🎥 Support me on PATREON for scripts, discord, & name in credits, etc: www.patreon.com/thenandnow ✉️ Sign up to the MAILING list at: lewwaller.com/newsletter ▶️ TWITTER: twitter.com/lewlewwaller 📷 INSTAGRAM: instagram.com/thethenandnow 🎤 PODCAST: pod.link/1499254204
It's a big mistake to naturalize the argument for migration. Races were and by some are still considered natural. You mentioned Deleuze (a philosopher of the becoming) but ended up defending an essentialist point of view for migration. Thanks for the video.
I think a problem is that, even though we are ultimately a dynamic species which constantly takes social and cultural influences from around the world and incorporate them into our own behaviors, people place great value on the things they already have, or think they "own", so it's always this constant struggle between heartfelt ideals of conserving and the reality of continuous and unstoppable alteration.
I think we need to approach a more complex idea of preservation ! I've made an observation that we (in our cultural context) tend to think of preservation as something static, as keeping things identical over time. I would instead like to approach a more conceptual understanding of the identity of things (i.e of traditions, practices, languages, art and stuff in general), so that the identity is not lost when its alternated or evolved. To make myself a bit more clear, lets take an example: the problem of contemporary music. Much contemporary music is perceived though the recording of music, which a very static format. This has lead to the idea that music has an Original way of being perceived, and thus the actual performance of the music (by the composer or other musicians) is deemed as interpretation of the Original, which does not preserve or reproduce the Original, and which tends to be viewed in a quite negative sense as a deviation. This kind 'petrification' of identity and loss the migratory aspects can be seen all around. I would rather want to approach a different understanding of these things, and in the example of music, maybe try to turn to more fluid formats in the form of sheet music and the like - thus the identity of the piece lies not in the exact reproduction of timbre and tempo etc, but instead on the intent and the general structure the composed piece. Thus, we approach a more fluid and migratory understanding of our concepts and the identity of the things we hold dear. (sorry for the very long comment, I just got excited about the video and it made me think, cheers)
@@xuvetynpygmalion3955 Very good comment. I think the use of hermeneutics works here perfectly - which judges 'adaptions' or 'versions' based on how well they capture the clear essences of the piece (Harry Potter needs to wear the hat as described in the text, and all else is left to the art department whether it's a film, videogame, or painting)
Great content! I got very lucky to find this channel. I just have a comment on the Tunisia/Libya border (19:30), as your statement makes it sound like we don’t have free movement between the borders. I’m Libyan, and I can travel to Tunisia without any restraints and vice versa. Many Tunisians, especially in the south, heavily rely on Libyan commerce.
Wonderfully done! Interesting how humans have this strong desire to classify, only to come to understand in the modern world, that it’s a temporary state of being. It seems to me that classifying in and of itself is conflicting for humans. We want to explore, to roam, to venture but also have this strong desire for community, connection, tradition and protection. In grouping and out grouping as we go, only to give us a temporary feeling of safety. I just watched Johnny Harris video on the division on Cyprus which highlighted the complexity and sadness of classification and division. Such an interesting, thought provoking topic. Well done!
Everyone has their own way of understanding life. This creation of “objective” standards and fixation on tradition is about protecting wealth. Education before the modern west was about sharing knowledge and stories. Now it’s about indoctrination. In fact concepts like modernity require a linear view of time when many cultures viewed time as cyclical.
@@davruck1 I’m not sure I understand how this relates to the video or being white? You’ve brought up a variety of different concepts and none really argue for your statement that this is about being white.
@@kiwiopklompen the video is about how immigrants became bad. According to who? According to whites. You act like fear of strangers is something that all cultures share. It’s a white culture thing. I described how whites arrived at their worldview which is clearly hypocritical. If you think there’s a such thing as objective reality then you think like a elite person and I can’t help you.
This notion flies over the heads of xenophobes. They think like that because they themselves could not muster the courage to leave everything and everyone they know behind and head to a land completely alien to them in order to just survive, or to afford their descendants a better chance at life than they themselves had.
You effectively argued against biological determinism as a means to discriminate then promptly used it to justify immigration as ‘natural’. Using biology to explain / essentialise social phenomena is a slippery slope - as you have shown. I would argue that people migrate for a variety of reasons, the least of which is a biological instinct to do so.
Hey you just copied my post hahaha. "It's a big mistake to naturalize the argument for migration. Races were and by some are still considered natural. You mentioned Deleuze (a philosopher of the becoming) but ended up defending an essentialist point of view for migration. Thanks for the video". Take care!
2 facts. 1:You are misinformed. The benefits that a country reaps from migrants outweight their costs. 2: low birthrate means much more immigration is desperately needed. Or in other words: Those "handouts" you are talking about are a crucial investment.
@@grischa762 Are you saying there is no limit on how many people can live in a finite area? Illegal immigrants pay about $31 Billion dollars into Federal, state, and local taxes. While the US pays about $180 Billion to Illegals. This would be the value of all of the services they get that are paid for by taxes.
@@chillychese how does the us just give 180 billion dollars to immigrants? what is total amount collected? are you counting us born citizens? how does this effect you? are you ok friend? do you need help? speak with ur chest
Another rose-tinted, Liberal perspective covering all the positives that mobility has to offer without ever touching on the myriad of negative effects for several countries.
yeah a great example is the affect that it had on the native american peoples nation when the settlers decided to illegally immigrate, or when the Mexican land was stolen for western expansion by these same settlers descendants. But it was not illegal migration it was an invasion, I guess one things leads to another.
Fantastic as always. The genealogical approach you take to our beliefs and certain philosophical traditions are so refreshing. Wish you the best of luck in 2022 to expand the channel and the content even more. (May I suggest an exposition into Giambattista Vico and the counter-enlightenment as a whole?)
Interesting video as a whole. I think it is an interesting observation that we have come to see sedentary life as normal even though for most of our history we were on the move, and the role of science in reinforcing this bias. However, at the beginning and at the end you appear to be trying to make the normative claim that because we are naturally a moving species, we should leave our borders open (or at least be more open to immigrants). This is a classic naturalistic fallacy. Just because we have always been on the move in our past doesn’t mean this is always good, and something we should continue to do. Just based on this historical argument, you can’t infer that mass migration would work in a modern, liberal society. I’m not saying it wouldn’t, by the way, just that the type of argument in this video doesn’t tell us much about what our policies should look like nowadays. Also it is a bit too convenient a way to disqualify the opinions of more conservative thinkers (I’m not one of them) as just ‘biased’ against migrants, instead of engaging with their arguments.
It's not an either/or problem... moving or planting ourselves and defending the bit we're sitting on. It's how we mix and balance these two human impulses. He's just articulating the 'moving' part of the equation as there's already enough talk of wall-building and defense.
Wait, why would you go from one extreme "immigration is bad" to another "mass migration" You're presenting a false choice, a false dichotomy. Are you avoiding the underlying biases you have, perhaps, by presenting such a logically fallacious argument?
@@Pensnmusic it is clearly a reactionary take to the idea of an “open border” and it puts the duty on the pro open border advocates to make the case for the “open border” even thought I have never seen a good case for having a closed defended border being better. When the majority of our history did not have militarized borders and in the parts that did they caused issues it seems that the pro border people need to make the case for spending money restricting movement over an imaginary line when we have boats and planes and the border itself is useless. Pro border people are making the case that the border is the natural state, pointing the reality out is done to disprove a naturalist argument for borders not because he is making the case that it is better because it is natural Looking at the distribution of people on the planet throughout history proves not guarding that imaginary line will not lead to a flood of people into one sector. It is silly to believe it would.
Another good documentary. I would tend to stress modernity, though. Philosophers and Enlightenment thinkers like Herder stressed volk and nation, along with reason. Edward Said notes how the rise of the values of the Occidental means denoting the alterity of the Oriental mind-set as somehow more sensuous and mysterious. These ideas are invigorated by colonialism and the justified exploitation of new lands. Interestingly, even science isn't safe - phrenology and Darwin - opening up a broader discussion of how it exists as a secondary quality to the primary, more phenomenological basis of meaning. I will argue against the naturalism of migration, btw. It's been a long while since we were hunter-gatherers. We move because of a system - capitalism - and it's important to address its historical basis if you are attempting to diagnose solutions (such as supporting people "on the ground.")
People also move because they'll die if they don't. I wonder, though, if you blame capitalism for that. Did you slip in a fear of economic migration and immigrants stealing your job right there?
@@Pensnmusic Absolutely. I'm not an unqualified worker but if I were I would definitely find unchecked immigration detrimental to my livelihood, especially where work is deregulated and there is no minimum wage. Also, the ones that come who are illiterate find work in terrible conditions I would not wish to anybody
This video has made me realise I have taken my knowledge of genes and evolution slightly for granted. I have always known the great power of that knowledge, but had forgotten just how new its general acceptance is.
Great video, as always. THank you for producing these insightful video essays that should (at least) prompt reflective critical thinking in both those who may initially agree and those who may disagree with your thesis.
The very structure of this video directly reflects a 'particular' cultural and philosophical tradition. If this is mistaken, why is it presented in those terms? Are you aware of this unconscious bias? If you are, how can it be remedied? With a total deconstruction of philosophical and cultural traditions wherever they appear in the world? What would remain? Formlessness? The ultimate achievement of liberalism being nihilism? Liberalism does not prioritise individual freedom. It prioritises the right to materialism. Absurdly, this is cloaked in the exalting of 'values'. 'Values' transcend the individual so in effect the 'individual' disappears. Liberals up-hold the enforcing of 'correct speech' in ways that can only be understood as draconian. What would your global person look like? An interchangeable worker and consumer that is enslaved to the whims of a global elite. Devoid of any roots or sense of identity. Reduced to nothing more than an economic unit. How emancipating. How liberal.
Your only " value" is the hatred of the human rase. And your " identity" is based on a fiction. It`s one planet after all. And this planet is not yours alone. You can never controll reality or the fact that nature is constantly changeing. You can never stopp the effect of technology and it`s effects of spreading ideas, people, capital, goods, culture. And beeing desperat to hold on to something that in the end is 100% sure going to change is only going to make you suffer and worry. Your idea of you controlling people and culture OVER TIME is just foolish.
Tearing down hegemonic values leaves us with countless other value systems from all over the world from countless cultures, including ones yet to be created. Are you aware of a bias that perceives your conception of values as the *only values that exist*, your traditions as the only ones that exist? Individual enlightenment values are the *only* values, anything else is formless chaos. Are you a Jordan Peterson fan? Edit: Capitalism is predicated on the individual freedom to own property (capital). Capitalism couldn't exist in the way you envision it if you remove individual property rights by deconstructing the individual freedom to do so. It feels like you're disingenuously twisting yourself into knots to get to liberalism as a cheap point scoring exercise.
