‘Anti-racist’ gets a reality check
Someone calling himself “Anti-Racist Action” commented on yesterday’s post, Italy’s Turn to the Right, that Italy’s unfriendliness to Gypsies was motivated by irrational racial bias. He suggested that high rates of crime and other types of social dysfunction among Gypsies were due to discrimination against them by the Italian public. Predictably, he accused not only Italians, but me, of harboring “hate” towards Gypsies.
Of course, the discrimination bromide is the standard way of explaining all discrepancies in socio-economic status among races and ethnic groups, despite the fact that it is scarcely ever justified. It is quite easy to respond to accusations that black and Hispanic underperformance in the United States is due to racial bias. The fact that these populations have been the beneficiaries of affirmative action in hiring and education for forty years immediately renders such accusations absurd.
Since such racial preference policies do not exist in many European states, including Italy, responding to Anti-Racist Action’s accusation is slightly more difficult. However, responses are not hard to find. Note that the points I make below respond not only to the particular charge that Anti-Racist Action is making, but to all claims that minorities in Western Europe lag behind native populations because of discrimination against them by the natives. If anyone ever tells you that Muslims riot in France or that blacks shoot each other up in Britain because the French or English are mistreating them, you can trot out these points:
- All Western European nations, including Italy, offer generous welfare services to their citizens, including publicly subsidized health care, housing, and unemployment insurance. Western European nations spend between 20 to 30 percent of their gross domestic product on welfare, substantially more than the United States does. Since about half of gypsies in Italy are Italian citizens, they have received the full benefits of the welfare state. The interests of European minorities are also defended by the European Union. Minorities can scarcely claim to have been treated poorly.
- If non-Italian Gypsies believe they are ill used, why did they come to Italy in the first place? Why don’t they go back to Eastern Europe, or wherever they came from?
- One European ethnic group that has historically been the victim of quite severe racial discrimination (and, of course, much worse) is the Jews. Treatment of Jews was particularly harsh in 20th century Italy; during the World War II period, 20 percent of Italian Jews were killed. Nevertheless, Jews throughout Europe, including Italy, are thriving today. If racial discrimination couldn’t hold the Jews back, why are the Gypsies still lagging? Moreover, can a nation that allows Jews to thrive treat minorities that poorly?
- Nations are founded on a shared ethnicity, and the duty of the state is, consequently, to advance the interests of native ethnic groups, not those of minorities. No nation has any obligation to integrate a minority group. The Italian people should be free to decide whether it is in their interests to integrate their Gypsy population or to send them home. Of course, all states are obligated to treat immigrants humanely.
So that’s my answer to Anti-Racist Action and others of his kind. Do the rest of you have anything to add?