Virtue Signaling in Europe: My Observations from 90 Days in the Schengen Area

**************

Disclaimer: These are my observations of individual social and cultural phenomenon that I observed during my time traveling in mainland Europe. I am critiquing, not belittling, some things that, to me, are virtue signaling and ignore a greater political, social, and cultural context. These are my thoughts, and I welcome your perspective as well. There also aren't any pictures in this one (sorry!).

**************

I spent 90 days traveling the Schengen Area of Europe. I loved (for the most part) the cultures, storied histories, and, in some cases, national pride I observed. Unlike the United States, which is just over 200 years old, the European social, cultural, and historical identity goes back centuries. As an American, whose country seems to always be trying to re-invent itself in the pursuit of some new, progressive ideals, it was refreshing to see these national identities remain so strong (at least relative to my own country).

However, I also noticed some major virtue signaling themes mixed in that were so in-your-face that they couldn't be ignored. As a traveler by choice and historian by training (I have two liberal arts degrees), I think it is important to critically analyze anything we are told or experience in the world. History certainly belongs to the victors, and modern Western culture often belongs to those with the most political or economic influence. I wanted to capture three main ones that really stood out in this blog: the obsession with bottled water, the anti-bullfighting sentiment, and support for communism. I think it is important to experience other cultures first before criticising them. After all, what does an American know about the Basque separatist movement in Spain aside from what he has read in the history books? What can American say about bullfighting when the closest thing we have are eight-second rides at the rodeo? However, it is also important to [respectfully] critique each others' ideas, especially when it comes to so-called "virtue signalling," where there is a holier-than-thou front that doesn't match up with reality on the ground.

Bottled vs. Tap Water

As an American, I am accostumed to getting free tap water at restaurants. At many cafe-style eateries, I know I can purchase bottle water, but many of these also offer free tap water. This is not the case in Europe. The question here is not "lemon or no lemon" or "ice or no ice," but "still or sparkling?" Neither of these options will be from a tap. They will be from a bottle, which is occasionally glass, but is usually plastic, which will be brought to your table along with however many glasses you ask for. Most of the time, the waiters will then open the water, fill your glass about halfway, and then leave the plastic bottle for you to refill as needed. Naturally, this water will cost you some amount of money (that sum depending on which country you are in).

In some countries, you can get tap water on request. In France, this is a "carafe d'eau" (literally: a carafe of water). In Spain, "agua de grifo" (literally: water from the tap). In Portugal, restaurants are legally required to give customers "copa d'agua" if they ask for it. However, this is not the case in other countries. In Italy, you can expect to be told "no" you ask for "acqua del rubinetto," if not outright ignored. In Germany, tap water is on the menu with a listed price (that is often more expensive than beer or cola per-centiliter). But even where tap water is offered or even free, you shouldn't be surprised if you get an eye roll or surprised clarification of "de grifo?!" when you ask.

Why?

Well, some Europeans will tell you that it is more sophisticated to drink bottled water, as it is of higher quality and demonstrates that you can afford to drink water (I have personally been told this on the road). Some say it is out of health concerns that they want more mineralized water. If you take to Reddit, you will find many people decrying "big water" as having brainwashed the population into believing that it is safer and more pure to drink bottled water instead of tap. Whichever reason is more accepted, none are accurate, at least not to a statistically-relevant level. The tap water in the European Union is of the greatest quality in the world, and much of Europe's tap water is more pure than tap water in the US. Some studies suggest that it is of equal or even greater purity than bottled water. Many cities even have public drinking fountains of tap water! Yet Europeans insist on their bottled water with their meals, using upwards of 30 million plastic water bottles a day in the process.

