Bomb and shooting in Norway

[Drowsy Emperor]

Most third generation immigrants also usually are arranged to marry a person of the countryside of their home-country, which is then brought to the country. This person usually only speaks the language of the home country only and is unfamiliar with Western culture, continuing the cycle.

 

Why is it that they don't marry with other immigrant residents if there are so many of them?

[HoonDing]

What happens to the (mostly) French speaking Brusselers when Belgium breaks up? Isn't Brussel in Flemish territory?

Wallonian attempts to have Brussels integrated with their territory notwithstanding, Brussels would just keep remaining on its own. It is inside Flemish territory, but it is its own territory with its own government.

[Nepenthe]

Most third generation immigrants also usually are arranged to marry a person of the countryside of their home-country, which is then brought to the country. This person usually only speaks the language of the home country only and is unfamiliar with Western culture, continuing the cycle.

 

Why is it that they don't marry with other immigrant residents if there are so many of them?

'coz there's no welfare in the "old country".

[Rosbjerg]

Most third generation immigrants also usually are arranged to marry a person of the countryside of their home-country, which is then brought to the country. This person usually only speaks the language of the home country only and is unfamiliar with Western culture, continuing the cycle.

 

Why is it that they don't marry with other immigrant residents if there are so many of them?

 

Socrates would be proud.

[213374U]

I find him interesting from psychological point of view. People like Dahmer and Bundy are easy to "understand" since they killed because of a sexual desire to do so. But people like Breivik, McVeigh and the unabomber, they did incomprehensive acts of violence without any basic desire, but rather out of a weird sense of desperation and hate. For me, that makes them "interesting" because i cannot phantom on what exactly makes them tick.

Unfulfilled affective and belongingness (believe it or not that's actually a word) needs. Gorth's post a few pages back hit the nail on the head. The guy was an immature, cowardly, lonely man that chose to turn inwards rather than clench his teeth and try harder or seek help. I'd wager that, with progressively less human contact as he devoted more and more time to his "projects", his social skills deteriorated even further as his ego and butthurt grew. A kind of psychological positive(lol) feedback, perhaps. Humans are the most social primates in the world and loneliness, self-imposed or otherwise, does very nasty things to our psyche. The pseudo-political propaganda is just a fantasy he made up -for himself, rather than anyone else- so he could avoid looking in the mirror and seeing the sore loser he is.

 

I'm not going to hand the pathetic swine the victory that would come from wasting time reading through his poorly written 1,500-page rant, but from the excerpts Boo so kindly posted, the only element greater in magnitude than his self-centeredness is his hurt ego. Nope, not even his penchant for cheap rhetoric and plagiarism.

 

And that's enough armchair psychology for today. More to come later, if I feel like it.

[Calax]

Most third generation immigrants also usually are arranged to marry a person of the countryside of their home-country, which is then brought to the country. This person usually only speaks the language of the home country only and is unfamiliar with Western culture, continuing the cycle.

 

Why is it that they don't marry with other immigrant residents if there are so many of them?

Maybe because the parents of the husband/wife to be are being paid to contract their child to the new immigrant?

 

In California the biggest sentiment I saw was that the Mexican population that had illegally/legally immigrated were generally isolating themselves into spanish-only neighborhoods (so isolating as others mentioned) and that they were seen by the white americans as having a much easier time getting certain services (I had one woman tell me that the driving test for a spanish speaker was basically "can you read these twelve signs? You can figure out eight? Here's your License!"). Not saying that the latter is true, but the perception is what drives many to ask that the illegals be exported (along with the fact that they're seen as a drain on the economy)

 

Probably one easy way to deal with an illegal immigration issue in the US at least is to actually say "English is the official language of America", thus only english language documents would be necessary for anything and so on. Exclusionary? Yes, but it'd also force at least some assimilation by those who are crossing the border just so they could try to exist within the society.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Most third generation immigrants also usually are arranged to marry a person of the countryside of their home-country, which is then brought to the country. This person usually only speaks the language of the home country only and is unfamiliar with Western culture, continuing the cycle.

 

Why is it that they don't marry with other immigrant residents if there are so many of them?

'coz there's no welfare in the "old country".

 

And what do you people get out of paying welfare for third world citizens?

Edited July 29, 2011 by Drowsy Emperor

[Nepenthe]

Most third generation immigrants also usually are arranged to marry a person of the countryside of their home-country, which is then brought to the country. This person usually only speaks the language of the home country only and is unfamiliar with Western culture, continuing the cycle.

