why did the west commit to multiculturalism? [Archive]

rory_20_uk

07-26-2011, 11:44

InsaneApache

07-26-2011, 11:52

To make amends for these henous crimes we now think that everyt culture is equal - if not better than - our own. Initial immigration was from the Carribean who have a very similar cultural background (no not the same, but similar *) in both language, code of law and religion. We then thought** "what the hell" and to really pay for our crimes have thought it best to allow an anything goes as how else to show how contrite we are?

* I disagree. All the West Indians I met, when I was younger, regarded England as the Mother Country. They were schooled the English way. They had English laws.

**Who are these mysterious 'we'?

Adrian II

07-26-2011, 11:57

Anti-Imperialism.

We went around the Globe making the "World English", such despicable acts as introducing Democracy to India, eradicating Suttee and the Tugs, and being a more effective warlord than those found in Africa whose countries we then pinched.

To make amends for these henous crimes we now think that everyt culture is equal - if not better than - our own. Initial immigration was from the Carribean who have a very similar cultural background (no not the same, but similar) in both language, code of law and religion. We then thought "what the hell" and to really pay for our crimes have thought it best to allow an anything goes as how else to show how contrite we are?

~:smoking:

You don't say.

I predict a long and useless thread, full of unproven assumptions, accusations and Websters' definitions. Of course if Insane would ask for well-documented views only, that would considerably narrow the scope and prevent the worst derailments - for a change.

Heck, I might even participate.

AII

ICantSpellDawg

07-26-2011, 11:59

Papewaio

07-26-2011, 12:03

Australia had the White Australia Policy. Aborogines were on the wild life census until a referendum took them off it.

Post WWII Australia started to revert some of the polices. People like the Italians, Greeks and Yugoslavians were allowed in (Snowy Mountain Scheme). Strange thing is the early goldfields had Norwegians and Chinese, then there was a period when it was very hard to come in unless you were from somewhere else in the British Empire.

Post the Vietnam war with all the Vietnamese boat people, more imigrants had to assimilate along with the Italians and Greeks. Since then it's gone from very few to 25% of the population is born overseas. Still a lot are British or European. But in the area I live a quarter of the people are Indian. I'll be able to say with more accuracy soon as we are doing the census very soon.

The we who allowed this was a series of elected officials on the backs of standard elections and referendums. Democracies may take a long time to get it right, but the trend is generally encouraging.

Adrian II

07-26-2011, 12:05

I think it had mostly to do with economics. Immigration tends to be heralded by the elite who prefer more people to rule over, cheaper goods and services domestically to compete with wages globally.. Certain nations were seeing major growth levels and most of those levels were from population booms. Most things are desired for financial gains and then sold to the public in ways that they will understand - guilt, new foods, new and better beard designs, etc.It was always funny have the first American states to allow women to vote, did so to fluff up their populations in congress. Other states saw this benefit and sold it to their people. Of course, there are already people who strongly believe in certain things and popular swells, but quite a bit of that is a new thing; things happening because people actually want it on their own.Look at nations who refuse to accept immigration- the ones who are seeing growth are the ones who have an invisible population that are now becoming visible, a simulated rural to urban immigration. The ones who are struggling have hit a wall where the entire population is now visible and dwindling.Mobile typing is a great excuse for poor paragraph form

See, this is what I mean. Whip out your Websters and you'll find that migration -/- multiculturalism.

AII

ICantSpellDawg

07-26-2011, 12:08

Multiculturalism is an inseperable byproduct of immigration, for better and worse. Im a fan of immigration. I think that nationalist culture is hollow and I prefer the company of those from outside.What are you getting at? Remember that in this thread you started to hurl rocks first. Im typing off the top of my head at 7am in a non-partisan way about immigration and i'm being called stupid already by a moderator

Furunculus

07-26-2011, 12:15

I think that nationalist culture is hollow and I prefer the company of those from outside.

As it happens so do I, but I have enough humility to realise that I am but one man, far removed from the urban poor who do suffer under high immigration conditions, so i remain sympathetic to their demands for an end to uncontrolled immigration.

rory_20_uk

07-26-2011, 12:20

* I disagree. All the West Indians I met, when I was younger, regarded England as the Mother Country. They were schooled the English way. They had English laws.

**Who are these mysterious 'we'?

Point one - I married a Trinidadian. Similar, but not the same.
Point two - the "we" is probably a group in government. Probably decisions made over time more than a specific select committee meeting.

Adrian, I eagerly await your requests under the Freedom of Information Act to the government to ask for unspecified documents over an unspecified time period... But thanks for joning in to say you won't.

~:smoking:

ICantSpellDawg

07-26-2011, 12:29

As it happens so do, but i have enough humility to realise that I am but one man, far removed from the urban poor who do suffer under high immigration conditions, so i remain sympathetic to their demands for an end to uncontrolled immigration. Aggreed! I am a net beneficiary of immigration as well

Papewaio

07-26-2011, 12:53

Cards on the table.
I'm an immigrant.
My mums an immigrant.
My dads an immigrant.
Same for my brothers and sister.

My wife is an immigrant.
Her family are immigrants.

I've benefited directly and indirectly. You can take my cappucino, kebab, rotti, roast beef, belgium beer diet away from me over my corpulent grease encrusted dead body.

gaelic cowboy

07-26-2011, 12:57

He then went on to say that multiculturalism was the accepted policy in western Europe.

The question I ask is this.

Why did the west commit to multiculturalism?

Who decided to do this?

What, if any, are the benefits?

multiculturalism has been the norm far longer than monocultural society, surely people from the UK can see that in there own history.

InsaneApache

07-26-2011, 13:10

multiculturalism has been the norm far longer than monocultural society, surely people from the UK can see that in there own history.

Oh yes!

The north of England is different to the south. The southwest of England is different than the south-east. As for Scotland, it took me several months to decipher what the locals were saying, the accent was so thick. As for the Welsh.....yaki-da, I love Wales.

Although one country, there are sometimes vast differences. One of the funniest things I've witnessed was a conversation between a Geordie and a Cornishman.

However we do have a common bond. We are British.

Fragony

07-26-2011, 13:45

The wall fell, gutmensch needed something new

Lemur

07-26-2011, 14:05

The wall fell, gutmensch needed something new
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/double-facepalm.jpg

Rhyfelwyr

07-26-2011, 14:11

multiculturalism has been the norm far longer than monocultural society, surely people from the UK can see that in there own history.

No, I honestly can't. Certainly not so long as the "UK" has been an entity.

Fragony

07-26-2011, 14:23

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/double-facepalm.jpg

I have seen that one before. It's still true though, when the cultural revolution in China turned out to be hardly the best thing that ever happened to the Chinese the DDR had to be the answer to everything, if you pointed out to AdrianII in his disco-period that the DDR isn't perfect he would analy rape you with books and put you on a strict diet of quotations. Alas, the wall fell, enter the multicultural utopia. Now that that lost it's shine as well we must save the world from death by CO2

Common theme; down with us

Papewaio

07-26-2011, 14:28

No, I honestly can't. Certainly not so long as the "UK" has been an entity.

You do realise that that is a statement tripping into the zone of an oxymoron. The UK is by definition a multicultural society.

The UK = United Kingdom = Many different kingdoms = different cultures (even within the same kingdom). Saxons, Normans, Celts etc

Tellos Athenaios

07-26-2011, 14:34

Oh yes!

And you are better off for it. How else would you have learned to wash down curry with lager?

Adrian II

07-26-2011, 14:51

The wall fell, gutmensch needed something new

Since we're in verbal rape mode, I can add my two cents.

Migration began to be perceived as a problem for the West only in the 1980's, when globalisation began to uproot our societies and economies and someone convenient had to be blamed..

Then after the Berlin Wall came down Badmensch was in need of a new enemy and decided on Islam.

Islamic terrorists saw a chance to capitalize on this fear, with overwhelming success.

Hence the shitpile we're in today.

I am not going to document this because nobody else bothers.

AII

Fragony

07-26-2011, 15:02

'Then after the Berlin Wall came down Badmensch was in need of a new enemy and decided on Islam.'

And when did that happen, thought they were too occupied with blacks

Cute Wolf

07-26-2011, 15:28

- removed rant - oops

Beskar

07-26-2011, 16:23

Want to sum up some of the successes of "multiculturalism"?
United States of America
British Empire
(others)

America united people from all over Europe and other places around the world. They brought in all their new ideas creating technological leaps and bringing itself from a back-water slave colony of the British Empire to the most powerful nation in the world.

However, what the issue is, is peoples understanding of "multiculturalism". The basic tenets is that people are equal, there is no inferior "races" which was present in the ideology first half of the 20th century. It is bringing equality between people, whether they are asian, black, homosexual, female, male, white, hetereosexual, asexual, disabled, and every other tagline.

If anything, the term "multiculturalism" sends out the entirely wrong message, it implies there is more than one culture. What in reality should be happening is an "Open-Culture", where we are open.

The biggest enemy of this are those who want to discriminate, oppress, force their extreme "conservative" ideals down peoples throats, whether they are Al-quaeda (New York), Fascists (Oslo), Nationalists (Madrid) and Nutjobs (American Republican Media).

Furunculus

07-26-2011, 16:44

However, what the issue is, is peoples understanding of "multiculturalism". The basic tenets is that people are equal, there is no inferior "races" which was present in the ideology first half of the 20th century. It is bringing equality between people, whether they are asian, black, homosexual, female, male, white, hetereosexual, asexual, disabled, and every other tagline.

The biggest enemy of this are those who want to discriminate, oppress, force their extreme "conservative" ideals down peoples throats, whether they are Al-quaeda (New York), Fascists (Oslo), Nationalists (Madrid) and Nutjobs (American Republican Media).

Ah, in that case it has been misrepresented in the west as meaning that there is no inferior "cultures", that all cultures are equally valid even when exported en-masse to a council estate near you! I see the mistake, we have merely been misguided in the correct 'implementation' of multi-culturalism.
If you want me to sign up to a creed that says there are no inferior races then i'm all over that like a dose of the clap! there is however a small problem; it's called multi-culturalism and not multi-racialism........................

i rather thought that a significant enemy of mutli-culturalism, when combined with unmanaged immigration, was lots and lots of poor people in urban environments; people who rely on their local community and suddenly find themselves awash in 'others' with whom they have no relationship and no affinity? maybe that's just me.
http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/uk-public-opinion-toward-immigration-overall-attitudes-and-level-concern
then again, maybe not.

Beskar

07-26-2011, 17:23

I define myself as "Open-culturist" because I dislike "multi-culturalism" as a word because it does give out wrong messages.

But un-managed immigration is not a tenet of multi-culturism or open-culturism. It is a symptom of increasing wealth divide in a ever globalizing world. People from other parts of the world come to Europe in search of wealth and it is that powerful, they travel great distances in some of the worst conditions possible to get a glimpse of it.

I remember a figure floating around which said that 80% of the worlds wealth is controlled by 20% of the population, which means 80% of the global population are only sharing 20% between themselves.

There are solutions to this issue, but being honest, they are not "realistic" in the sense I explained in another thread. It isn't that it is not feasible or cannot be done, it is that there are so many people which would oppose it due to their own ideology or other reasons that it wouldn't be done.

What is there to be done?
Many people propose a Iron-Curtain, a sort of "Berlin Wall" to keep people from getting into the country. This is very unrealistic and really impractical. Think about it, many illegals come in on visa's with legitimate reasons then go underground. It would be like me going to America on a holiday visa, then simply not return home, I am now an illegal. Would America really want to stop holiday making Europeans bringing in their wealth and money into their pockets? What about business representatives and high-flyers which do much for Anglo-trade ?

Best solutions would be International Aid and Development. In a ever shrinking world, the best solution is to improve areas so people would want to remain. For example with Polish migration to Britain, there was a big influx with that but as Britain got weaker and Poland got stronger, people ended up returning to Poland!

The problem with our current method is that we can only do these changes through secondary channels, it is not as if we can pull up with big trucks then simply build a city. There are "governments" to contend with, which would cite sovereignty issues, especially as they want to pocket as much as that money as possible for themselves. (Corruption).

Furunculus

07-26-2011, 17:38

is it any wonder the two are conflated in public perception?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

Beskar

07-26-2011, 17:52

I think we can both agree that "Labour" doing such an action was/is utter moronic. On that we agree.

"A nation" must be self-sustaining at the minimum for its population. That doesn't mean we should adopt policies which would bring economic ruin to Britain, it means that Britain is able to produces more wealth in exporting the cost of their imports (Like Germany has) and has surplus balance sheet.

In a nation like Britain, to "min-max" for best results, we should have a far smaller population, as such, we should be exporting more people than we are importing.

Uncontrolled migration and unchecked population control severely weakens and ruins the trade balance. While there are other nations which currency need more people in order to reach a best possible parity, Britain is on the other end where losing people would be in our best interest (In a sense, Brits should be going to Poland, who want/need more workers, not the other way around).

An open-cultural society in particular would make this easier for such fluid movement of people. People find it far easier to move to the next town then they do to a new country, especially with different languages and cultural barriers. So a more global open-cultural dominance would weaken these barriers, thus making it easier for people to move as where they are needed.

However, there is also a downside as I addressed earlier, easier movement of people makes it easier for people to move, as such there should be controlled checks on movement of people and unfortunately with our rag-tag nation set-up, this is incredibly difficult.

Subotan

07-26-2011, 18:16

STOP RIGHT THERE CRIMINAL SCUM

Before even a single post more on the topic is posted, we need a definition of multi-culturalism. Too often, "critics" of it get away with using it to mean whatever they what it to mean, whether it's criticism of services provided by the state in order to make it easier for immigrants to survive, or as a dog-whistle to hate on the foreigners.

