People seem to rely on the govt to provide things rather than have some agencies fill niches that aren’t filled by the govt (for example I saw signs like don’t help homeless people, the govt is helping them).
I’m from an Asian country, we don’t have much tax, we don’t rely on the govt for anything (we can’t), and we have many NGOs.
Most (but not all!) Europeans consider NGOs to be undemocratic, whereas the government is (theoretically at least) under democratic control.
Europeans identify more with nationality than ethnicity. For example, someone from Czech Republic moving to France is considered French. In North America I think they would be considered Czech-French. In Asia they would be considered to be a Czech expat living in France. Our ethnicity matters a lot.
But at what point would you stop doing so? I’m Dutch yet can trace back my ancestry to the 16th century in Belgium and northern France, what ethnicity do I have? And some have an even longer and more dispersed pedigree.
Also, you gave the example of French but what is now called France was made up from a large variety of ethnicities. Being French then is not defined as being a particular ethnicity but as belonging to the French Republic. It’s a cultural thing that matters a lot to them.
what does it mean that europeans consider NGOs to be undemocratic?
if your ancestry is from belgium/north france then you would be belgian/french with dutch nationality. I suppose when we refer to France we mean French before the 19th century immigration.
It differs a bit where I’m from. I have a friend from Malaysia who identifies as “Tamil-Malaysian” (Tamil being the ethnic group and Malaysian being the country). In HK we have a lot of ethnic minorities. Speaking frankly, if you look chinese, you would be considered HKer right off the bat, if you look any other skin colour (white, other asian, etc) you will be considered a foreigner living in HK even if your family has been there for generations. Here is a video i found as an example where some Indians who were born and raised in HK struggle to be seen as HKer
what does it mean that europeans consider NGOs to be undemocratic?
An NGO has its own policies and its own governance, which may or may not align with the wishes of the wider populace (for instance, a religious NGO in a secular society, or an NGO treating particular groups preferentially). A majority disagreeing with the policies of that NGO would achieve nothing, whereas with a governmental body they could exert democratic control.
if your ancestry is from belgium/north france then you would be belgian/french with dutch nationality.
Why? Good grief, do you have any idea how complicated that would be? Secondly, I don’t identify with that ethnicity you’re foisting upon me at all!
I suppose when we refer to France we mean French before the 19th century immigration.
Why? As I said: France was always a mixture of ethnicities, the 19th century didn’t change anything other than the skin colour of some of the French citizens (or is that what you’re hinting at?).
For me personally, someone being Dutch is based more on their attitude towards the Netherlands and other Dutch people: anyone who is loath to run into other Dutch people when abroad and who loves to complain about specific stupid policies of the Dutch government counts as Dutch to me.
Speaking frankly, if you look chinese, you would be considered HKer right off the bat, if you look any other skin colour (white, other asian, etc) you will be considered a foreigner living in HK even if your family has been there for generations.
Excluding people based on how they look, irregardless of what else (intelligence, special talents) they bring to the table, is widely considered to be racism and not acceptable in European society. I’m sure there are Europeans who think like you do, however, it’s not something that wider society considers acceptable (not to mention can be illegal).
Why? As I said: France was always a mixture of ethnicities, the 19th century didn’t change anything other than the skin colour of some of the French citizens (or is that what you’re hinting at?).
"France’s population dynamics began to change in the middle of the 19th century, as France joined the Industrial Revolution. The pace of industrial growth attracted millions of European immigrants over the next century, with especially large numbers arriving from Poland, Belgium, Portugal, Italy, and Spain.[10] In the wake of the First World War, in which France suffered six million casualties, significant numbers of workers from French colonies came. By 1930, the Paris region alone had a North African Muslim population of 70,000. Right after the Second World War, immigration to France significantly increased. During the period of reconstruction, France lacked labor, and as a result, the French government was eager to recruit immigrants coming from all over Europe, the Americas, Africa and Asia. "
This is what i’m referring to (the quote is from wikipedia). People from Poland, Belgium, Portugal, Italy, Spain, North Africa, Asia, and Africa would be considered French to a French person right? but to us they are expats who’ve moved to France. We wouldn’t consider them French necessarily.
