addressing the issues without generalising their entire culture based on the behaviour of one single group
I don’t understand this part. Let’s say I’m (hypothetically) talking about difference in how they dress and that the minority simply dresses differently. Is saying “people from culture X traditionally wear Y” OK? Of course not every single person from culture X will wear Y but there are cultures that traditionally dress differently, right? Is that generalization or description of a culture?
ignoring the entire history that might explain how it came to this
So if someone provides historical context for behavior they are criticizing it’s not racist? Not sure if that’s enough. What if someone says “minority X was marginalized by the government for so long they are uneducated and more likely to commit crimes now”. Would that be OK?
I don’t understand this part. Let’s say I’m (hypothetically) talking about difference in how they dress and that the minority simply dresses differently. Is saying “people from culture X traditionally wear Y” OK? Of course not every single person from culture X will wear Y but there are cultures that traditionally dress differently, right? Is that generalization or description of a culture?
Saying “people traditionally wear x” is a whole lot different than saying “they’re all criminals”. You’re conflating a cultural practice with a claim about criminal behaviour. Seems like a very dishonest argument, tbh.
So if someone provides historical context for behavior they are criticizing it’s not racist? Not sure if that’s enough. What if someone says “minority X was marginalized by the government for so long they are uneducated and more likely to commit crimes now”. Would that be OK?
You’re missing the point. There are a lot of contextual things that need to be considered, historical context is one of them. Socioeconomic is a different one, which might be based on historical context. It doesn’t mean you have to provide that every time you address some issue.
It doesn’t even matter which group it is, because having to live with marginalisation, exclusion, poverty, lack of access to education or other socioeconomic conditions are associated with a greater exposure to conditions associated with crime. That’s not unique to a particular group. You’ll see that in a lot of minorities who get treated like second-class humans.
In case of the Romani, there are still people around who remember the mistreatment they received from the respective governments. For example, Slovakia forcibly sterilised Romani women well into the 90s, with some cases being documented even until the 2000s. That memory is still alive, and can explain why some Roma distrust government agencies. If i come to your house and kill your dog, you wouldn’t want me around either…
Yes, there are practices among some Roma communities that are harmful, but those are also challenged by Roma themselves. There are Romani organisations out there who fight for change in those communities. Those actually do ask the question why these practices occur, how widespread they actually are and what can be reasonably done to reduce that from happening. That’s a whole lot more useful than some performative bullshit talk about “their culture”.
So, TL;DR would be “treat the reason for the issue, not the ethnicity of the people having it”.
EDIT: And it seems some people do not understand nuance, and keep on dogwhistling
Yes, there are practices among some Roma communities that are harmful, but those are also challenged by Roma themselves. There are Romani organisations out there who fight for change in those communities. Those actually do ask the question why these practices occur, how widespread they actually are and what can be reasonably done to reduce that from happening
So you basically admit that there are problematic behavior in some Romani groups, and that’s (one of) the reason for the integration difficulty. So much so that Romani people themselves are trying to change it.
Contrary to most comments here crying racism, you won’t find many commenters here saying it’s the Romani ethnicity that’s the issue, it’s the behavior that has gotten them a bad reputation.
Yes, it’s fanny how people just use codewords and claim that everyone speaking normally is straight out racist.
“No, Roma culture is not preventing social integration, that’s racist thing to say! Some… practices among… some Roma… communities are… harmful. (ufff, racism avoided)”
You came up with some vague “hypotheticals”, kept throwing more “hypothetical claims” around and now you pretend like you “won” some discussion by treating my explanation as a concession. That is exactly the kind of dishonest argumentative pattern i’m talking about.
Yes, me asking generally about language used when discussing social integration is the issue, not you imagining what people are really trying to say. And of course other people saying racist stuff means that everyone is racist. I take personal responsibility for all racist comments on reddit, no issues on my side here.
Yes, there are practices among some Roma communities that are harmful, but those are also challenged by Roma themselves. There are Romani organisations out there who fight for change in those communities. Those actually do ask the question why these practices occur, how widespread they actually are and what can be reasonably done to reduce that from happening. That’s a whole lot more useful than some performative bullshit talk about “their culture”.
