Norway appoints Muslim woman Minister of Culture

[obyknven]

Hadije Tajik has become Norway’s new Minister of Culture.

 

http://www.tnp.no/norway/politics/3227-radical-changes-in-norways-new-cabinet

 

She has already made public her programme for the next few months and pointed out that cultural diversity should become an inalienable part of Norway’s everyday life.

 

And, how much does she really know about Norwegian culture?

 

Even without a background that is incompatible with Norwegian culture, how much knowledge and feeling can she bring to the post at 29 years of age? Isn't the position about heritage and history? Wouldn't it help to have lived some first?

 

 

Norwegians hate their own country that much?

 

Self-guilting and self-loathing behaviors are destructive.

 

[Hurlshort]

Her qualifications are very solid, so if she possesses the necessary skillset, I'm not sure why age would be an issue. She is also Norwegian, so I'm not sure why you would question her knowledge of her own culture.

 

Cultural diversity SHOULD be a part of every country's everyday life. That is how you create tolerance.

[Rosbjerg]

Yeah all dogmatic, narrowminded, agressive, autocratic dip****** generally come from a "one cultur to rule the all" mentality.. You need to diversify dawg!

[Drowsy Emperor]

That is also how you'll create another Breivik. Europe doesn't work like the US, only the native population is really ever considered to belong to the "nation" (and lets face it, even in the US an african american isn't looked at the same way as a white protestant or catholic).

The law may consider them all citizens and hence equal, but she can no more be Norwegian than I can, even less in her case because of the crucial difference in religion and culture.

 

This course of action will of course be lauded by proponents of multiculturalism but the potential for it to blow up in everyone's face in a few years, or decades is huge.

[Rosbjerg]

The problem is nationalism to begin with - it's one of the most irrational and vile things to ever come out of Europe. Multiculturalism was the human condition from when we took our first steps and until the 19th century, then we spread it like wildfire everywhere we went/conquered/colonized and it's been causing serious problems ever since.

[obyknven]

http://infochangeind...nte-marcos.html

In this new world war, modern politics as the organizer of National States no longer exists. Now politics is solely the economic organizer and politicians are the modern administrators of companies. The new owners of the world are not governments - they don't need to be. The 'national' governments are in charge of administering the businesses in the different regions of the world.

 

This is the 'new world order', the unification of the entire world in one complete market. Nations are department stores with CEOs dressed as governments, and the new regional alliances, economic and political, come closer to being a modern commercial 'mall' than a political federation. The 'unification' produced by neoliberalism is economic; it is the unification of markets to facilitate the circulation of money and merchandise. In the gigantic global Hypermarket, merchandise circulates freely, not people.

 

As in all business initiatives (and war), this economic globalization is accompanied by a general model of thought. Nevertheless, among so many new things, the ideological model which accompanies neoliberalism in its conquest of the planet is old and moss-covered. The 'American way of life', which accompanied the troops in Europe during World War II and in Vietnam during the '60s and, more recently, in the Persian Gulf War, now goes hand in hand (or hand in computers) with the financial markets.

 

This is not only about material destruction of the material bases of the National States, but also (and in a very important and rarely-studied manner) about historic and cultural destruction. The dignity of the indigenous history of the countries of the American continent, the brilliance of European civilization, the historic wisdom of Asian nations, and the powerful and rich antiquity of Africa and Oceania - all the cultures and histories which forged nations are attacked by the model of North-American life. Neoliberalism in this way imposes a total war: the destruction of nations and groups of nations in order to homogenize them with the North-American capitalist model.

[Rosbjerg]

yeah, capitalism has turned out the be in the top-100 of bad things - although it did a marvelous job to begin with. Unfortunately it did not create the equality and natural balance that it would in theory - in instead created huge multinational firms much akin to the trading companies of the 16-18th centuries. So I'm totally down with restructuring that too.

[Rostere]

The problem is nationalism to begin with - it's one of the most irrational and vile things to ever come out of Europe. Multiculturalism was the human condition from when we took our first steps and until the 19th century, then we spread it like wildfire everywhere we went/conquered/colonized and it's been causing serious problems ever since.

 

Nationalism is an illness that comes to sick societies. Whenever people feel the need to blame someone, or feel shame because of how they compare to other nations, nationalism appears. Nationalism is an easy way to create a false sense of pride for people with an inferiority complex.

