For once, it isn't the US taking heat for its immigration practices. French Immigration Minister, Eric Besson, is making waves. Mr. Besson argues for enforcing French identity and history on immigrants, which to him, according to the news reports, seems to mean Christianity, the French language, and the lack of burkas. The issues of diversity and freedom versus homogeneity and integration are, indeed, a hotbed of debate in many countries, as we hammer out what it means to be a nation, and what individual expression and cultural identity are, in a transnational world.Defining ourselves, individually and collectively, is perhaps not so simple. Taking a long-term, objective look at humans, we see that as a species, we are not quite as heterogeneous as we would think and that as "nations," we are not quite as unique as we would like to believe! We all share the same gene sequences which make us Homo sapiens sapiens, yet those sequences that make up individual traits have done a heck of a lot of traveling through the millenia.
Human history consists of groups branching out all over the globe, with some populations invading other populations to control their resources. Gene pools were separated enough for characteristics to differentiate between regions, but also intermixed enough to keep gene pools fresh. In Europe, there are quite a few shared lineages -- the Romans were everywhere! And the reach of the Normans and the Moors was nothing to sneeze at, either.
In any given region, people develop not just genetic traits, but also cultural ones. As "outsiders" migrated in and out and administrative rule changed hands, some customs were lost in the shuffle, while new ones were created. But many have persisted for generations and evolved with the influx of new ideas, regardless of who was in charge and what those rulers chose to call their territory. Even in a country as young as the US, we have developed regional customs and traditions, separate from those of the nation as a whole.
My First Quiche, June 2009
Within the current borders of France, where Besson is attempting to define a singular identity, there are still localized languages, customs and cuisines (granted, most of those languages are dying quickly) that existed before France was France, or before those regions were part of France. Take quiche. We think of it as French, but some have argued that it is German: Lorraine (née Lotharingia) was a part of Germany, or what we now consider Germany, when it was developed; and the word quiche has a Germanic (as opposed to Latin) derivation -- from Küche, a diminutive of Kuchen (cake). And populations in the Alps, Pyrenees and along the Mediterranean share more cultural heritage with others in their respective areas that happen to be across modern day borders than they do with current countrymen from other départements.It would be difficult to justify banning an article of clothing based on it not being a part of a culture without likewise banning others. If France bans burkas based on that reasoning, they'd also have to ban caftans, kimonos, kilts, hula skirts, cowboy hats, Bermuda shorts... Granted, kimonos wouldn't be a problem, since Japanese women have replaced them with Chanel and Vuitton.
Speaking of kimonos, 50 years after women in my family burned theirs attempting to fit in and be more American, the soon-to-be stepmother of the man I was dating shelled out a fortune for a Japanese wedding kimono to wear at her own wedding because it was unique and exotic for her, a fashion statement. I wonder if women will be doing the same with burkas 50 years from now.
Kidding aside, how far should a government go in suppressing personal choices and compelling uniformity, particularly one that spans so many subcultures? I think we all agree that actions that adversely affect others, such as stealing or physically harming someone, should be controlled, although there is often disagreement with regard to the how, but beyond that, I'm interested in knowing what you think...
We got on the wrong track when we allowed government to become our master instead of our servant. Now, the many are controlled by the few everywhere in the world. The people have the real power, but typically they're unable to wield it due to lack of organization. Once in a while we see a revolution, but it just ends up--as in Cuba--replacing one despot with another.
ReplyDeleteA "free" country should allow diversity...BUT, if there's any good argument for banning something it would be the burka, more a symbol of repression against women than an item of cultural identity.
There is that old saying of too many cooks spoiling the broth. It is infinitely more difficult to organize a large group than a small one!
ReplyDeleteAs for protecting people from their own culture, many Japanese women switched to western style clothing, not for fashion, but because they identified it as moving away from repression. And it was not so long ago that some women in the US viewed any domestic item as a symbol of repression. But those were conscious decisions on their part, not ones made for them. I think things like that are best carried out when people decide for themselves.
Burka is a very extreme example in my opinion. Not showing your face frightens your counterpart and it makes law enforcement difficult - I am thinking of the posters in English shops that forbid to enter with helmets or masks on or of the "Vermummungsverbot" in Germany, that forbids wearing masks etc when attending demonstrations etc.. I think burkas have this aspects - the law enforcement and the deep disquiet they evoke - additionally to religious or feminist aspects they may have.
ReplyDeleteOn one side it is the typical arrogant western approach to tell other cultures what is good for them, I agree with this and I don't support this attitude, on the other side society has to work - somehow. In Germany there is a very complicated situation in law about wearing headscarfs regarding women employed in civil service.
Any kind of headscarf? Good thing they're no longer the rage like they were in the 1940s and 1960s!
ReplyDeleteI have been thinking that immigration laws tend to address the outcome, rather than the causes. We see people risking their lives to cross borders and live under the radar and attempt to physically stem the flow. But we completely ignore the economic factors that cause unbearable conditions for those people to think the risk is worth it, and the demand for cheap labor in the countries they flee to.
Hm, that is exactly the question, yes. I think some Roman Catholic woman wearing a scarf would never have to face this.
ReplyDeleteWe're very good in the U.S. about treating the symptom instead of the underlying problem...that's why we build border fences in a silly and futile attempt to keep people out, instead of addressing the underlying problem --as Kobico says--of why people are compelled to come here in the first place.
ReplyDelete(On a lighter note, I think bras are a symbol of oppression, and women should start burning them again!)
Maybe some of it has to do with not wanting the labor pool to become too competitive...
ReplyDeleteI am fiercely protective of my bras. I like to keep my girls strapped in and propped up to stave off their inevitable downturn for as long as possible!
I'm all in favor of girls having a good upbringing.
ReplyDeleteIt's more a pushing up than a bringing up.
ReplyDelete