Why so aggressive? Why do you assume that I wanted to say anything else than “there are practices among some Roma communities that are harmful”?
Look at other comments. Many people here think that expecting Roma communities to change their behavior is racist in itself. Why would you assume everyone is to the right of you when you’re clearly to the right of many people on lemmy?
I haven’t tried anything yet, I’m just asking.
I don’t understand this part. Let’s say I’m (hypothetically) talking about difference in how they dress and that the minority simply dresses differently. Is saying “people from culture X traditionally wear Y” OK? Of course not every single person from culture X will wear Y but there are cultures that traditionally dress differently, right? Is that generalization or description of a culture?
So if someone provides historical context for behavior they are criticizing it’s not racist? Not sure if that’s enough. What if someone says “minority X was marginalized by the government for so long they are uneducated and more likely to commit crimes now”. Would that be OK?
Sure you are.
Saying “people traditionally wear x” is a whole lot different than saying “they’re all criminals”. You’re conflating a cultural practice with a claim about criminal behaviour. Seems like a very dishonest argument, tbh.
You’re missing the point. There are a lot of contextual things that need to be considered, historical context is one of them. Socioeconomic is a different one, which might be based on historical context. It doesn’t mean you have to provide that every time you address some issue.
It doesn’t even matter which group it is, because having to live with marginalisation, exclusion, poverty, lack of access to education or other socioeconomic conditions are associated with a greater exposure to conditions associated with crime. That’s not unique to a particular group. You’ll see that in a lot of minorities who get treated like second-class humans.
In case of the Romani, there are still people around who remember the mistreatment they received from the respective governments. For example, Slovakia forcibly sterilised Romani women well into the 90s, with some cases being documented even until the 2000s. That memory is still alive, and can explain why some Roma distrust government agencies. If i come to your house and kill your dog, you wouldn’t want me around either…
Yes, there are practices among some Roma communities that are harmful, but those are also challenged by Roma themselves. There are Romani organisations out there who fight for change in those communities. Those actually do ask the question why these practices occur, how widespread they actually are and what can be reasonably done to reduce that from happening. That’s a whole lot more useful than some performative bullshit talk about “their culture”.
So, TL;DR would be “treat the reason for the issue, not the ethnicity of the people having it”.
EDIT: And it seems some people do not understand nuance, and keep on dogwhistling
So you basically admit that there are problematic behavior in some Romani groups, and that’s (one of) the reason for the integration difficulty. So much so that Romani people themselves are trying to change it.
Contrary to most comments here crying racism, you won’t find many commenters here saying it’s the Romani ethnicity that’s the issue, it’s the behavior that has gotten them a bad reputation.
Yes, it’s fanny how people just use codewords and claim that everyone speaking normally is straight out racist.
“No, Roma culture is not preventing social integration, that’s racist thing to say! Some… practices among… some Roma… communities are… harmful. (ufff, racism avoided)”
You came up with some vague “hypotheticals”, kept throwing more “hypothetical claims” around and now you pretend like you “won” some discussion by treating my explanation as a concession. That is exactly the kind of dishonest argumentative pattern i’m talking about.
Here’s some dude who shared some of the usual comments that come up in many European reddit subs, once the word “roma” is mentioned: https://piefed.social/post/2439917#comment_13134574
Maybe that’ll help you to understand why your “hypothetical” nonsense sounds like a bunch of dogwhistles.
Yes, me asking generally about language used when discussing social integration is the issue, not you imagining what people are really trying to say. And of course other people saying racist stuff means that everyone is racist. I take personal responsibility for all racist comments on reddit, no issues on my side here.
Why so aggressive? Why do you assume that I wanted to say anything else than “there are practices among some Roma communities that are harmful”?
Look at other comments. Many people here think that expecting Roma communities to change their behavior is racist in itself. Why would you assume everyone is to the right of you when you’re clearly to the right of many people on lemmy?