For me personally, someone being Dutch is based more on their attitude towards the Netherlands and other Dutch people: anyone who is loath to run into other Dutch people when abroad and who loves to complain about specific stupid policies of the Dutch government counts as Dutch to me.
Yes, this is the kind of thing that seems distinctly European to me.
Excluding people based on how they look, irregardless of what else (intelligence, special talents) they bring to the table, is widely considered to be racism
ethnic minorities being segregated/excluded is a separate issue (this ties with being able to speak Cantonese, govt policies for education, etc.). I wouldn’t say that ethnic minorities/skin colour minorities are excluded from things in society per se, it’s that they are viewed as foreigners and not “real HKers”. Racism is very much a thing in Asia, i would say more so from older generations, i think younger generations are more open minded and understanding.
what does it mean that europeans consider NGOs to be undemocratic?
In a democracy power should allways be held by the people. If you have a NGO -even when it does very good things- there allways is a danger that it could go against the peoples ideals or even their interests.
You (as in the people as a whole) are also not as soverign when relying on NGOs for basic societal needs like a social saftey net as the voluntary donations founding them could stop any time. Thereby the power is transfered the donors (althought luckily most small-mid sized donors do not really exercize that power) who are mostly the wealthy as they just have more money to spend.
A better solution is taxing fairly and using the common found gained throught that in a way the majority decides.
I recently watched an interesting video from Adam Conover on that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Cu6EbELZ6I.
Altgought I do not agree with everything said (I don’t think the Patagonia nonprofit in particular is problematic in my opinion the focus should have been set even more on the issue of something like that beeing possible) I agree with the key message for the reason provided above.
there allways is a danger that it could go against the peoples ideals or even their interests.
isn’t this the same reasoning for govt though? politicians will say one thing for votes and do another thing. If anything it’s worse to trust a govt who will more likely go against people’s interests. At least an NGO has a stated aim.
not really. In an ideal democracy you could simply vote those people out in the next election . In a well working democracy there is only so much they can do before they are not reelected.
The difference to NGOs is that in a democracy one person (ideally) has exactly one vote while your influence on non profits -especially when you are wealthy enought to afford your own- is mkreso connected to what you (can) donate, so how wealthy you are.
In my opinion that makes relying on government more egalitarian whereas a system built on charities is more seceptable to oligarchigal structures.
(I understand that in many places Governments are (very) currupt or not democratic to begin with and there are many NGOs that are democratic (or meybe just plain better for the interests of the people) compared to those governments. And in those cases these NGOs are -for now- obviously better then the government.
But imo with a stable democracy the government is a fairer morer stable and more equal solution.
Most (but not all!) Europeans consider NGOs to be undemocratic, whereas the government is (theoretically at least) under democratic control.
But at what point would you stop doing so? I’m Dutch yet can trace back my ancestry to the 16th century in Belgium and northern France, what ethnicity do I have? And some have an even longer and more dispersed pedigree.
Also, you gave the example of French but what is now called France was made up from a large variety of ethnicities. Being French then is not defined as being a particular ethnicity but as belonging to the French Republic. It’s a cultural thing that matters a lot to them.
what does it mean that europeans consider NGOs to be undemocratic?
if your ancestry is from belgium/north france then you would be belgian/french with dutch nationality. I suppose when we refer to France we mean French before the 19th century immigration.
It differs a bit where I’m from. I have a friend from Malaysia who identifies as “Tamil-Malaysian” (Tamil being the ethnic group and Malaysian being the country). In HK we have a lot of ethnic minorities. Speaking frankly, if you look chinese, you would be considered HKer right off the bat, if you look any other skin colour (white, other asian, etc) you will be considered a foreigner living in HK even if your family has been there for generations. Here is a video i found as an example where some Indians who were born and raised in HK struggle to be seen as HKer
An NGO has its own policies and its own governance, which may or may not align with the wishes of the wider populace (for instance, a religious NGO in a secular society, or an NGO treating particular groups preferentially). A majority disagreeing with the policies of that NGO would achieve nothing, whereas with a governmental body they could exert democratic control.
