IMHO, I think European countries going into Africa and intervening is part of a .... ongoing issue with the lasting results and effects of colonialism. Granted I'm not here to debate whether they should or not, but that seems to be large reason why the European countries tend to intervene.
Of course it is. But colonialism is supposed to be over.
Therefore it shouldn't be one country's business. It should be the world's business.
France going there is like "oh? you can't take care of yourself without us? It's alright, I'm coming to give you a hand, I'll always be there for you, I'm your big sister, you know" I find it awful. It's looking down on African countries.
Well, that's how I see it. I didn't dare discussing it with any of my African friends who came to France to study… I don't think it would be a good idea to discuss about that xD
Speaking of that, I don't like how Germany and France feel like they're the kings of Europe, a foot above the other countries… They have good reasons too, but still, I don't like it.
Wait now. This sounds like certain path towards eradication to me!
Personally, I think the "reducing" of national culture isn't really necessary. The next generation and the one after that will just create a new culture. In the same way, that many in Europe tend to be multilingual, I would expect that many will be multi-cultural as well. And as far as languages go, though you did say you were against it, I think Europe should embrace Esperanto. It's neutral, it's something that everyone on the continent can learn, and it certainly gets rid of worrying who's language will be picked to be the national European. Because the answer is "none of them". New language for a new age for a new generation of Europeans.
It's not necessary, but it will happen. That's a given.
Let me give you an example: in France, there's one region named "Champagne-Ardenne", that's where Champagne is made btw; this region has a wonderful history in the middle ages. Hugues de Payns, the founder of the Knights Templar, was from there for example. Yet, in this region, students don't learn anything specific to the region. They learn about France in general. And almost no one ever heard the name of Hugues de Payns…
Anyways, the same thing will happen in Europe: people will learn about Europe history. Not about one specific country. That's the only way to get a real union.
It won't be an eradication, because it will be possible to study that in universities, and maybe countries will manage to talk a bit more of their own country than the others, but culture will without a doubt be reduced.
I told Milareppa why I think Esperanto is a bad idea. A language has a history and gives a specific way of thinking. It's obvious when you speak several languages. A language lives, evolves, it can't be created out of nowhere. I can't see it succeeding.
I completely agree. I feel for you all in that sense. Especially with the backlash against Africans and Middle Easterners you have going on there. And yes, I understand there are specific grievances you have with immigrants coming to Europe.
Mhm? I don't really see the link with what I said. Immigration is another problem (if I might say) altogether. In France, it's quite complicated… On one part you have the Roms who are hated because people see them begging all the time and say they are stealing; and on the other hand you have Arabs who managed, I don't know how, to scare the "pure white french people" (as if anyone was purely french…) because they appeared like "invaders" --that's one weird thing, believe me. As for black people, as far as I can see, as long as they can speak a good french, there's no trouble. Not in any of the areas I've lived in at least.
The main problem with immigration in Europe is that it happens that locals think the immigrants are stealing their jobs from them (though there was no one to do the job before) or then they are living freely on state financial helps (as if the non-immigrants were not doing that).