why did the west commit to multiculturalism?

[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)"

[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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[Ironside]

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.

[Ironside]

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

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.

XIII

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.

[Ironside]

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

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?

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.

[Kagemusha]

How does Poland count?

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]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

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.

[Ironside]

Are Swedish Finns counted on those numbers?

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

[Adrian II]

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

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

[gaelic cowboy]

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]

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]

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.

Irish "jobs" for Irish criminals?

[gaelic cowboy]

Irish "jobs" for Irish criminals?

indeed

[Subotan]

Irish "jobs" for Irish criminals?

The Quarians are coming to take our jobs!