Multiculturalism.

[KarlXII]

What are your opinions on multiculturism and how nations should handle foreign immigrants?

My opinion,

I always have had no problem with foreign immigrants becoming citizens of the country they wish to move to. However, I have alwys been a supporter of integration into the community. For example, language. Everyone should be able to speak their choice of language at home, however, in a nation where a language is either the national language or needed to succeed, the immigrant should be taught at least a basic fluency to get by. A basic knowledge in the history of their nation should be taught, in order to give them a familiarization to their new home. The teachings of civil liberties, especially when it comes to people from areas where these are not either accepted nor followed, and Western values.

A person should always be able to keep their culture and language with them, but they need to adapt to the nation they move to.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

1) You need to be able to speak at least one official language of the nation before you can get a permanent residence permit, no question.
2) Some traditions need to be kept by the immigrant, and some need to be assimilated. For example, culinary tradition adds a lot to the existing culture. A radical Islamist treating his women like he does in Saudi Arabia, not so much.
3) You came here because you preferred here to your old country. Remember that.

[PanzerJaeger]

Assimilate to the host nation or get out.

[Kadagar_AV]

I am pretty much against multiculturalism.

Sweden is probably the country in the world that has accepted the most immigrants.

Crime has gone up a LOT, and we now have ghettos (this was unheard of before).

In my oppinion, a country should ONLY accept as many foreigners as they can assimilate, and have harsh rules about assimilation.

Of course, it goes both ways... The state has an obligation to help immigrants gets settled in, and the immigrants have a obligation to get settled in.

If you don not wish to participate in the culture that you move to, you should stay where you are. In my oppinion.

As previosly stated, I have moved from sweden to austria.

I would not DREAM about celebrating midsummer, watching donald duck at christmas eve or any of the other swedish traditions.

I am in Austria now, I try to master the german language and I do my best to learn the Austrian traditions.

Oh, and Crampus is by far a cooler tradition than anything Sweden have anyway;)

[Koga No Goshi]

Okay first off let me put in the disclaimer, that multiculturalism will never go away until we're in Star Trek and every nation has caught up in the tech and wealth and standard of living race, and we have some kind of perfectly functioning moneyless socialism or something. There really is no way to get out of it unless you want to talk about ending capitalism pretty much, because as long as some guy with skinny kids is thinking, you know, I make $5 a day here and I could make $5 an hour right over that imaginary line, there will be sufficient motivation for immigration, both legal and illegal.

That being said, I am not sure about how some of the "ideals for accomodating multiculturalism" are plausible. I mean, how are you going to enforce someone "assimilating", unless you do what the U.S. did with natives and abduct their kids and send them to schools where they get hit on the tongue with a ruler if they speak anything other than English or don't read the prayers in church? A lot of this comes down to Sociology 101. People tend to think the immigration concerns of today are always different than in the past, and very rarely is this ever true. You can go back to the 1800's and read quotes by Teddy Roosevelt and others talking about how the immigrants of today (meaning, their day) were not as good or qualified to become good Americans as the hearty immigrant stock of the past. In fact you could find many quotes from America's past about immigration of that day and just substitute "Irish" or "Italian" or "Chinese" with "Mexican" and it would sound a lot like today.

Couple things we can learn from basic Soc:

1) First generation immigrants NEVER completely lose the primary native tongue as a primary language. They may, to varying degrees, become proficient in the new home language. But they never do so unless totally forced. This is why you tend to see newly arrived immigrant groups form cohesive communities where services and businesses conduct all kinds of services in multiple languages, such as areas of Los Angeles where you can get by with nothing but Spanish and parts of downtown Los Angeles where you can find accountants, travel agents, hotels, restaurants and doctors who all speak Japanese.

2) By the third generation in a new country, all immigrant groups are close to complete loss of the original language. This is true whether you're talking about Jews in 1800's New England or Mexicans in 2007 Arizona. But people somehow always think groups are just worse than they used to be, and refusing to learn the language. Complete transition to English doesn't occur in any group until the third generation, second generation usually is bilingual (but frequently illiterate in the parents' native tongue, only conversational.)