Why? Good grief, do you have any idea how complicated that would be? Secondly, I don’t identify with that ethnicity you’re foisting upon me at all!
Why? As I said: France was always a mixture of ethnicities, the 19th century didn’t change anything other than the skin colour of some of the French citizens (or is that what you’re hinting at?).
For me personally, someone being Dutch is based more on their attitude towards the Netherlands and other Dutch people: anyone who is loath to run into other Dutch people when abroad and who loves to complain about specific stupid policies of the Dutch government counts as Dutch to me.
Excluding people based on how they look, irregardless of what else (intelligence, special talents) they bring to the table, is widely considered to be racism and not acceptable in European society. I’m sure there are Europeans who think like you do, however, it’s not something that wider society considers acceptable (not to mention can be illegal).
"France’s population dynamics began to change in the middle of the 19th century, as France joined the Industrial Revolution. The pace of industrial growth attracted millions of European immigrants over the next century, with especially large numbers arriving from Poland, Belgium, Portugal, Italy, and Spain.[10] In the wake of the First World War, in which France suffered six million casualties, significant numbers of workers from French colonies came. By 1930, the Paris region alone had a North African Muslim population of 70,000. Right after the Second World War, immigration to France significantly increased. During the period of reconstruction, France lacked labor, and as a result, the French government was eager to recruit immigrants coming from all over Europe, the Americas, Africa and Asia. "
This is what i’m referring to (the quote is from wikipedia). People from Poland, Belgium, Portugal, Italy, Spain, North Africa, Asia, and Africa would be considered French to a French person right? but to us they are expats who’ve moved to France. We wouldn’t consider them French necessarily.
Yes, this is the kind of thing that seems distinctly European to me.
ethnic minorities being segregated/excluded is a separate issue (this ties with being able to speak Cantonese, govt policies for education, etc.). I wouldn’t say that ethnic minorities/skin colour minorities are excluded from things in society per se, it’s that they are viewed as foreigners and not “real HKers”. Racism is very much a thing in Asia, i would say more so from older generations, i think younger generations are more open minded and understanding.
Thanks for the other explanations as well
In a democracy power should allways be held by the people. If you have a NGO -even when it does very good things- there allways is a danger that it could go against the peoples ideals or even their interests. You (as in the people as a whole) are also not as soverign when relying on NGOs for basic societal needs like a social saftey net as the voluntary donations founding them could stop any time. Thereby the power is transfered the donors (althought luckily most small-mid sized donors do not really exercize that power) who are mostly the wealthy as they just have more money to spend. A better solution is taxing fairly and using the common found gained throught that in a way the majority decides.
I recently watched an interesting video from Adam Conover on that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Cu6EbELZ6I. Altgought I do not agree with everything said (I don’t think the Patagonia nonprofit in particular is problematic in my opinion the focus should have been set even more on the issue of something like that beeing possible) I agree with the key message for the reason provided above.
isn’t this the same reasoning for govt though? politicians will say one thing for votes and do another thing. If anything it’s worse to trust a govt who will more likely go against people’s interests. At least an NGO has a stated aim.
not really. In an ideal democracy you could simply vote those people out in the next election . In a well working democracy there is only so much they can do before they are not reelected.
The difference to NGOs is that in a democracy one person (ideally) has exactly one vote while your influence on non profits -especially when you are wealthy enought to afford your own- is mkreso connected to what you (can) donate, so how wealthy you are. In my opinion that makes relying on government more egalitarian whereas a system built on charities is more seceptable to oligarchigal structures.
(I understand that in many places Governments are (very) currupt or not democratic to begin with and there are many NGOs that are democratic (or meybe just plain better for the interests of the people) compared to those governments. And in those cases these NGOs are -for now- obviously better then the government. But imo with a stable democracy the government is a fairer morer stable and more equal solution.