So, critics, what do you mean?

Watchman

07-26-2011, 18:52

Uh, since when did any "western" state have "unmanaged immigration" going on? I mean, even the illegal kind is sort-of managed by the police and whatnot on account of being, you know, illegal.
After something like the 1700s anyway.

Also, the monoculture thing was sort of tried, round late 1800s to early-mid 1900s or so. It failed quite spectacularly on account of totalt dissociation from factual reality, but not without doing kind of a lot of kind of seriously ugly damage. That kind of didn't leave that many alternatives for civilised people.

Strike For The South

07-26-2011, 19:16

Are we talking about multicultralism of immigration?

Multiculturalism implies there are sperate spheres of culture within the wider state, which, as an American I have no issue with as long as American law is the be all end all. Not to mention the immigrants will eventually become "American" like everyone else before them.

The west has superior vaules and all we need to do is wait them out

Simply becuase the immigrants have a bit of a tan does not a multicultural society make. No national entity has ever been closed off in history with any real success. So I'm afraid I don't understand the question. No man is an island, no nation is insular

Watchman

07-26-2011, 19:34

...no nation is insularWell, some have tried. The current poster boy would be North Korea, I think.
Miserable failure sooner or later down the road seems to be the nigh-certified reward for the effort.

InsaneApache

07-26-2011, 20:06

But un-managed immigration is not a tenet of multi-culturism or open-culturism. It is a symptom of increasing wealth divide in a ever globalizing world. People from other parts of the world come to Europe in search of wealth and it is that powerful, they travel great distances in some of the worst conditions possible to get a glimpse of it.

I spoke about this with pater who commented thus; There has always been migrations, it's just that in the late 20th century there was very little, it was a blip, an abnormality. One that your generation thinks is normal.

Certainly made me think.*

*after an ouzo or two!

Beskar

07-26-2011, 20:30

Uh, since when did any "western" state have "unmanaged immigration" going on?

"Really poorly managed immigration"

Watchman

07-26-2011, 20:40

"Really poorly managed immigration"The KKK wannabes 'round these parts consider everything short of "back to Africa" to be that, you know.
Pray tell what would be your particular criteria for "well-managed immigration"?

Vladimir

07-26-2011, 20:56

Since we're in verbal rape mode, I can add my two cents.

Migration began to be perceived as a problem for the West only in the 1980's, when globalisation began to uproot our societies and economies and someone convenient had to be blamed..

Then after the Berlin Wall came down Badmensch was in need of a new enemy and decided on Islam.

Islamic terrorists saw a chance to capitalize on this fear, with overwhelming success.

Hence the shitpile we're in today.

I am not going to document this because nobody else bothers.

AII

Well in the U.S. the enemy was replaced with, ourselves. I didn't document the conversation I had with a federal law enforcement official but the U.S. cared less about Al-Qaeda then they did about Al-Elf. This inward focus existed during the Clinton administration and exists within Democratic circles today. Probably because it fits under law enforcement and easier to quantify.

The U.S. has never been about multiculturalism (in less you include variations of Western culture). It's that we had so much space we could fill after we got rid of the natives and the bison. We also have the dominant, or "American" culture. Despite this, we're still culturally divided (e.g. Southern, black (urban and rural), New England, West Coast, and etc).

Watchman

07-26-2011, 21:17

Despite this, we're still culturally divided (e.g. Southern, black (urban and rural), New England, West Coast, and etc).By that token you'll be hard pressed to find a state larger than Monaco that *wasn't* "culturally divided" - regional differences still doing quite well in spite of the best efforts of the 1800s nationalist unifiers.

Just saying.

Beskar

07-26-2011, 23:16

The KKK wannabes 'round these parts consider everything short of "back to Africa" to be that, you know.
Pray tell what would be your particular criteria for "well-managed immigration"?

That would be a new one, I am being association with the Klu Klux Klan. As for your question, if you read my earlier posts, you would clearly see my criteria.

In short:
If everyone crams onto an island, it is pretty evident that very quickly, this island will not be able to support the population on it. In my example of Britain, Britain cannot support it's population without very heavy reliance on imports, it is simply too crowded. This is where population control comes in as the population of Britain needs to decrease, there needs to be more emigration from the Isles to elsewhere and this number needs to be greater than the influx. On the otherhand, there are other nations (Such as Poland) which require more (and want more) migration so they are able to have better use of the land and for industry.

Thus, waton immigration on the isles is a pretty moronic policy as Britain is no where near self-sufficient and this is decreasing rapidly with the decline of agriculture and industry. While a global trade policy you do not have to be able to be fully sufficient, however, you need your exports to be greater than your imports for viable economic growth and sustainability, which Germany is a very good example of.

Rhyfelwyr

07-26-2011, 23:36

By that token you'll be hard pressed to find a state larger than Monaco that *wasn't* "culturally divided" - regional differences still doing quite well in spite of the best efforts of the 1800s nationalist unifiers.

Just saying.

There's a heck of a lot of difference between regional variations in things like popular culture/dress/accents etc on the one hand, and entirely different cultures with completely different religions/values/social structures on the other.

You do realise that that is a statement tripping into the zone of an oxymoron. The UK is by definition a multicultural society.

The UK = United Kingdom = Many different kingdoms = different cultures (even within the same kingdom). Saxons, Normans, Celts etc

Nooo! You went there, my pet peeve...

How is it in any way relevant to talk about "Saxons, Normans, Celts etc" when talking about the the UK of 1707 onwards?

As for it being an oxymoron to call the "United Kingdom" homogenous, remember that these kingdoms were feudal creations and in that sense a bit of a blast from the past. The kingdoms of Scotland and England did not denote some sort of cultural or national divide, merely the bounds that various dynasties carved out for themselves.

Scottish nationalism originated as a sort of bourgeoisie romanticism (I'm feeling Marxist today) and has since been propagated as a result of mass Irish immigration which was a detestable assault upon the British nation.

There is one British people, one British nation, and no 'sub-nations' within it!

Want to sum up some of the successes of "multiculturalism"?
United States of America
British Empire

What cultures do you think did well in the USA?

Is a socialist resorting to the imperialist adventures of the British Empire to find an example to support his case? Not that it would even be comparable in the slightest to what multiculturalism means today...

Watchman

07-26-2011, 23:41

There's a heck of a lot of difference between regional variations in things like popular culture/dress/accents etc on the one hand, and entirely different cultures with completely different religions/values/social structures on the other.Uhhhhhhhhhh... right. Vlad was using the Eastern and Western US seaboards as an example, which is what I was addressing. In the case you didn't notice or something.

Though AFAIK what you're describing has also been achieved without people murdering each other meaningfully more than normal for the era, so yeah.

Rhyfelwyr

07-26-2011, 23:46

Uhhhhhhhhhh... right. Vlad was using the Eastern and Western US seaboards as an example, which is what I was addressing. In the case you didn't notice or something.

Eh, no... you were talking about the 19th century nationalist unifications in Europe. It's just not a relevant argument in a thread about modern day multiculturalism and its issues.

Watchman

07-26-2011, 23:49

That would be a new one, I am being association with the Klu Klux Klan.What, you're one of the Finnish "immigration critical" types?

As for your question, if you read my earlier posts, you would clearly see my criteria.Would it kill you to reiterate? Please. I insist.

In short:
If everyone crams onto an island, it is pretty evident that very quickly, this island will not be able to support the population on it. In my example of Britain, Britain cannot support it's population without very heavy reliance on imports, it is simply too crowded. This is where population control comes in as the population of Britain needs to decrease, there needs to be more emigration from the Isles to elsewhere and this number needs to be greater than the influx. On the otherhand, there are other nations (Such as Poland) which require more (and want more) migration so they are able to have better use of the land and for industry.

Thus, waton immigration on the isles is a pretty moronic policy as Britain is no where near self-sufficient and this is decreasing rapidly with the decline of agriculture and industry. While a global trade policy you do not have to be able to be fully sufficient, however, you need your exports to be greater than your imports for viable economic growth and sustainability, which Germany is a very good example of.Uh, are you talking about the ability to feed the population? 'Cause if so Germany is probably the worst example in Europe, as they essentially starved to death already in WW1. (The Nazis bent over backwards - and made some pretty stupid decisions - in an effort to avoid a rerun.) In fact what you're talking about seems to have no bearing at all on how national nevermind global economies have functioned for well over a century now...

Watchman

07-26-2011, 23:52

Eh, no... you were talking about the 19th century nationalist unifications in Europe. It's just not a relevant argument in a thread about modern day multiculturalism and its issues.Really? 'Cause I daresay the nationalist projects of the Long Nineteenth Century, and especially their many failings and ugly sideshows as well as the fact they were engaged in to begin with, rather illustrate why "multiculturalism" ended up as de rigueur.
Ie. because the alternatives were found out to be rather vile and unworkable.

Rhyfelwyr

07-27-2011, 00:54

Really? 'Cause I daresay the nationalist projects of the Long Nineteenth Century, and especially their many failings and ugly sideshows as well as the fact they were engaged in to begin with, rather illustrate why "multiculturalism" ended up as de rigueur.
Ie. because the alternatives were found out to be rather vile and unworkable.

Again how can you compare the regional differences of the 19th century with modern immigration. It's a completely different beast, as I said earlier you are talking about different culture/dress/accent etc as if it is the same thing as a group of people with a completely different religion/values/society etc. Not to mention the fact that the geographic distribution is completely different. Having different regions with their own customs is one thing, ramming hordes of foreigners into ghettos and focusing them in poor urban communities is a whole different matter.

Also please tell me what this "vile and unworkable", and apparently only alternative to multiculturalism is.

I do not see anything vile or unworkable about the nation state, it was working fine until a few decades ago.

Papewaio

07-27-2011, 01:01

How is it in any way relevant to talk about "Saxons, Normans, Celts etc" when talking about the the UK of 1707 onwards?

As for it being an oxymoron to call the "United Kingdom" homogenous, remember that these kingdoms were feudal creations and in that sense a bit of a blast from the past. The kingdoms of Scotland and England did not denote some sort of cultural or national divide, merely the bounds that various dynasties carved out for themselves.

Scottish nationalism originated as a sort of bourgeoisie romanticism (I'm feeling Marxist today) and has since been propagated as a result of mass Irish immigration which was a detestable assault upon the British nation.

There is one British people, one British nation, and no 'sub-nations' within it!.

I call your hand and raise it. For the record I'm half Welsh... kind of. Because there is Irish and Scottish going back a few generations. Add to that a Welsh great grandmother who was born in America... doesn't change her ethnicity, just geographic location of the touchdown.

My mum is very British, but never call her English.

Disregard the genes, look at some of the cultural differences to an atypical Englishman (which doesn't exist except in a census aggregate)... different language, geography and food are all in big enough variation to say that the average Welsh person is not the same culture as the average Englishman. That said neither is a Northern Englishman and a Southern one. There are cultures and micro cultures within Britain. I don't have to live there, I have an Eastender uncle whose rhyming slang clearly denotes that he has a different cultural heritage to someone from the same city.

British culture is a home grown multiculture. It is a combination of all those other vibrant communities.

As for failure of groups of immigrants to intergrate. Well look at the system. How well intergrated are those who have been born and bred on a council estate? Seems a failure of city planning resulting in systemic social issues.

Sydney has a few infamous equivalent areas. The ones that don't make media headlines are the areas that have government housing more thoroughly dispersed within a homeowner zone. Give kids rolemodels and they can succeed.

Some groups do come to new countries and fail to intergrate or have higher barriers. Typically those who don't move in general society become the least intergrated. Mums who stay at home and look after the kids, unemployed adults who don't mix with others and kids who go to schools of the same group without ever intergrating with mainstream kids.

I see the most important thing for schools is socialisation. Ethics and education are up to the parents.

So it comes to a shock to the insulated parents when their kids who go to school, uni and work in a multicultural society end up dating someone outside of their parents group.

Multiculturalism has it's highlights like foodcourts :) and it's lowlights like insularity. I don't want food that all tastes the same so I'm quite prepared to put up with cultural differences. A foodcourt is a laboratory of an ideal multicultural environment, the variety of foods still has to be prepared within the health and safety guidelines of the state. I also expect like a foodcourt that one can pick, choose and mix to ones content.

Back to Britain. I'm pretty sure Vindaloo's and tea don't orginate in Britain but are seen as very British.

Sometimes the best of things aren't home grown, they are home chosen.

Rhyfelwyr

07-27-2011, 01:17

I don't really disagree with you Pape, the only thing is (getting back to definitions here), I don't think geographic regional cultural variations are example of multiculturalism. They are not separate cultures, it is fairly petty examples of things like accent etc.

As for Britain adopting foreign things like vindaloos as part of national culture, again this is petty things like food. I don't contest the foreign influence in these things, what I don't like is foreign influence in terms of real values and having any social impact.

How can you compare having a curry with covering your wife in a burkha?

I feel there are many inappropriate comparisons and attempted parallels being flung about in this thread.

Louis VI the Fat

07-27-2011, 01:30

I was watching Newsnight last night and a Norwegian politician was being interviewed. He was a year older than me and stated that immigration into Norway didn't start until the early to mid sixties. He admitted that he didn't physically meet anyone other than a white person until he was 17. (1976)

He then went on to say that multiculturalism was the accepted policy in western Europe.

The question I ask is this.

Why did the west commit to multiculturalism?

Who decided to do this?