@@Pensnmusic 😂 I laughed when you asked if it was a JP fan because as I read that comment I rolled my eyes and thought the same, you can always pick these folks up in a crowd because they all have the same reflexive need to wrap all that is good as a trait of their belief system and think without it all chaos would exist.
@@terrystevens3998 these new age neoconservative types always label anything outside of their dogma as liberal/communist it's funny they're so easy to spot
I am unconvinced by purely sociological reasoning when it comes to this specific concept of genitic superiority, as it appears to be an inherently attractive idea to humans in general (or their ego) and even seems likley to be one of the reasons that we are the only species of homminim to survive into the modern era, that inbuilt "racism" once meant the difference between getting eaten by other homminims or killing them before they got the chance, luckily we are the most adept species on the planet when it comes to ignoring our instincts, once one fully accepts that humans may have these biases towards "different" looking faces we can ofcause completely ignore it as many of us do, despite the biass still potentially existing in a subconscious manner in all of us. I like to think of it like a vestigial idea that once served us well but is now detrimental due to our own species eventual increase in diversity, which is weirdly similar to large ant collonies that get too big, they eventually split in two and start a war with themselves as they no longer identify as one collony all of a sudden. I genuinely find it really disconcerting that we as humans, do the same thing as ants over larger timescales...
Darwin's contemporaries couldn't understand how people could travel to the Pacific islands and bring their plants and animals with them. But they probably believed the Noah's Ark story really happened. So they should have known it was possible for pre-modern people to build boats and put all the put all the living things they needed into them.
I'm sympatethic to the arguments presented in the video, and they are so well put too. I'm just curious if movement also means invasions, conquests, land grabs and so on, perhaps there is a dark side to mobility (e.g. colonialism) that wasn't discussed here? And by the way, this is amazing conent full of thought provoking arguments, I'm so glad I found this on yt! Bite-sized critical theory :p
@@user-sl6gn1ss8p What about....conquest? Conquest is migration. Those are not horses without people on them. They are people...moving somewhere...with the intent to exert political control. Once they do, they invite their people to settle that land. That's migration.
@@dunnowy123 conquest is not migration in the sense I understand the words in most contexts, even though their definitions do overlap, but not as much as I think you're saying they do - it seems to me you're just bending definitions to make a false blanket statement on migration which helps your position on it
@@user-sl6gn1ss8p I'm not implying that all migration is conquest (the way some people characterize illegal migration as an invasion). I'm just saying migration has a dark side as well and didn't just happen through these benign circumstances. A lot of migration came about as the result of conquest.
@@dunnowy123 ok, I'm just saying I wouldn't call colonization migration, for example, even though there are people migrating there. I think the context of the movement is important to how we characterize it, and the context of the video - "scientific racism" and it's implications on borders - makes the relevant context one in which I don't see how making a parallel between movement of people during conquest and migration, as discussed, has much merit. Frankly, I'm weary of a link which is false in context being forced just to eventually make way to "they will not replace us" type of shit, but I'm open to the possibility that that's not your intention. Also, as I said earlier, borders - the idea that some national group owns the whole of a country - seems much more closely related to conquest to me. (and borders, in this context, are not the same as a door on a house or even necessarily a wall around a city)
“Cultural differences” is a dog whistle for racism because nobody wants to own up to the truth and admit that they believe that a person is incompatible with their “superior society” because they previously lived in a society
@@terrystevens3998 if you view everything through the lens of racism, sure it's a dog whistle. But you know what they say about dog whistles... But if you take a step back and realize that there are cultural practices that are not correspondent with cultural practices of your country, whatever your country's race mix might be, mass importation of people with alternative moral values would cause strife in your home country. There are tens of millions of white people in and around the Caucus mountains who believe that homosexuality is a sin punishable by death. The mass importation of these people into another western white country would cause a great deal of problems. A country trying to prevent a mass immigration of same race but different culture valuing people is obviously not racist. As for superiority, there is no Superior race or culture. They are just different. People of one culture will typically do better within their own culture than if they get deported to another alien culture.
@@deflamrek cultures are different from each other sure, but the differences are not earth shattering shocking differences that would be so incompatible that people immigrating would cause such issues that it would not be able to handle it, it’s not like we have cultures where a group is eating humans or sacrificing babies, and the more we all move around and communicate with each other the less and less the differences are. In fact most of these “incompatible” cultural differences are driven by poverty and lack of education. You act like culture is unchangeable, the culture of 100 years ago is a completely different culture then we have today. We are all remarkably similar when we get to the core of who we are and how we interact. And no people don’t typically do better in their own culture, the groups that have all stayed stagnant and not interacted with the rest of the world are not exactly great for their inhabitants. As far as differences in culture like people being homophobic therefore incompatible I would suggest they would fit in just fine in a red conservative state. We have plenty homophobic people in our western countries already. There is no cultural difference that the rule of law wouldn’t handle.. sure people like you may moan and cry about new immigrants but eventually most people adjust and the kids all blend in and do fine.
@@terrystevens3998 throwing gays off of buildings or stoning a woman for being raped is, in my opinion, a pretty big difference relative to the West. I assume that you don't live near a police no-go zone in France or the UK or Germany or Amsterdam or Sweden or Spain or Italy based on your interpretation of melding
@@deflamrek that is illegal in our countries so if it is a part of the culture then it won’t be once they get to the new country, and people in all cultures murder and kill women, the western world is not above rape culture and sexism. Usually they kill women they are related to or in a relationship. There is no difference, we have right wing regressive sexist and homophobic people in every country, less then a hundred years ago we had public lynching black people and they turned it into a big party, if you think that our countries were any different then you don’t know history. No-go zones are just a different name for a sun down town, and killing women is a global culture.. sadly
Love this video. I don't agree with some of the comments that this points to a naturalist argument for migration: rather it's doing the opposite, it's breaking down a naturalist argument *against* migration. What this video lacks (and I was expecting, especially towards the end) was arguments for migration, though I do realize those tend to get a bit repetitive (and can feel obvious!) so I understand the channel's hesitancy to delve into that. What I would've loved to hear more about is how the ideology of Liberalism perhaps relies on scientific racism/believing humans are attached to places, while holding the contradictory belief of freedom of movement. Maybe it was there, but I kinda missed it, I'm not a great watcher. But loved this video, will be supporting soon I think : )
"What I would've loved to hear more about is how the ideology of Liberalism perhaps relies on scientific racism/believing humans are attached to places, while holding the contradictory belief of freedom of movement." It's not contradictory to believe in an individual's freedom of movement while acknowledging that specific groups of people can become "attached to places" and it definitely isn't "scientific racism". Not sure how you could even begin to frame it that way logically.
Incredible video ! I really like how the video itself embodied the migratory movement itself; though the fields of taxonomy, biology, nation states, genetics, migration of animals, economy, technology, etc
This is sort of the analysis a "rootless cosmopolitan" will invariably produce (and yes, I'm using that term fully aware of its insinuations, don't care, don't @ me). Tacitus, in his analysis of the Germanic tribes, depicts blood ties of loyalty as the basis of their nationhood. The Barbarians were mobile qua Barbarians. As such, migration and conquest were one and the same thing. When you tendentiously ask 'Why do we move around our countries but regard the migrant as a Problem???', you only betray your own lack of belonging. And no, you "containing multitudes" doesn't count. Cultures and ethnies are dynamic, but you survey these dynamics from a viewpoint which occupies no particular position. I'm glad my group, Anglo-Saxons, migrated (conquered) others and not the reverse. That's what it means to possess a morality. It seems once a technological threshold is breached, a process of formalized demarcation through a state apparatus protects the primordial concern - blood. Thus, blood and soil is born. A homeland becomes necessary. Although it by no means precludes movement, rootedness, and the homogeneity that breeds, promotes a vital and healthy social organism. Durkheim identified division of labour in conjunction with the spacial distancing of its specializations as the cause of social anomie, from which psycho-emotional substrate you produce midwit bugman videos projecting your paranoid interiority onto the rising tide of the third world. Look, it was a nice effort to historicize and therefore subject to a demystifying 'gaze' "our attitudes to migrants", but this won't work anymore, fren. The 'beasts of prey' who will legislate the values of future have read the source material of your discourse (Fanon, Said, Wendy Brown, Derrida, etc), and are not moved by the moral emblems from which the propagating energy derives. Imagine watching some poor conservatard desperately cobbling together a defence of his intuitive preferences. He's ranting about "cultural Marxism" and "the post-modernists." That's how you look to us. See you in the Political.
This piece doesn’t make the relevant distinction between lawful and unlawful migration. Making analogies to past biology or the migration patterns of animals isn’t germane to more recent and only human inventions; sovereignty and laws. Animals also defend their groups and territories, often more harshly than humans could. The fact is that a national people agree on rules of the land they live. This isn’t controversial. Only when other countries seek to impose their will upon a nation does it become so.
The video is a genealogy of the laws that govern migration. Just because such laws are brought in by democracies does not mean they're above critique. The argument concerning nature is just to criticise the historical arguments for the racism underlying the development of immigration laws. It is not intended to present a new rule of nature that we have to follow.
The law is just a piece of paper in the case of immigration, there is no cultural difference between legal and illegal immigration in history, essentially it doesn’t really matter for the purpose of this film
@@rigelb9025 no it really doesn’t.. the same amount of people are in America if they have papers or not.. culturally there is no difference between an undocumented immigrant that lives in America has a kid raises them and then passes away and an American citizen doing the same thing
A few years back I had the luck to visit Vietnam (which I found amazing). In Ho Chi Minh City I couchsurfed at a girl's place. She told me that she likes to travel and she asked me many questions about Europe. She'd love to visit it, but Vietnamese passport and income make that very difficult. That conversation filled me with a deep, deep sadness that lasts to this day. Why can't she visit my country the same way that I can visit hers? Why do people have to go through literal fucking hell to flee from their countries when I, an immigrant myself, could emigrate so easily? This angers me so much. Fuck borders and fuck nationalism. Cheers man, great video.
The problem is not borders, but citizenship. The State exerts their rule on a people which is delimited by a defined border, that makes it easy to apply one law or the other, to live without borders means to live in a grey area of law where only international law could apply, the problem remains though: who is to enforce law in an undemocratic system where checks & balance boils down to 'who has the bigger stick'? The answer is: nobody. So leave the things as they are, the Westphalian system may not be fair, but it's best system we could come up with, hands down.
The problem is not borders, but citizenship. The State exerts their rule on a people which is delimited by a defined border, that makes it easy to apply one law or the other, to live without borders means to live in a grey area of law where only international law could apply, the problem remains though: who is to enforce law in an undemocratic system where checks & balance boils down to 'who has the bigger stick'? The answer is: nobody. So leave the things as they are, the Westphalian system may not be fair, but it's best system we could come up with, hands down.
@@jghifiversveiws8729 jeez I don't know... maybe because otherwise we would be living in a hobbesian state of nature? Hail to the strong ones, and good luck to everybody else.