[Rosbjerg]

Hmm, while I want to agree, because as an analogy it's pretty historically fitting - that would mean all of the societies in the world are basically sick. And while that could be argued, it makes for a rather depressing conclusion.

 

What is the cause of the illness?

[kmelt93]

Not that I'm against diversity, but this is the Minister of Culture. Islam is not part of the Norwegian culture.

[Drowsy Emperor]

You're basically repeating the liberal (and at the same time) socialist slander of nationalism. The fact is that nationalism had a huge role in creating the european state. Without it european countries would never be the states they became - neither as united nor as powerful as they were.

 

What ultimately drove europe into war was the logic of capitalism, the need for constant economic expansion and the fact that certain countries felt left out/disadvantaged in that regard (Germany, Italy, Japan etc.), nationalism was merely used as an excuse to fire up the masses for war. It is a very misused ideology.

 

Modern political theory likes to blame nationalism for everything because its a convenient and simplistic explanation.

 

Also, some basic political terminology needs to be set straight nationalism = the belief that the nation (however it is defined) should be the focal point in the creation of the state/society

chauvinism = the belief that ones nation is superior to others

 

Nationalism is often equated with chauvinism by poorly educated people, however the latter is a perversion of nationalism - a true nationalist believes that all nations have basically equal value, and hence has no reason to hate another nation just because its different.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Drowsy Emperor

[Rosbjerg]

You're basically repeating the liberal (and at the same time) socialist slander of nationalism. The fact is that nationalism had a huge role in creating the european state. Without it european countries would never be the states they became - neither as united nor as powerful as they were.

 

Britain, France and Spain were massive colonial empires before nationalism ever rose up - when they conquered the world it wasn't for the glory of their country, that's a label which has been put on by the national romantics of the 1800's. In fact, as you've just proven, we've become so jaded by this view that we think nationalism is some universal force that has always existed and we tend to view dynasties and regions of the past through this prism. But nationalism only played a actual role in the post-napoleon age.. And is was nationalism that created such terms as "the white mans burden" which spurred the imperialism of the Victorian era and thereby spread it through the world. Isn't it interesting that the colonial empires only really started to have major problems keeping the indigenous population in check after 1810? (I know there were problems before of course, but nothing like the scale under the French and English mandate in the middle east for instance or the the 1857 rebellion in India)

 

What ultimately drove europe into war was the logic of capitalism, the need for constant economic expansion and the fact that certain countries felt left out/disadvantaged in that regard (Germany, Italy, Japan etc.), nationalism was merely used as an excuse to fire up the masses for war. It is a very misused ideology.

 

Here we agree - but is misused because it's so easy to misuse and it can stir such violence and hatred towards any percieved alien influence. Which of course is like crack to a autocratic ruler, as the people focus on percieved external threats rather than the internal ones.

 

Modern political theory likes to blame nationalism for everything because its a convenient and simplistic explanation.

 

Well, enlighten me as to why it's such a good force. I really can't see it.

[Drowsy Emperor]

You're basically repeating the liberal (and at the same time) socialist slander of nationalism. The fact is that nationalism had a huge role in creating the european state. Without it european countries would never be the states they became - neither as united nor as powerful as they were.

 

Britain, France and Spain were massive colonial empires before nationalism ever rose up - when they conquered the world it wasn't for the glory of their country, that's a label which has been put on by the national romantics of the 1800's. In fact, as you've just proven, we've become so jaded by this view that we think nationalism is some universal force that has always existed and we tend to view dynasties and regions of the past through this prism. But nationalism only played a actual role in the post-napoleon age.. And is was nationalism that created such terms as "the white mans burden" which spurred the imperialism of the Victorian era and thereby spread it through the world. Isn't it interesting that the colonial empires only really started to have major problems keeping the indigenous population in check after 1810? (I know there were problems before of course, but nothing like the scale under the French and English mandate in the middle east for instance or the the 1857 rebellion in India)

 

What ultimately drove europe into war was the logic of capitalism, the need for constant economic expansion and the fact that certain countries felt left out/disadvantaged in that regard (Germany, Italy, Japan etc.), nationalism was merely used as an excuse to fire up the masses for war. It is a very misused ideology.