What, if any, are the benefits?Well for an interesting tidbit, in postwar Europe, up to 1968/early 70s, it was the left which resented mass immigration, even multiculturalism, and the right which imposed it. As Casanova (PCF , French Communist Party) understood, 'the working class is racist and imperialist'. Fight the Algerians, prevent their coming over, recruit amongst white Algerians for the left. Meanwhile the right demanded Algerian workers in France, to keep wages down and to limit the power of the unions. The left, especially the PCF, tried to protect the working class from this competition. Where the PCF was in power, social housing was refused to Algerians, their position made miserable by other legal means too.

gaelic cowboy

07-27-2011, 02:40

Nooo! You went there, my pet peeve...

How is it in any way relevant to talk about "Saxons, Normans, Celts etc" when talking about the the UK of 1707 onwards?

The discussion in the OP implied this is a NEW development clearly it's not.

Scottish nationalism originated as a sort of bourgeoisie romanticism (I'm feeling Marxist today) and has since been propagated as a result of mass Irish immigration which was a detestable assault upon the British nation.

There is one British people, one British nation, and no 'sub-nations' within it!

So what by the time of Act of Union other cultures not from the British Isles were livin an workin in Britain and that continued after Union, multiculturalism does not implode because there is only one Britain

In the fifties my father worked on the sites and roads of England, most were Irish but there were plenty Poles, West Indians, Lithuanians and on and on.

Britain was most deffo multicultural long before the Daily Mail decided it was a new thing.

Noncommunist

07-27-2011, 02:44

How can you compare having a curry with covering your wife in a burkha?

One is a food fashion, the other is a clothing fashion. Doesn't seem too hard to compare them.

Papewaio

07-27-2011, 03:05

What is culture? Well what is the quickest way to ingratiate oneself in a new society when traveling overseas?

The answer to the second highlights some of the first. When traveling if you can appreciate the local food and customs whilst being able to say an understandable please & thank you in the local tongue you're doing well.

Communication is the underpinning of community which is the habitat of culture. Food and drink are the way we show inclusion and respect for each other.

Food is vitally important to civilization. Give them bread to keep popularity in the Roman Empire. Mistakenly say cake to topple the French Empire. We are but 3 meals away from the breakdown of civil concord.

A restaurant to me is only possible because of civilization and culture. It is the most concrete opposite to extremism, hostility and terrorism. A restaurant is hospitality, culture and cuisine. So food to me is a very real part of any deep understanding of a culture.

Furunculus

07-27-2011, 08:47

If everyone crams onto an island, it is pretty evident that very quickly, this island will not be able to support the population on it. In my example of Britain, Britain cannot support it's population without very heavy reliance on imports, it is simply too crowded.

Thus, waton immigration on the isles is a pretty moronic policy as Britain is no where near self-sufficient and this is decreasing rapidly with the decline of agriculture and industry. While a global trade policy you do not have to be able to be fully sufficient, however, you need your exports to be greater than your imports for viable economic growth and sustainability, which Germany is a very good example of.

the problem britain has isn't the absolute level of immigration, we can easily choose to import more.

no, the real problem with immigration in britain is:
> the relative level of change, which cannot easily be accommodated by the population centres where immigrants tend to accumulate, where people tend to be poorer and thus more reliant on a stable and recognisable community.

this 'dissatisfaction' is further catalysed by the following:
> the degree of difference of the immigrant culture, and its perceived compatibility
> an orthodoxy that discourages the native culture from expecting the immigrant culture to adapt to their sensitivities.

to turn it into an argument about demographic sustainability is rather irrelevant, the man on the street doesn't give a damn about that.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-27-2011, 10:19

Disregard the genes, look at some of the cultural differences to an atypical Englishman (which doesn't exist except in a census aggregate)... different language, geography and food are all in big enough variation to say that the average Welsh person is not the same culture as the average Englishman. That said neither is a Northern Englishman and a Southern one. There are cultures and micro cultures within Britain. I don't have to live there, I have an Eastender uncle whose rhyming slang clearly denotes that he has a different cultural heritage to someone from the same city.

British culture is a home grown multiculture. It is a combination of all those other vibrant communities.

If your Mam's family are Welsh then surely you know Britian has not been multicultural until very recently, the way to get on was to be English and no one know this better than the Welsh, whose language and culture were brutalised in an attempt "civilise" them "for their own good".

Of course, that hasn't changed - except that now you have to be a different kind of English and it's more sneaky.

Papewaio

07-27-2011, 12:06

Fragony

07-27-2011, 13:59

My mum speaks fluent Welsh and considers herself Welsh or British not English. Mum sees a clear difference in culture, heritage and the ability to use both languages. The very act of being bilingual in her eyes sets her in a different culture to the likes of my monolingual self. Multiculture isn't as dramatic as yin-yang.

Multiculturalism is an ideoligy, some posters here make the mistake of confusing it with multi-ethnic. It's true that culture has always been multi-ethnic, but that was a given not a goal. Multiculturalism is a modern day religion and religion accepts no faillure, that is all there is

Papewaio

07-27-2011, 14:59

First everyone can be of the same ethnic background but have a different culture. Just look at suburbanites vs country folk. Heck you can have the same family members living cultural diverse lifestyles.

Multiculturalism is allowing people to have keep their cultures within the law of the land. That is why I use a food court as an example. Many types of food and cooking styles but they have to maintain hygeine standards of the country they are in, not where they are from.

I'm fine with cultures having differences. However I'm against special laws for certain cultures or religions this includes priests not having to report a crime they have heard in confession. Everyone atheist, catholic, jew, buddhist, muslim, tin hat brigade should have the same expectations to be treated the same under the eyes of the law, both in being looked after and duties towards being a good citizen.

I do not see multiculturalism as a religion in Australia. One quarter of the population is born overseas. We have tangible benefits from it. It isn't an easy thing to implement, but in general the ROI is pretty good, but it does take 25 years plus to normally see the fruits come true.

ICantSpellDawg

07-27-2011, 18:19

I don't think you should have to report crimes that you knew were commited in the past, rather only things that you learn were committed in the past and may have something to do with future action. Ie someone confesses that they've killed a guy at a bar because they were attacked. This would not need to be reported. If someone told you that they killed a guy at a bar and they liked it, then it has future criminal implications. Child sexual abuse would be an example of something that would need to be reported as the act itself suggests future behaviour. Similar to privelages given to attorneys and psychiatrists and training should be included in seminary (im pretty sure it already is).

gaelic cowboy

07-27-2011, 18:21

I don't think you should have to report crimes that you knew were commited in the past, rather only things that you learn were committed in the past and may have something to do with future action. Ie someone confesses that they've killed a guy at a bar because they were attacked. This would not need to be reported. If someone told you that they killed a guy at a bar and they liked it, then it has future criminal implications. Child sexual abuse would be an example of something that would need to be reported as the act itself suggests future behaviour

:confused: did you post in the wrong thread by any chance??

ICantSpellDawg

07-27-2011, 18:24

gaelic cowboy

07-27-2011, 18:36

Kagemusha

07-27-2011, 20:07

If you talk with a guy from the street about fear of multiculturalism. The thing you get is that he/she is afraid that his/hers own culture might change towards direction he/she does not want it to go, because of immigrant influence, aka they do not want to be under sharia law in Finland for example. So in the end is opinion concerning multiculturalism even about multiculturalism in the end? Or just more about fear in general?

Fragony

07-27-2011, 20:24

Kagemusha

07-27-2011, 20:48

Who says that turning into islam is something to be desired about? I am placing the weight to the word "who".

gaelic cowboy

07-27-2011, 21:01

there is something up here with continual arguement that Multicultism is some force behind immigration, surely the reason Europe has lots of muslim immigrants is because all the countires bordering Europe that send immigrants are Muslim.

The problem with the Multicultist idea that Frag has is surely after the people got here, when they start dismantling norms and rules to satisfy some airy fairy ethic.

Fragony

07-27-2011, 21:36

Who says that turning into islam is something to be desired about? I am placing the weight to the word "who".

The multicultural left. The islam is nothing but a trophy. The rest of us are forced to lovingly caress a poisinous snake (political islam) so they get to feel good about themselves

' The problem with the Multicultist idea that Frag has is surely afterthe people got here, when they start dismantling norms and rules to satisfy some airy fairy ethic. '

yes

Kagemusha

07-27-2011, 21:45

The multicultural left. The islam is nothing but a trophy. The rest of us are forced to lovingly caress a poisinous snake (political islam) so they get to feel good about themselves

' The problem with the Multicultist idea that Frag has is surely afterthe people got here, when they start dismantling norms and rules to satisfy some airy fairy ethic. '

yes

So it is the political left that wants to convert everyone to Islam? So are they Islamist in disguise?

Adrian II

07-27-2011, 21:57

surely the reason Europe has lots of muslim immigrants [...]

It's hasn't. That's why this whole debate is absurd. About 3% of the population of the European Union are muslims. This percentage has been stable for years and is expected to go down since muslims are gradually adopting European birthrates. Many of those listed as muslims are not immigrants. Bulgaria for instance has 13% muslims, most of who were there since the Ottoman days. Many others are not observant, even though they are registered as muslims. In France for instance only half of immigrants from muslim countries are observant.

Just a few facts. I thought they couldn't hurt.

AII

Fragony

07-27-2011, 21:59

So it is the political left that wants to convert everyone to Islam? So are they Islamist in disguise?

Nah, it just doesn't work all that well, so concession after concession after concession, multiculture can't fail after all. It's a process of accumulation, small things that go unnoticed untill you add things up

gaelic cowboy

07-27-2011, 22:11

It's hasn't. That's why this whole debate is absurd. About 3% of the population of the European Union are muslims. This percentage has been stable for years and is expected to go down since muslims are gradually adopting European birthrates. Many of those listed as muslims are not immigrants. Bulgaria for instance has 13% muslims, most of who were there since the Ottoman days. Many others are not observant, even though they are registered as muslims. In France for instance only half of immigrants from muslim countries are observant.

Just a few facts. I thought they couldn't hurt.

AII

I was talking about the fact most of the acual people who actually immigrate here year on year are muslim by default not by some leftist design.

Kagemusha

07-27-2011, 22:14

Nah, it just doesn't work all that well, so concession after concession after concession, multiculture can't fail after all. It's a process of accumulation, small things that go unnoticed untill you add things up

So, to you the gist of things is that you feel that the political left is being irresponsible and reckless, because they want to be right in their views about multiculturalism? No matter what the consequences are?

Fragony

07-27-2011, 22:18

So, to you the gist of things is that you feel that the political left is being irresponsible and reckless, because they want to be right in their views about multiculturalism? No matter what the consequences are?

Sums it up

Papewaio

07-28-2011, 00:03

I was agreeing with pape minus the aforementioned caveat. I peruse existing threads for interesting ideas that I either agree with or disagree with. I honestly like sidetracks within a thread to a point

Not really a side track. Pointing out what is considered a cultural norm. I do wonder how we would feel seeing that same privilege extended to Mufti's.

People have a story, a need to vent. If it wasn't a priest it may have been someone else. Talking to anyone else would shine the light on a
crime and open up paths to investigation. The difference with a defense lawyer is that we operate on a dueling mechanism in law.

(Above was on a phone, below is without spell check).

My own caveat which is more off track (one upmanship :) ):
I actually think 90% of what confession is, is a great thing. In fact it might be a better option then prison. It is part of the cup of tea and talk therapy ideas that might ultimately be better then mandatory sentences for minor crimes. I think it is better to have professional lawyers, judges and carers (Priests, Doctors, Nurses) to be able to implement solutions based on their professional judgement.

Shibumi

07-28-2011, 01:10

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-28-2011, 02:07

Strictly from my perspective.

What Sweden has gained from multiculturalism:
- Richer food culture.
- More understanding of other nations.
- People who work harder for less.

What Sweden has lost:
- We now have ghettos.
- The use of derogatory names for girls are being common.
- The sense of "The big home", we used to pay high taxes to support our less fortunate citizens (and that was ok), now we find ourselves paying even higher taxes for originally somewhereelses citizens (and that is not ok). Can be seen in the fact that we used to be socialist when we were only Swedes with minor immigration, whereas we have now moved to a more cold society with colder laws and general structures in society at large.

This sounds normal, really, the Rich benefit (foriegn cooks, cheap labour) while the poor and less-than-wealthy are left to pick up the tab. I have always said Scandanavia did well socially because of homogenity. The attrocities in Norway, while not committed by an immigrant, are still linked to immigration.

That realisation has not, however, pointed me towards a solution.

Fragony

07-28-2011, 06:45

Strictly from my perspective.

What Sweden has gained from multiculturalism:
- Richer food culture.
- More understanding of other nations.
- People who work harder for less.

What Sweden has lost:
- We now have ghettos.
- The use of derogatory names for girls are being common.
- The sense of "The big home", we used to pay high taxes to support our less fortunate citizens (and that was ok), now we find ourselves paying even higher taxes for originally somewhereelses citizens (and that is not ok). Can be seen in the fact that we used to be socialist when we were only Swedes with minor immigration, whereas we have now moved to a more cold society with colder laws and general structures in society at large.

Sweden has to be the example of multiculturalists putting their society to the test, a country governed by a collective narcistic personality disorder

Furunculus

07-28-2011, 10:10

This sounds normal, really, the Rich benefit (foriegn cooks, cheap labour) while the poor and less-than-wealthy are left to pick up the tab. I have always said Scandanavia did well socially because of homogenity. The attrocities in Norway, while not committed by an immigrant, are still linked to immigration.

