3 ms·

Not really... I absolutely wouldn't mind a Chinese looking individual, bringing and showing his culture, and learning mine, speaking my language, becoming my fr

Not really... I absolutely wouldn't mind a Chinese looking individual, bringing and showing his culture, and learning mine, speaking my language, becoming my friend, colleague and neighbour. But I sure as hell get annoyed if a Chinese tourist runs over my feet with his luggage and speaking Chinese back at me when I complain and seeing him leave the country the next day, leaving money in the pockets of a few landlords who prefer him over me, as my street slowly transforms into a corridor of gift shops and regular jobs leave the city. These are superficial examples but you catch my drift. In any case, both migration and temporary visitors (tourists) only works in balance. I think virtually everyone recognises that basic truth. But what constitutes balance is a matter of opinion, and some of these opinions are definitely driven by racism.

ksdale 8y ago
I'm definitely more of an open borders guy myself, but I don't agree with this characterization. There are plenty of places in the US that used to be completely white, English speaking neighborhoods where you can now spend a few hours and not hear a single person speaking English. It doesn't make one bit of difference to me what language anyone speaks ever and I much prefer the diversity, but I don't think it's accurate to say that immigration doesn't involve people coming and completely changing the nature of a place. It's not always like that, but it's regularly like that. I agree that the people complaining the loudest often employ ugly arguments, but the crux of both the anti tourism and anti immigration arguments seem to be "There are lots of people in my city who don't look or speak like me and I don't like the way they act." As you said, it's a matter of balance, but I think most of the anti immigration people are closer in opinion to the anti tourism people than the anti tourism people would care to admit. We don't really get to choose how tourists or immigrants behave, they get the same freedoms as locals, and that includes the freedom to be rude with suitcases and speak Chinese unapologetically. Basically everyone is ok with immigrants provided they meet a bunch of qualifications that make them much less foreign, that's not exactly extreme open mindedness. In the US, it's often the people accused of being racist who say they don't mind immigration at all if the immigrants adopt American customs and learn English. I also don't really see a difference between complaining about a street full of gift shops or complaining about a street full of llanteras.
- skohan 8y ago
  I'm curios: where do you come down on gentrification? Because in a way the comment you're responding to is describing exactly that: a group with more economic power (in this case tourists) displaces an existing community. These are complex issues, and I don't pretend to know the answer, but I don't know if it's fair to generalize the professed desire to preserve one's community into the category of xenophobia and racism.
  - ksdale 8y ago
    On the topic of gentrification, I recently read this interesting piece - https://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2018/07/yimbyism-explained-without-supply-and.html?m=1 https://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2018/07/yimbyism-explain... And I completely agree that it's not fair to categorize it completely as xenophobia and racism. I was just agreeing with the guy above that I don't think it's fair that the anti immigrant stance gets categorized that way and the anti tourism stance gets lauded as a sort of preservation. And while I don't fault the people who want to preserve their communities, once new people start showing up, your options are 1) to require that they adopt your culture and language, which strikes a lot of people as not really ok, especially if you are of the persuasion that cultures are something to be preserved. I feel like the counter to this is that local communities have a culture that should be preserved too, but I think we all subconsciously rank cultures. Tourists lose to everyone, tech employees lose to almost everyone (but they have enough money that they still move in), and I personally think that there are parts of American culture that maybe Baby Boomers consider intrinsic but a lot of younger people consider "not culture" (like... I don't know... Certain hamburger restaurants, I apologize for the dumb example) and that's where culture rankings get confused and people start getting called racist. There are little towns in the Midwest with cultures that are pretty marginalized (like the whole region being called flyover country) and when these people want to preserve their culture against anyone else's, they are often called racist, mostly independent of their sincerity in wanting to protect their culture. Like Googlers, their culture is less. 2) Or you can just not let in people who have different cultures, which will very often end up being explicitly racist in areas where the population is homogenous. 3) Or you can let in so very few immigrants that they don't change the character of a place, but over a country the size of the US, there's still more than enough immigrants that if they decide they want to live near people with similar cultures they can displace the locals in fairly large towns (note: these are not wealthy people). 4) or you can let in most everyone amd let them act how they want, within some broad bounds, and you get wholesale change in a lot of communities. As someone from the Seattle area, I've seen parts of Seattle get gentrified, some parts that I knew before, and while I can commiserate with the locals that the rising rent sucks and the character of the places have changed, I also feel like the people moving in are just trying to live their lives. In order to feel the anger that the locals feel, I have to convince myself that the tech employees are somehow worse than me, but I can't. They're just people trying to live someplace cool. The same thing is happening in Portland, and there are some signs around Portland that are really mean, directed at people moving up from California, and if they were directed at immigrants they would most definitely be xenophobic and racist. Once again, I totally understand the sentiment, the place they grew up is changing dramatically and losing a lot of the character that they loved. But at the end of the day, you can either go with it or you can tell the people moving in that their culture is less than yours so they need to either change or stop coming. The article I linked above seems like it could be the best suggestion for dealing with this. It seems like we need to do our best to make room for everyone, while also finding a way to preserve local culture without having to make value judgements about whose culture is worth preserving. Edit: redreading my comment I know that I'm really mixing together gentrification and immigration, but I guess I just don't really see a giant distinction. It's easier to take sides in gentrification and tourism because the newcomers are richer and less sympathetic, but they're still just people who are different. Now, economic inequality is a different issue that's connected to both, but in my mind a discussion about immigration and gentrification is more about the free movement of people.