 

Here we agree - but is misused because it's so easy to misuse and it can stir such violence and hatred towards any percieved alien influence. Which of course is like crack to a autocratic ruler, as the people focus on percieved external threats rather than the internal ones.

 

Modern political theory likes to blame nationalism for everything because its a convenient and simplistic explanation.

 

Well, enlighten me as to why it's such a good force. I really can't see it.

 

Because it set dozens of nations free from oppression by decadent empires. It reinforces unity and bonds that tie a group of people together while preserving what makes them different and unique. When push comes to shove it is the only idea people will fight and die for making it instrumental for the preservation of any society under external threat.

 

Like when the Soviets had to defeat Nazism - they didn't fight for communism - they fought for mother Russia. You can even see it on the war posters. Its the only idea that inspires a widespread, powerful emotional response, for better or for worse.

 

Ultimately, the question of whether its good or bad is a moot point - its here to stay for the foreseeable future, and quite likely to outlive the current obsession with (bad) cosmopolitanism.

 

As the EU project continues to sink (precisely because its too capitalist in the way the few large states exploit the rest, and not nationalist enough to really treat them all equally) you'll probably be seeing a lot more of it.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Drowsy Emperor

[Maedhros]

As a Norwegian, I find this thread a bit sad. Most people over here don't mind this appointment at all (except random village idiots and Breivik). She's a born-and-raised Norwegian.

 

She'll be judged on her actions as Minister of Culture, not on her ethnicity or religious beliefs.

 

Also, all the right-wing opponents of the Social Democrats have applauded this move. There really is no controversy here. From what I've heard, she's a very talented hard-working politician, liked by all.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Thingolfin

[Hurlshort]

I can't really think of any situations where multiculturalism led to a large group of multicultural people to rise up and subvert others.

 

I can think of quite a few cases of nationalists doing this.

 

and lets face it, even in the US an african american isn't looked at the same way as a white protestant or catholic

 

This depends entirely on where you are in the US. It also depends on how the person is dressed and how they speak, how many tattoos they have, etc. But that doesn't make it right, and when you judge someone based on such superficiality you stand a good chance of making yourself a social pariah. Which is as it should be.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Hurlshot

[Hurlshort]

Like when the Soviets had to defeat Nazism - they didn't fight for communism - they fought for mother Russia. You can even see it on the war posters. Its the only idea that inspires a widespread, powerful emotional response, for better or for worse.

 

You are conveniently ignoring the fact the Nazis were ultra-aggressive nationalists.

 

You can be proud of your country AND accepting of others at the same time, btw. It isn't an either/or scenario. When you choose nationalism without multiculturalism, you are creating conflict.

[Gfted1]

Hmm, I wonder if her appointment was in direct response to Breivik. Seems awful convenient.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Like when the Soviets had to defeat Nazism - they didn't fight for communism - they fought for mother Russia. You can even see it on the war posters. Its the only idea that inspires a widespread, powerful emotional response, for better or for worse.

 

You are conveniently ignoring the fact the Nazis were ultra-aggressive nationalists.

 

You can be proud of your country AND accepting of others at the same time, btw. It isn't an either/or scenario. When you choose nationalism without multiculturalism, you are creating conflict.

 

I was merely illustrating that nationalism was just as important to societies that were supposedly adhering to another ideology. Without nationalism nazism would have never been defeated - which shows the extent of the ideas power.

 

As for multiculturalism that depends entirely on your definition of it. Most nations states are multicultural simply because there are a multitude of ethnic minorities living in them. Modern multiculturalism isn't about basic tolerance (which existed long before it, as both idea and practice) its really about the abuse of the idea of tolerance so that minorities can gain special rights and be "more than equal" (without reason or logic) to the native population.

 

Btw for the record, Serbia had (and still has) a muslim minister way before any western country.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Drowsy Emperor

[obyknven]

 

Varg the best candidate to become Minister of Culture.

 

http://www.burzum.or..._europe03.shtml

There is one question in relation to the Utøya event that needs to be answered; how can one single person armed with semi-automatic small arms walk freely about on a fairly small island and shoot his targets when he is outnumbered by about 700 to 1? He says himself that he was attacked only once during his more than an hour long expedition, by a single person whom he simply pushed away and shoot dead on the ground. The number of left-wing extremists he shot dead never troubled me, the attack in itself never troubled me – or surprised me for that sake – but this very shameful fact troubled me from day one, and it still troubles me.