That realisation has not, however, pointed me towards a solution.

agreed, a truly happy and undiluted solcial democracy really only works with a culturally homogeneous population, as only a broad and deep sense of 'family' will encourage people to reach into their pockets for others benefit time after time.

Papewaio

07-29-2011, 00:52

So Australia which is a culturally hetrogenous population is not a happy social democracy?

Now these are only sourced from one think tank, so automatically the sample population is not great. But as these were at the top of the google search I'm sure you can find something to counter it if your premise is correct.

From the happiest countries in the world 2010:
1. Norway
2. Denmark
3. Finland
4. Australia
5. New Zealand

The World’s Most Liveable Cities Top 10 List 2011:
1 Vancouver, Canada
2 Melbourne, Australia
3 Vienna, Austria
4 Toronto, Canada
5 Calgary, Canada
6 Helsinki, Finland
7 Sydney, Australia
8 (equal) Perth, Australia
9 (equal) Adelaide, Australia
10 Auckland, New Zealand

But it kind of torpedoes the idea that one needs to have a culturally homogenous population to be happy as that is not the key.

I don't see the poor as being worse off for immigration. The uber-rich can afford a butler, its the middle class and poor who are more likely to require the help of a lower wage earner. Take call centres in Australia, they are about as diverse a group of people possible. Call centres are run by a much higher percentage of immigrants and second generation then the rest of Australia. The low cost solutions that are call centres are catering more for the middle and poor segment of the population.

Strike For The South

07-29-2011, 06:50

The more and more this thread goes on, the more and more it becomes painfully clear multicultralism is a buzzword for BROWN PEOPLE

Not that it is very surprising, mind you

Fragony

07-29-2011, 07:07

The more and more this thread goes on, the more and more it becomes painfully clear multicultralism is a buzzword for BROWN PEOPLE

Not that it is very surprising, mind you

Nope, it's not about brown people, nor hindu's, nor asians. Only about leftist islamphilae

Strike For The South

07-29-2011, 07:13

Nope, it's not about brown people, nor hindu's, nor asians. Only about leftist islamphilae

Considering most of the tenats of "leftism" are diametrically opposed to the Sharia strawmen you are setting up, I fail to follow

Have you ever thought this conspiracy may be in your head?

Centurion1

07-29-2011, 07:17

[QUOTE=Papewaio;2053350559]So Australia which is a culturally hetrogenous population is not a happy social democracy?

Now these are only sourced from one think tank, so automatically the sample population is not great. But as these were at the top of the google search I'm sure you can find something to counter it if your premise is correct.

From the happiest countries in the world 2010:
1. Norway
2. Denmark
3. Finland
4. Australia
5. New Zealand

The World’s Most Liveable Cities Top 10 List 2011:
1 Vancouver, Canada
2 Melbourne, Australia
3 Vienna, Austria
4 Toronto, Canada
5 Calgary, Canada
6 Helsinki, Finland
7 Sydney, Australia
8 (equal) Perth, Australia
9 (equal) Adelaide, Australia
10 Auckland, New Zealand

All of those statistics are highly subjective and sort of pointless. Not to mention if you really want to get into it I saw about four different rankings for happiest countries online.

But sure we will go with yours if it makes you happy.

1. Homogeneous culturally
2. Homogeneous culturally
3. Homogeneous culturally
4. heterogeneous you say. 92% of the country is made up of those of European descent with a 8-9% Asian population. I couldn't find how much of the European population is foreign born or not so it would be nice if you could tell me that. I assume the majority hail from the British Isles.
5. New Zealand appears to be about 70% European with 15% each in Maori and Asian so a clear majority segment of the population but pretty Heterogeneous.

Also to note how ridiculous I think these statistics are I saw on one ranking for 2010 that Guatemala were ranked at number 9. The Us may not be as happy but I think I know which one I would choose.

The more and more this thread goes on, the more and more it becomes painfully clear multicultralism is a buzzword for BROWN PEOPLE

Not that it is very surprising, mind you

ummmm I would disagree. Western Europe has quite a few issues with immigrants from Eastern Europe and the Balkans as well I believe.

I don't consider the US a multicultural society. We assimilated immigrants heavily but we also absorbed some old country practices into the culture. We are sort of a mix match. At least we were now it is more assimilate or leave.

Fragony

07-29-2011, 07:23

Considering most of the tenats of "leftism" are diametrically opposed to the Sharia strawmen you are setting up, I fail to follow

That is why the leftist islamphilae is so rediculous. Say something bad about christianity and they will cheer, say anything bad about the islam and they will claw out your eyes. It isn't even a double standard, it's a blind spot

Strike For The South

07-29-2011, 07:26

[QUOTE]
ummmm I would disagree. Western Europe has quite a few issues with immigrants from Eastern Europe and the Balkans as well I believe.
In England the Polish's biggest problem is what calender they will be put on, I ain't buying it

I don't consider the US a multicultural society. We assimilated immigrants heavily but we also absorbed some old country practices into the culture. We are sort of a mix match. At least we were now it is more assimilate or leave.

All the little Italys, Chinatowns, Cinco de Mayos, and Oktoberfest beg to differ. America has been blugeoned with immigrants since the begininng and yet somehow we've manged to stay afloat. You can't define a singular American culture, well maybe consumerism and obesity.

I want an actual definintion of what multicultralism is and when does a nation state jump the shark. Until then I see nothing but furrowed brows about those scary scary brown people and there scary scary scary religon

Fragony

07-29-2011, 07:34

In the US multiculture was never the goal, there is no rationality behind multiculturalism because it's a religion, a religion that accepts zero dissent

http://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuknews%2Flaw-and-order%2F6418456%2FLabour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html&ei=plMyTv2zJo2WOpjplfQL&usg=AFQjCNHH5yo9UL6XSfysiAMjpZdiPRn-Sw&sig2=GbtmKFdy7xjB-P1QRzz4sg

' I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn't its main purpose – to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date."

ES MUSS SEIN

Centurion1

07-29-2011, 07:47

[QUOTE=Centurion1;2053350633]
In England the Polish's biggest problem is what calender they will be put on, I ain't buying it

All the little Italys, Chinatowns, Cinco de Mayos, and Oktoberfest beg to differ. America has been blugeoned with immigrants since the begininng and yet somehow we've manged to stay afloat. You can't define a singular American culture, well maybe consumerism and obesity.

I want an actual definintion of what multicultralism is and when does a nation state jump the shark. Until then I see nothing but furrowed brows about those scary scary brown people and there scary scary scary religon

What is confusing about largely assimilate but adopt some old country practices? How is repeating what I say make me wrong precisely?

Strike For The South

07-29-2011, 07:53

[QUOTE=Strike For The South;2053350637]

What is confusing about largely assimilate but adopt some old country practices? How is repeating what I say make me wrong precisely?

And what do you think they are doing in these other places? You contradict yourself.

People have been migrating forever, and nation states have never been close to mono cultural, if one can even begin to attempent to define what that is. The US is a multicultural society based on the definition of "multicultural" We seem to be doing just fine.

The problem in Europe is a boogeymen meant to scare children and in some cases dismantle the social saftey net that these countries worked so hard for Shibumis post is tantamount to that

Fragony

07-29-2011, 08:05

'People have been migrating forever, and nation states have never been close to mono cultural, if one can even begin to attempent to define what that is. The US is a multicultural society based on the definition of "multicultural" We seem to be doing just fine.'

Because the USA doesn't try to make a point about it. In Europe for the left multiculture is the actual goal, it's their ideoligy. And they accept no critism whatsoever, it's what happens when you let intellectuals play with the buttons, they want to prove their theory. In real life they turn into the evil stepmother that only cares about what the neighbours think

Adrian II

07-29-2011, 10:04

I want an actual definintion of what multicultralism is and when does a nation state jump the shark. Until then I see nothing but furrowed brows about those scary scary brown people and there scary scary scary religon

Forget about the brown people. That was 25 years ago. Back then, our resident fascists told us we would be 'swamped' by blacks from Africa and elsewhere. These days the browns are getting a break, it's all about islam. I reckon East Europeans are next, but it'll take another decade for that one to take hold.

By the way it's funny how the US is seen as monocultural by people who've never been there. Must have something to do with your media and the image they project.

AII

Fragony

07-29-2011, 10:27

Forget about the brown people. That was 25 years ago. Back then, our resident fascists told us we would be 'swamped' by blacks from Africa and elsewhere. These days the browns are getting a break, it's all about islam. I reckon East Europeans are next, but it'll take another decade for that one to take hold.

It's an easy way out that people complained about blacks 25 years ago. What is true now was true then, crime rised drastically, no? With muslims it is true as well. And it will also be true with eastern europeans. Multiculture is a flawed concept that will never be proven right. Things are fine in our multi-ethnic society however, without the patronising of decency-salesmen we do just fine.

That is the evil stepmother, multiculturelalism. The multi-ethnic society has problems, but the evil stepmother only cares about what the neighbours think. She's a fundamentalist

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-29-2011, 10:40

In England the Polish's biggest problem is what calender they will be put on, I ain't buying it

So you're telling us that being objectified as a nation of breasts isn't a problem?

Eastern Europeans already get a rough time in Britain, but then so do the French.

It's all about the "Other" and has nothing to do with skin colour. I think you are imposing your local American prejudices onto Europe.

Adrian II

07-29-2011, 10:42

It's an easy way out that people complained about blacks 25 years ago. What is true now was true then, crime rised drastically, no?

No. And it's going down these days as well. You're a rebel without a clue, Fragony.

AII

Fragony

07-29-2011, 10:59

No. And it's going down these days as well. You're a rebel without a clue, Fragony.

AII

You could take into consideration that nobody goes to the police anymore as you are very lucky if they can be bothered. Doesn't mean crime is down, the evil stepmother just doesn't like it exists, she wants to bake a cake and stuff

Kagemusha

07-29-2011, 14:18

It's an easy way out that people complained about blacks 25 years ago. What is true now was true then, crime rised drastically, no? With muslims it is true as well. And it will also be true with eastern europeans. Multiculture is a flawed concept that will never be proven right. Things are fine in our multi-ethnic society however, without the patronising of decency-salesmen we do just fine.

That is the evil stepmother, multiculturelalism. The multi-ethnic society has problems, but the evil stepmother only cares about what the neighbours think. She's a fundamentalist

So in the end you only have beef with your political adversaries, not the blacks nor the muslims?

Fragony

07-29-2011, 15:32

So in the end you only have beef with your political adversaries, not the blacks nor the muslims?

Have nothing against them, why would I, yes my only problem is the multiculturelaral left

Kagemusha

07-29-2011, 15:38

Ok. Sorry i keep asking questions.I am just trying to figure out this whole multiculturalism she bang from both point of views.

Fragony

07-29-2011, 16:20

Ok. Sorry i keep asking questions.I am just trying to figure out this whole multiculturalism she bang from both point of views.

Just a thought, maybe you should have reflected on that eatlier. How did yoy expect this not to happen. Not in my worst nightmares did I expect anything like this, but are you really that surprised? If you aren't, I am.

Kagemusha

07-29-2011, 16:29

Just a thought, maybe you should have reflected on that eatlier. How did yoy expect this not to happen. Not in my worst nightmares did I expect anything like this, but are you really that surprised? If you aren't, I am.

I am not surprised one bit that left and right disagree on everything. I am just trying to understand the motivations of both sides.To me what happened in Norway was not an result of long lasting political trend, but just one character flawed psycho decided to push his agenda with some led. Those kind of things happen time to time and like i said cant be prevented.

Fragony

07-29-2011, 17:07

I am not surprised one bit that left and right disagree on everything. I am just trying to understand the motivations of both sides.To me what happened in Norway was not an result of long lasting political trend, but just one character flawed psycho decided to push his agenda with some led. Those kind of things happen time to time and like i said cant be prevented.

Still a little bit of reflection doesn't hurt. This guy was an obvious right-wing nut at I'm low in other ways to put it. No need to make it look any better or to try to understand it,because it doesn't suit me, it is what it is and it's the most vicious thing I ever heard of. Can't be prevented sure, true that of course but this is all so incredibley sickening.

Centurion1

07-29-2011, 18:29

Strike For The South

07-29-2011, 18:39

So you're telling us that being objectified as a nation of breasts isn't a problem?

Eastern Europeans already get a rough time in Britain, but then so do the French.

It's all about the "Other" and has nothing to do with skin colour. I think you are imposing your local American prejudices onto Europe.

I was unaware xenophobia was a uniueqly American trait. Coincidentally deflecting the arguement is the same thing the local Americans do.

Strike refuses to admit that white Europeans can be discriminated against just as harshly as brown people. It is his shtick to bemoan the sufferings of the "brown people"

This is a falsehood and you miss the issue, the concept of "white" has changed everytime the "whites" were about to be outnumbred. White Europeans can be discriminated against, but that is not the issue here. Reverse racism in the western world is kind of like the war on Xmas, A few isolated incidents does not a war make

Fragony

07-29-2011, 19:24

'White Europeans can be discriminated against, but that is not the issue here'

Why is that, it are hate crimes

Kagemusha

07-29-2011, 19:33

Still a little bit of reflection doesn't hurt. This guy was an obvious right-wing nut at I'm low in other ways to put it. No need to make it look any better or to try to understand it,because it doesn't suit me, it is what it is and it's the most vicious thing I ever heard of. Can't be prevented sure, true that of course but this is all so incredibley sickening.

So i should be shocked?What happened last year in Tuusula Finland can you recall?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-29-2011, 19:54

I was unaware xenophobia was a uniueqly American trait. Coincidentally deflecting the arguement is the same thing the local Americans do.