3) Cultural assimilation occurs just like language, over generations. First generation immigrants pretty much only "lose" their native culture if forced to, say for instance they are the only members of their ethnic group within 200 miles, and there is no sort of network with which to observe home traditions like holidays or celebrations. But by the third generation, the strongest cultural link to the original culture is food, with most other traditions lost or watered down.

[seireikhaan]

Learn the new country's primary language, to an extent that you can function in society.

Abide by the new country's system of laws. ALL OF THEM.

That is all.

[Hooahguy]

Assimilate to the host nation or get out.
amen!
where i live in the US, there are a lot of illigal mexicans around us, and im pretty much forced to learn spanish b/c those people are too lazy (but not lazy enough to mow my lawn :beam:) to learn english!

[Kadagar_AV]

Koga, what you say is true. However, some examples from sweden:

1. A woman working in the service industry claimed the right to wear "burkha" (covering her face, only the eyes are barely visible). She got fired by her boss, who did not think covering your face worked very well with giving guests good service (smiles, anyone?).

I believe the boss was right to fire her, however, she sued him and won.


2. Swedish school kids from muslim countrys claim the right to celebrate their own hollidays, such as Ramadan.

The swedish school has days off during the traditional christian days, eastern, christmas and so on... however, these kids (and their parents) claim that they have a RIGHT to not be in school on their holy days, and the right to BE in school during christian ones.




Now, these are just 2 examples of idiocy that happens when immigration gets out of control.

I'd say, welcome to Sweden, but you would better be prepared to adapt.

[KarlXII]

amen!
where i live in the US, there are a lot of illigal mexicans around us, and im pretty much forced to learn spanish b/c those people are too lazy (Unfunny RACISM) to learn english!

And where is that exactly? Those damned Mexicans over here are mainly citizens, through birth or legal means, speak both Spanish and English, and are very hard workers, compared to those who say "THEY TOOK OUR JERBS!"

[Koga No Goshi]

amen!
where i live in the US, there are a lot of illigal mexicans around us, and im pretty much forced to learn spanish b/c those people are too lazy (but not lazy enough to mow my lawn :beam:) to learn english!

Well uh if you read my post, it has nothing to do with laziness. It's a basic concept in sociology that first gen immigrants only learn as much as they have to to get by. Unless your ancestors come from an English speaking country I can near guarantee that at home, they didn't use English.

[Hooahguy]

yes but many are too lazy, or dont have the means, to learn english. its fact.

[KarlXII]

yes but many are too lazy, or dont have the means, to learn english. its fact.

Many white Americans are too lazy to get jobs, what's your point?

[Koga No Goshi]

yes but many are too lazy, or dont have the means, to learn english. its fact.

Bolded the part that was an actual point instead of a slur. :) And I would add, "don't have cause to." Because first gen immigrants frequently form thier own communities where their own language is spoken in business.

[KarlXII]

Bolded the part that was an actual point instead of a slur. :) And I would add, "don't have cause to." Because first gen immigrants frequently form thier own communities where their own language is spoken in business.

Of course, it takes time to integrate into your new country, therefore, many first generation immigrants tend to seek out familiar kinds of people, and form communities. My problem is with his "Oh, they're too lazy to do anything but MOW MY LAWN". We need to encourage further integration with the population, but comments like those are unneccesary and racist.

[Koga No Goshi]

Of course, it takes time to integrate into your new country, therefore, many first generation immigrants tend to seek out familiar kinds of people, and form communities. My problem is with his "Oh, they're too lazy to do anything but MOW MY LAWN". We need to encourage further integration with the population, but comments like those are unneccesary and racist.

Kinda shocking too. I mean here we are talking about people who work more hours at harder physical jobs at lower wages than Americans will take, and we're calling them lazy?

[KarlXII]

Kinda shocking too. I mean here we are talking about people who work more hours at harder physical jobs at lower wages than Americans will take, and we're calling them lazy?

Ignorance is bliss.