With climate change there will be countries that can’t sustain human life, do they just die because borders. Borders are unnatural and not a logical way of distributing resources. We are eventually going to have to evolve beyond borders or resign ourselves to allowing mostly third world people die by the millions pushing them back on their parched land. Are you ready to fling immigrants to their death? Animals immigrate for a reason because they can’t overtax the environment in one area, but humans insist we can do this without consequence when that is wrong
One question: 20:30 - Are u making ur case for migration based on the argument that itt is "a natural global phenomenon found in every species"? Is that the clinching argument? Bcoz that kind of gets very problematic. It sort of falls into the same trope of legitimising/validating human behaviour in terms of being "natural", which is literally the kind of jargon used to marginalise and penalise a whole bunch of stuff as "unnatural" and "abnormal"
Do you think water is a natural requirement for human beings? Do you think it's natural for humans to need oxygen? Surely we can agree that it's part of human nature to breath oxygen and drink water. We don't immediately fall into tyranny by acknowledging these things as natural. We always need to be wary and ready to criticise what is said to be natural, but it would be a fallacy to say nothing is natural or that we can never say anything is natural or essential for human life. As for the argument of the video, it does not mainly rely on an appeal to nature. Instead, the genealogical argument disrupts the foundations of anti-immigration discourse. It shows its origins are in racist arguments about what nature is which have been superseded by new discoveries.
@@robertgould1345 Which is what I said, racist arguments use the trope of "what is natural" using a scientific narrative for racist purposes. There is factual science, and there is narrative of science. Later discoveries have proved several seientific ideas of the past to be fraught, yet the narratives of the racism, gender bias, homophobia through science persist. Evidently facts are not what drive these narratives, as facts can be and are twisted to form narratives supporting whatever viewpoint needs to be propagated. The entire premise of "naturalness" as the basis of societal ethos, rights and equality seems susceptible to manipulation to support hierarchic categorisation. It has nothing to do with facts of physical nature, and everything to do with narratives. Also, I wonder, if facts of "nature" do find some human beings "lesser" than others in terms of factual physiological parameters: strength, physical ability or disability, brain issues, whether eyesight is impaired, ability to procure, and so on - there are all facts, and these are inequalities inherent in nature. Just as all human beings need water and air is true, all human beings are not physiologically equal is also true - a natural truth. How then does the "naturalness" thesis fit into societal equality of all human beings? Haven't we reached the stage where we deem all human beings equal irrespective of "natural" parameters? Isn't that the goal of egalitarian ethos?
@@radioactivedetective6876 as I said, we always need to be ready to criticise "human nature" due to the historical abuse of that concept. But, I say again, that doesn't mean we can never use the concept. And the video clearly doesn't say "migration is natural therefore you must migrate" or that "migration is natural therefore those who migrate are better than those who don't". So, it's not an argument for a social norm.
@@robertgould1345 My comment was specifically made about the statement made at the time stamp I have provided. 20:30 And I have NOT said the video says "... must migrate" or "... those who migrate are better". I have specified "migration is natural to all species globally", "natural" being the operative word, and that too generalised for all species. Please don't add stuff I did not say. Finally, of course u CAN use the concept of "human nature", I was statting my reservations, not asking anyone to not use it.
@@radioactivedetective6876 And my comments are specifically in reply to your comments. I have not said that you said that the video says "...must migrate". I was instead referring to differences in the argument of the video at 20:30 to arguments that usually underpin social norms. I think you mentioned the danger of social norms coming from "human nature" (I'm in the middle of typing this reply and the app won't let me simultaneously look back at your comments).
Terrific video. A lot of people would be upset by this and dislike the idea of globalisation. I guess that's a fair opinion to be anti-immigration but I think this video was particularly effective at demystifying cultural differences and relativities. We are all just humans in flux - no minute cultural detail is very important or overly different from the next. Brilliant again!
Cultural norms do matter and affect people’s lives. If a group comes to a very distinct country and develops its own enclave, it will certainly cause unrest (e.g Sweden). That demonstrates the importance of it.
How many houses can we keep on building and how are they to integrate while they live in hyper concentrated areas you know I integrated in Britain when my family came but the other ones haven't due to religion but also economic exclusion.
It's a big mistake to naturalize the argument for migration. Races were and by some are still considered natural. You mentioned Deleuze (a philosopher of the becoming) but ended up defending an essentialist point of view for migration. Thanks for the video.
Deleuze also had essentialist perspectives on matters of sex and ethnicity. It isn't cut and dry, and I don't think he wanted people to take his work as such.
@@EpicBeard815 I don't think we read the same Deleuze. J'ai rédigé mon mémoire a propos du Vitalisme et le lien avec OOO, alors voila, je m'y connais un peu dans la matière. Salut!
So do I. And by the way, even if your comment isn't about the topic of this specific video, it applies to all of his videos. So it's definitely not off-topic.
God I wish the great idea of managing invasive plants and animals didn't have such sinister origins. Australia and the Americas would probably be better off without the hitchhikers that arrived with colonizers.
And the people who hate them are the most cowardly. They would never muster the courage it takes to leave everything they know behind to go to a place completely alien to them, where they know they won't be treated well, and still go and do it, knowing full well they may not make it alive.
@@PrimericanIdol these are the same nations bombing them. They put a puppet regime and if you ask any refugees lives befroe amerciana and europena intervation they would say it was a btter peacul time. Remebr the USA and Europe put terrorisy etremist into power.
I disagree, I think bravery is fighting for your own country not runing away to another - most of the migrants are fighting aged men who leave behind women and children. I find it quite cowardly!
Film does seem to convey it's point rather clearly and can't fault it in that regard. The absence of a number of qualifiers and the title among other things makes it seem as if the flipside has been ignored altogether (it's not a film about the flipside, but at least mention it!) All migration is not equal. Crocodiles aren't boarding planes to go to Norway. Like a new diet can't be "proven" after one hour of doing it, wanting to travel everywhere we wish not only contradicts those who are unable to- it also contradicts the system's/biosphere's/locale's capacity to withstand the onslaught of our whims. In contrast to the anti-migration bias there are also many other biases- like bias of immediate and shallow pleasure, for example.
You seem to be unaware that the hunter-gatherer who migrated everywhere gave way to settled farms. We gave up up the "right" to go anywhere when individual states were created. Our modern world is based on that. You were born at a place that becomes yours. If you want to stay legal and move you need to satisfy the conditions set out for acceptance. You cant just go anywhere as you please. That isnt going to change. Unless of course you intend to become an "illegal".
In that case, modern day destitute migrants have very solid reasons to move to relatively peaceful and more prosperous places, whether they can afford to get permission from men in uniforms and suits, or not.
@@PrimericanIdol That does not change the basis of society. I think most can see things have changed since humanity moved out of Africa. Everything depends on people in general obeying the law and ultimately being willing to defend their land. How else could society operate ? Illegal immigration must be seen against the wider context. We are no longer free to move to another country as we wish. Illegal migrants dont change that.
The problem is that illegal inmigration could make more Bad than good, for example, the illegal alijahs to Palestine (mandate of palestine) in the ww2. Or Sweden which became one of the most dangerous countries in Europe. Remember, Legal inmigration is not Bad, the illegal yes
To some extent I agree, but the problem occours when masses of people try to migrate to other place with different culture. In older days, this usually ment war between tribes. That said, I think convervative borders nowdays represent more about the culture of people in the country and less about racial features. You might move to place with a culture seeming similar you want to live like, but to take your culture from place you are coming from to somewhere with different one? I disagree. To immigrate is to integrate. And if you are willing for that, then you are welcomed to your new home.
Except culture isn't a static unchanging feature of a certain geography anymore than race is. New people arriving to my country from different countries have add to and enriched culture with not only the culture they import, but also the ways it mixes, interacts and blends with all that of everyone else. Imagine what American culture would be like without centuries of immigration, now imagine how deprived the future of American culture would be without further immigration. And of course the culture of the new society naturally changes the migrants, and especially their children as the generations progress. My Norwegian ancestors who moved here never learned English, but I know nobody who still speaks Norwegian. People integrate much easier when they aren't subject to discrimination and hostility. People retreat into the safe, accepting and familiar culture when the new foreign culture seems hostile. You can't forcibly erase the culture of other people with violence, Europeans tried it against indigenous people and it only made their identity of cultural difference stronger. Forcibly trying to keep out people who are culturally different from you is also a violent self-defeating process. Mutual respect of our differences and recognition of our common humanity is the answer.
@@AlexM-wq7in I think out of western countries US (and maybe Canada) make quite exception there, since their culture from the beginning of the nation relies solely on immigration, except for the natives of course. But let's look at countries with culture tied deep in their past. For example mediterrarian countries religion is still big part of their culture. And it is clear as day, the religious ones don't want immigrants from other religions. That would be nomadic even, for the immigrant, to want to live in a country with completely different culture you do not approve. That is true that mutual respect of our differences is important, but it doesn't mean we have to make living in peace harder than it has to be with each other. Many western countries are already very divided inside with black and white thinking (or rather left and right), and even that conflict has to be setteled peacefully in the future, since the peoples morales differ in very wide scale. About the humanity part, it would mean to all of us to live according to same moral and ethics. In todays world, that is not clearly the case, and it hardly ever will be since, moral is based on ones own values, rather than absolute facts.
@@BlitzFx Notably, values and culture are two very different things. Two people from within the same culture can have dramatically different values, and two people from different cultures can share the same values. A liberal atheist and an conservative catholic might both be Italians, speak the same language, enjoy the same foods & music, but have completely different moral values. I fully expect the Mediterranean countries will lose their Catholic majorities from people leaving the religion for atheism. That doesn't make Italy stop being Italy. I have a Kurdish friend who is as culturally different from me as is possible, but we agree on morals/politics, in fact more than I do with my own grandfather! Religious jews, muslims and christians (whether catholic or protestant) are both often quite conservative on issues of gender & sexuality, whether they admit it or not, they share similar values. It's the values that matter, not somebody's skin color, or their language, or what music/food they like. Now, I have to accept that there are people with values/morals I believe are wrong, even immoral. But I respect the rights of my right-wing grandfather, just as I accept the rights of a religious Muslim to believe what they believe in, and share this same country with me. I would try to persuade them to my point of view, but I wouldn't want them to drown in the Mediterranean.
Expecting people to assimilate to your culture for them to be allowed to live next to you is pretty awful, and it will never happen, a dominant culture should not outrank an immigrant and change who they are and want to be, they should be combined and form a new culture where both are represented. Demanding assimilation is just supremacy. Culture always changes and that is a good thing.