You are obsessed with "brown people", if I'm prejudiced against your notional "brown" people it is no more than against Scots or Welsh, or especially the French.

There are certain things I don't like, I don't like the current fashion for Islamic women to cover their faces, I find it mildy offensive and off putting. However, I feel exactly the same about booty shorts where I can see the colour of the girl's thong.

This is a falsehood and you miss the issue, the concept of "white" has changed everytime the "whites" were about to be outnumbred. White Europeans can be discriminated against, but that is not the issue here. Reverse racism in the western world is kind of like the war on Xmas, A few isolated incidents does not a war make

This is not true in Europe, in Europe Spaniards, Portugese and Greeks have always been white. In America you have the concept of "Latin", which isn't something we have in Europe, we just have Northern Europeans and Mediteranians, and the Northerners include the French, who are "Latin".

You are trying to impose an American racial prejudice on Europe and it doesn't work. It's not that we don't have a history of Racism, but it is a very different history. We never had, for example, slaves in Europe, only in the Colonies, and we never had legal segregation, Blacks, Indians and others had exactly the same rites under English law as whites and I'm assuming this was the same elsewhere.

Kagemusha

07-29-2011, 20:12

You are obsessed with "brown people", if I'm prejudiced against your notional "brown" people it is no more than against Scots or Welsh, or especially the French.

There are certain things I don't like, I don't like the current fashion for Islamic women to cover their faces, I find it mildy offensive and off putting. However, I feel exactly the same about booty shorts where I can see the colour of the girl's thong.

This is not true in Europe, in Europe Spaniards, Portugese and Greeks have always been white. In America you have the concept of "Latin", which isn't something we have in Europe, we just have Northern Europeans and Mediteranians, and the Northerners include the French, who are "Latin".

You are trying to impose an American racial prejudice on Europe and it doesn't work. It's not that we don't have a history of Racism, but it is a very different history. We never had, for example, slaves in Europe, only in the Colonies, and we never had legal segregation, Blacks, Indians and others had exactly the same rites under English law as whites and I'm assuming this was the same elsewhere.

Very good post.World depends on the eye of the beholder.

Fragony

07-29-2011, 20:42

So i should be shocked?What happened last year in Tuusula Finland can you recall?

Yes that was rather stupid of me, I didn't realise how bad things were at the time

Kagemusha

07-29-2011, 21:11

Yes that was rather stupid of me, I didn't realise how bad things were at the time

:bow:

HoreTore

07-29-2011, 22:00

Strike refuses to admit that white Europeans can be discriminated against just as harshly as brown people. It is his shtick to bemoan the sufferings of the "brown people"

Liverpool is capable of winning a match now and then, but that does not in any way make them champions.

Papewaio

07-30-2011, 09:36

What year did slavery cease in Europe?

Not including non-lawful events like sex trade which is still happening. Just which century it ceased.

Centurion1

07-30-2011, 09:42

What year did slavery cease in Europe?

Not including non-lawful events like sex trade which is still happening. Just which century it ceased.

What country did you want. If you weren't aware Europe is comprised of quite a few nations....

Fragony

07-30-2011, 09:45

What year did slavery cease in Europe?

Not including non-lawful events like sex trade which is still happening. Just which century it ceased.

There has never been any slavery in Europe

Centurion1

07-30-2011, 10:01

There has never been any slavery in Europe

That would be wrong.

Fragony

07-30-2011, 10:07

That would be wrong.

No, not unlesss you add 19th century Russia to Europe, enslaved by is a different matter. Up to 1920 then at least, Belgian Congo

Subotan

07-30-2011, 10:16

There has never been any slavery in Europe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_medieval_Europe

Slavery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery) in early medieval (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval) Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe) was relatively common. It was widespread at the end of antiquity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_antiquity)... Slavery declined in the Middle Ages in most parts of Europe as serfdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom) slowly rose, but it never completely disappeared.

K.O.!

Centurion1

07-30-2011, 10:19

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_medieval_Europe

K.O.!

Then let us heap unto that everything from the fall of the Roman Empire and before............. I am pretty sure Europa is still Europe, neh?

Double KO

Kagemusha

07-30-2011, 10:20

Fragony

07-30-2011, 10:26

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_medieval_Europe

K.O.!

If you want it to be, 19th century serfdom in Russia was basically the last of what is close to slavery in Europe. Poor working conditions, all times. But not real slavery, where someone is your property by law

Centurion1

07-30-2011, 10:27

I bet slavery ended about the same time as European tribes turned into a christianity. So starting from "Romans" at 4th century and ending to Vikings at 12th century and Finnic tribes on 13th century.Europe was converted and mass slavery abolished. A new form of slavery aka plantasion slavery was developed in 15th century and abolished at 19th century.

Um not exactly.

Serfdom and feudalism just replaced it. It was cheaper and more productive than slavery.

EDIT: Fragony is a perfect example of the ability of an internet denizen simply not admitting when they are wrong. The presence of facts mean nothing.

Ironside

07-30-2011, 10:27

What year did slavery cease in Europe?

Not including non-lawful events like sex trade which is still happening. Just which century it ceased.

Depends on how you define slavery. Forbidding it? Mostly during the 1800:s. Having own slaves inside the country outside colony slave trade? Forbidden much, much earlier in most cases.

Forbidding thralldom and serfs? Depends on the country.

Roughly, slaves were common before 1100 but started to disappear rapidly during the 1100s to be replaced by serfs in most cases. Christianity was a big driving force in forbidding it.

Serfdom lasted very different times though, Sweden forbid it in the 1300s (well serfdom never appeared here and thraldom is like a mix of slavery and serfdom, but it was formally forbidden 1343), while most of the continent it lasted to the 1700s and even longer in Russia.
Europeans involved in slave trade has always been active though, the plague came to the Islamic world through a Geonoan slave trader boat for example.

Fragony

07-30-2011, 10:38

Um not exactly.

Serfdom and feudalism just replaced it. It was cheaper and more productive than slavery.

EDIT: Fragony is a perfect example of the ability of an internet denizen simply not admitting when they are wrong. The presence of facts mean nothing.

Slavery is a class system of being directly owned by another person, if you can show me what facts I shouldn't be ignorant about please do. Even in serfdom the landlord didn't own the worker, in theory they were free to leave when they pleased.

Adrian II

07-30-2011, 10:59

Personal serfdom was virtual slavery. In his drive to break with feudalism Napoleon abolished it in most of Europe except Russia and Austria. The Austrian Empire abolished it in 1848, the Russian Empire in 1861. The Brits maintained serf tenure in various forms until 1922, but serf tenure wasn't personal serfdom.

AII

Louis VI the Fat

07-30-2011, 12:45

Slavery ended when the French troops arrived.

It was re-instated where the forces of reaction prevailed, from Russian serfdom to Anglo capitalism. (Rather ten hours picking cotton in the sun than fourteen hours weaving it in a cold and damp Manchester spinnery!)

Adrian II

07-30-2011, 12:46

Slavery ended when the French troops arrived.

Except on Haiti, you Eurocentrist pig.

AII

Louis VI the Fat

07-30-2011, 12:50

Except on Haiti, you Eurocentrist pig.

AIIThe subject is 'slavery in Europe', you self-loathing cultural-marxist. :tongue:

Quite apart from that, Haiti was fully inspired by the French revolution. A bit of a mini-me. As the story soon became excruciatingly complicated of who supported what, soon French troops were supressing a revolution in the Americas.

Adrian II

07-30-2011, 13:20

Slavery ended when the French troops arrived.

[...] soon French troops were supressing a revolution in the Americas.

Contradicteenk ourselves, hein? How Cartesian, you universalist-humanistic bourzjwah provocateur!

AII

Louis VI the Fat

07-30-2011, 14:12

Contradicteenk ourselves, hein? How Cartesian, you universalist-humanistic bourzjwah provocateur!

AIIWell a revolution that started with limiting the role of the king ended with its strongest defender declaring himself emperor. :shrug:

That's why French history is awesome. Russia: who controls the baton that keeps the peasants down. Germany: symphonies and cathedrals interspersed by brief bouts of teutonic fury. England: God save the queen, and what fortune the silly masses think so too. Italy: let's see if we can build more splendid art than we can let rot away.

Not France. Her history is endlessly complicated, refined, twisted and turned, where nothing is what it seems and yet rationality emerged as the first thing a Frenchman will name as his typical national virtue.

Adrian II

07-30-2011, 14:31

Well a revolution that started with limiting the role of the king ended with its strongest defender declaring himself emperor. :shrug:

Sounds like a model of French-style rationalism.

French troops or no French troops, France continued its slave trade until 1830, long after the rest of Europe had abolished and outlawed it. Put that in your complicated, refined and twisted pipe and smoke it.

AII

Louis VI the Fat

07-30-2011, 19:03

Sounds like a model of French-style rationalism.

French troops or no French troops, France continued its slave trade until 1830, long after the rest of Europe had abolished and outlawed it. Put that in your complicated, refined and twisted pipe and smoke it.

AIIRevisionism from cultural-reactionaries such as yourself.

One of the first acts of the First Republic was to abolish slavery. For outrages such as this the whole of Europe declared war on France. After fending them off for a quarter of a century France was at last bled dry, nobody left to fight. The Restoration imposed a reactionary regime in France, which re-instated slavery. Not all the powers of Europe able to fully extinguish the light of liberty in France ever again, a few revolution laters, in 1848, France re-abolished slavery..

Adrian II

07-30-2011, 19:22

One of the first acts of the First Republic was to abolish slavery.

Only to reinstate it in 1802.

So much for the ramblings of Mr Louis, the resident ultramontain Francocentric denialist.

AII

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-30-2011, 22:53

What year did slavery cease in Europe?

Not including non-lawful events like sex trade which is still happening. Just which century it ceased.

Slavery, as practiced in the colonies, was never practiced in Europe, ever. As soon as you brought a Black slave to England, he legally ceased to be a slave, there was simply no way you could own another human being in English law, and the same was basically true for the rest of Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_medieval_Europe

K.O.!

This was never the kind of slavery practiced in the Colonies during the Renaissance and Enlightenment, which was the point I was making to Strike. slavery in medieval Europe was a state usually aquired either through debt or war. In both cases it was a form of indenture which impled a type of weakness on the part of the slave, a French slave and an Enlish slave would be the same, just as a French Freeman and an English Freeman would be.

It is a completely different concept to Black = Slave.

Louis VI the Fat

07-30-2011, 23:23

Only to reinstate it in 1802. See, this is the exact point where we put anti-Republican intrigants such as you on a guillotine. Terror, some would call it. Rational policy, says I.

The Republic never reinstated slavery. The Republic was abolished, and then slavery was re-instated. When the Second Republic was formed, slavery was instantly abolished again.

Why did the First Republic end? Because of the ceaseless treath of the reactionary hordes at the gates. Who forced France into increasing martialisation. A French state, Napoléon presumed, which could not afford the unconditional focus on human rights, which has always been the vocation of the five Republics.

So it's all the fault of bloody foreigners, ungrateful for the blessings France brings the world. Curse that Russian snow, else Napoléon would've hammered some common sense into all of Europe and beyond. http://matousmileys.free.fr/tr33.gif

Adrian II

07-30-2011, 23:34

Typical drivel of a lily-livered lackey of rampant reactionary retardism.

French troops abolished slavery wherever they came even though they reinstated it wherever they came, hein? That is beyond Cartesianism, it's Hegelian dialectics in its most diabolical form: slavery turned upside down, put on its feet and preserved ('aufgehoben as the old cretin would say) to save Marianne from a fate worse than debt.

If only Boehner knew his Hegel, Wall Street would be a better place.

AII

Skullheadhq

07-31-2011, 12:14

That is why the leftist islamphilae is so rediculous. Say something bad about christianity and they will cheer, say anything bad about the islam and they will claw out your eyes. It isn't even a double standard, it's a blind spot

If one replaces the word Christianity in their rants with Islam and christians with muslims, they would call him a fascist....

See, this is the exact point where we put anti-Republican intrigants such as you on a guillotine. Terror, some would call it. Rational policy, says I.

The Republic never reinstated slavery. The Republic was abolished, and then slavery was re-instated. When the Second Republic was formed, slavery was instantly abolished again.

Why did the First Republic end? Because of the ceaseless treath of the reactionary hordes at the gates. Who forced France into increasing martialisation. A French state, Napoléon presumed, which could not afford the unconditional focus on human rights, which has always been the vocation of the five Republics.

So it's all the fault of bloody foreigners, ungrateful for the blessings France brings the world. Curse that Russian snow, else Napoléon would've hammered some common sense into all of Europe and beyond. http://matousmileys.free.fr/tr33.gif

Still happy France lost, their ideas were only implemented under the end of a musket. And if it was good, it could have been somewhat acceptable, only those ideas led to failing states that endure to this day. The checks, balances, rules and transparancy only led to ineffectiveness

Kralizec

07-31-2011, 19:46

only those ideas led to failing states that endure to this day.

I could write a long post about how wrong you are, but I'm lazy and this is more humorous.

Viking

07-31-2011, 20:31

The more and more this thread goes on, the more and more it becomes painfully clear multicultralism is a buzzword for BROWN PEOPLE

On the Norwegian countryside, people of different ethnicities appeared long before immigrants did. They were adopted. If you see someone in my home municipality of a non-Norwegian ethnicity, then they are most likely adopted and are a part of local culture.