ksdale 8y ago

I'm definitely more of an open borders guy myself, but I don't agree with this characterization. There are plenty of places in the US that used to be completely white, English speaking neighborhoods where you can now spend a few hours and not hear a single person speaking English. It doesn't make one bit of difference to me what language anyone speaks ever and I much prefer the diversity, but I don't think it's accurate to say that immigration doesn't involve people coming and completely changing the nature of a place. It's not always like that, but it's regularly like that. I agree that the people complaining the loudest often employ ugly arguments, but the crux of both the anti tourism and anti immigration arguments seem to be "There are lots of people in my city who don't look or speak like me and I don't like the way they act." As you said, it's a matter of balance, but I think most of the anti immigration people are closer in opinion to the anti tourism people than the anti tourism people would care to admit. We don't really get to choose how tourists or immigrants behave, they get the same freedoms as locals, and that includes the freedom to be rude with suitcases and speak Chinese unapologetically. Basically everyone is ok with immigrants provided they meet a bunch of qualifications that make them much less foreign, that's not exactly extreme open mindedness. In the US, it's often the people accused of being racist who say they don't mind immigration at all if the immigrants adopt American customs and learn English. I also don't really see a difference between complaining about a street full of gift shops or complaining about a street full of llanteras.

skohan 8y ago
I'm curios: where do you come down on gentrification? Because in a way the comment you're responding to is describing exactly that: a group with more economic power (in this case tourists) displaces an existing community. These are complex issues, and I don't pretend to know the answer, but I don't know if it's fair to generalize the professed desire to preserve one's community into the category of xenophobia and racism.
- ksdale 8y ago
  On the topic of gentrification, I recently read this interesting piece - https://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2018/07/yimbyism-explained-without-supply-and.html?m=1 https://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2018/07/yimbyism-explain... And I completely agree that it's not fair to categorize it completely as xenophobia and racism. I was just agreeing with the guy above that I don't think it's fair that the anti immigrant stance gets categorized that way and the anti tourism stance gets lauded as a sort of preservation. And while I don't fault the people who want to preserve their communities, once new people start showing up, your options are 1) to require that they adopt your culture and language, which strikes a lot of people as not really ok, especially if you are of the persuasion that cultures are something to be preserved. I feel like the counter to this is that local communities have a culture that should be preserved too, but I think we all subconsciously rank cultures. Tourists lose to everyone, tech employees lose to almost everyone (but they have enough money that they still move in), and I personally think that there are parts of American culture that maybe Baby Boomers consider intrinsic but a lot of younger people consider "not culture" (like... I don't know... Certain hamburger restaurants, I apologize for the dumb example) and that's where culture rankings get confused and people start getting called racist. There are little towns in the Midwest with cultures that are pretty marginalized (like the whole region being called flyover country) and when these people want to preserve their culture against anyone else's, they are often called racist, mostly independent of their sincerity in wanting to protect their culture. Like Googlers, their culture is less. 2) Or you can just not let in people who have different cultures, which will very often end up being explicitly racist in areas where the population is homogenous. 3) Or you can let in so very few immigrants that they don't change the character of a place, but over a country the size of the US, there's still more than enough immigrants that if they decide they want to live near people with similar cultures they can displace the locals in fairly large towns (note: these are not wealthy people). 4) or you can let in most everyone amd let them act how they want, within some broad bounds, and you get wholesale change in a lot of communities. As someone from the Seattle area, I've seen parts of Seattle get gentrified, some parts that I knew before, and while I can commiserate with the locals that the rising rent sucks and the character of the places have changed, I also feel like the people moving in are just trying to live their lives. In order to feel the anger that the locals feel, I have to convince myself that the tech employees are somehow worse than me, but I can't. They're just people trying to live someplace cool. The same thing is happening in Portland, and there are some signs around Portland that are really mean, directed at people moving up from California, and if they were directed at immigrants they would most definitely be xenophobic and racist. Once again, I totally understand the sentiment, the place they grew up is changing dramatically and losing a lot of the character that they loved. But at the end of the day, you can either go with it or you can tell the people moving in that their culture is less than yours so they need to either change or stop coming. The article I linked above seems like it could be the best suggestion for dealing with this. It seems like we need to do our best to make room for everyone, while also finding a way to preserve local culture without having to make value judgements about whose culture is worth preserving. Edit: redreading my comment I know that I'm really mixing together gentrification and immigration, but I guess I just don't really see a giant distinction. It's easier to take sides in gentrification and tourism because the newcomers are richer and less sympathetic, but they're still just people who are different. Now, economic inequality is a different issue that's connected to both, but in my mind a discussion about immigration and gentrification is more about the free movement of people.