[Strike For The South]

amen!
where i live in the US, there are a lot of illigal mexicans around us, and im pretty much forced to learn spanish b/c those people are too lazy (but not lazy enough to mow my lawn :beam:) to learn english!

It is Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Well uh if you read my post, it has nothing to do with laziness. It's a basic concept in sociology that first gen immigrants only learn as much as they have to to get by. Unless your ancestors come from an English speaking country I can near guarantee that at home, they didn't use English.

Without divulging too much personal information, I beg to differ. :bow:

[Strike For The South]

Without divulging too much personal information, I beg to differ. :bow:

The exception more than the rule. Not to mention you emigrated from a first world country with financial security did you not?

[Koga No Goshi]

Without divulging too much personal information, I beg to differ. :bow:

There is always going to be a few exceptions to any general rule. I didn't say everyone, I said near guarantee, from all the studies done on various immigrant groups.

[Mikeus Caesar]

My opinion on multiculturalism and immigrants?

By all means, bring aspects of your culture into your new country (i love curry and sushi!) but remember - you moved here to get a better life, not to bring Derkaderkastan to a new part of the world. If you don't like the way they operate, pack your bags and go home. We have the decency to abide by your customs and traditions in your countries (mainly because we're terrified of being stoned to death), have the decency to do the same.

A very good example would be after the Muhammed cartoons, those people in London who were protesting at the ridiculous freedoms they were allowed. Back home they'd have been beaten by the police and the ringleaders never seen again. Ungrateful :daisy:'s...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The exception more than the rule. Not to mention you emigrated from a first world country with financial security did you not?

I wasn't talking about myself specifically, but of relatives who moved from the Eastern Bloc (East Germany/Communities in Soviet Union).


A very good example would be after the Muhammed cartoons, those people in London who were protesting at the ridiculous freedoms they were allowed. Back home they'd have been beaten by the police and the ringleaders never seen again. Ungrateful :daisy:'s...

https://img372.imageshack.us/img372/7543/offensiveg1yz2.jpg

Courtesy of Fragony

[KarlXII]

https://img372.imageshack.us/img372/7543/offensiveg1yz2.jpg

Courtesy of Fragony

Because every Arab is like that.

[Koga No Goshi]

Besides, that cartoon leaves out the part where they made Mohammad's turban look like a bomb, right?

[Strike For The South]

Besides, that cartoon leaves out the part where they made Mohammad's turban look like a bomb, right?

either way, free press is a two way street.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Because every Arab is like that.

Of course not. Just these guys:

https://img261.imageshack.us/img261/5710/syria6206wideweb470x307bv4.jpg

https://img403.imageshack.us/img403/9101/zzzzzz1uhwc2.jpg

https://img406.imageshack.us/img406/5561/0102058198400tr8.jpg

https://img406.imageshack.us/img406/5232/imageank10502121643rw2.jpg


At any rate, cartoons usually take some form of hyperbole.

[Koga No Goshi]

either way, free press is a two way street.

Make a cartoon of Jesus holding the bloody head of a Palestinian child and see how the Christians in our own fair, freedom-loving country react.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Make a cartoon of Jesus holding the bloody head of a Palestinian child and see how the Christians in our own fair, freedom-loving country react.

As I recall, it was more the face of Mohammed than the bomb that set people off, no pun intended.

[KarlXII]

Besides, that cartoon leaves out the part where they made Mohammad's turban look like a bomb, right?

And the fact you can be fined and/or jailed for denying the Holocaust. I always thought freedom of expression should work both ways.

[Strike For The South]

Make a cartoon of Jesus holding the bloody head of a Palestinian child and see how the Christians in our own fair, freedom-loving country react.

it would stay up. There would be no riots or violence.

[Paradox]

What's wrong with celebrating holidays on other countries? They have Christmas and Easter here, foreigners have the days off, including us. We get a holiday along with the teachers.

[Koga No Goshi]

it would stay up. There would be no riots or violence.

If you ever make such a cartoon, Strike, I strongly suggest not to sign your real name to it. I wouldn't count on no violence.