Louis VI the Fat

07-31-2011, 21:24

On the Norwegian countryside, people of different ethnicities appeared long before immigrants did. They were adopted. If you see someone in my home municipality of a non-Norwegian ethnicity, then they are most likely adopted and are a part of local culture.TOLD YOU NOT TO FEED AND SHELTER THOSE SWEDES NOW YOU'LL NEVER GET RID OF THEM EVER AGAIN

Louis VI the Fat

07-31-2011, 21:25

I could write a long post about how wrong you are, but I'm lazy and this is more humorous.:bounce:

HoreTore

07-31-2011, 21:57

TOLD YOU NOT TO FEED AND SHELTER THOSE SWEDES NOW YOU'LL NEVER GET RID OF THEM EVER AGAIN

Silly Frenchie, the Swedes are employed waiting our tables, tapping our beer and peeling our bananas ~;)

Got to love that youth unemployment rate in Sweden!

The last book on my shelf has a habit of falling down, and I'm thinking about hiring someone to keep it up. Ironside, you interested in this? Pay is one shiny coin per month, you'll live like a king back in your hometown!!

Shibumi

07-31-2011, 22:39

This discussion fall into the trap of, well, any other discussion on this topic.

It quickly derails from "why did the west comit to multiculturalism" to "why are you hating brown people" (Sorry if I stepped on your TM StrikeForTheSouth).

And that, this whole all, pretty much explains why I am against multiculturalism. I have by myself witnessed how society is worse of from it, I have however not seen one hint of any factors making up for it.

So to you all who are against those who are against a multi-culti society - why are you FOR it?

StrikeForTheSouth, you seem to be an avid defender of the browns right to citizenship in western countries, what are your arguments towards why this would be a good thing?

So, to derail this topic back to where it started.. Why would a society, feel free to use Sweden as an example, be better of for accepting Afghan and Somali refugees?

I for one have nothing against English or Spanish immigration. I even think we should accept a Somali or two. Maybe even a few thousands! But I see no gain in going OTT on the whole issue.

I would accept a few thousands because it is the right thing to do. And I would expect them to adhere to Swedish rules.
I would not accept several thousands. And I am not ok with them wanting to change society at large to their rules.

HoreTore

07-31-2011, 22:43

Why I'm for it?

Because we benefit economically. And so do they. Win-win to me.

And because I realize that it's basic human nature to seek a better life for yourself and those around you.

Shibumi

07-31-2011, 23:12

Why I'm for it?

Because we benefit economically. And so do they. Win-win to me.

Source? No really, do back that up. Might be true for Norway, you have about 1/10 of the immigration of Sweden. All I know is that this is very much false for sweden.

And because I realize that it's basic human nature to seek a better life for yourself and those around you.

Yes, hence I am for immigration as long as it does not start to hurt the nation too much.

HoreTore

07-31-2011, 23:36

Source? No really, do back that up. Might be true for Norway, you have about 1/10 of the immigration of Sweden. All I know is that this is very much false for sweden.

Have I ever cared about Sweden?

Europe as a whole have been riding on the single largest economic boost in human history. No other boom has ever come close to the upturn we have experienced since the 60/70's. In this time period, several things have been markedly different from what has been done before. Globalization and immigration has been a major feature of it. I can't see how it can then be a negative thing.

As for country-specific issues, Norway would've tanked a long, long time ago if we hadn't found a source of fresh bodies to fill up our vacant positions. Too low unemployment causes all kinds of trouble, you know. Even today, unemployment in the greater Oslo-area is +/- 0%, something you banana-peeling immigrant swedes currently take advantage of.

On a personal level, try adding up what it costs our society to make a newborn child into an 18-year old worker. His hospital bill for the birth, the doctor appointments he will have later in life, maternety leave for the mother and father, kindergarden, a monthly check from the state to the parents every month, education, etc etc. Then add in what the parents and family pay in food, clothing, housing, etc etc.

The number you have now, is the maximum amount(-1) we can give an immigrant which will still be an economic gain for our society. The number is huge, and much more than we give the vast majority of immigrants before they start working. And we could've given them even less, if only our immigration process wasn't designed to keep as many as possible out.

They should be given a job the minute they step off the plane. After all, that is what most of them are here for, yet we grind them into apathy by forcing them not to work and lay on the couch for a couple of years while we decide their fate. Any psychiatrist can tell you that recovering from a year or two of idleness is incredibly hard.

Shibumi

07-31-2011, 23:55

Have I ever cared about Sweden?

Europe as a whole have been riding on the single largest economic boost in human history. No other boom has ever come close to the upturn we have experienced since the 60/70's. In this time period, several things have been markedly different from what has been done before. Globalization and immigration has been a major feature of it. I can't see how it can then be a negative thing.

As for country-specific issues, Norway would've tanked a long, long time ago if we hadn't found a source of fresh bodies to fill up our vacant positions. Too low unemployment causes all kinds of trouble, you know. Even today, unemployment in the greater Oslo-area is +/- 0%, something you banana-peeling immigrant swedes currently take advantage of.

On a personal level, try adding up what it costs our society to make a newborn child into an 18-year old worker. His hospital bill for the birth, the doctor appointments he will have later in life, maternety leave for the mother and father, kindergarden, a monthly check from the state to the parents every month, education, etc etc. Then add in what the parents and family pay in food, clothing, housing, etc etc.

The number you have now, is the maximum amount(-1) we can give an immigrant which will still be an economic gain for our society. The number is huge, and much more than we give the vast majority of immigrants before they start working. And we could've given them even less, if only our immigration process wasn't designed to keep as many as possible out.

They should be given a job the minute they step off the plane. After all, that is what most of them are here for, yet we grind them into apathy by forcing them not to work and lay on the couch for a couple of years while we decide their fate. Any psychiatrist can tell you that recovering from a year or two of idleness is incredibly hard.

I asked for a source.

Your easy math does not hold up, I am afraid, as it is so easy to flick the argument around.

See, why should we accept a disease ridden Somali analphabet, who is too old to school properly and will put a burden on our healthcare. Nevermind then opening up for his entire village to come?

Do not get me wrong, I think some immigration does a nation good. However, from where I am, immigration is costing us, not helping us. So again, source?

I refuse to see immigrants as some "lottery win" out to do us any good when it comes to economics. I refuse to see it because everything I have seen and heard of point at the very opposite.

Or are you people in Norway being angry at us Swedes for hogging all the immigrants to ourselves?

Does the people in Europe at large have a ill will towards Sweden for grabbing all the "future gold"?

Not even the socialist party in Sweden (socialists, remember? The ones you are a huge fan of) make any claim that immigration is good for the economy, as they have been proven hugely wrong. Instead they urge to the soft side of the debate, IE, "Think Of The Children".

Centurion1

08-01-2011, 00:02

I asked for a source.

Your easy math does not hold up, I am afraid, as it is so easy to flick the argument around.

See, why should we accept a disease ridden Somali analphabet, who is too old to school properly and will put a burden on our healthcare. Nevermind then opening up for his entire village to come?

Do not get me wrong, I think some immigration does a nation good. However, from where I am, immigration is costing us, not helping us. So again, source?

I refuse to see immigrants as some "lottery win" out to do us any good when it comes to economics. I refuse to see it because everything I have seen and heard of point at the very opposite.

Or are you people in Norway being angry at us Swedes for hogging all the immigrants to ourselves?

Does the people in Europe at large have a ill will towards Sweden for grabbing all the "future gold"?

Not even the socialist party in Sweden (socialists, remember? The ones you are a huge fan of) make any claim that immigration is good for the economy, as they have been proven hugely wrong. Instead they urge to the soft side of the debate, IE, "Think Of The Children".

Huh look at me agreeing with Shibumi miracles never cease to amaze and mildly disgust me.

That being said SFTS suffers from the delusion he is a champion of the "browns" and is also under the assumption that European on European hate crimes are non existent. Also he likes to drop the easy troll.

Hence his joy of entering the dialogue with a statement like, "WAT ABOUT TEH BROWN PPLZ?" (approximation of typical statement)

Shibumi

08-01-2011, 00:14

I am utterly flabbergasted and must take a short break.

Centurion1

08-01-2011, 00:31

I am utterly flabbergasted and must take a short break.

Im signing up for therapy. I suggest you do the same thing,

Papewaio

08-01-2011, 02:22

Centurion1

08-01-2011, 02:29

All those statistics tell me are that the vast majority of the nation is Western European.

Papewaio

08-01-2011, 02:47

Yes as it states on the page: "About 90% of Australia's population is of European descent. Over 8% of the population is of Asian descent (predominantly Chinese, Vietnamese, Filipino and Indian)"

Centurion1

08-01-2011, 02:57

that is a pretty homogeneous population.

Tellos Athenaios

08-01-2011, 03:16

When did the women cease being the property of their fathers/brothers/husbands?

I'll leave this to PVC, but suffice to say that prior to the code Napoléon in the Netherlands married women were often financially and legally independent from their husband.

Louis VI the Fat

08-01-2011, 03:34

There is no country in north and west Europe with a 90% European population, with, I think, the exception of Ireland and Finland. There's none in the America's either, save perhaps for Uruguay.

Centurion1

08-01-2011, 03:44

There is no country in north and west Europe with a 90% European population, with, I think, the exception of Ireland and Finland. There's none in the America's either, save perhaps for Uruguay.

Would you say then that Australia with a 90% European population is relatively homogeneous as a society? Even if one were to distinguish between Eastern and Western Europe the number would be very high.

Tellos Athenaios

08-01-2011, 03:59

I'm starting to think the word you intended to use is homogeneous, i.e of same descent?

Louis VI the Fat

08-01-2011, 04:19

Would you say then that Australia with a 90% European population is relatively heterogeneous (/ homogeneous) as a society? In America, on a census you fill in 'white', or 'Asian', or some such broad category. In Europe, one must identifies 'European' with greater detail. There is no such thing as 'European' in Europe. I can tell a Spaniard from an Italian from a mile away. A German from a Briton. Danes of a conservative nature will speak of Yugoslavs as 'Blacks'.

So there is more to it than 90% European. Denmark is 80 percent European, but this eighty percent is homogenous. Australia is 90 percent European, but much more heterogenous. Australia has large Greek, Lebanese communities. Lotsa other wogs. It is a big, federal country, young, colonial, with an indigenous population and a recent shift towards immigration from its regio. Percentages don;t tell the whole story.

Still, I think Australians underestimate the diversity of modern European societies. Or North America. This is not the 1950s anymore. Britons nowadays move to Australia because it feels so European, because they feel at home more in the outback than in Leeds.

Centurion1

08-01-2011, 04:20

Aw **********************************************

Have I been saying Heterogeneous the entire thread?

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

:daisy:
:daisy:
:daisy::daisy::daisy::daisy::daisy::daisy:

Edit: I really hate myself sometimes

Papewaio

08-01-2011, 05:29

Still, I think Australians underestimate the diversity of modern European societies. Or North America. This is not the 1950s anymore. Britons nowadays move to Australia because it feels so European, because they feel at home more in the outback than in Leeds.

About 600k Aussies travel to mainland Europe every year (3% of the population)... so I think they might have a small clue to the cultural diversity. Whilst about 10% of the Australian population lives out of a city and probably way less then 3% in the Outback. I'd actually say we understand less about our own Outback.

And yes in our census we define our ethnic origins a bit more accurately then the approximate continent.

Subotan

08-01-2011, 09:09

Fragony

08-01-2011, 09:50

Multiculturalism = xenophilae

rory_20_uk

08-01-2011, 09:52

Multiculturalism: where other, non indigenous people have come and transplanted all their own culture along with them, not to meld with the native culture, but to be a separate entity.

In its most extreme form different clothing, different language, no desire to intermarry and whose descendants do not view themselves as from the country they were born in either.

A simple example. I am English. Is that Viking, Saxon, Celt, Roman, French, Danish or one of possibly a dozen others? I neither know nor care. A colleague of mine defines herself as Tamil. Born in Slough. She has certainly integrated to a degree but she refuses to describe herself as English even though she is as English as I am, as we were both born here.

When she has spoken of finding a husband she would either look to other Tamils in the UK or go back to Sri Lanka (go back? She never lived there!) to find one.

It is this outlook that I am opposed to.

~:smoking:

Ironside

08-01-2011, 10:16

There is no country in north and west Europe with a 90% European population, with, I think, the exception of Ireland and Finland. There's none in the America's either, save perhaps for Uruguay.

Depends on what you mean by European. Most immigrants are still European after all. But if you narrow Europe a bit so that for example former Jugoslavia ends up as not European, then you're correct. So there's less than 90% of a western European population yes. (Swedish data is 14% foreign born, of those are 60% European. The group born with 2 immigrant parents makes this larger, but I'm not finding the data for that one. It exists but isn't at the same location).

I asked for a source.

Your easy math does not hold up, I am afraid, as it is so easy to flick the argument around.

See, why should we accept a disease ridden Somali analphabet, who is too old to school properly and will put a burden on our healthcare. Nevermind then opening up for his entire village to come?

Do not get me wrong, I think some immigration does a nation good. However, from where I am, immigration is costing us, not helping us. So again, source?

I refuse to see immigrants as some "lottery win" out to do us any good when it comes to economics. I refuse to see it because everything I have seen and heard of point at the very opposite.

Or are you people in Norway being angry at us Swedes for hogging all the immigrants to ourselves?

Does the people in Europe at large have a ill will towards Sweden for grabbing all the "future gold"?

Not even the socialist party in Sweden (socialists, remember? The ones you are a huge fan of) make any claim that immigration is good for the economy, as they have been proven hugely wrong. Instead they urge to the soft side of the debate, IE, "Think Of The Children".

