In a little backpackers pub in Riga, Latvia three Belgian lawyers on a weekend trip gave me a brief lecture on their view of their country’s future over a glass of locally brewed Cesu beer. When I questioned them a bit regarding the potential of the country splitting in half, the discussion got a little sentimental. The three, all from Flanders, blamed the French-speakers from hijacking Brussels, the officially bilingual capital. Especially, they noted the influx of immigrants from Francophone Africa.
They say that the increase of immigrants is leading to creation of new French-speaking suburbs of Brussels outside the Brussels Capital Region, in the surrounding Flemish territories. Traditionally Dutch-speaking towns and neighborhoods are becoming more and more Francophone, spurring a movement in French-speaking Walloonia to seek greater “coalition” with the capital, much to the anger of the Flemish. The Flemish resentment is further bolstered by the transfer of wealth, through social welfare, from the economically developed Flanders to the much poorer Walloonia.
In a continent where different local ethnicities, after centuries of conflicts and wars over religion and territory, finally began to compromise and cooperate through the European Union system, the entry of new immigrants are creating new sources of tension that threaten to reignite old feuds. The Belgian division exacerbated by French-speaking immigrants is but one of many such stories. There seems to be fear of non-European immigrants, not only because of the usual arguments of cheaper wages, more crimes, or free-riding welfare, but also because of their often detrimental role for the existing internal social organization of Europe.
Most of the perceived fear is often a result of the rather static, trite attitudes of Europeans toward non-European immigrants. The staid mentality is particularly clear here in the “far east” of the Continent, where visible non-European presence is limited to few Chinese immigrants operating Asian restaurants, and a few others studying in local universities. From personal experiences speaking to (and being spoken to by) locals with broken English at the street level, it is quite obvious that their understanding of non-Europeans is almost purely based on stereotypes.
But while some excitedly tell the Asian traveler how much they love Jackie Chan, Buddhism, and chow mein, others seem to go a bit further with the stereotypes. In one case, the traveler was approached by a Lithuanian man selling chocolates on the streets of Vilnius. Finding out that he is talking to a Chinese, he earnestly began to express how Lithuanians respect the Chinese for having so much money and intelligence, and how he believes that China, with her power, will take over the world one day.
Such stereotypes, widely held by ordinary Europeans everywhere, perhaps can only be put in such positive terms in a non-immigrant country like Lithuania. For major destination of immigration, such as Germany, France, and Belgium, the respected qualities of the Chinese, and any other non-Europeans, would be translated as a menace, weapons that the non-Europeans can use to reshape the existing arrangements of Europe, both economically and socially.
The Belgians at the Latvian pub tells me that one in four Belgian is French-speaking Muslim. But the impact of non-Europeans on Europe no longer needs such statistics as evidence. Despite the economic downturn in Europe, non-Europeans are still creatively integrating themselves into European society. The traveler, coincidentally, also met an Israeli transiting through Riga and going to Berlin to set up a bar, and an Indian studying in Finland in the most cutting edge computer graphics technology to help sustain that Nordic country as the major IT center of Europe.
The fact is, Europeans can no longer live without the non-Europeans in their society, and no longer has complete control of what the non-Europeans can do within their continent. Stereotypes aside, the “natives” must start dealing with the non-Europeans also as equal stakeholders in future development of the continent. It is as my Belgian friend at the pub conceded, the Flemish are too inflexible, forcing their culture and language upon the non-European immigrants through mandatory immersion class. Such coercive top-down measures can only enlarge the schism within Europe. It is time to simply accept the non-Europeans in Europe as who they are and redefine Europe accordingly.
They say that the increase of immigrants is leading to creation of new French-speaking suburbs of Brussels outside the Brussels Capital Region, in the surrounding Flemish territories. Traditionally Dutch-speaking towns and neighborhoods are becoming more and more Francophone, spurring a movement in French-speaking Walloonia to seek greater “coalition” with the capital, much to the anger of the Flemish. The Flemish resentment is further bolstered by the transfer of wealth, through social welfare, from the economically developed Flanders to the much poorer Walloonia.
In a continent where different local ethnicities, after centuries of conflicts and wars over religion and territory, finally began to compromise and cooperate through the European Union system, the entry of new immigrants are creating new sources of tension that threaten to reignite old feuds. The Belgian division exacerbated by French-speaking immigrants is but one of many such stories. There seems to be fear of non-European immigrants, not only because of the usual arguments of cheaper wages, more crimes, or free-riding welfare, but also because of their often detrimental role for the existing internal social organization of Europe.
Most of the perceived fear is often a result of the rather static, trite attitudes of Europeans toward non-European immigrants. The staid mentality is particularly clear here in the “far east” of the Continent, where visible non-European presence is limited to few Chinese immigrants operating Asian restaurants, and a few others studying in local universities. From personal experiences speaking to (and being spoken to by) locals with broken English at the street level, it is quite obvious that their understanding of non-Europeans is almost purely based on stereotypes.
But while some excitedly tell the Asian traveler how much they love Jackie Chan, Buddhism, and chow mein, others seem to go a bit further with the stereotypes. In one case, the traveler was approached by a Lithuanian man selling chocolates on the streets of Vilnius. Finding out that he is talking to a Chinese, he earnestly began to express how Lithuanians respect the Chinese for having so much money and intelligence, and how he believes that China, with her power, will take over the world one day.
Such stereotypes, widely held by ordinary Europeans everywhere, perhaps can only be put in such positive terms in a non-immigrant country like Lithuania. For major destination of immigration, such as Germany, France, and Belgium, the respected qualities of the Chinese, and any other non-Europeans, would be translated as a menace, weapons that the non-Europeans can use to reshape the existing arrangements of Europe, both economically and socially.
The Belgians at the Latvian pub tells me that one in four Belgian is French-speaking Muslim. But the impact of non-Europeans on Europe no longer needs such statistics as evidence. Despite the economic downturn in Europe, non-Europeans are still creatively integrating themselves into European society. The traveler, coincidentally, also met an Israeli transiting through Riga and going to Berlin to set up a bar, and an Indian studying in Finland in the most cutting edge computer graphics technology to help sustain that Nordic country as the major IT center of Europe.
The fact is, Europeans can no longer live without the non-Europeans in their society, and no longer has complete control of what the non-Europeans can do within their continent. Stereotypes aside, the “natives” must start dealing with the non-Europeans also as equal stakeholders in future development of the continent. It is as my Belgian friend at the pub conceded, the Flemish are too inflexible, forcing their culture and language upon the non-European immigrants through mandatory immersion class. Such coercive top-down measures can only enlarge the schism within Europe. It is time to simply accept the non-Europeans in Europe as who they are and redefine Europe accordingly.
As much as I feel like there are cultural divides within people who have less of a chance to interact with immigrants, it's worth remembering that stereotypes are slow to fade even when interaction is frequent. Just look at the volatility of the issues regarding the U.S.-Mexico border. This is not just an problem for Europeans and non-Europeans. It's a problem for all of us.
ReplyDeleteyou know, that is preciously the shocking part...Europe gets more immigrants than most other parts of the world (perhaps with the exception of the US) but certain mentalities has yet to change...or worse, maybe because of the influx of immigrants, certain stereotypes have been strengthened in order to protect the Europeans from harsh reality that they have to change accordingly...
ReplyDelete