 

Why is it that they don't marry with other immigrant residents if there are so many of them?

'coz there's no welfare in the "old country".

 

And what do you people get out of this?

More ways to spend out tax money.

 

But yeah, it's less of a religion based thing, and more related to a general cultural thing. I'd say that kurds have assimilated a lot better than, say, the somalis. Kurds have a strong entrepreneurial spirit, so even if they mostly keep to themselves, they're strongly motivated to learn the language and have a great respect for education and working hard. Means that if they occasionally kill girls who go out with local guys, they still cause a lot less mayhem than those who consider spending your days chewing khat the best thing ever.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Most third generation immigrants also usually are arranged to marry a person of the countryside of their home-country, which is then brought to the country. This person usually only speaks the language of the home country only and is unfamiliar with Western culture, continuing the cycle.

 

Why is it that they don't marry with other immigrant residents if there are so many of them?

'coz there's no welfare in the "old country".

 

And what do you people get out of this?

More ways to spend out tax money.

 

But yeah, it's less of a religion based thing, and more related to a general cultural thing. I'd say that kurds have assimilated a lot better than, say, the somalis. Kurds have a strong entrepreneurial spirit, so even if they mostly keep to themselves, they're strongly motivated to learn the language and have a great respect for education and working hard. Means that if they occasionally kill girls who go out with local guys, they still cause a lot less mayhem than those who consider spending your days chewing khat the best thing ever.

 

Dunno, it seems kinda ludicrous to allow everyone to bring their illiterate, dark ages aunt to the party.

 

Although I've seen british women on TV marrying hindu men for cash so they could come to the UK. Don't see the point of a law that you can avoid so easily.

 

I still don't see the purpose of all this. Its not as if europe needs any more cheap labor, if there are so many immigrants hanging about doing nothing.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Drowsy Emperor

[Calax]

I still don't see the purpose of all this. Its not as if europe needs any more cheap labor, if there are so many immigrants hanging about doing nothing.

Even the cheapest of Labor in Europe that is done legally won't be able to compete with the stuff done in Asia and central america where workers rights aren't a big thing.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I still don't see the purpose of all this. Its not as if europe needs any more cheap labor, if there are so many immigrants hanging about doing nothing.

If Westerners had any brains, they wouldn't be self-destructing, would they?

[Hurlshort]

In California the biggest sentiment I saw was that the Mexican population that had illegally/legally immigrated were generally isolating themselves into spanish-only neighborhoods (so isolating as others mentioned) and that they were seen by the white americans as having a much easier time getting certain services (I had one woman tell me that the driving test for a spanish speaker was basically "can you read these twelve signs? You can figure out eight? Here's your License!"). Not saying that the latter is true, but the perception is what drives many to ask that the illegals be exported (along with the fact that they're seen as a drain on the economy)

 

Probably one easy way to deal with an illegal immigration issue in the US at least is to actually say "English is the official language of America", thus only english language documents would be necessary for anything and so on. Exclusionary? Yes, but it'd also force at least some assimilation by those who are crossing the border just so they could try to exist within the society.

 

Except in California you have a history of Mexican families that goes back much further than most white families. It's not like when California was taken from Mexico, all the Spanish speaking folks just up and left. Those neighborhoods have been there for generations.

[Drowsy Emperor]

I still don't see the purpose of all this. Its not as if europe needs any more cheap labor, if there are so many immigrants hanging about doing nothing.

If Westerners had any brains, they wouldn't be self-destructing, would they?

 

You're bitter. I like you.

 

The sad thing with this downward spiral is that even without immigrants, Islam, or any "other" you'd care to mention or blame - things would still stay on course because all the crap is all ultimately done and decided by "our" political elites.

 

I remember sitting in a cafe in Abu Dhabi and watching the masses pass by - and of the people I saw, the euro/us/aus were the worst dressed (worst in the sense - inappropriate), least well behaved and stood out like juveniles among grownups. I had a friend tell me similar but equally bad stories from his visit to Thailand. Its embarrassing when you remember that being a european/american once included carrying yourself with a certain amount of dignity.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Drowsy Emperor

[Calax]

In California the biggest sentiment I saw was that the Mexican population that had illegally/legally immigrated were generally isolating themselves into spanish-only neighborhoods (so isolating as others mentioned) and that they were seen by the white americans as having a much easier time getting certain services (I had one woman tell me that the driving test for a spanish speaker was basically "can you read these twelve signs? You can figure out eight? Here's your License!"). Not saying that the latter is true, but the perception is what drives many to ask that the illegals be exported (along with the fact that they're seen as a drain on the economy)

 

Probably one easy way to deal with an illegal immigration issue in the US at least is to actually say "English is the official language of America", thus only english language documents would be necessary for anything and so on. Exclusionary? Yes, but it'd also force at least some assimilation by those who are crossing the border just so they could try to exist within the society.

 

Except in California you have a history of Mexican families that goes back much further than most white families. It's not like when California was taken from Mexico, all the Spanish speaking folks just up and left. Those neighborhoods have been there for generations.

Same with any southern state in the US. Or the Basque separatists in Spain. Saying that being their previously means you don't have to integrate with the current dominant community is just garbage.

 

If we stick with that logic, the current inhabitants of Israel should be running around with palistinian culture entirely, and speak arabic because they went streaming into the region after the fall of the third Reich.

 

One important point about multi-culturalism, is that if you're going to try for it, you still have to create a sense of national identity and unity for your citizens. You don't want the minority members of your nation, who are immigrants from across the seas, to get strong enough that they can benefit from the economy and protection, but when somebody tries to enforce a law that they may not like (like enforcing a language requirement) they can just say "Oh, no... not gonna happen son".

 

One of the interesting things to look at from this perspective is England when Elizabeth came to power in the 1500's. At that point Elizabeth was trying to divorce the Anglican church and her nation from Rome, and thus she ended up enacting a series of laws (still on the books today) that were anti-catholic, and enforced a moral code upon her citizens to push them into churches where they would hear sermons about how she was the deliverer of England from the clutches of the corrupt Catholics, and that all of her subjects should support her on their beleaguered isle against the corrupting influences of the Catholics and other nations attempts at subversion.

 

This ended up changing the society strongly enough that she basically ruled unopposed politically, and is still looked upon as being one of the greatest royals in British history, even though the economy she had was about as happy as ours is today.

[Orogun01]

Except for the Jesuit ninja assassins

 

She ruled unopposed because through legislation she crushed her opposition and eliminated the reach of the Catholic church on England.

Not what I would consider the best example of working multiculturalism; are you trying to get Mexicans killed, ese?

Edited July 29, 2011 by Orogun01

[Calax]

No, more the point was that often a nation desires to have the NATION be the focus of unity, not the faction within the nation. Basically so that when push comes to shove every person within the borders who nominally lives there goes "I am a member of this nation!"

 

Right now, if push comes to shove in several locations you get "I'm a member of... them".

 

Elizabeth's use of the church and law to enforce that culture is one way of doing it, but allowing enclaves of another nation to park themselves within yours and then not getting them to assimilate will lead to a loss of the unity a nation should have in the face of adversity. The Basque separatists in Spain are one of the best examples of what happens in this situation, or the Quebecker's up in Canada.

 

Now, are the populations in the areas that members are discussing within this thread near that level or that idealistic? Doubtful. But the point still stands that when push comes to shove and a shooting war erupt in the area, would that enclave of a particular ethnicity who's entire culture is based around a third party (or even the opposing party) still support their home nation, or would they withdraw/rebel due to a lack of connection to the government that they're nominally supposed to be under.

 

Multicultural societies work from a cultural perspective to enrich and grow the art, music, and other medias of their new culture. But from the political perspective they are a pretty bad prospect given that you have to work pretty dang hard to create a unified sense of this being a nation, rather than an arbitrary line drawn on a map by some goof a thousand miles away who has no idea what he's doing and who he's representing.

 

Also, oro, I meant she ruled unopposed by her parliament. Not necessarily because of outside political dissidents. Neither of her successors (James I and Charles I) could say the same (particularly given Charles ended up loosing his head to Oliver Cromwell in the civil war between parliament and the crown)

Edited July 29, 2011 by Calax

[Gromnir]

In California the biggest sentiment I saw was that the Mexican population that had illegally/legally immigrated were generally isolating themselves into spanish-only neighborhoods (so isolating as others mentioned) and that they were seen by the white americans as having a much easier time getting certain services (I had one woman tell me that the driving test for a spanish speaker was basically "can you read these twelve signs? You can figure out eight? Here's your License!"). Not saying that the latter is true, but the perception is what drives many to ask that the illegals be exported (along with the fact that they're seen as a drain on the economy)

 

Probably one easy way to deal with an illegal immigration issue in the US at least is to actually say "English is the official language of America", thus only english language documents would be necessary for anything and so on. Exclusionary? Yes, but it'd also force at least some assimilation by those who are crossing the border just so they could try to exist within the society.

 

Except in California you have a history of Mexican families that goes back much further than most white families. It's not like when California was taken from Mexico, all the Spanish speaking folks just up and left. Those neighborhoods have been there for generations.

 

 

some mexican families did leave... but hurl might wanna check and see numbers relating to just how many mexican families were actual living in ca by the end o' the mexican-american war. the vast majority o' current mexican neighborhoods in ca got no direct historical ties to pre-war settlements. in spite o' the presence o' spanish missions throughout ca, there were actual very few mexicans living in alta ca by 1848... less than 1000 families, and alta ca included present-day arizona, nevada, and parts o' wyoming and colorado.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited July 29, 2011 by Gromnir

[Malcador]

Except in California you have a history of Mexican families that goes back much further than most white families. It's not like when California was taken from Mexico, all the Spanish speaking folks just up and left. Those neighborhoods have been there for generations.

 

How on earth is that relevant ?

[Hurlshort]

I don't think I've ever met a second generation Mexican-American that doesn't speak English, either. I said this earlier, multicultural societies take time to develop.

 

Gromnir, I have no doubt you are correct. My point is more that Mexican culture is a huge part of Californian history. I don't think it needs to play second fiddle to American history. For example, Spanish and English are intertwined here, and trying to force one official language on everyone would be a step backwards if anything.

[Hurlshort]

Except in California you have a history of Mexican families that goes back much further than most white families. It's not like when California was taken from Mexico, all the Spanish speaking folks just up and left. Those neighborhoods have been there for generations.

 

How on earth is that relevant ?

 

Did you read what Calax wrote?

[Rosbjerg]

The sad thing with this downward spiral is that even without immigrants, Islam, or any "other" you'd care to mention or blame - things would still stay on course because all the crap is all ultimately done and decided by "our" political elites.

 

I remember sitting in a cafe in Abu Dhabi and watching the masses pass by - and of the people I saw, the euro/us/aus were the worst dressed (worst in the sense - inappropriate), least well behaved and stood out like juveniles among grownups. I had a friend tell me similar but equally bad stories from his visit to Thailand. Its embarrassing when you remember that being a european/american once included carrying yourself with a certain amount of dignity.

 

You need to read up on your history pal - you're glorying the past a little too much.. Being rich, back in the day, meant you had to act with some dignity, but the vast majority was piss poor and downright nasty. Funny enough, who do you think most of us today descend from?

 

This is actually my biggest beef with nationalistic conservatism - the most outspoken of those who adhere to this ideology seem to forget that culture is anything but static and that most of your ideas now would have been bordering treason and heresy not a 100 years ago. And that most of what you hold so dear now was born out of cultures meeting and interacting.

 

The middle east today certainly has parallels to Europe in the middle ages and how lucky we were that we had the time to develop a functioning society and culture one brick at the time.. It's our (the West's) responsibility to advance this planet as a whole, not sacrificing ourselves in the meantime of course - but who, in their right mind, would ever advocate that? Islam can not go from where it is today to what we want it to be, just like Christianity took a very long time to finally acknowledge that holding people back is actually not a good idea. But we can speed up that progress, not by military and narrowminded force, but by meeting ignorance with knowledge and show the poor and moderates that we are not imperialistic bogeymen.

 

In fact, I often wonder why conservatives hate Islam - they seem to love what you guys do. Family values, strict morality and a burning desire to keep the status quo.

[Malcador]

Did you read what Calax wrote?

 

Yes. But again, that's not pertinent to failing to integrate, which was what he was mentioning. Similar situation in Toronto with Chinese, somewhat insular - but at least we get pirated DVDs out of it - although the City does bend to accomodate them, signage, services in various languages.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Malcador

[Orogun01]

snip

A well written argument, but you seem to omit the fact that racial differences are...well, different from religious. Push came to shove many times in the US history were blacks fought in every war and still faced discrimination. Whilst in times of peril they were brothers at arms (to an extent) they still had to face racism when they came back home.

 

The situation with Elizabeth involved a single ethnic group with religious differences.

 

So even if they fight together its no guarantee of a well adjusted multicultural society, although I should point that attitudes have changed and there is more tolerance of differences nowadays. Even if there is enough racism to counter it.

[Gromnir]

I don't think I've ever met a second generation Mexican-American that doesn't speak English, either. I said this earlier, multicultural societies take time to develop.