Immigrants are quite a mixed group, but those who stays are integrating with time (=becomes more statiscally simular to the rest of the population). So atleast their children are a net benefit.

Personally, I've never lived in a ghetto, even if I've been living in above average immigration areas.
I've had Iranian, Iraqian, Indian, Chinese and Chilean classmates (not at the same time, so they haven't been many) and not had any problems with them.
I've also worked a bit and talked to the more failed ones. Older Burmanese refugees that's been living here for years still without knowing any Swedish (the ones I worked with were training a bit with theirs though). But on the whole I've encountered fairly successful integration cases. So for me it's not a problem to encounter some more with the same story.

Those areas where it has developed into a ghetto is of course a problem so I can get why you are more critical, even if the Somali bringing his entire village is a huge statistical ourlier, should he even exist (the ones bringing the entire family should exist, but being rare).

Immigration is what's keeping the population growing in Sweden though.

Adrian II

08-01-2011, 10:32

Multiculturalism: where other, non indigenous people have come and transplanted all their own culture along with them, not to meld with the native culture, but to be a separate entity.

In its most extreme form different clothing, different language, no desire to intermarry and whose descendants do not view themselves as from the country they were born in either.

A simple example. I am English. Is that Viking, Saxon, Celt, Roman, French, Danish or one of possibly a dozen others? I neither know nor care. A colleague of mine defines herself as Tamil. Born in Slough. She has certainly integrated to a degree but she refuses to describe herself as English even though she is as English as I am, as we were both born here.

When she has spoken of finding a husband she would either look to other Tamils in the UK or go back to Sri Lanka (go back? She never lived there!) to find one.

It is this outlook that I am opposed to.

~:smoking:

My wife has an American lady friend who was born and bred a Roman Catholic, and I mean Catholic with all the trappings. She scoured the Interwebs, local Catholic organisations and summer camps for ten years looking for a nice Catholic boy to marry. I teased her: "Why don't you try a Jewish boy for a change? At least you'll eat well and laugh a lot." Her answer: "No, I can't, I'm looking for commitment."

Shees, as if Jewish boys couldn't commit.

AII

Furunculus

08-01-2011, 11:15

Multiculturalism: where other, non indigenous people have come and transplanted all their own culture along with them, not to meld with the native culture, but to be a separate entity.

In its most extreme form different clothing, different language, no desire to intermarry and whose descendants do not view themselves as from the country they were born in either.

A simple example. I am English. Is that Viking, Saxon, Celt, Roman, French, Danish or one of possibly a dozen others? I neither know nor care. A colleague of mine defines herself as Tamil. Born in Slough. She has certainly integrated to a degree but she refuses to describe herself as English even though she is as English as I am, as we were both born here.

When she has spoken of finding a husband she would either look to other Tamils in the UK or go back to Sri Lanka (go back? She never lived there!) to find one.

It is this outlook that I am opposed to.

~:smoking:

good description of the problem; are you my familiy, with a commitment to me and mine, whom i can rely upon to act in a predictable and acceptable way in times of hardship? if "yes", it is worth my while extending the same commitment to you!

Papewaio

08-01-2011, 11:58

A quarter of the population in my neighbourhood is Indian or Sri Lankan (roughly 20% & 5% respectively). A lot of the guys I work with in IT are also Indian/Sri Lankan/Pakistani/Fijian Indian. Quite a few still marry in arranged marriages particularly if they are their parents immigrated here. My guess is that the second and third generation will be a lot more intermingled. Mind you I think if I was a short vegan who belived in mythical powers I'd need my parents to help me score a girl too...

I also know walking around the city that there are a mixed couples with an Indian partner. Strangely enough it seems a higher percentage of these are the tall, muscular Indian guys.

I think a lot of it comes down to girls will only go out with a taller partner... not racism, heightism.

rory_20_uk

08-01-2011, 12:12

Oh, I'm sure they'll enjoy snacking on white meat, but will they marry them?

~:smoking:

InsaneApache

08-01-2011, 12:29

@ Adrian II; I'm not sure about commitment, she sounds like she should be committed. Ten years looking for a partner to marry! Jeez loads of people have married, had kids, got divorced and married again in less time than that. :laugh4:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-01-2011, 13:34

So just getting some of the fact sorted out. Slavery did exist post Roman Empire in Europe: Check.

Slavery in Europe was dieing out in the 15th Century in favour of serfdom (economic not iron clad slavery).
Some of the Nation States profited from slavery on and off right up to the mid 19th century. Check.

Owning someone's life is different to owning someone's body, in medieval Europe slavery and Serfdom could mean the same thing, English slaves prior to the Conquest probably had more rights than English peasents thereafter. My point was, and remains, that the "slavery" practiced from antiquity onwards was completely different from the racial slavery blacks were subjected to in the following centuries. In America you could point at a Black man and say "he's mine" and he was your slave, he had no rights.

That's true for the menfolk but given Fragony's definition of slavery:
"If you want it to be, 19th century serfdom in Russia was basically the last of what is close to slavery in Europe. Poor working conditions, all times. But not real slavery, where someone is your property by law "

When did the women cease being the property of their fathers/brothers/husbands?

Really early in Iceland, really late in Britian, somewhere in the middle in the Netherlands. We're talking a 1,000 year bracket here. Still, men never "owned" their wives, they simply controlled their assetts. Under Roman Law women had assetts of their own, under Christian Law husband and wife "owned" each other in perpetuity, just like a feudal land grant, and the husband just had all the control.

Not saying it was great being a woman then.

Papewaio

08-01-2011, 14:39

Oh, I'm sure they'll enjoy snacking on white meat, but will they marry them?

~:smoking:

Actually I was thinking of the couples with kids... and most of them had asian wives (chinese)...except for the really tall indian guys... which was my point about heightism not racism being more prevalent... a lot of our prejudices are when looked into not as simple as skin colour.

For instance alliteration is common in naming kids. It's also more common for partners to marry someone with a similar sounding name/syllables then just chance would indicate.

Skullheadhq

08-01-2011, 15:47

Multiculturalism = xenophilae

Xenophiloi would be the correct spelling, or Xenophiles if you want it part English.

Ironside

08-01-2011, 16:13

Really early in Iceland, really late in Britian, somewhere in the middle in the Netherlands. We're talking a 1,000 year bracket here. Still, men never "owned" their wives, they simply controlled their assetts. Under Roman Law women had assetts of their own, under Christian Law husband and wife "owned" each other in perpetuity, just like a feudal land grant, and the husband just had all the control.

Not saying it was great being a woman then.

Also one of those blurry issues. I would say that the last remanant is when marital rape became a formal crime (were the Soviets were early to do interestingly enough), starting in the 1960-ties outside the communist block.

Widows had considerble power of their own and the grip on unmarried women started to be loosened during the industrialism, that indirectly caused marriage age to go up -> They started to be able to work and support themselves.

HoreTore

08-01-2011, 17:33

Men stopped owning their women when our women left the kitchen and entered the workforce.

So, 1968.

rory_20_uk

08-01-2011, 17:43

Women had left for the workforce in certainly WW2 if not WW1.

~:smoking:

HoreTore

08-01-2011, 17:50

Women had left for the workforce in certainly WW2 if not WW1.

~:smoking:

The majority of women were still housewives in the 50's.

Subotan

08-01-2011, 19:30

Multiculturalism: where other, non indigenous people have come and transplanted all their own culture along with them, not to meld with the native culture, but to be a separate entity.
Ok, sure. I'm going to a pain in the arse, and ask you to be a bit more specific; how do you define "separate entity"? Is it on a group or an individual basis? Are, say, the British Chinese who live in various Chinatowns, despite identifying as British, examples of this? If so, why does this arrangement constitute a problem?

In its most extreme form different clothing, different language, no desire to intermarry and whose descendants do not view themselves as from the country they were born in either.
This is something which will change with time, I think and assume. If you look at the USA, throughout the late 19th and early 20th century, there are plenty of examples of nativist Americans who dissaproved of the Irish, Germans, Italians, Japanese etc. all bringing those traits over to the United States. Gradually, those differences have blurred and faded to the point where "hyphenated-American" is for the vast majority of Americans now a mere semantic expression.

The one thing which they did adopt was the United State's citizenship, as it was so easy to acquire. This helped speed assimilation and integration, and is why I think a tolerant approach would be more successful than any attempts at forced integration.

A simple example. I am English. Is that Viking, Saxon, Celt, Roman, French, Danish or one of possibly a dozen others? I neither know nor care. A colleague of mine defines herself as Tamil. Born in Slough. She has certainly integrated to a degree but she refuses to describe herself as English even though she is as English as I am, as we were both born here.

When she has spoken of finding a husband she would either look to other Tamils in the UK or go back to Sri Lanka (go back? She never lived there!) to find one.
Tamils are a special case, given that their sense of nationhood is particularly sensitive, occasionally to the extent of rather unforgivable apologism for the LTTE. Depending on the sensitivity of the person in question, prodding them about it can be a fun game. That said, I get your point. Modern technology helps keep those ties stronger, for better or worse. However, these differences will fade with time. I would be genuinely surprised if her kids, who would presumably grow up in the UK will feel the same way. After all, we've seen the same arguments used towards various immigrants to this country - Jews from Eastern Europe, Huguenots, Irish, German Lutherans, Africans, African-Caribbean etc. All have effectively assimilated into a British society that has changed to accommodate them.

rory_20_uk

08-01-2011, 20:07

Yes, you are right. Chinatown is probably an aberration as they were the first group to keep completely separate. But they do view themselves as British and obey British laws. Most of those who went to the USA wanted to be Americans, and tried to fit in.

England is a mongrel nation. English is a mongrel language. A melting pot where peoples have come and dissolved in to make a stronger alloy. The most important fact is coming to be included.

Big blobs that do not dissolve are not wanted (please, if there any material scientists out there, spare us the importance of variable crystal sizes in preventing sheer fractures in ceramics...).

Historically there was probably one influx in at the most a decade. Ties to the "homeland" would be tenuous and so assimilation was pretty guaranteed. Now fluxes are that much quicker and ties (if wanted) to the "homeland" are vastly stronger. I was at a registry office with a Pakistani and his bride fresh from the Homeland. he was told that he had to leave a notice for a number of days before he could get married. He was quite upset that this couldn't be skipped - he did not appear to be one to let English Law to interfere - yet he's apparently integrated enough to have a Passport; at the ceremony to get one's British passport a decent number of the persons couldn't speak enough to get through the ceremony!

~:smoking:

Fragony

08-01-2011, 20:47

'Ok, sure. I'm going to a pain in the arse, and ask you to be a bit more specific; how do you define "separate entity"? Is it on a group or an individual basis? Are, say, the British Chinese who live in various Chinatowns, despite identifying as British, examples of this? If so, why does this arrangement constitute a problem?'

Are there already 'you are entering a budhist area' posters there. Chinese just live here, I once heard they are from China, can anyone comfirm

Adrian II

08-01-2011, 21:22

Are there already 'you are entering a budhist area' posters there.

Um, Chinese would probably install a daoist area. With signs like 'Caution, non-violent guards' and 'All gets done by doing nothing'.

And imagine the food, man, imagine the godly food.

AII

Tellos Athenaios

08-01-2011, 21:30

And the opiates. Sherlock's dream.

Fragony

08-01-2011, 21:45

Yes but still. I think it's all pretty simple, the islam just proves that multiculture is a flawed concept. Unacceptable to the babyboomer generation, their parents could hardly read so they aren't used to not-so-stupid people disagreeing. Ever met a anthropologist who is not an anthropologist?

Centurion1

08-01-2011, 21:57

Um, Chinese would probably install a daoist area. With signs like 'Caution, non-violent guards' and 'All gets done by doing nothing'.

And imagine the food, man, imagine the godly food.

AII

This all depends. Are we dealing with good Atheist Chinese who love big brother?

Taoism is on the decline in China and more and more people (who are actually religious) are becoming Buddhist's. Mostly Mahayana.

Have you ever been to a Chinatown? Not friendly places to giant white Dutchmen like yourself and most certainly not peaceful places. :clown:

Fragony

08-01-2011, 22:56

I'm only 1.84 Asians are just small. And a bit girly I might add

Adrian II

08-01-2011, 23:01

This all depends. Are we dealing with good Atheist Chinese who love big brother?

We are dealing with my attempt at a joke. Nothing more.

I have been to a few Chinatowns. San Francisco was nice, XIII in Paris too. Had no problem at all, and I'm quite a tall Dutchman.

AII

Centurion1

08-01-2011, 23:06

And I was joking as well. Chinatown's and in fact most ethnic neighborhoods are a nightmare to investigate a crime in. Try living in one. It wouldn't be the most welcoming of environments.

Fragony

08-01-2011, 23:19

And I was joking as well. Chinatown's and in fact most ethnic neighborhoods are a nightmare to investigate a crime in. Try living in one. It wouldn't be the most welcoming of environments.

What makes you assume there aren't any here, you will find Chinese quarters in evey western-europian city. Crime, not noticed any

Papewaio

08-01-2011, 23:21

I'm only 1.84 Asians are just small. And a bit girly I might add

Same, and yes in general... particularly some of the Thai ones.generally the Thai girls are quite pretty... just be careful around the very pretty ones. :kiss2: :creep: She walks like a women... :laugh4:

Centurion1

08-01-2011, 23:51

What makes you assume there aren't any here, you will find Chinese quarters in evey western-europian city. Crime, not noticed any

Where did I say western Europe didn't have china towns :rolleyes: i am tired of things being pulled out of thin air.