@@terrystevens3998 I disagree. Cultures with like minded people will flourish thousand times more, than ones which are on edge of civil war because of differences between it's population. People need connection. This was one of the root causes of Arab spring and I'm fearing it will start happening in west as well. One other thing to note is that in history states have tried to rule masses with fascism, the goal being to create like minded people, but that again, does not result in anything good and only in discrimination of human rights. So, the best option I see, is to have liberal visa appliance, but harder to get citizenship. This allows free travel for a periods of times, but not full entitlement for living in the country. Of course one can then apply for citizenship or another visa, and get it if they seem to be integrated. Of course this is a topic of greater discussion and can't be wrap up in few sentences, but there is much more to it than just the change of culture.
I thought that the origins of racial and ethnic differences are nature and biology. I didn't realize that we have recently discovered humans are exempt from the laws of evolution.
Race and Ethnicity are evolutionary concepts. They are based on how humans categorize ourselves within our own species based mostly on shared history, culture, geography, ect.
Race isn't evolution. It can't be placed into any evolutionary categorization of species without breaking the categories for every other species. You'd have to rewrite universal rules to recategorize everything which means throwing away the biological reasons things are categorized in the way that they are. Race isn't evidence based, it's the product of cultural beliefs and was constructed out of ignorance and motivated reasoning. If you are skeptical then you can do a little research into taxonomic categories. See what the scientific study of evolution says, for yourself.
I would like to know which movie it is that chaplin is rounded up on a ship alongside a group of people when they sail past the big goddess statue who holds ice cream high and clutch a dictionary. Its around 0: 52
You're ignoring a big reason why people dislike migration, which is that, historically, migration has resulted in many conflicts between the migrant group and the local one. Take the US for example. When millions of WHITE EUROPEANS came to America as immigrants, they literally whiped out the natives through diseases and genocide to take their land for themselves. The same can be said about the Bizantines and the Turks or the Arab invasions of North Africa, which displaced the Berber (Amazigh) population to the mountains where they live until today as marginalized peoples in their own ancestral homeland. Also, when an invasive species arrives, it tends to destroy local fauna or flora to dominate on its new landscape. The point of it though is that this cycle is natural and inevitable. But alas, you might not believe me since you've made a platform by attacking science.
"You're ignoring a big reason why people dislike migration, which is that, historically, migration has resulted in many conflicts between the migrant group and the local one. Take the US for example. When millions of WHITE EUROPEANS came to America as immigrants, they literally whiped out the natives through diseases and genocide to take their land for themselves." Weird how the people who dislike migration today also dislike talking about colonial genocide and excuse it. "The point of it though is that this cycle is natural and inevitable. But alas, you might not believe me since you've made a platform by attacking science." No it isn't inevitable and it isn't "science".
@@ChrisMM65 using the US for an example of why immigration doesn’t work is silly, the issue with the natives and the colonizers was not the local tribe infighting with the immigrants, that was slaughter based on white supremacy and seeing a group as less then. That has nothing to do with immigration, there is always a group of racists who grumble about the immigrants but as long as they don’t get genocidal it is fine in a generation.. culture is constantly changing, it isn’t even the same state to state. Just stop.
Then & Now, I love your channel, these are great pieces, but are you going to give Sonia Shah any credit for this episode?!? I’ve been getting deja vu to reading the Next Great Migration, a fantastic book but one not mentioned here.
It's kind of funny to be releasing a video advocating for uncontrolled migration, when the COVID-19 pandemic has been the best argument for borders and border controls in a VERY LONG TIME. That we're putting up walls between each other is telling; people do not want their societies changed or threatened by outsiders, it's simple as that. To act like this is historically anomalous is disingenuous. People have often been defined by where they stand, either behind or in front of the wall. The vast majority of human beings, even in antiquity, lived in vast empires that constructed walls around their soft underbellies. It really isn't an invention of modernity.
nothing wrong with a bit of racism, it's natural, people prefer to be around people like them, loving your family best doesn't mean you hate other families.
Wars are very natural too but technology that we have today makes for the wars to be unacceptable. I mean video is full of fallacies, just because something is natural it doesn't mean it's good.
i think then & now more than understands the naturalistic fallacy. his appeal to it is used as a direct counter to the historical "scientific" tradition of using naturalistic arguments against race mixing and settlements. his argument doesn't end with "migration is natural so it's good." he instead concludes in a universal humanist argument. just because the bulk of the video is about the naturalism of migration doesn't mean his argument is using that as the sole point.
Basic property rights through society's lens: that guy has a melon - its his. The guy who rises up to take him melon - he is a thief. It goes with property, wives, children, men (lost at war, no one wants them otherwise). It doesn't matter what culture you grew up in, property rights are necessary to its functioning at any larger scale (even tribal communities and gift giving cultures have property rights - it wouldn't be a gift if it wasn't mine to give to you). Its necessary for stability. What is property rights? he had it first. sedentary bias? nonsense, we had it first. We will do democracy - the 10 guys here first all vote for the status quo, and the one new guy votes against it. He looses. These days its the kids who are new, and the elderly with all the property rights. These days its the Nimby's vs the development. These days its the population vs the expert (who really knows how the system works guys so settle down - he is an expert after all). These days its the unhappy populace vs their political and economic institutions (which are in such delicate balance we cannot disrupt them, but lucky us, its actually those damn immigrants ruining things instead!). These days its the Strawman argument vs the Red herring. There are a lot of camps, and you'll have conservative and revolutionary feet in all of them. And sadly, both parties have something worthy to say. Except eugenics, those guys are psycho pseudoscience cray cray. Good Video
1. "If not for racism and racists there would be no problems from immigration." 2. "Migrating 10 miles is the same as migrating 5,000 miles and a population of .1% migrants is the same as a population of 10%." 3. "Migration is natural and via the naturalistic fallacy: good. Territoriality is natural and via the naturalistic fallacy: bad." 4. "Because culture is always changing it is foolish to try and control the pace and directions of that change." 5. "Because there are no races that means everyone is equal in talents and the same in preferences." 6. And most importantly: "People who I say believe these strawmen are 100% wrong and 100% evil and a more nuanced discussion that moves beyond these strawmen is impossible."
Because there are no races, any given population large enough given the same opportunities will probably produce similar results. Who thought you logic? You complain about mass immigration, but consider only merit of a given individual.
@@enfercesttout "probably", why probably? Have different populations all developed the same level of advancement in all areas of human endeavor? If they have not why would you expect them to in the future?
@@russhl125 Yeah, right. They are just statements with a value of true and false. But, "Is raining" doesn't say more than the fact that it is raining. Is the arguments you try to construct with them what are racist and bigoted. And moreover: they are invalid. The reason of that statistic existence is not genetics but the inequality of the country it comes from. So stop being such a coward and say at loud what you wanna say instead of cowardly hiding behind a statistic that only tells how you reading comprehension, statistic analysis, and critical thinking skills are in negative numbers.
In america isn't not that immigrants are bad it's that the people who come into the country illegally that is bad according to many. We have systems in place to legally come even though it takes awhile to do. We have these systems for a reason and that is to make sure people respect our laws and institutions and understand what our country is and stands for. If the earth was suddenly converted into a globalist society then illegal immigration would be gone because all territories would have to allow unrestricted immigration but at the same time everyone would be a citizen of the earth rather than a citizen of a country.
when we are too lenient on the gweilo, Johnny Somali, and Logan Paul happened. Which is why foreigners NEED to behave themselves when visiting. and people are surprised that japan once had a No Gaijin policy...
Incredibly ironic, that lower genetic diversity is what causes deterioration, and genetic diversity is immensely beneficial to adaptation ability and long term survivability.
yeah a great example is the affect that it had on the native american peoples nation when the settlers decided to illegally immigrate, or when the Mexican land was stolen for western expansion by these same settlers descendants. But it was not illegal migration it was an invasion, I guess one things leads to another.
🎥 Support me on PATREON for scripts, discord, & name in credits, etc: www.patreon.com/thenandnow
✉️ Sign up to the MAILING list at: lewwaller.com/newsletter
▶️ TWITTER: twitter.com/lewlewwaller
📷 INSTAGRAM: instagram.com/thethenandnow
🎤 PODCAST: pod.link/1499254204
It's a big mistake to naturalize the argument for migration. Races were and by some are still considered natural. You mentioned Deleuze (a philosopher of the becoming) but ended up defending an essentialist point of view for migration.
Thanks for the video.
A channel without par on this segment of philosophical sociological essay. Theme choice, perspective taken, editing ✌️
I think a problem is that, even though we are ultimately a dynamic species which constantly takes social and cultural influences from around the world and incorporate them into our own behaviors, people place great value on the things they already have, or think they "own", so it's always this constant struggle between heartfelt ideals of conserving and the reality of continuous and unstoppable alteration.
I think we need to approach a more complex idea of preservation ! I've made an observation that we (in our cultural context) tend to think of preservation as something static, as keeping things identical over time. I would instead like to approach a more conceptual understanding of the identity of things (i.e of traditions, practices, languages, art and stuff in general), so that the identity is not lost when its alternated or evolved. To make myself a bit more clear, lets take an example: the problem of contemporary music.
Much contemporary music is perceived though the recording of music, which a very static format. This has lead to the idea that music has an Original way of being perceived, and thus the actual performance of the music (by the composer or other musicians) is deemed as interpretation of the Original, which does not preserve or reproduce the Original, and which tends to be viewed in a quite negative sense as a deviation. This kind 'petrification' of identity and loss the migratory aspects can be seen all around. I would rather want to approach a different understanding of these things, and in the example of music, maybe try to turn to more fluid formats in the form of sheet music and the like - thus the identity of the piece lies not in the exact reproduction of timbre and tempo etc, but instead on the intent and the general structure the composed piece. Thus, we approach a more fluid and migratory understanding of our concepts and the identity of the things we hold dear.
(sorry for the very long comment, I just got excited about the video and it made me think, cheers)
@@xuvetynpygmalion3955 Very good comment. I think the use of hermeneutics works here perfectly - which judges 'adaptions' or 'versions' based on how well they capture the clear essences of the piece (Harry Potter needs to wear the hat as described in the text, and all else is left to the art department whether it's a film, videogame, or painting)
I think…
We talk a good game.
It makes us look smarter.
Can you say? Exceptionalism
Great content! I got very lucky to find this channel. I just have a comment on the Tunisia/Libya border (19:30), as your statement makes it sound like we don’t have free movement between the borders. I’m Libyan, and I can travel to Tunisia without any restraints and vice versa. Many Tunisians, especially in the south, heavily rely on Libyan commerce.
Bro what you doing in Libya
Thieves travel on private jets, not home made rafts.
You deserve to be robbed for saying something so dumb
In Rafts come illegals Who Will transform in one failed state (Sweden)
Thiefs are in jets and Rafts XD
Wonderfully done! Interesting how humans have this strong desire to classify, only to come to understand in the modern world, that it’s a temporary state of being. It seems to me that classifying in and of itself is conflicting for humans. We want to explore, to roam, to venture but also have this strong desire for community, connection, tradition and protection. In grouping and out grouping as we go, only to give us a temporary feeling of safety. I just watched Johnny Harris video on the division on Cyprus which highlighted the complexity and sadness of classification and division. Such an interesting, thought provoking topic. Well done!
its actually white thinking.