Yet, at the same time, Europeans wring their hands over climate change. I am not a climate change denier; in fact, there are some really important decisions coming our way when it comes to its impact on the human population. However, I have trouble accepting that we should take a train instead of fly or switch to so-called "green energy" from fossil fuels, from countries which actively and intentionally contribute to the non-biodegradable waste on our planet (in landfills, strewn across deserts, and even in "garbage patches" in both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans) simply because they don't want to drink from the tap. This has reached such a level that hostels advertise "drinkable tap water" for non-Europeans who may be apprehensive seeing everyone drinking from plastic bottles. Having traveled myself to Latin America, the Sahara, and the Middle East, I understand this apprehension. In these areas, if the locals are drinking from a bottle, it is best for you to do the same. Not to act upper class, but to maintain your health! I have met communities that would do almost anything to have clean tap water to drink rather than be forced to use plastic bottles. There are entire swaths of cities that are plastic wastelands in the developing world simply because the tap water isn't safe to drink. Yet the countries that do have safe tap water refuse to drink it as a matter of course.

In 2023, it was reported that the level of microplastics in the ocean has risen to higher levels than ever before, and these microplastics are making into the food and water supplies worldwide. It is ironic, to me, that the countries with the highest quality tap water insist on drinking from plastic bottles which end up poluting our ecosystem and find their way right back into our food supply, pushing us more and more towards having to drink water filtered to a higher level (i.e. from bottles).

Meat Suppliers vs. Bullfighting

The bullfight is one of the most controversial aspects of Spain's culture. As of this writing, it is only legal in eight countries: Spain, France, and Portugal in Europe and Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, and Venezuela in Latin America (with it being indefinitely suspended pending a Supreme Court hearing in Mexico). Even then, it has been parially outlawed in those countries (famously in Barcelona and the Canary Islands). It is considered a "blood sport" whose heritage harkens back to the archaic gladiator practices of ancient Rome. The idea of "man vs. beast" is no longer considered virtuous, but unfair in much of today's society. At the same time, much of today's society has never seen a bullfight. They have never studied how it is conducted, or, more importantly for this discussion, how the bulls are treated and raised.

The Spanish Fighting Bull, the toro bravo, is the last living descendent of the Iberian wild bull. The toro bravo is solely bred for bullfighting (although not every bull or cow makes the bullfighting cut). As a result of selective breeding, these bulls mature at an older age, are smaller in stature than other breeds, and are much more lean. While these bulls are free-range (which I will cover in a second), they are kept alive solely by human hands. Without bullfighting, an entire bloodline within the animal kingdom would go extinct.

Many who oppose bullfighting on ethical grounds consume meat products; however, their meat comes from farms and ranches who provide their product in a systemized manner. At industrial meat farms, cows reach maturity, and therefore of edible quality, around the two year mark. Two years! When they have a natural lifespan of 15-20! They are killed not in some glorious, respectful manner, but by being stunned unconscious before having their throat coat and blood drained (i.e. exsanguination, or "bleeding out").

Contrast this with the toro bravo, who is raised free-range with little-to-no human interaction. At the one-year mark, they are separated from their mothers into same-sex herds, at the two year mark they are "tested" for their bullfighting suitability, and then decided whether they will be kept for fighting, breeding, or sent for slaughter for use as meat. For those who make it to the bullring, they will be between four and six years old. That is two to three times as long (and in many cases longer) as the bull that is raised for meat, and the toro bravo lives these years not in cattle mills, but free in the pastures. Their death comes not from a surprise stun followed by bleeding out, but with the estocada and, if that is ineffective, with the descabellar to the spinal cord (which induces instant death). Aficionados are outwardly and aggressively opposed to a matador who allows the bull's suffering to drag on longer than it should. In a typical bullfight, the bull is applauded for its bravery as it is dragged out of the ring. After all, the toro bravo is the only bovine which has the opportunity to face, and kill, its executioner. In exceptionally rare cases, a bull will be pardoned, rehabilitated, and kept for breeding, at which point it will live out its natural life free in the pastures. No cow bred for meat has such an opportunity.

Of course, the main opposition to bullfighting is that the bull is killed in the ring. It is for this reason and this reason alone that bullfighting is illegal in the US and many countries in Europe. But what about Portugese bullfighting, where the bull is led out of the ring and then slaughtered out of sight? Is that any more virtuous? Or in Catalonia, where they have the carrebous, where they attach fireworks to a bull's horns and let it loose in the streets? Is that less torturous or stress-inducing?

