Printable View
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 spotQuote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
[QUOTE=Centurion1;2053350633]In England the Polish's biggest problem is what calender they will be put on, I ain't buying itQuote:
ummmm I would disagree. Western Europe has quite a few issues with immigrants from Eastern Europe and the Balkans as well I believe.
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.Quote:
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.
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
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...7xjB-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was intended – even if this wasn't its main purpose – to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date."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
[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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
[QUOTE=Centurion1;2053350644]And what do you think they are doing in these other places? You contradict yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
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
'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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
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 you're telling us that being objectified as a nation of breasts isn't a problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
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.
No. And it's going down these days as well. You're a rebel without a clue, Fragony.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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 stuffQuote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
So in the end you only have beef with your political adversaries, not the blacks nor the muslims?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Have nothing against them, why would I, yes my only problem is the multiculturelaral leftQuote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
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"Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I was unaware xenophobia was a uniueqly American trait. Coincidentally deflecting the arguement is the same thing the local Americans do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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 makeQuote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
'White Europeans can be discriminated against, but that is not the issue here'
Why is that, it are hate crimes
So i should be shocked?What happened last year in Tuusula Finland can you recall?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
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".Quote:
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Yes that was rather stupid of me, I didn't realise how bad things were at the timeQuote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
:bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Liverpool is capable of winning a match now and then, but that does not in any way make them champions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
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....Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
There has never been any slavery in EuropeQuote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
That would be wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
No, not unlesss you add 19th century Russia to Europe, enslaved by is a different matter. Up to 1920 then at least, Belgian CongoQuote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_medieval_EuropeQuote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
Double KO
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.
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 lawQuote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
Um not exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
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
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!)
Except on Haiti, you Eurocentrist pig.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
AII
The subject is 'slavery in Europe', you self-loathing cultural-marxist. :tongue:Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Contradicteenk ourselves, hein? How Cartesian, you universalist-humanistic bourzjwah provocateur!Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
AII
Well a revolution that started with limiting the role of the king ended with its strongest defender declaring himself emperor. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
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.
Sounds like a model of French-style rationalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
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
Revisionism from cultural-reactionaries such as yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
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..
Only to reinstate it in 1802.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
So much for the ramblings of Mr Louis, the resident ultramontain Francocentric denialist.
AII
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
It is a completely different concept to Black = Slave.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
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
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
If one replaces the word Christianity in their rants with Islam and christians with muslims, they would call him a fascist....Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
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 ineffectivenessQuote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
I could write a long post about how wrong you are, but I'm lazy and this is more humorous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullhead
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
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 AGAINQuote:
Originally Posted by Viking
:bounce:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
Silly Frenchie, the Swedes are employed waiting our tables, tapping our beer and peeling our bananas ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
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!!
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Yes, hence I am for immigration as long as it does not start to hurt the nation too much.Quote:
And because I realize that it's basic human nature to seek a better life for yourself and those around you.
Have I ever cared about Sweden?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shibumi
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shibumi
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)
I am utterly flabbergasted and must take a short break.
Im signing up for therapy. I suggest you do the same thing,Quote:
Originally Posted by Shibumi
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.
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?
=][=
As for the question can an economy thrive on having a hetrogenous population.
Demographics for Australia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_demographics
We manage, its a harsh environment so there is some give and take with the statistics, It's winter here and I'm in jeans, t-shirt and long sleeved top with the windows and doors opened. The beanie is probably extreme, but it helps protect my head when I headbutt the keyboard.
All those statistics tell me are that the vast majority of the nation is Western European.
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)"
that is a pretty homogeneous population.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
I'm starting to think the word you intended to use is homogeneous, i.e of same descent?
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'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
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.
Aw **********************************************
Have I been saying Heterogeneous the entire thread?
***********************
:daisy:
:daisy:
:daisy::daisy::daisy::daisy::daisy::daisy:
Edit: I really hate myself sometimes
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
And yes in our census we define our ethnic origins a bit more accurately then the approximate continent.
I still haven't seen a definition by the critics of multi-culturalism of multi-culturalism at any point in this thread. Define it, and I'll answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shibumi
Multiculturalism = xenophilae
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:
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shibumi
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.
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."Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Shees, as if Jewish boys couldn't commit.
AII