@@davruck1 can you explain?
Everyone has their own way of understanding life. This creation of “objective” standards and fixation on tradition is about protecting wealth. Education before the modern west was about sharing knowledge and stories. Now it’s about indoctrination. In fact concepts like modernity require a linear view of time when many cultures viewed time as cyclical.
@@davruck1 I’m not sure I understand how this relates to the video or being white? You’ve brought up a variety of different concepts and none really argue for your statement that this is about being white.
@@kiwiopklompen the video is about how immigrants became bad. According to who? According to whites. You act like fear of strangers is something that all cultures share. It’s a white culture thing. I described how whites arrived at their worldview which is clearly hypocritical. If you think there’s a such thing as objective reality then you think like a elite person and I can’t help you.
Brilliant video, I wish everyone could see it, it's so depressing to think of some of the pseudo stats/science people still believe even today.
You're easier to control when you stay in one place.
The less you can move the less you can do.
This notion flies over the heads of xenophobes. They think like that because they themselves could not muster the courage to leave everything and everyone they know behind and head to a land completely alien to them in order to just survive, or to afford their descendants a better chance at life than they themselves had.
You effectively argued against biological determinism as a means to discriminate then promptly used it to justify immigration as ‘natural’. Using biology to explain / essentialise social phenomena is a slippery slope - as you have shown. I would argue that people migrate for a variety of reasons, the least of which is a biological instinct to do so.
Only good comment
Hey you just copied my post hahaha. "It's a big mistake to naturalize the argument for migration. Races were and by some are still considered natural. You mentioned Deleuze (a philosopher of the becoming) but ended up defending an essentialist point of view for migration.
Thanks for the video".
Take care!
@@OjoRojo40 I prefer his comments to yours, it's less pretentious
@@basthoune3104 fair enough.
i dunno... i think he uses many examples that aren't biological, like vacations or escape from conflict.
You can only have so many people in one country. Especially when you are willing to hand out tons of benefits.
By George, I think he's got it! Seriously, that is so true and so obvious-at least to those like us with some common sense.
2 facts. 1:You are misinformed. The benefits that a country reaps from migrants outweight their costs. 2: low birthrate means much more immigration is desperately needed. Or in other words: Those "handouts" you are talking about are a crucial investment.
@@grischa762 Are you saying there is no limit on how many people can live in a finite area? Illegal immigrants pay about $31 Billion dollars into Federal, state, and local taxes. While the US pays about $180 Billion to Illegals. This would be the value of all of the services they get that are paid for by taxes.
@@chillychese how does the us just give 180 billion dollars to immigrants? what is total amount collected? are you counting us born citizens? how does this effect you? are you ok friend? do you need help? speak with ur chest
Another rose-tinted, Liberal perspective covering all the positives that mobility has to offer without ever touching on the myriad of negative effects for several countries.
yeah a great example is the affect that it had on the native american peoples nation when the settlers decided to illegally immigrate, or when the Mexican land was stolen for western expansion by these same settlers descendants. But it was not illegal migration it was an invasion, I guess one things leads to another.
this should have more views
Fantastic as always. The genealogical approach you take to our beliefs and certain philosophical traditions are so refreshing. Wish you the best of luck in 2022 to expand the channel and the content even more.
(May I suggest an exposition into Giambattista Vico and the counter-enlightenment as a whole?)
I can't believe the incredibly high quality of these videos. Moving right onto the next one 🚀
Interesting video as a whole. I think it is an interesting observation that we have come to see sedentary life as normal even though for most of our history we were on the move, and the role of science in reinforcing this bias.
However, at the beginning and at the end you appear to be trying to make the normative claim that because we are naturally a moving species, we should leave our borders open (or at least be more open to immigrants). This is a classic naturalistic fallacy. Just because we have always been on the move in our past doesn’t mean this is always good, and something we should continue to do. Just based on this historical argument, you can’t infer that mass migration would work in a modern, liberal society. I’m not saying it wouldn’t, by the way, just that the type of argument in this video doesn’t tell us much about what our policies should look like nowadays.
Also it is a bit too convenient a way to disqualify the opinions of more conservative thinkers (I’m not one of them) as just ‘biased’ against migrants, instead of engaging with their arguments.
Precisely. This guy makes nice videos. But his perspectives are far from exhaustive. All too often, aesthetic. What a shame...
It's not an either/or problem... moving or planting ourselves and defending the bit we're sitting on. It's how we mix and balance these two human impulses. He's just articulating the 'moving' part of the equation as there's already enough talk of wall-building and defense.
Yes. Destroy all borders.
Wait, why would you go from one extreme "immigration is bad" to another "mass migration"
You're presenting a false choice, a false dichotomy. Are you avoiding the underlying biases you have, perhaps, by presenting such a logically fallacious argument?
@@Pensnmusic it is clearly a reactionary take to the idea of an “open border” and it puts the duty on the pro open border advocates to make the case for the “open border” even thought I have never seen a good case for having a closed defended border being better. When the majority of our history did not have militarized borders and in the parts that did they caused issues it seems that the pro border people need to make the case for spending money restricting movement over an imaginary line when we have boats and planes and the border itself is useless.
Pro border people are making the case that the border is the natural state, pointing the reality out is done to disprove a naturalist argument for borders not because he is making the case that it is better because it is natural
Looking at the distribution of people on the planet throughout history proves not guarding that imaginary line will not lead to a flood of people into one sector. It is silly to believe it would.
Another good documentary. I would tend to stress modernity, though. Philosophers and Enlightenment thinkers like Herder stressed volk and nation, along with reason. Edward Said notes how the rise of the values of the Occidental means denoting the alterity of the Oriental mind-set as somehow more sensuous and mysterious. These ideas are invigorated by colonialism and the justified exploitation of new lands. Interestingly, even science isn't safe - phrenology and Darwin - opening up a broader discussion of how it exists as a secondary quality to the primary, more phenomenological basis of meaning.
I will argue against the naturalism of migration, btw. It's been a long while since we were hunter-gatherers. We move because of a system - capitalism - and it's important to address its historical basis if you are attempting to diagnose solutions (such as supporting people "on the ground.")
If you watched the video to the end and still hold this same opinion, you can only be xenophobic
People also move because they'll die if they don't. I wonder, though, if you blame capitalism for that.
Did you slip in a fear of economic migration and immigrants stealing your job right there?
@@Pensnmusic Absolutely. I'm not an unqualified worker but if I were I would definitely find unchecked immigration detrimental to my livelihood, especially where work is deregulated and there is no minimum wage. Also, the ones that come who are illiterate find work in terrible conditions I would not wish to anybody
This video has made me realise I have taken my knowledge of genes and evolution slightly for granted. I have always known the great power of that knowledge, but had forgotten just how new its general acceptance is.
Not even through this video and I know it’s major video
Great work--a timely and succinct presentation, commendable and accurate in it's premise. Thank you.
For the first time, I am seeing so many dislikes under your video :D. Thank you for the great essay and the interesting historical facts!
Great video, as always. THank you for producing these insightful video essays that should (at least) prompt reflective critical thinking in both those who may initially agree and those who may disagree with your thesis.
The very structure of this video directly reflects a 'particular' cultural and philosophical tradition. If this is mistaken, why is it presented in those terms? Are you aware of this unconscious bias? If you are, how can it be remedied? With a total deconstruction of philosophical and cultural traditions wherever they appear in the world? What would remain? Formlessness? The ultimate achievement of liberalism being nihilism?
Liberalism does not prioritise individual freedom. It prioritises the right to materialism. Absurdly, this is cloaked in the exalting of 'values'. 'Values' transcend the individual so in effect the 'individual' disappears. Liberals up-hold the enforcing of 'correct speech' in ways that can only be understood as draconian.
What would your global person look like? An interchangeable worker and consumer that is enslaved to the whims of a global elite. Devoid of any roots or sense of identity. Reduced to nothing more than an economic unit. How emancipating. How liberal.
Your only " value" is the hatred of the human rase. And your " identity" is based on a fiction. It`s one planet after all. And this planet is not yours alone. You can never controll reality or the fact that nature is constantly changeing. You can never stopp the effect of technology and it`s effects of spreading ideas, people, capital, goods, culture. And beeing desperat to hold on to something that in the end is 100% sure going to change is only going to make you suffer and worry. Your idea of you controlling people and culture OVER TIME is just foolish.
Tearing down hegemonic values leaves us with countless other value systems from all over the world from countless cultures, including ones yet to be created. Are you aware of a bias that perceives your conception of values as the *only values that exist*, your traditions as the only ones that exist?
Individual enlightenment values are the *only* values, anything else is formless chaos. Are you a Jordan Peterson fan?
Edit:
Capitalism is predicated on the individual freedom to own property (capital). Capitalism couldn't exist in the way you envision it if you remove individual property rights by deconstructing the individual freedom to do so. It feels like you're disingenuously twisting yourself into knots to get to liberalism as a cheap point scoring exercise.
@@Pensnmusic 😂 I laughed when you asked if it was a JP fan because as I read that comment I rolled my eyes and thought the same, you can always pick these folks up in a crowd because they all have the same reflexive need to wrap all that is good as a trait of their belief system and think without it all chaos would exist.
The essayist of this video is a radical socialist, not a liberal.
@@terrystevens3998 these new age neoconservative types always label anything outside of their dogma as liberal/communist it's funny they're so easy to spot
I am unconvinced by purely sociological reasoning when it comes to this specific concept of genitic superiority, as it appears to be an inherently attractive idea to humans in general (or their ego) and even seems likley to be one of the reasons that we are the only species of homminim to survive into the modern era, that inbuilt "racism" once meant the difference between getting eaten by other homminims or killing them before they got the chance, luckily we are the most adept species on the planet when it comes to ignoring our instincts, once one fully accepts that humans may have these biases towards "different" looking faces we can ofcause completely ignore it as many of us do, despite the biass still potentially existing in a subconscious manner in all of us.
I like to think of it like a vestigial idea that once served us well but is now detrimental due to our own species eventual increase in diversity, which is weirdly similar to large ant collonies that get too big, they eventually split in two and start a war with themselves as they no longer identify as one collony all of a sudden.
I genuinely find it really disconcerting that we as humans, do the same thing as ants over larger timescales...
I agree with the idea that racists are unevolved apes that cause unnecessary conflict.
Is an adaptation. You are only maladapted by a guilt based morality. You are wrong, instincts not.
Darwin's contemporaries couldn't understand how people could travel to the Pacific islands and bring their plants and animals with them. But they probably believed the Noah's Ark story really happened. So they should have known it was possible for pre-modern people to build boats and put all the put all the living things they needed into them.
Great video as usual. Very well researched too. Thanks
i don't know how i've only just now discovered this channel.