[KarlXII]

Make a cartoon of Jesus holding the bloody head of a Palestinian child and see how the Christians in our own fair, freedom-loving country react.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/feb/06/pressandpublishing.politics


The Danish daily turned down the cartoons of Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny

LOL.


"I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them."

"Got anymore of those Bomb Turban cartoons? Those are hilarious!"


"In the Muhammad drawings case, we asked the illustrators to do it. I did not ask for these cartoons. That's the difference," he said.

Let me get this straight, he requested the Mohammed cartoons, but won't accept cartoons lampooning Jesus.

[Koga No Goshi]

That's exactly the reason you don't see these things popping up with regularity about Jesus or Christian icons. Publishers know how the public would react and use prudence about it. And yes there is a double standard when it comes to the argument of respect for religion vs. freedom of speech.

[Strike For The South]

If you ever make such a cartoon, Strike, I strongly suggest not to sign your real name to it. I wouldn't count on no violence.

If I ever publish something my name will be all over it for two reasons 1. Im an egotistical self serving bastard and 2. If you dont have the cojones to put your name on what you write you shouldn't be writing in the first place

[Koga No Goshi]

If I ever publish something my name will be all over it for two reasons 1. Im an egotistical self serving bastard and 2. If you dont have the cojones to put your name on what you write you shouldn't be writing in the first place

I agree but that's beside the point. The point is the vast majority of western world publishers have the common sense not to distribute or publish such a thing in the first place. So people acting like the response to the Mohammad cartoons was so wildly out of whack with how Christians in our own country would react to a similar depiction of Jesus is very blindfolded.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

That's exactly the reason you don't see these things popping up with regularity about Jesus or Christian icons. Publishers know how the public would react and use prudence about it. And yes there is a double standard when it comes to the argument of respect for religion vs. freedom of speech.

Um, cartoons of Jesus do appear.

[Strike For The South]

I agree but that's beside the point. The point is the vast majority of western world publishers have the common sense not to distribute or publish such a thing in the first place. So people acting like the response to the Mohammad cartoons was so wildly out of whack with how Christians in our own country would react to a similar depiction of Jesus is very blindfolded.

Remember the Jesus in urine? Where were the burning cars or flags or violence?

[Koga No Goshi]

Look like things you can find in a google search. Not a newspaper or magazine. Not in the U.S., anyway.


Remember the Jesus in urine? Where were the burning cars or flags or violence?


Indeed, that was back in 1989 and Christians STILL talk about it, a point you have proved by instantly bringing it up. It provoked huge outrage. Imagine what a depiction of Jesus as a violent killer or terrorist would provoke, in today's political environment in the U.S., if in a newspaper or magazine.

Saying Europeans have a shrug it off attitude about religious depictions is not really a fair comparison, as Europe has steadily become more secular and less religious for decades. The U.S., while arguably nowhere near as religious as the Middle East, is a much closer comparison. And there is still quite a lot of vandalism and violence related to religious issues in the U.S. No publication is stupid enough to print something that any 5 year old could tell you would be offensive to Christians. Now, if you want to argue religion is stupid and getting angry about religion is stupid, you have no argument from me. But it's a double standard to imply that Muslims are more irrational and less respecting of free speech than a lot of Christians are. As a nonreligious person of any stripe I have to say I do not see that distinction in the western world. There is very much an unwritten rule that you should speak respectfully about Christian beliefs in the public sphere and you know in advance that you are attracting negative attention and hate mail if you do otherwise.

Remember this ? http://www.parentdish.com/2006/03/05/gay-penguin-book-moved-from-library-shelves/ Let's not pretend Christian influence in the U.S. has exactly been a traditional ally of free speech.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Look like things you can find in a google search. Not a newspaper or magazine. Not in the U.S., anyway.

If there was an outcry, it would've been published on the internet. The last image I linked to you, by the way (which I feel ashamed of myself for doing), was published in a newspaper in some university in the States. And what about things like South Park?

[Koga No Goshi]

If there was an outcry, it would've been published on the internet. The last image I linked to you, by the way (which I feel ashamed of myself for doing), was published in a newspaper in some university in the States. And what about things like South Park?