The fact is this: as long as the bull they are going to eat isn't killed in front of them, people do not care what happens to them. It is only when the corrida provides the bull a chance to defeat the matador, be celebrated by the public, and maybe, just maybe, win its freedom that the opposition arises.

Communism vs. Fascism

It is inarguable that fascism desecrated Europe in the first half of the 20th century (and even later). Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Salazar, they were all ahorrent characters in Europe's history, and they are rightfully remembered as such. The Aljube in Portugal is an excellent commemeration of Portugal's fight against the fascist Salazar regime. Germany has all but wiped out any memory of Hitler's Germany that isn't a Holocaust memorial. Italy benefits from its long Roman history as a destractor from Il Duce's fascist policies and Nazi influence. Where you do find memorials and museums dedicated to these eras, they, again rightfully so, portray the horrors the people and countries went through under fascism, from political police to torture to fervent fundamentalism.

Communism, however, is a different story. I found it odd that we would have such an outright condemnation of fascism, but not communism in Europe. In fact, I saw the hammer in scicle in many countries spray painted on walls, including in Germany (even on the Berlin Wall!), Spain, Portugal, and Italy. Yet in 90 days in Europe, I only saw two swatstikas: one in Bordeaux and one in Rome, both of which had been clearly washed over in an attempt to remove them. Portugal celebrates the communist influence on the anti-fascist revolution. Berlin has an entire park with sculptures and art dedicated to Marx and Engels.

It is odd, and hypocritical, to me that countries who were so oppressed by fascism would celebrate communism. After all, communism has been responsible for tens of millions of deaths, was notorious for its political police, oppression, and repression, and caused revolutionary instability across the globe. The Aljube museum, for example, ends with Angolan independence from Portugese colonisation. However, it omits the Angolan civil war that ensued as Cuban-sponsored, Marxist revolutionaries struggled for power. While anti-Semitism was officially against Soviet party doctrine, Communism was ripe with anti-Semitism, even in the wake of the Holocaust.

A tour guide in Spain described fascism as "spicy communism," and was met with disapproval from most of the young tourists in the group in doing so. To his credit, he stood his ground, although he didn't go into details. But, in a way, he was right. Fascism does outwardly what communists do covertly: oppress, repress, and eliminate any person or idea that is a threat to their regime. Yet, for some reason, the "worker's struggle" narrative of communism is stronger in modern memory than the "national pride" narrative of fascism, when, in the end, both of these are simply fronts to keep a ruling party in charge of a people.

Interestingly enough, I didn't see any communist support in the Czech Republic or Poland. I did, however, see anti-communist political grafiti. Interestingly, the two countries to suffer under Soviet communist rule were the two that I didn't see any support for its ideals.

Parting Thoughts

I am not one to condemn other cultures where they are practiced. I'm actually an avid national self-determinist, and believe that it is the peoples' right to decide how they govern themselves and their culture; however, that does not mean I condone practices I disagree with. Before I was introduced to bullfighting, I was of the opinion that it was animal abuse, even though I had never seen one. Before observing Marxism in action myself, I used to say that communism looked good on paper, although not in practice. Today, my opinions on both have changed.

The issues I have described here are not with the cultural aspects themselves, but with the attitudes, inconsistencies, and, in my opinion, hypocrisy that I observed stemming from them. Just as people rolled their eyes at the Taliban decrying human rights abuses during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, I think those who virtue signal their culture deserve the same level of scrutiny.

If you are European reading this, I want to impress upon you that I do not think poorly of you, your countries, or your cultures. I am simply providing my admittedly pointed observations. If you are an American, I would caution jumping on my bandwagon, because there is plenty of cultural virtue signalling in our country as well (for example: politicians trying to de-stigmatize marijuana use while millions remain locked up for that exact thing, riding bulls with their hindquarters pinched to ensure they buck just for fun while decrying animal abuse, or trying to push the world for climate change while simultaneously providing military security to the world's oil producers). My goal here is simple: to provide a critique of cultures I observed. Maybe I start a conversation, maybe not. Maybe we can learn from these critiques (I know I certainly can). In any case, this is one of the reasons we travel: to observe and learn; it's just not always the sunshine and roses we see on Instagram and YouTube.