Fantastic content. Ty for making it 🙌
I'm sympatethic to the arguments presented in the video, and they are so well put too. I'm just curious if movement also means invasions, conquests, land grabs and so on, perhaps there is a dark side to mobility (e.g. colonialism) that wasn't discussed here?
And by the way, this is amazing conent full of thought provoking arguments, I'm so glad I found this on yt! Bite-sized critical theory :p
I think borders are closer to conquest than migration is
@@user-sl6gn1ss8p What about....conquest? Conquest is migration. Those are not horses without people on them. They are people...moving somewhere...with the intent to exert political control. Once they do, they invite their people to settle that land. That's migration.
@@dunnowy123 conquest is not migration in the sense I understand the words in most contexts, even though their definitions do overlap, but not as much as I think you're saying they do - it seems to me you're just bending definitions to make a false blanket statement on migration which helps your position on it
@@user-sl6gn1ss8p I'm not implying that all migration is conquest (the way some people characterize illegal migration as an invasion). I'm just saying migration has a dark side as well and didn't just happen through these benign circumstances. A lot of migration came about as the result of conquest.
@@dunnowy123 ok, I'm just saying I wouldn't call colonization migration, for example, even though there are people migrating there. I think the context of the movement is important to how we characterize it, and the context of the video - "scientific racism" and it's implications on borders - makes the relevant context one in which I don't see how making a parallel between movement of people during conquest and migration, as discussed, has much merit.
Frankly, I'm weary of a link which is false in context being forced just to eventually make way to "they will not replace us" type of shit, but I'm open to the possibility that that's not your intention.
Also, as I said earlier, borders - the idea that some national group owns the whole of a country - seems much more closely related to conquest to me.
(and borders, in this context, are not the same as a door on a house or even necessarily a wall around a city)
Excellent video but whats the 1st song ?
Human naturally is territorial animal like tiger. That's why human go thru war to defend their homeland or conquer other land.
The average mammal dies within 4 miles of it's place of birth
this channel literally never misses.
It misses more often than not, but still very interesting.
he did with this video
Thank you, your presentation was thought provoking!
Who did that thumbnail? Who is the artist for the part on the right?
Show me a person who is concerned about the ethnic differences and I'll show you 100 concerned about the cultural differences.
“Cultural differences” is a dog whistle for racism because nobody wants to own up to the truth and admit that they believe that a person is incompatible with their “superior society” because they previously lived in a society
@@terrystevens3998 if you view everything through the lens of racism, sure it's a dog whistle. But you know what they say about dog whistles...
But if you take a step back and realize that there are cultural practices that are not correspondent with cultural practices of your country, whatever your country's race mix might be, mass importation of people with alternative moral values would cause strife in your home country.
There are tens of millions of white people in and around the Caucus mountains who believe that homosexuality is a sin punishable by death. The mass importation of these people into another western white country would cause a great deal of problems.
A country trying to prevent a mass immigration of same race but different culture valuing people is obviously not racist.
As for superiority, there is no Superior race or culture. They are just different. People of one culture will typically do better within their own culture than if they get deported to another alien culture.
@@deflamrek cultures are different from each other sure, but the differences are not earth shattering shocking differences that would be so incompatible that people immigrating would cause such issues that it would not be able to handle it, it’s not like we have cultures where a group is eating humans or sacrificing babies, and the more we all move around and communicate with each other the less and less the differences are. In fact most of these “incompatible” cultural differences are driven by poverty and lack of education. You act like culture is unchangeable, the culture of 100 years ago is a completely different culture then we have today. We are all remarkably similar when we get to the core of who we are and how we interact. And no people don’t typically do better in their own culture, the groups that have all stayed stagnant and not interacted with the rest of the world are not exactly great for their inhabitants. As far as differences in culture like people being homophobic therefore incompatible I would suggest they would fit in just fine in a red conservative state. We have plenty homophobic people in our western countries already. There is no cultural difference that the rule of law wouldn’t handle.. sure people like you may moan and cry about new immigrants but eventually most people adjust and the kids all blend in and do fine.
@@terrystevens3998 throwing gays off of buildings or stoning a woman for being raped is, in my opinion, a pretty big difference relative to the West.
I assume that you don't live near a police no-go zone in France or the UK or Germany or Amsterdam or Sweden or Spain or Italy based on your interpretation of melding
@@deflamrek that is illegal in our countries so if it is a part of the culture then it won’t be once they get to the new country, and people in all cultures murder and kill women, the western world is not above rape culture and sexism. Usually they kill women they are related to or in a relationship. There is no difference, we have right wing regressive sexist and homophobic people in every country, less then a hundred years ago we had public lynching black people and they turned it into a big party, if you think that our countries were any different then you don’t know history. No-go zones are just a different name for a sun down town, and killing women is a global culture.. sadly
Nice thumbnail. You are totally unbiased.
?
Superb video essay my friend
Great video... Only @ 15:22 - a) Why show a Munch painting while mentioning Van Ghogh? b) Van Ghogh was not an impressionist.
Love this video. I don't agree with some of the comments that this points to a naturalist argument for migration: rather it's doing the opposite, it's breaking down a naturalist argument *against* migration. What this video lacks (and I was expecting, especially towards the end) was arguments for migration, though I do realize those tend to get a bit repetitive (and can feel obvious!) so I understand the channel's hesitancy to delve into that.
What I would've loved to hear more about is how the ideology of Liberalism perhaps relies on scientific racism/believing humans are attached to places, while holding the contradictory belief of freedom of movement. Maybe it was there, but I kinda missed it, I'm not a great watcher. But loved this video, will be supporting soon I think : )
"What I would've loved to hear more about is how the ideology of Liberalism perhaps relies on scientific racism/believing humans are attached to places, while holding the contradictory belief of freedom of movement."
It's not contradictory to believe in an individual's freedom of movement while acknowledging that specific groups of people can become "attached to places" and it definitely isn't "scientific racism". Not sure how you could even begin to frame it that way logically.
Incredible video ! I really like how the video itself embodied the migratory movement itself; though the fields of taxonomy, biology, nation states, genetics, migration of animals, economy, technology, etc
21st century scale of migration was never the norm though out history.
This is sort of the analysis a "rootless cosmopolitan" will invariably produce (and yes, I'm using that term fully aware of its insinuations, don't care, don't @ me). Tacitus, in his analysis of the Germanic tribes, depicts blood ties of loyalty as the basis of their nationhood. The Barbarians were mobile qua Barbarians. As such, migration and conquest were one and the same thing. When you tendentiously ask 'Why do we move around our countries but regard the migrant as a Problem???', you only betray your own lack of belonging. And no, you "containing multitudes" doesn't count. Cultures and ethnies are dynamic, but you survey these dynamics from a viewpoint which occupies no particular position. I'm glad my group, Anglo-Saxons, migrated (conquered) others and not the reverse. That's what it means to possess a morality.
It seems once a technological threshold is breached, a process of formalized demarcation through a state apparatus protects the primordial concern - blood. Thus, blood and soil is born. A homeland becomes necessary. Although it by no means precludes movement, rootedness, and the homogeneity that breeds, promotes a vital and healthy social organism. Durkheim identified division of labour in conjunction with the spacial distancing of its specializations as the cause of social anomie, from which psycho-emotional substrate you produce midwit bugman videos projecting your paranoid interiority onto the rising tide of the third world.
Look, it was a nice effort to historicize and therefore subject to a demystifying 'gaze' "our attitudes to migrants", but this won't work anymore, fren. The 'beasts of prey' who will legislate the values of future have read the source material of your discourse (Fanon, Said, Wendy Brown, Derrida, etc), and are not moved by the moral emblems from which the propagating energy derives. Imagine watching some poor conservatard desperately cobbling together a defence of his intuitive preferences. He's ranting about "cultural Marxism" and "the post-modernists." That's how you look to us. See you in the Political.
Thank you for this post!
Each sentence is more hilariously embarrassing than the last. It gave me and my friends a good laugh.
@@xazax2641 dude definitely sniffs his own farts haha. Just typed paragraphs of pretentious bull shit.
This piece doesn’t make the relevant distinction between lawful and unlawful migration. Making analogies to past biology or the migration patterns of animals isn’t germane to more recent and only human inventions; sovereignty and laws.
Animals also defend their groups and territories, often more harshly than humans could.
The fact is that a national people agree on rules of the land they live. This isn’t controversial. Only when other countries seek to impose their will upon a nation does it become so.
The video is a genealogy of the laws that govern migration. Just because such laws are brought in by democracies does not mean they're above critique.
The argument concerning nature is just to criticise the historical arguments for the racism underlying the development of immigration laws. It is not intended to present a new rule of nature that we have to follow.
The law is just a piece of paper in the case of immigration, there is no cultural difference between legal and illegal immigration in history, essentially it doesn’t really matter for the purpose of this film
@@terrystevens3998 But it DOES matter to real-world issues.
@@rigelb9025 no it really doesn’t.. the same amount of people are in America if they have papers or not.. culturally there is no difference between an undocumented immigrant that lives in America has a kid raises them and then passes away and an American citizen doing the same thing
A few years back I had the luck to visit Vietnam (which I found amazing).
In Ho Chi Minh City I couchsurfed at a girl's place. She told me that she likes to travel and she asked me many questions about Europe. She'd love to visit it, but Vietnamese passport and income make that very difficult. That conversation filled me with a deep, deep sadness that lasts to this day.
Why can't she visit my country the same way that I can visit hers? Why do people have to go through literal fucking hell to flee from their countries when I, an immigrant myself, could emigrate so easily?
This angers me so much. Fuck borders and fuck nationalism.
Cheers man, great video.
The problem is not borders, but citizenship. The State exerts their rule on a people which is delimited by a defined border, that makes it easy to apply one law or the other, to live without borders means to live in a grey area of law where only international law could apply, the problem remains though: who is to enforce law in an undemocratic system where checks & balance boils down to 'who has the bigger stick'? The answer is: nobody.
So leave the things as they are, the Westphalian system may not be fair, but it's best system we could come up with, hands down.
The problem is not borders, but citizenship. The State exerts their rule on a people which is delimited by a defined border, that makes it easy to apply one law or the other, to live without borders means to live in a grey area of law where only international law could apply, the problem remains though: who is to enforce law in an undemocratic system where checks & balance boils down to 'who has the bigger stick'? The answer is: nobody.
So leave the things as they are, the Westphalian system may not be fair, but it's best system we could come up with, hands down.
@@jacques.cousteau Why does law or rather the rule of law need to be enforced in the first place? Specifically by militarized borders and police?
@@jghifiversveiws8729 jeez I don't know... maybe because otherwise we would be living in a hobbesian state of nature? Hail to the strong ones, and good luck to everybody else.
