority groups as well as descendants of relatively recent arrivals.
Colorism and religion. Like Jews being made to wear an armband for easy identification. Black people in Europe are easily identified. East and southeast Asians are easily identified visually. The darker skinned middle eastern peoples are easy to identify visually as non-European.
Every country has historic minorities but it's more recent that migration across huge distances became common so that adjacent skin tones and visually identifiable features from far away became common in huge numbers.
In Australia, pretty much all the mostly genocided countries, there were programs to breed the savage out of natives. That being taking children mostly young girls and raising them to be married off to white men and after enough generations of this, they would visually look European and would graduate to being a white person.
Europeans in discrimination discourse seem to acknowledge far less easy visual markers for discrimination than the mostly European descendant inhabited former colonies where multiculturalism would be just as much colorism as regional differences in tradition old and new. Like in the US, Canada, etc significant migrations of people from the former states of Yugoslavia. Their children joined the default American or Canadian identifier in those countries because they're visually European descendant and no longer have the accent. But even with an accent because they come from the adjacent culture that dominates in the US and they fit the color, they face less default discrimination than minorities with easily distinguishable visual differences. They can't easily be identified as outsiders until they speak but if they can nail a close enough to a common domestic regional accent, then they can be treated like a native better than the people with native American, African, Asian characteristics
You have natives, native Hispanic, black, Asians that have been in those countries for decades to long before Europeans arrived but are identified with a qualifier. Native American, African American, Asian American, Latin American.
Like I don't think I've ever seen a Europeans call China diverse because Han Chinese is distinct from Manchu which is distinct from Korean which is distinct from Dai. Uyghurs look distinct enough that white people see them as distinct from Chinese but I have not seen that same for Hui people or all the other distinct Muslim minority groups in China.
The same with India. Colorism and religious and ethnic visual markers that vary significantly in visual identification that cause groupings and discrimination in local communities to federal governance. These two are geographically large with huge population countries.
In the same way Germany and Spain have distinct historic minority groups, so do Japan and Vietnam before getting to immigration to those countries from like India let alone the large ethnic Chinese populations in those countries but I'm certain almost everyone in Europe and America would look at them as monoethnic. People out here generally don't look at a Chinatown in Thailand like they do a Chinatown in the UK and Thailand and China are right next to each other but historically have vastly different languages, different religions (I'm including the difference of folk religions and school of buddhism and the resultant syncretism). I never hear these countries spoken up for their experience in handling minority groups and multiculturalism because they have historic, tracing back centuries to over a thousand years, old minority groups that aren't easily visually identifiable. It's different than modern migration minority groups. An Indian minority in Vietnam is far different than one of the common historic minorities of Vietnam that trace damn near the whole minority groups existance to modern day Vietnam
So minority groups like Basque and Catalans will experience minority life far differently than people from Africa and Asia. Just subsetting to Muslims, Muslims from northern Africa and the Middle East can expect different treatment from people they've never met based on skin color and Muslims can expect different treatment if they look Malaysian, Indonesian, Hui, etc because in Europe and the anglosphere, Muslims aren't expected to look like southeast asians or chinese
It was. We fucked up. Badly. Now we're another cautionary tale.