Universities are already under attack for being liberal and "Anti-Christian", EMFM. That's par for course. And many university newspapers do try to push the line, though very rarely does it wind up being national coverage of some offensive cartoon in a local university paper. You get me something really offensive about Christ published by something more than a couple hundred people read in the U.S., and you'll have yourself a point.

Sometimes I think you may not know the U.S. as well as you seem to talk as if you do, EMFM. If the same radical Christian elements in the U.S. had their way we'd be learning creationism and intelligent design in schools and universities, no sex education, and no programs to encourage or teach the use of condoms. The fact that they haven't succeeded yet doesn't change the fact that they are here.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Koga, I suspect you don't watch South Park, but even if Christians do overreact to negative portrayls of Christ, when was the last time physical damage was done in response? I don't agree with book-banning, but there's nothing wrong with a boycott, a written complaint, or even a non-violent protest?

Back on topic, I don't have a problem with multiculturalism really, that seems pretty straightforward. As for immigration, since the United States doesn't have an established language, I don't see why anyone needs to speak English to enter. It'll just be harder for them, won't it? I also disagree with the notion that moving to a country means you think it is better than your previous country.

[Koga No Goshi]

I think Strike and I could verify, living in two states which receive very large amounts of immigrants each year, that it's quite common for people to enter without proficiency in English and they seem to get by pretty well, considering.

RE: South Park, my point originally was that the western press in general "knows better" than to print something VERY offensive to Christians, and then wave around free speech as the excuse when the backlash comes in. Even the Danish paper knew that, they'd rejected Jesus cartoons previously before running the Mohammad one.

[PanzerJaeger]

Koga, I suspect you don't watch South Park, but even if Christians do overreact to negative portrayls of Christ, when was the last time physical damage was done in response? I don't agree with book-banning, but there's nothing wrong with a boycott, a written complaint, or even a non-violent protest?



Or Family Guy.. or.. TV in general.

Jesus is the constant butt of satire and jokes. Nobody is rioting.

Is it so hard to admit that the Christian community may be slightly more mature than the muslim screamers? I thought it was pretty common knowledge. The enforced relativism of the Left on this issue is counterproductive and acts as an enabling force.

[Koga No Goshi]

Or Family Guy.. or.. TV in general.

Jesus is the constant butt of satire and jokes. Nobody is rioting.

Is it so hard to admit that the Christian community may be slightly more mature than the muslim screamers?

Oh I never claimed their reaction to everything is the same. But I claimed, and still maintain, that the Western press knows better, or at least, knows what the limits are, and doesn't push it. I have seen nothing in a major paper or publication showing the equivalent of Jesus as a terrorist, or mass murderer.

However, on the other hand, black churches in the South have been firebombed, abortion clinics have been blown up so.... is it really hard to admit that the Christian community may be as potentially radical and criminally insane as the worst Islam has to offer? ;)

[PanzerJaeger]

Oh I never claimed their reaction to everything is the same. But I claimed, and still maintain, that the Western press knows better, or at least, knows what the limits are, and doesn't push it. I have seen nothing in a major paper or publication showing the equivalent of Jesus as a terrorist, or mass murderer.

However, on the other hand, black churches in the South have been firebombed, abortion clinics have been blown up so.... is it really hard to admit that the Christian community may be as potentially radical and criminally insane as the worst Islam has to offer? ;)

Its a matter of scale. There are radicals on both sides, but they are in the majority on only one.

[Koga No Goshi]

Its a matter of scale. There are radicals on both sides, but they are in the majority on only one.

That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of how great Christianity is from the perspective of someone who isn't Christian, and doesn't particularly care to have either religion barging in and trying to ban books or insert religious teachings or qualify freedom of speech.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Unsurprisingly, a promising topic for discussion has descended into racism and the circular argument on Islamic vs Christian censorship.

Closed pending staff discussion on whether the original topic can be resurrected - but as I can only see about four substantive posts on the subject, don't hold your breath.

:closed: