YouTube commentary: "Us" versus "them"

We will describe one more pathway of YouTube comments that extends from Calderoli’s remark and the original news report. This pathway foregrounds the opposition between “us” and “them” (Gumperz, 1982), explicitly describing a conflict between native Italians and immigrants from outside the European Union.

Segment 6: Commenter "mau pa"

FIGURE 6.6 The opposition between the civilized and the uncivilized.

Figure 6.6 represents the narrated and narrating events in this segment. “Mau pa’’ clearly creates an opposition between, on the one hand, undesirable migrants and the politicians who support them and, on the other hand, native Italians. This opposition is accomplished in significant part through the deictics represented in bold in the segment. In line 1, “mau pa’’ uses the third personal plural pronoun “loro” (“they”) to refer to Italian politicians who decided to make Kyenge the Italian Minister of Integration. The commenter continues in line 2 by using another deictic, one that is optional in Italian—“io” (“I”)—which is opposed both to “they,” the politicians, and to Kyenge herself. “Mau pa” goes on to reinforce this opposition between “us” and “them/her”—describing Kyenge as “preparing their path for them [‘her own people’] to invade us even more.” This is clearly the opposition described above between “us” and “them,” between native Italians and migrants. Kyenge, whom “mau pa” calls “this Congolese,” is pushing for the migrants and opposed to native Italians.

The commenter continues by claiming that Kyenge is proposing “her own laws,” which favor migrants and not native Italians. Kyenge is allegedly using her political power to support “her own” people by writing “her own laws.” This, again, reinforces the divide between Italians and migrants, with Kyenge on the side of the migrants. “Mau pa” then uses the evaluative indexical “iiiva-dere” (“to invade”) followed by the deictic, inclusive second-person direct object pronoun “ci” (“us”)—which in Italian is fused with the verb in the infinitive (“iiwaderci”)—in line 5. This goes beyond reinforcing the opposition to characterize the arrival of migrants as an unwelcome “invasion.” Italy has been “ormai calpestata” (“by now crushed”), another evaluative indexical characterizing the burden that native Italians have had to bear from so much migration. The use of the first-person possessive adjective in “mia nazione” (“my nation’’) emphasizes, again, that Italy is for Italians, not for migrants. Finally, “mau pa” distinguishes between more desirable, “civilized” migrants, presumably those from other European Union countries, and the “[un]civilized” ones like Kyenge. The commenter refuses to share Italian territory with migrant groups from the Congo, who are allegedly “not civilized,” a sentiment that draws on racializing ideologies about the alleged “inferiority” of extracomunitari. Finally, lines 10—11 move from the individual to the national level, with Kyenge representing all migrants who are “not civilized.”

We will analyze one more comment along this pathway that distinguishes native Italians from undesirable migrants. The opposition between “us” and “them” solidifies as commenters continue to presuppose the distinction that Calderoli made in his original remark.

Segment 7: Commenter "TheGiant772"

1. no al razzismo!

no to racism!

2. ma scusate questa tipa viene da tanto lontano

but excuse me this girl [i.e., Ms. Kyenge] comes from so far away

3. per imporre le sue leggi e noi zitti?

to impose her laws and we [are] silent?

4. non vuole il crocitisso nelle scuole,

[she] doesn’t want the crucifix in schools,

5. non vuole feste natalizie a scuola per rispetto delle religioni,

[she] doesn’t want Christmas festivities out of respect for other religions,

6. vuole appartamenti [per] gli extracomunitari ecc ...

[she] wants apartments [for] the extracomunitari, etc ...

7. 1’italiano sta morendo di fame

Italians are dying of hunger

8. e ci sono tanti nostri concittadini sotto i ponti,

and there are many of our citizens under the bridges [i.e., “poor”],

9. quindi le case ai nostri fratelli.

so the house [should go] to our brothers and sisters.

10. noi degli extracomunitari non ce ne facciamo niente,

We don’t find any use of the extracomunitari,

11. sono solo un pericolo ...

[they] are just a danger ...

Figure 6.7 represents the narrated and narrating events in this segment. “TheGiant 772” draws a clear line between Italians and migrants, presupposed in line 3 with the distinction between “her” (“her laws”) and “we.” The commenter (sarcastically) invokes another commenter’s defense of Ms. Kyenge, “no al razzismo!” (“no to racism!”), repeating this and adding an exclamation point (line 1). At this point.

FIGURE 6.7 Reinforcing the opposition between native Italians and extracomunitari.

the commenter could have been opposed to Calderoli and racism, but it quickly becomes clear that he is on Calderoli’s side and that he is being mocking or sarcastic. In line 2, the commenter claims that “this girl’’ wants to give Italian resources to the extracomunitari while native Italians are “dying of hunger.’’ The commenter continues in line 3, stating that Kyenge has come from “far away” to impose her laws on Italians, thus positioning Kyenge as an outsider to Italy. These cues index a refusal to accept Ms. Kyenge as Italian, presupposing racialized ideologies about who belongs to the nation. Such ideologies construct migrants from outside the European Union as perpetually “other” and subhuman, as in Calderoli’s original remark.

The commenter then opposes Italians and “others” using religious terms, like “Christmas,” that position native Italians as members of a different religious group than migrants. Kyenge doesn’t want any “crucifixes” or Christmas celebrations in Italian schools, probably in an allegedly misguided effort to respect all religions (lines 4—5), and she wants to give apartments to “extracomunitari” (line 6). TheGiant772 thus mobilizes ethnonationalist ideologies which portray the erosion of Italian national identity. The parallelism in lines 4—6 further reinforces this: TheGiant772’s repetition of the semi-modal verb “vuole” (“[she] wants”) in the beginning of each clause in lines 4—6 adds emphasis. This helps align Italians against Kyenge in defense of their co-nationals, who are “penalized” by her advocacy for migrants and refugees. There is then an escalation in TheGiant772’s tone, with assertions that Italians are dying of hunger (line 7), living under bridges (a sign of poverty and homelessness; line 8), and the claim that politicians like Kyenge should assign homes to “our brother and sisters” first (in line 9) before giving them to migrants and refugees. The commenter presupposes a deep, family-like connection among native Italians. They are “brothers and sisters.” Migrants should be excluded from this metaphorical family because they are “a danger” to it.

TABLE 6.5 Cross-event analysis of extracomunitari as a threatening “other”

	Linked events: News report + 400 comments Narrated events: Kyenge favoring migrants, not native, Christian Italians
	“I/they,” “us/them,” “her people,” “crushed,” “civilized,” “crucifix,” “dying of hunger,” “brothers and sisters”
	Indexicals presuppose invasion of cohesive, victimized “us” by primitive African migrants
	Opposing native Italians and migrants Characterizing migrants as uncivilized Politicians’ collusion with Kyenge to undermine Italy Blood and religion binding native Italians
	Alignment with Calderoli against the reporter Objection to political collusion that favors extracomunitari over native Italians

This portrayal of a tragic national crisis, in which Italy is overrun by migrants who threaten Italian identity and natives’ well-being, climaxes in lines 10—11, where TheGiant772 advocates excluding migrants from Italy: “we don’t find any use for extracomunitari, [they] are just a danger.’’ Through this imagined national crisis, TheGiant772 mobilizes racialized ideologies and reinforces the imaginary divide between “we” Italians, who are disadvantaged, and “they,” the newcomers, who have been favored by the Italian government over Italian-born citizens. From TheGiant772’s perspective, migrants are simply a menacing drain on Italian society.

Table 6.5 summarizes our analysis of this pathway. “Mau pa” and “TheGiant772” build on Calderoli’s comment and reinforce the distinction between native Italians and extracomunitari. As this pathway that emphasizes “us” versus “them” solidifies, it becomes clear that the commenters are reinforcing an opposition salient in Italian political discourse among supporters of the Northern League. In the narrating event, the accretion of comments like these that reinforce the “us” versus “them” opposition further solidifies the widespread characterization ofnon-European migrants as a threatening “other.”