 

Gromnir, I have no doubt you are correct. My point is more that Mexican culture is a huge part of Californian history. I don't think it needs to play second fiddle to American history. For example, Spanish and English are intertwined here, and trying to force one official language on everyone would be a step backwards if anything.

 

dunno. maybe. regardless, am not thinking your historical appeal is particular relevant, and it may even hurt your argument. for instance, there were similar numbers o' swedes and mexicans in ca by 1860. unlike the mexicans, swedes integrated into society such that if you ask us to identify significant california swedes, we could not name one; not 'cause there aren't any, but simply 'cause they became Americans. am thinking it is a valid question to ask why mexicans is... different. again, am not gonna get into a multicultural debate at this time, but given how half the towns, landmarks and streets in ca gots spanish names, it is easy to forget just how few mexicans there were in ca at the time o' the gold rush. other identifiable cultures had equal proud histories in early ca, but most integrated.

 

am a citizen o' the US and a member o' the Oglala Sioux Tribe, so am fully aware just how complex this issue can be. nevertheless, your historical appeal appears flawed on multiple levels. the vast number o' mexicans living in neighborhoods in fresno and bakersfield can trace back ca geneologies no further than germans, or swedes or irish... and not near as far as miwok or chumash.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Calax]

snip

A well written argument, but you seem to omit the fact that racial differences are...well, different from religious. Push came to shove many times in the US history were blacks fought in every war and still faced discrimination. Whilst in times of peril they were brothers at arms (to an extent) they still had to face racism when they came back home.

 

The situation with Elizabeth involved a single ethnic group with religious differences.

 

So even if they fight together its no guarantee of a well adjusted multicultural society, although I should point that attitudes have changed and there is more tolerance of differences nowadays. Even if there is enough racism to counter it.

A few things:

 

As to the idea about the race and particularly african americans being used as an example to counter my point, we never went to war with a nation that had it's entire culture ported wholesale into african communities, by the africans themselves, of their own free will. The closest parallel would probably be Japanese immigrants who were thrown in the internment camps on suspicion of their being insurgents, but America has so whitewashed that out of the texts as best they can I don't have a very good read on how much of that was based on possible truths or pure racism.

 

And the situation with Elizabeth, while it did involve a single specific ethnicity (Whites) was probably no less divided than either the Basque or Quebec issues right now, except her political opponents were backed by foreign powers (mainly Spain and France), while Basque and Quebec are almost entirely home grown, and have no laws specifically outlawing their existence. (And yes, most of this stuff about Liz comes from my British history class)

 

While the numbskull who performed this act was getting frustrated with the Muslimization of Norway, I'm not entirely sure that was solely based on race (I am NOT going through his personal manifesto thanks). After all, he idolized the Crusaders of the days of yore, so I don't think he's so frustrated at just anyone who's melanin is a different tone than the nordics, but is pushing against the religion that most members of Arabic decent adhere to.

 

One of the dangers of religion in general is that if it becomes to strong, it begins to trump nations, and geography. And politically/socially I'd think that'd be a scary thought when all is said and done, because it starts pointing us back in the direction of the dark ages. Admittedly by the time of Henry VIII and Elizabeth, most "Christians" would go to one sermon on sunday then get completely drunk, screw a friends wife, and be dragged back to their bed by their mates at the days end (my teachers words, not mine), so the question is more one of how hardline would the average person be under a theocracy.

 

Side note: The Current Pope has gone on record as saying that censoring Galileo was fine for the church to do, because the church knew better when to release his discoveries than he did.

 

Also, Ros's point about how the average ideal changes, even for the most conservative among us, is entirely true (if a wee bit arrogant in the idea that the West MUST lead everyone else to "the light" so to speak). I highly doubt that any reform will occur within the church due to outside influence from the west, or any other major religion. Mainly because that unifying feature of the religion itself makes it far easier to eject the ideas and suggestions of others as being heretical. The push for change needs to come from some internal origin, and then that can be fostered with a little bit of help from the west (mostly though this would need to be minimized as to prevent "puppet!" cries) into a full fledged reformation of the Islamic church.

 

It took nearly 400 years (ballpark figure) from the Reformation being kicked off to religion becoming a much smaller part of a national identity in the west. 400 years of violence and bloodshed between Protestant and Catholics before they could even try to live amicably, and it's legacy is still active in the world (for example, the new Princess of England can't ever become queen due to anti-catholic laws enacted by Elizabeth). The west might be able to squash that down a ways but it'll still be an INCREDIBLY long process that will take at LEAST a generation.