why did the west commit to multiculturalism?

[Adrian II]

Slavery ended when the French troops arrived.

Except on Haiti, you Eurocentrist pig.

AII

[Louis VI the Fat]

Except on Haiti, you Eurocentrist pig.

AII

The subject is 'slavery in Europe', you self-loathing cultural-marxist.



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]

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]

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

AII

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


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]

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

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]

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

Revisionism 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]

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]

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]

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.

[Adrian II]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[HoreTore]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I am utterly flabbergasted and must take a short break.

[Centurion1]

I am utterly flabbergasted and must take a short break.

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

[Papewaio]

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.

[Centurion1]

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

[Papewaio]

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]

that is a pretty homogeneous population.

[Tellos Athenaios]

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]

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.