Gangs and human trafficking are bad in Chinatowns and people often tend not to talk to those from "outside"

Hax

08-02-2011, 00:30

What makes you assume there aren't any here, you will find Chinese quarters in evey western-europian city. Crime, not noticed any

Bull (http://www.bonger.nl/PDF/Overigen/kleinslangenkoppen-en-tijgerjagers.pdf). Two seconds of Google.

In fact, recently I read Rob Wijnberg's book "Nietzsche en Kant lezen de krant". He also pointed out the presence of illegal casinos in most Chinese restaurants.

Centurion1

08-02-2011, 00:34

Hax

08-02-2011, 00:49

Eh, at least I chose the academic way. Could have picked the musician's way:

"Criminal activity in Chinatown? It is a tale, best explained in song!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLRTcoJMKBE

drone

08-02-2011, 02:16

I witnessed a huge gang fight in a Chinatown neighborhood. It got broken up by these three guys with big hats, but my truck got stolen. You wouldn't believe the hell I had to go through to get it back.

Strike For The South

08-02-2011, 03:23

I never claimed any of what is being attributed to me. I simply call it like I see it

Louis VI the Fat

08-02-2011, 03:44

Louis VI the Fat

08-02-2011, 03:47

I never claimed any of what is being attributed to me. I simply call it like I see itB..but you were right. Europeans really are all creepy little fascists, endlessly obsessing about the racial make-up of their own and of their neighbours.

I wish I would've come up with it.

Strike For The South

08-02-2011, 03:49

B..but you were right. Europeans really are all creepy little fascists, endlessly obsessing about the racial make-up of their own and of their neighbours.

I wish I would've come up with it.

At least somebody got the reference LOL

I will be a good boy I will be a good boy

Louis VI the Fat

08-02-2011, 04:15

Depends on what you mean by European. Most immigrants are still European after all. But if you narrow Europe a bit so that for example former Jugoslavia ends up as not European, then you're correct. So there's less than 90% of a western European population yes. (Swedish data is 14% foreign born, of those are 60% European. The group born with 2 immigrant parents makes this larger, but I'm not finding the data for that one. It exists but isn't at the same location).
Anything south of Rome and Valencia is Africa, anything east of Vienna is Asia. :book:

Only 14% may be foreign born, but most non-whites in Europe are European born. Percentage foreign born is not the same as percentage of non-whites, which is often what is meant meant when people speak of immigrants.
Immigrants usually immigrate at child-bearing age. Then they all breed like rabb Non-European immigrants of low social status commonly have high to very high birth rates. Two foreign born immigrants who arrived in 1971 may have spawned five, ten, twenty European born non-whites. The more, the lower the percentage of foreign born in that country will be.

There is an odd mechaniosm in Paris. Some of the wealthier areas have a very high percentage foreign born. These are mostly from the EU / highly educated / urban professionals / temporary inhabitants ranging from students to expats. Overwhelmingly upper class and white. Then there are areas where nearly everybody is French born. But the locals consist of low class natives and Africans, mostly third and fourth generation. A complete ghetto. Overwhelmingly lower class and Black / Beur.

XIIITry the XX for a fun race war between the East Asians and the Africans. Waging as we speak. The latter discovered the Asians carry lots of cash, because of their many dealings at the periphery of the law.
Unlike whites, the Chinese don't stand for mass racist plunder. They fight back. Stories abound of Arabs running to the police station with stolen goods, begging to be taken into custody, they're that afraid of the Chinese. Awesome.

Fragony

08-02-2011, 08:20

Bull (http://www.bonger.nl/PDF/Overigen/kleinslangenkoppen-en-tijgerjagers.pdf). Two seconds of Google.

In fact, recently I read Rob Wijnberg's book "Nietzsche en Kant lezen de krant". He also pointed out the presence of illegal casinos in most Chinese restaurants.

All Chinese restaurants get shaken down by Chinese mafia, there is crime but it is among themselves, Chinese prefer to be unnoticed. You are perfectly safe in Chinese area's

@Centurion, misunderstood you, wasn't trying to put words in your mouth

Furunculus

08-02-2011, 08:39

Ironside

08-02-2011, 09:32

Anything south of Rome and Valencia is Africa, anything east of Vienna is Asia. :book:

Only 14% may be foreign born, but most non-whites in Europe are European born. Percentage foreign born is not the same as percentage of non-whites, which is often what is meant meant when people speak of immigrants.
Immigrants usually immigrate at child-bearing age. Then they all breed like rabb Non-European immigrants of low social status commonly have high to very high birth rates. Two foreign born immigrants who arrived in 1971 may have spawned five, ten, twenty European born non-whites. The more, the lower the percentage of foreign born in that country will be.

There is an odd mechaniosm in Paris. Some of the wealthier areas have a very high percentage foreign born. These are mostly from the EU / highly educated / urban professionals / temporary inhabitants ranging from students to expats. Overwhelmingly upper class and white. Then there are areas where nearly everybody is French born. But the locals consist of low class natives and Africans, mostly third and fourth generation. A complete ghetto. Overwhelmingly lower class and Black / Beur.

How does Poland count? :book:

Can't speak for Europe, but at least in Sweden the second generation is clearly integrating on average. That includes less children.

But you're right that they increase the number by around 40% in Stockholm (using the old definition of being second generation immigrant if one parent is an to immigrant) to around 37% (Stockholm is above average). I think total number is about 21% for "Swedes with foreign backround" that category. Debatable source, but I don't think they felt need to lie about that.

Adrian II

08-02-2011, 12:11

Anything south of Rome and Valencia is Africa, anything east of Vienna Bonn is Asia. :book:

Had to fix that.

Unlike whites, the Chinese don't stand for mass racist plunder. They fight back. Stories abound of Arabs running to the police station with stolen goods, begging to be taken into custody, they're that afraid of the Chinese. Awesome.

It's the same in Russian enclaves. And Russkis are white. Anyhoo, I guess I should do the XX one of these years.

AII

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-02-2011, 13:11

Depends on the Russian, surely. Some are Black Slavs.

gaelic cowboy

08-02-2011, 19:07

Try the XX for a fun race war between the East Asians and the Africans. Waging as we speak. The latter discovered the Asians carry lots of cash, because of their many dealings at the periphery of the law.
Unlike whites, the Chinese don't stand for mass racist plunder. They fight back. Stories abound of Arabs running to the police station with stolen goods, begging to be taken into custody, they're that afraid of the Chinese. Awesome.

Bah it only takes a bit of back bone Louis, I remember back when Nigerian illegal immigration started to Ireland they thought they would own the place in a week, god help them but they were clueless the poor dears.

They soon had sore heads from been thrown through shop windows on Moore street, crime in Ireland is white an regulated by the RA, with plenty of white ghetto underclasses in Limerick and Crumlin.

Rhyfelwyr

08-03-2011, 23:59

They soon had sore heads from been thrown through shop windows on Moore street, crime in Ireland is white an regulated by the RA, with plenty of white ghetto underclasses in Limerick and Crumlin.

I can believe it. I've was visiting family over in Belfast for the last few days. Spent most of it in/around the Newtonards Road, and was in the Tigers Bay earlier today. You don't have to have brown people (TM) to have a ghetto.

Kralizec

08-04-2011, 00:03

Koga No Goshi

08-04-2011, 00:07

I think it had mostly to do with economics. Immigration tends to be heralded by the elite who prefer more people to rule over, cheaper goods and services domestically to compete with wages globally.. Certain nations were seeing major growth levels and most of those levels were from population booms. Most things are desired for financial gains and then sold to the public in ways that they will understand - guilt, new foods, new and better beard designs, etc.It was always funny have the first American states to allow women to vote, did so to fluff up their populations in congress. Other states saw this benefit and sold it to their people. Of course, there are already people who strongly believe in certain things and popular swells, but quite a bit of that is a new thing; things happening because people actually want it on their own.Look at nations who refuse to accept immigration- the ones who are seeing growth are the ones who have an invisible population that are now becoming visible, a simulated rural to urban immigration. The ones who are struggling have hit a wall where the entire population is now visible and dwindling.Mobile typing is a great excuse for poor paragraph form

I have a history of disagreeing with TuffStuffMcGruff, but I think he hit the nail on the head here. I think the primary driving factor for allowing immigration is because it allows a cheap labor supply to whatever industry needs it in the host country-- agriculture, low end service, whatever else. As to the 'policy rationalizations' for immigration, I doubt very much that politicians are sitting around hashing out the finer points of multiculturalism or the imperialist legacy of the west-- I'm sorry but the first two posters in this thread assigned WAY too high an assumption of education and IQ to the typical politician, lol.

gaelic cowboy

08-04-2011, 00:13

Irish "jobs" for Irish criminals?

indeed :laugh4:

Strike For The South

08-04-2011, 06:33

I have a history of disagreeing with TuffStuffMcGruff, but I think he hit the nail on the head here. I think the primary driving factor for allowing immigration is because it allows a cheap labor supply to whatever industry needs it in the host country-- agriculture, low end service, whatever else. As to the 'policy rationalizations' for immigration, I doubt very much that politicians are sitting around hashing out the finer points of multiculturalism or the imperialist legacy of the west-- I'm sorry but the first two posters in this thread assigned WAY too high an assumption of education and IQ to the typical politician, lol.

We've been waiting for you

Koga No Goshi

08-04-2011, 06:40

Heya Strike! I still have some friendly Pm's from you saved in my inbox after all these years. ;) Been a long time.

Subotan

08-04-2011, 11:50

Irish "jobs" for Irish criminals?
The Quarians are coming to take our jobs!

Kagemusha

08-04-2011, 17:51

How does Poland count? :book:

Can't speak for Europe, but at least in Sweden the second generation is clearly integrating on average. That includes less children.

But you're right that they increase the number by around 40% in Stockholm (using the old definition of being second generation immigrant if one parent is an to immigrant) to around 37% (Stockholm is above average). I think total number is about 21% for "Swedes with foreign backround" that category. Debatable source, but I don't think they felt need to lie about that.

Are Swedish Finns counted on those numbers?

Koga No Goshi

08-04-2011, 17:58

The sociological average of immigrant communities entering a host countries that applies across all groups is:

1) First generation NEVER loses their original tongue as a primary first language, and it is most usually the only language they speak in the home and with fellow community members.

2) Second generation is usually bilingual and often acts as translators for the first generation or grandparents or relatives.

3) Third generation has typically lost the original language and their strongest ties to the original culture of origin is food.

That's across all groups. There's of course going to be exceptions and outliers or cases where one community holds onto customs/language a bit longer or a bit shorter than average, but in the big general picture, that's the sociological fact when it comes to immigrant groups entering a larger host mainstream culture.

Whenever people talk about something like "oh but this group is different, they don't WANT to adapt", it's usually just prejudice dolled up as something else. First generation immigrants of any sort rarely WANT to lose their culture or language, however much there are instances of "well my grandaddy came here and learned English right away and refused to speak German" or whatever else, those were usually coping mechanisms for dealing with periods of time where there was a lot of anti-immigrant sentiment or whatever else, moreso than someone actually desperately wanting to shed their own background and heritage. But you can find groups of EVERY background bemoaning the loss of language and culture in their 2nd and 3rd generations after being in a new country... it's pretty much just an unavoidable happening.

These kinds of criticisms about "not wanting to adapt/learn our language/assimilate" are ALWAYS directed against the newest, least popular group. In Europe it's the Muslims, in the U.S. it's Spanish speakers. But I took Spanish classes in high school with *plenty* of 2nd and 3rd generation or even 1.5 generation Latino kids who could not fully speak or fully read and write their own "original language" outside of minor round-the-dinner-table conversational Spanish with mom and dad.

Why do "they don't WANT to adapt" arguments superficially appear to be valid? Because they're nearly always directed against new groups that are primarily first generation or the 2nd generation is fresh/kid/school age. But almost invariably the 2nd generation will have the host country language as their first language.

Ironside

08-05-2011, 08:45

Are Swedish Finns counted on those numbers?

You're a separate country are you not? Yes, it's the largest group.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-05-2011, 10:32

Koga No Goshi

08-05-2011, 11:10

Except that the current "Second Generation" Muslims in Britain and elsewhere are less integrated and appreciative of their host country than their parents. They are reactionary, in many cases very deeply, in a few murderously.

I think to greater or lesser degrees you could make virtually the same claim about any sizable ethnic enclave or group in a new host country, especially if looking over the worst elements or examples. People in the U.S. said exactly the same thing about ties to the mother country and the U.S. being ruled from Rome when the big recent groups were the Irish and Italians and both groups were rife with gang and mafia activity. Fast forward a few generations and the idea that they were regressive people who'd never blend into the mainstream is kinda silly.

But in specific you say they're less integrated. Are you seriously saying they speak less English than their parents' generation? Are less connected with English or British culture, despite growing up in it and going to British schools? That seems rather far fetched.

rory_20_uk

08-05-2011, 11:11

Koga No Goshi

08-05-2011, 11:16

I think the reason is the first migrants were pure economic migrants who want the jobs, security but not the country as such.

America, probably because of its heritage, is very big on drumming into everyone they are Americans. Salute the flag, morning statement at school and also when becoming a citizen. Here there is none of that. America us undoubtedly changing with influxes of new people, but these are adding to the core rather than choosing enclaves.

~:smoking:

With regards to the first generation that is quite correct I believe and one of the great myths in the U.S. is that people believe the "old immigrants", the "good ones" came here with awe on their faces wanting so much to be Americans. They came here as economic immigrants by a huge margin, just like today.