With climate change there will be countries that can’t sustain human life, do they just die because borders. Borders are unnatural and not a logical way of distributing resources. We are eventually going to have to evolve beyond borders or resign ourselves to allowing mostly third world people die by the millions pushing them back on their parched land. Are you ready to fling immigrants to their death? Animals immigrate for a reason because they can’t overtax the environment in one area, but humans insist we can do this without consequence when that is wrong
Simply amazing! So much effort. Thank you :)
"He was only released in 1906."
Wait, WHAT?!?!
One question: 20:30 - Are u making ur case for migration based on the argument that itt is "a natural global phenomenon found in every species"? Is that the clinching argument? Bcoz that kind of gets very problematic. It sort of falls into the same trope of legitimising/validating human behaviour in terms of being "natural", which is literally the kind of jargon used to marginalise and penalise a whole bunch of stuff as "unnatural" and "abnormal"
Do you think water is a natural requirement for human beings? Do you think it's natural for humans to need oxygen? Surely we can agree that it's part of human nature to breath oxygen and drink water. We don't immediately fall into tyranny by acknowledging these things as natural. We always need to be wary and ready to criticise what is said to be natural, but it would be a fallacy to say nothing is natural or that we can never say anything is natural or essential for human life.
As for the argument of the video, it does not mainly rely on an appeal to nature. Instead, the genealogical argument disrupts the foundations of anti-immigration discourse. It shows its origins are in racist arguments about what nature is which have been superseded by new discoveries.
@@robertgould1345 Which is what I said, racist arguments use the trope of "what is natural" using a scientific narrative for racist purposes. There is factual science, and there is narrative of science. Later discoveries have proved several seientific ideas of the past to be fraught, yet the narratives of the racism, gender bias, homophobia through science persist. Evidently facts are not what drive these narratives, as facts can be and are twisted to form narratives supporting whatever viewpoint needs to be propagated. The entire premise of "naturalness" as the basis of societal ethos, rights and equality seems susceptible to manipulation to support hierarchic categorisation. It has nothing to do with facts of physical nature, and everything to do with narratives.
Also, I wonder, if facts of "nature" do find some human beings "lesser" than others in terms of factual physiological parameters: strength, physical ability or disability, brain issues, whether eyesight is impaired, ability to procure, and so on - there are all facts, and these are inequalities inherent in nature. Just as all human beings need water and air is true, all human beings are not physiologically equal is also true - a natural truth. How then does the "naturalness" thesis fit into societal equality of all human beings? Haven't we reached the stage where we deem all human beings equal irrespective of "natural" parameters? Isn't that the goal of egalitarian ethos?
@@radioactivedetective6876 as I said, we always need to be ready to criticise "human nature" due to the historical abuse of that concept. But, I say again, that doesn't mean we can never use the concept.
And the video clearly doesn't say "migration is natural therefore you must migrate" or that "migration is natural therefore those who migrate are better than those who don't". So, it's not an argument for a social norm.
@@robertgould1345
My comment was specifically made about the statement made at the time stamp I have provided. 20:30
And I have NOT said the video says "... must migrate" or "... those who migrate are better". I have specified "migration is natural to all species globally", "natural" being the operative word, and that too generalised for all species. Please don't add stuff I did not say.
Finally, of course u CAN use the concept of "human nature", I was statting my reservations, not asking anyone to not use it.
@@radioactivedetective6876 And my comments are specifically in reply to your comments.
I have not said that you said that the video says "...must migrate".
I was instead referring to differences in the argument of the video at 20:30 to arguments that usually underpin social norms. I think you mentioned the danger of social norms coming from "human nature" (I'm in the middle of typing this reply and the app won't let me simultaneously look back at your comments).
Terrific video. A lot of people would be upset by this and dislike the idea of globalisation. I guess that's a fair opinion to be anti-immigration but I think this video was particularly effective at demystifying cultural differences and relativities. We are all just humans in flux - no minute cultural detail is very important or overly different from the next. Brilliant again!
Cultural norms do matter and affect people’s lives. If a group comes to a very distinct country and develops its own enclave, it will certainly cause unrest (e.g Sweden). That demonstrates the importance of it.
@@loageor8205 rationalizing
70% migrated out of their parish in 18th Century. 30% parochial.
Hello, thank you for the video-clear, neat and to the point. Could you please provide the soundtrack you used?
I was born in California. Mostly grew up in NYC and live in Germany. So I agree here but I still need to know why pig and elephant DNA just won't mix?
thank you for the video
How many houses can we keep on building and how are they to integrate while they live in hyper concentrated areas you know I integrated in Britain when my family came but the other ones haven't due to religion but also economic exclusion.
We can build homes and apartments really fast - we just need better zoning laws and regulate corporate real estate.
You are one of the reasons why I believe in the progress of humanity.
Thank you for this great work!
ufff......
there awere as many syrian refugees coming to europe in all of 2015 as ukrainian refugees in the first week of the war
nothing more needs to be said
Holy shit the eugenicists in the early comments : /
And they keep on coming :(
So much for debate yes ? And now people want a 2nd rate lawyer to debate a doctor about vaccines.
Absolutely beautiful work.
i think they forgot religion war ....?
why western country make war on oriental country?
but now we are 2023
You are very close to having an episode on apartheid Israel ;) and there is no subject more worthy of discussion NOW than that.
Does multi-cultralism function at a working-class level?? 🤔
No
It's a big mistake to naturalize the argument for migration. Races were and by some are still considered natural. You mentioned Deleuze (a philosopher of the becoming) but ended up defending an essentialist point of view for migration.
Thanks for the video.
Deleuze also had essentialist perspectives on matters of sex and ethnicity. It isn't cut and dry, and I don't think he wanted people to take his work as such.
@@EpicBeard815 I don't think we read the same Deleuze.
J'ai rédigé mon mémoire a propos du Vitalisme et le lien avec OOO, alors voila, je m'y connais un peu dans la matière. Salut!
So, not related to the topic but I love the music you use in your videos.
So do I. And by the way, even if your comment isn't about the topic of this specific video, it applies to all of his videos. So it's definitely not off-topic.
Some shoddy conjectures
Lets see how like-dislike-ratios will go...
When have you seen a bad like dislike ratio in this channel? It's followed mainly by libs.
@@OjoRojo40 I mean, it's only one square on the political compass that has a hate boner for immigrants.
The bigot is small, but think they're big.
God I wish the great idea of managing invasive plants and animals didn't have such sinister origins. Australia and the Americas would probably be better off without the hitchhikers that arrived with colonizers.
Struggling to work out whether the disingenuity shown here is cunning or just ignorant.
Cope
@@vercingetorixarverni6343 No u
Such an amazing video.
....when they started demanding handouts. There, now you don't have to watch the video.
Liked this a lot thanks
Unpopular opinion: refugees are the most brave
And the people who hate them are the most cowardly. They would never muster the courage it takes to leave everything they know behind to go to a place completely alien to them, where they know they won't be treated well, and still go and do it, knowing full well they may not make it alive.
@@PrimericanIdol these are the same nations bombing them. They put a puppet regime and if you ask any refugees lives befroe amerciana and europena intervation they would say it was a btter peacul time. Remebr the USA and Europe put terrorisy etremist into power.
I disagree, I think bravery is fighting for your own country not runing away to another - most of the migrants are fighting aged men who leave behind women and children. I find it quite cowardly!
I totally agree!!!
@@wft15it's actually the West that has created the de-stress in the Middle East. It's always The West fault.
Film does seem to convey it's point rather clearly and can't fault it in that regard. The absence of a number of qualifiers and the title among other things makes it seem as if the flipside has been ignored altogether (it's not a film about the flipside, but at least mention it!)
All migration is not equal. Crocodiles aren't boarding planes to go to Norway. Like a new diet can't be "proven" after one hour of doing it, wanting to travel everywhere we wish not only contradicts those who are unable to- it also contradicts the system's/biosphere's/locale's capacity to withstand the onslaught of our whims.
In contrast to the anti-migration bias there are also many other biases- like bias of immediate and shallow pleasure, for example.
Wtf are you talking about?
Great video.
Is as I've always said: Stagnation is death.
You seem to be unaware that the hunter-gatherer who migrated everywhere gave way to settled farms. We gave up up the "right" to go anywhere when individual states were created. Our modern world is based on that. You were born at a place that becomes yours. If you want to stay legal and move you need to satisfy the conditions set out for acceptance. You cant just go anywhere as you please. That isnt going to change. Unless of course you intend to become an "illegal".
In that case, modern day destitute migrants have very solid reasons to move to relatively peaceful and more prosperous places, whether they can afford to get permission from men in uniforms and suits, or not.
@@PrimericanIdol That does not change the basis of society. I think most can see things have changed since humanity moved out of Africa. Everything depends on people in general obeying the law and ultimately being willing to defend their land. How else could society operate ? Illegal immigration must be seen against the wider context. We are no longer free to move to another country as we wish. Illegal migrants dont change that.
The problem is that illegal inmigration could make more Bad than good, for example, the illegal alijahs to Palestine (mandate of palestine) in the ww2. Or Sweden which became one of the most dangerous countries in Europe. Remember, Legal inmigration is not Bad, the illegal yes
another banger
To some extent I agree, but the problem occours when masses of people try to migrate to other place with different culture. In older days, this usually ment war between tribes. That said, I think convervative borders nowdays represent more about the culture of people in the country and less about racial features. You might move to place with a culture seeming similar you want to live like, but to take your culture from place you are coming from to somewhere with different one? I disagree. To immigrate is to integrate. And if you are willing for that, then you are welcomed to your new home.
Except culture isn't a static unchanging feature of a certain geography anymore than race is. New people arriving to my country from different countries have add to and enriched culture with not only the culture they import, but also the ways it mixes, interacts and blends with all that of everyone else. Imagine what American culture would be like without centuries of immigration, now imagine how deprived the future of American culture would be without further immigration. And of course the culture of the new society naturally changes the migrants, and especially their children as the generations progress. My Norwegian ancestors who moved here never learned English, but I know nobody who still speaks Norwegian. People integrate much easier when they aren't subject to discrimination and hostility. People retreat into the safe, accepting and familiar culture when the new foreign culture seems hostile.
You can't forcibly erase the culture of other people with violence, Europeans tried it against indigenous people and it only made their identity of cultural difference stronger. Forcibly trying to keep out people who are culturally different from you is also a violent self-defeating process. Mutual respect of our differences and recognition of our common humanity is the answer.
@@AlexM-wq7in I think out of western countries US (and maybe Canada) make quite exception there, since their culture from the beginning of the nation relies solely on immigration, except for the natives of course. But let's look at countries with culture tied deep in their past. For example mediterrarian countries religion is still big part of their culture. And it is clear as day, the religious ones don't want immigrants from other religions. That would be nomadic even, for the immigrant, to want to live in a country with completely different culture you do not approve.
