[Colin Glassey 11 AM]
Here is a remarkable essay on the state of France's outer city zones which are a nightmare land of unemployed, alienated second and third generation African (mostly Algerian) and religious minorities. They seem well on their way to developing a hatred of the rest of French society. The author is Theodore Dalrymple, the article was published in The City Journal, an urban policy magazine.
The question as I see it is how can a nation create a shared sense of identity when its reason for existance is based on history? In a real sense, how can a non-French person ever become French? France doesn't exist because of some ideas, it exists because of its long history, its shared story of the people who have lived there for 2,200 years of recorded history. The same problem is found in many other European countries such as Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Spain, Italy, etc. Nations built on history can provide a shared sense of identity, of meaning, only to people who share that history. Immigrants, even 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants don't share much history with the native population.
Coming at this from the world view of an American, I don't see many good answers. A country like Sweden can't just declare its existance is based on ideals. In a real sense, Sweden only exists because a single, identifiable group of people worked over hundreds of years to create it.
Naturally I think this suggests that historic nations as means of giving people identity are in real trouble in a world where so many people move around. I would phrase the problem as follows: immigrants can't join historic nations but rich historic nations can't (or won't) keep immigrants out. My solution is some sort of global human identity (modeled naturally off the United States).
11:05:04 AM 
|
|
