Is nativism the new racism?

By Ryhaan Shah

Is nativism the new face of racism? This particular discrimination is sweeping through Europe and the United States with the Brexit vote and the rise of Trumpism being good examples of the nativist phenomenon, which is defined as discrimination against immigrants.

But this is a narrow or even evasive definition since it is the same mindset of holding one group superior to every other – the textbook definition of racism – that underlies the nativist trend. Many non-whites are unsurprised by the trend and feel that this particular reason for prejudice has only been dormant because it has not had reason to surface before. The Middle Eastern turmoil has, however, resulted in enough refugees and immigrants seeking asylum in Europe to change that.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel is losing popularity because of her open-door refugee policy. The Brexit vote was driven by similar sentiments against immigrants and asylum seekers. Even the mild-mannered Danes are now declaring themselves “racist” after more than 36,000 mostly Muslim refugees streamed into their country over the past two years.

The general feeling is that immigrants and refugees not only drain the respective countries’ resources and welfare systems but that they arrive with the intention of preserving their cultural heritage. Nativism both defies and denies ethnic and cultural diversity within a bordered state.

At a national level, Britain and Europe give generous aid to undeveloped countries and, at a personal level, many Britons and Europeans also contribute to charitable organisations such as the Red Cross to help them with their work in war-torn and developing countries.

However, the rise in nativist sentiments does make it appear that their charity has a long arm that is intended to keep the suffering humanity to whom they are so giving away from their own doorstep.

But nativism is not isolated to Britain and Europe. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has tapped into the very same vein in America and his campaign message of making America great again is tied to a policy to keep immigrants – Mexicans and Muslims among others – out.

The irony is not lost on anyone that America and its greatness have been built by immigrant communities, and the nativism phenomenon does beg several questions including the one that asks: how many years or generations does it take to belong anywhere?

The answer would have resonance for us in Guyana where the Indian population – even 100 years after the arrival of the last ship from India bearing indentured labourers – is still viewed by some as “latecomers”, “outsiders” and even “aliens”. From among the African-Guyanese leadership there is the view that the Africans’ earlier arrival gives them certain rights and entitlements.

Indians, having arrived into a supposedly “formed” society, are subjected to the very discriminations being suffered by asylum seekers in Europe. In our case, the fact that we are English speaking and generally conform to Western dress and mannerisms, and to the laws that govern our Western society has not been enough.

The contentious issue is most likely that the Indian “immigrant” population grew to become the largest minority and, given Guyana’s ethnic politics, that the country’s political power resides with the “newcomers” and overrides the perceived entitlements of the African population who came earlier.

This fear of being swamped and overtaken by immigrant communities could be one of the reasons for the rise in nativism which seeks to keep groups of newcomers from even entering another’s territory.

There are Caribbean countries actually facing just such nativist issues. Several Guyanese, Jamaican and small-island Caribbean citizens have complained about the demeaning treatment they receive from immigration officials at airports in Trinidad and Barbados. They are sometimes treated in the most inhumane manner and denied entry.

The Governments of Trinidad and Barbados feel, perhaps, that they are defending their respective territory from regional “visitors” who are often accused of gaining entry then working illegally. Their nativism is forwarded as a defence of their laws and their borders.

The concern for border security and preserving the national status quo has overtaken that of welcoming refugees and respecting diversity, and the rise of nativism could be an immediate and defensive reaction to a newly emergent world with its movement of large groups of people seeking security and a better life outside their homeland either as refugees or as economic migrants.

Nativism challenges our very humanity and our ideas of ourselves both at an individual and national level. Will that common humanity which respects ethnic and cultural diversity and has compassion for human suffering eventually triumph over nativist fears?