 

My first reaction to this was of course shame. How can my countrymen be so extremely coward and indeed helpless? What is wrong with them? I mean, any sane, healthy and unbroken (so to speak) human being in such a situation would at least try to fight back, organize small bands armed with rocks and sticks, and try to ambush the guy et cetera. Sure, a few attackers would surely be killed if a group had attacked him, but he would have been overwhelmed in the end, and it would have ended his massacre. Even with a bullet or two in your body you can still fight on, only to die later from blood loss. You are not helpless even when severely wounded. You only need a fighting spirit to keep on fighting. You might think differently, but I know that. I have fought on wounded (with a crushed jaw) myself (and emerged victorious), and I have seen others do the same; the best known of them would be Aarseth, who stopped running and fought back even after he had been stabbed at least 7 times and had had both his lungs punctured. He did because he was cornered by then, but still. Even those cornered on Utøya didn't fight back, exept the one example I mentioned above. The others did nothing. Some of them stopped, resigned and just waited for him to shoot them. Others lay down covering their heads with their arms. Some begged for mercy. They were all executed by Mr. Breivik.

....

 

 

If you indeed try to do anything by yourself in Norway you are severely punished for it. Private business? Hell no! Tax them to death! You want to build your own house? Hell no! That is illegal in Norway unless you first attend a state controlled "house building course", lead of course by one of those losers who otherwise would have been unemployed. (This is by the way a good example of an "articifial job".) You want to protect yourself from physical assault, by beating up the assailant? Hell no! Go to prison you damn violent brute! You want to protect that woman being raped in the street over there? Hell no! We have a police for a reason! You beat up a rapists in action? That is assault; go to prison! You win a fist fight (even if you were attacked)? Go to prison! You lose a fist fight (even if you are the aggressor)? Poor, you; we will hold your hand...

 

And that is where we find the answer to my original question; Norwegians are so ruined by this Socialist ideology and by the fact that they go through life holding hands with the Soviet state that they feel they are not allowed to protect themselves or even others! Not when Norwegian women are being raped by immigrants in the streets, not when Norwegian men are assaulted by immigrants in the streets, and not on Utøya when a single man attacks 800 of them. They are expected to wait until the Soviet state (in form of the Norwegian police) arrives and protects them. The teenagers on Utøya probably even feared punishment from the state if they had tried to protect themselves!

...

 

Today I pity the teenagers on Utøya, both those who have to live with the shame of running away from danger rather than face it and confront their enemy, aswell as those who were killed that day. They were not even allowed to be courageous; they were brainwashed throughout their lives into always trust the state to handle all problems for them, so even if many of them were perhaps originally courageous human beings we will forever remember them all as cowards. The Norwegian Marxist state failed them miserably on Utøya, and will continue to fail its citizens, whether they are being killed, raped or beaten up or if they suffer in other manners, until the day it is replaced by a Nationalist state – teaching their citizens to stand on their own feet and defend themselves and others when needed.

 

The Social Democracy in Norway is not only to blame for the motives of the gunman on Utøya, but also for the number of victims, and I am gravely worried about the future of my nation when I see how broken down so many Norwegians are by this system. My countrymen are being turned into feeble, worthless, spineless, self-hating sub-human beings, completely helpless and fully dependent on the state to take care of everything for them; they turn into a Norwegian form of the homo sovieticus.

[Rostere]

You're basically repeating the liberal (and at the same time) socialist slander of nationalism. The fact is that nationalism had a huge role in creating the european state. Without it european countries would never be the states they became - neither as united nor as powerful as they were.

 

And you're confirming the silliest prejudices against nationalists. "United"? "powerful"? At what cost to our intellectual integrity?

 

What ultimately drove europe into war was the logic of capitalism, the need for constant economic expansion and the fact that certain countries felt left out/disadvantaged in that regard (Germany, Italy, Japan etc.), nationalism was merely used as an excuse to fire up the masses for war. It is a very misused ideology.