That is true that mutual respect of our differences is important, but it doesn't mean we have to make living in peace harder than it has to be with each other. Many western countries are already very divided inside with black and white thinking (or rather left and right), and even that conflict has to be setteled peacefully in the future, since the peoples morales differ in very wide scale. About the humanity part, it would mean to all of us to live according to same moral and ethics. In todays world, that is not clearly the case, and it hardly ever will be since, moral is based on ones own values, rather than absolute facts.
@@BlitzFx Notably, values and culture are two very different things. Two people from within the same culture can have dramatically different values, and two people from different cultures can share the same values. A liberal atheist and an conservative catholic might both be Italians, speak the same language, enjoy the same foods & music, but have completely different moral values. I fully expect the Mediterranean countries will lose their Catholic majorities from people leaving the religion for atheism. That doesn't make Italy stop being Italy. I have a Kurdish friend who is as culturally different from me as is possible, but we agree on morals/politics, in fact more than I do with my own grandfather! Religious jews, muslims and christians (whether catholic or protestant) are both often quite conservative on issues of gender & sexuality, whether they admit it or not, they share similar values. It's the values that matter, not somebody's skin color, or their language, or what music/food they like.
Now, I have to accept that there are people with values/morals I believe are wrong, even immoral. But I respect the rights of my right-wing grandfather, just as I accept the rights of a religious Muslim to believe what they believe in, and share this same country with me. I would try to persuade them to my point of view, but I wouldn't want them to drown in the Mediterranean.
Expecting people to assimilate to your culture for them to be allowed to live next to you is pretty awful, and it will never happen, a dominant culture should not outrank an immigrant and change who they are and want to be, they should be combined and form a new culture where both are represented. Demanding assimilation is just supremacy. Culture always changes and that is a good thing.
@@terrystevens3998 I disagree. Cultures with like minded people will flourish thousand times more, than ones which are on edge of civil war because of differences between it's population. People need connection. This was one of the root causes of Arab spring and I'm fearing it will start happening in west as well. One other thing to note is that in history states have tried to rule masses with fascism, the goal being to create like minded people, but that again, does not result in anything good and only in discrimination of human rights.
So, the best option I see, is to have liberal visa appliance, but harder to get citizenship. This allows free travel for a periods of times, but not full entitlement for living in the country. Of course one can then apply for citizenship or another visa, and get it if they seem to be integrated.
Of course this is a topic of greater discussion and can't be wrap up in few sentences, but there is much more to it than just the change of culture.
His videos always make points, I myself would have never thought of.
I thought that the origins of racial and ethnic differences are nature and biology. I didn't realize that we have recently discovered humans are exempt from the laws of evolution.
we aren't. evolution just happens on a much longer scale of time, and current humans are all part of one very short-lived species (relatively).
Race and Ethnicity are evolutionary concepts. They are based on how humans categorize ourselves within our own species based mostly on shared history, culture, geography, ect.
Race isn't evolution. It can't be placed into any evolutionary categorization of species without breaking the categories for every other species. You'd have to rewrite universal rules to recategorize everything which means throwing away the biological reasons things are categorized in the way that they are.
Race isn't evidence based, it's the product of cultural beliefs and was constructed out of ignorance and motivated reasoning.
If you are skeptical then you can do a little research into taxonomic categories. See what the scientific study of evolution says, for yourself.
I would like to know which movie it is that chaplin is rounded up on a ship alongside a group of people when they sail past the big goddess statue who holds ice cream high and clutch a dictionary.
Its around 0: 52
You're ignoring a big reason why people dislike migration, which is that, historically, migration has resulted in many conflicts between the migrant group and the local one. Take the US for example. When millions of WHITE EUROPEANS came to America as immigrants, they literally whiped out the natives through diseases and genocide to take their land for themselves. The same can be said about the Bizantines and the Turks or the Arab invasions of North Africa, which displaced the Berber (Amazigh) population to the mountains where they live until today as marginalized peoples in their own ancestral homeland. Also, when an invasive species arrives, it tends to destroy local fauna or flora to dominate on its new landscape. The point of it though is that this cycle is natural and inevitable. But alas, you might not believe me since you've made a platform by attacking science.
"You're ignoring a big reason why people dislike migration, which is that, historically, migration has resulted in many conflicts between the migrant group and the local one. Take the US for example. When millions of WHITE EUROPEANS came to America as immigrants, they literally whiped out the natives through diseases and genocide to take their land for themselves."
Weird how the people who dislike migration today also dislike talking about colonial genocide and excuse it.
"The point of it though is that this cycle is natural and inevitable. But alas, you might not believe me since you've made a platform by attacking science."
No it isn't inevitable and it isn't "science".
@@ChrisMM65 using the US for an example of why immigration doesn’t work is silly, the issue with the natives and the colonizers was not the local tribe infighting with the immigrants, that was slaughter based on white supremacy and seeing a group as less then. That has nothing to do with immigration, there is always a group of racists who grumble about the immigrants but as long as they don’t get genocidal it is fine in a generation.. culture is constantly changing, it isn’t even the same state to state. Just stop.
Butchered the pronunciation Afrikaner and Xhosa
Defon definitely don't know where eden was lol not fuccin Europe hahaha
Then & Now, I love your channel, these are great pieces, but are you going to give Sonia Shah any credit for this episode?!? I’ve been getting deja vu to reading the Next Great Migration, a fantastic book but one not mentioned here.
Shah is credited in the description and cited in the video. A great book.
It's kind of funny to be releasing a video advocating for uncontrolled migration, when the COVID-19 pandemic has been the best argument for borders and border controls in a VERY LONG TIME. That we're putting up walls between each other is telling; people do not want their societies changed or threatened by outsiders, it's simple as that. To act like this is historically anomalous is disingenuous. People have often been defined by where they stand, either behind or in front of the wall. The vast majority of human beings, even in antiquity, lived in vast empires that constructed walls around their soft underbellies.
It really isn't an invention of modernity.
Love it
nothing wrong with a bit of racism, it's natural, people prefer to be around people like them, loving your family best doesn't mean you hate other families.
LOL. "Being racist is like loving your family." Absolute clown.
That's not what people refer to as racist.
Wow you're reprehensible
Wars are very natural too but technology that we have today makes for the wars to be unacceptable. I mean video is full of fallacies, just because something is natural it doesn't mean it's good.
wars were not "natural" for the vast majority of human history. 95 percent of it, or more. see douglas p fry.
i think then & now more than understands the naturalistic fallacy. his appeal to it is used as a direct counter to the historical "scientific" tradition of using naturalistic arguments against race mixing and settlements. his argument doesn't end with "migration is natural so it's good." he instead concludes in a universal humanist argument. just because the bulk of the video is about the naturalism of migration doesn't mean his argument is using that as the sole point.
Book was was fairy tale and delusional
Basic property rights through society's lens: that guy has a melon - its his. The guy who rises up to take him melon - he is a thief. It goes with property, wives, children, men (lost at war, no one wants them otherwise).
It doesn't matter what culture you grew up in, property rights are necessary to its functioning at any larger scale (even tribal communities and gift giving cultures have property rights - it wouldn't be a gift if it wasn't mine to give to you). Its necessary for stability.
What is property rights? he had it first.
sedentary bias? nonsense, we had it first. We will do democracy - the 10 guys here first all vote for the status quo, and the one new guy votes against it. He looses.
These days its the kids who are new, and the elderly with all the property rights. These days its the Nimby's vs the development. These days its the population vs the expert (who really knows how the system works guys so settle down - he is an expert after all).
These days its the unhappy populace vs their political and economic institutions (which are in such delicate balance we cannot disrupt them, but lucky us, its actually those damn immigrants ruining things instead!). These days its the Strawman argument vs the Red herring.
There are a lot of camps, and you'll have conservative and revolutionary feet in all of them. And sadly, both parties have something worthy to say. Except eugenics, those guys are psycho pseudoscience cray cray.
Good Video
1. "If not for racism and racists there would be no problems from immigration."
2. "Migrating 10 miles is the same as migrating 5,000 miles and a population of .1% migrants is the same as a population of 10%."
3. "Migration is natural and via the naturalistic fallacy: good. Territoriality is natural and via the naturalistic fallacy: bad."
4. "Because culture is always changing it is foolish to try and control the pace and directions of that change."
5. "Because there are no races that means everyone is equal in talents and the same in preferences."
6. And most importantly: "People who I say believe these strawmen are 100% wrong and 100% evil and a more nuanced discussion that moves beyond these strawmen is impossible."
Because there are no races, any given population large enough given the same opportunities will probably produce similar results. Who thought you logic? You complain about mass immigration, but consider only merit of a given individual.
@@enfercesttout "probably", why probably? Have different populations all developed the same level of advancement in all areas of human endeavor? If they have not why would you expect them to in the future?
@@enfercesttout given opportunities xd who gives those opportunities?
@@lusciouslucius The social organization duh
@@oaxacachaka because of geographical factors. Duh
13/50
What a cowardly way to say that you are a bigot Hahahahaha
@@S_B_. Yeah, statistics and science is so bigoted and racist!
@@russhl125 rewatch the video. Bad science is bad and racist science is racist.
@@russhl125 Yeah, right. They are just statements with a value of true and false. But, "Is raining" doesn't say more than the fact that it is raining. Is the arguments you try to construct with them what are racist and bigoted. And moreover: they are invalid. The reason of that statistic existence is not genetics but the inequality of the country it comes from. So stop being such a coward and say at loud what you wanna say instead of cowardly hiding behind a statistic that only tells how you reading comprehension, statistic analysis, and critical thinking skills are in negative numbers.
Your dog whistle is a foghorn
I wonder if any Republicans watch this video and agree with it yet still vote Republican.
They definitely won't. They just don't believe the video
In america isn't not that immigrants are bad it's that the people who come into the country illegally that is bad according to many. We have systems in place to legally come even though it takes awhile to do. We have these systems for a reason and that is to make sure people respect our laws and institutions and understand what our country is and stands for. If the earth was suddenly converted into a globalist society then illegal immigration would be gone because all territories would have to allow unrestricted immigration but at the same time everyone would be a citizen of the earth rather than a citizen of a country.
"Better the pride that resides
In a citizen of the world
Than the pride that divides
When a colorful rag is unfurled"
Rush - Territories
when we are too lenient on the gweilo, Johnny Somali, and Logan Paul happened. Which is why foreigners NEED to behave themselves when visiting. and people are surprised that japan once had a No Gaijin policy...
Incredibly ironic, that lower genetic diversity is what causes deterioration, and genetic diversity is immensely beneficial to adaptation ability and long term survivability.
Economic Migration. Welfare States
Much love 🕉️♥️
so you're saying that racial differences are real but that ideology convinced us we're all one race?
I’m an immigrant and I’m against immigrants from UNLAWFULLY entering a country
yeah a great example is the affect that it had on the native american peoples nation when the settlers decided to illegally immigrate, or when the Mexican land was stolen for western expansion by these same settlers descendants. But it was not illegal migration it was an invasion, I guess one things leads to another.