 

What ultimately caused the war was the raw deal given to Germany when WW1 ended. A democratic, prosperous Germany would be in the best interest of the victors, instead they just left Germany to rot - and look what happened. For how to really conclude a peace, see the Marshall Plan. Japan was it's own separate story, and Italy was just a rowboat towing behind the cruiser Germany.

 

Just look at demographics. In Sweden, nationalism is overwhelmingly found among the unemployed. As the EU crisis has worsened, so has nationalism grown. The more miserable, scared people there are, the more the nationalists get, because they're the same crowd.

 

Is it a coincidence that the two advocates of nationalism in this topic are both from Russia, while it's detractors are from prosperous and modern countries? I think not

 

Also, some basic political terminology needs to be set straight nationalism = the belief that the nation (however it is defined) should be the focal point in the creation of the state/society

chauvinism = the belief that ones nation is superior to others

 

They're just shades of the same idea. There is no constructive nationalism, only more or less destructive nationalism. Take football hooliganism for example - essentially the same phenomenon as nationalism. Take a few miserable people with inferiority complexes and group them together at a football stadium, and there you got it, it works exactly the same as nationalism. They will find out that they come from different places and then they will (of course) cheer for different teams (why exactly it is so important to football supporters that "their" team wins, even though they stand to gain/lose nothing from it, I don't know). Eventually (if they are miserable enough), they are going to fight with each other, because nationalists always do.

 

Now, some people like to go to football games to cheer for their team and don't fight with other supporters, some people like to wave their flag on national holidays without thinking a second about the deeper meaning of that, these are small indulgences we can afford. Teaming up with other people is after all a human instinct, even if the criteria for the team are superficial and illogical. It is however important for us to understand that nationalism is fundamentally an instinct that is a limit to peace, understanding and social advancement. Just like the colours on the shirts of the football teams is the only thing that separates them, so are the colours of our skin and our looks and superficial customs the only thing that separates different nations. Sure, some nations have more primitive cultures than others - but tribal, corrupt and/or authoritiarian societies will over time inevitably become liberal democracies, as the people are empowered and gain access to knowledge.

 

No nation has any meaning in itself, the only thing that has any meaning whatsoever is our moral differences. To try to construct any other barriers is an offence to our intellectual integrity. Let everyone judge each other solely on their moral convictions and realize that any other artificial or imagined differences are just illusions conjured by miserable and scared people who are afraid to be judged in the same way as the rest of the world.

[Malcador]

From her wikipedia page (yes, yes, unreliable). Doesn't seem like she's a concern. Unless this is a really, really deep cover operation

 

Hadia Tajik was born 18 July 1983 in the village of Bjørheimsbygd in Strand, Rogaland to shopkeeper M. Sarwar Tajik (1947-) and mother Safia Qazalbash (1948-). Her parents had emigrated from Pakistan. After completing Bjørheimsbygd elementary school as one of only seven pupils, she attended Tau junior high school between 1996 and 1998 and later Strand Senior high school from 1998 to 2001. She studied human rights at Kingston University in England from 2004 to 2005, she has a bachelor's degree in journalism from Stavanger University College and studied law at the University of Oslo receiving her Master of Law degree in 2012.

[HoonDing]

Meh. Call me when there's a Christian minister in a Muslim country.

[Zoraptor]

...

 

Tariq Aziz, Iraq's foreign minister under Saddam was christian, the president of Lebanon is christian and whatever else you can say about Syria they've had plenty of christian ministers as well. And that's just off the top of my head.

 

Why anybody cares about religion specifically is quite beyond me. So long as religious people aren't trying to institute ludicrous religion based laws (eg christians who ignore what Jesus actually said because he was a hippy and Leviticus and Saul are more to their liking, as well as sharia touting muslims) I see no reason to care about their religion.

[pmp10]

Some very interesting thoughts regarding nationalism.

Yet somehow I don't see many people calling for abolition of citizenship.

[Junai]

Norwegians hate their own country that much?

What are you a member of the Jobbik party or something? It's a tactical nomination. She's an intergration poster child, a muslim who behaves like an ethnic Norwegian in most ways. She's young and popular, and a wizard with social media. But most of all, Labour hopes she'll win the hearts and minds of the immigrants. It's natural to question her qualifications, but let's give her a chance first. Anyway, it doesn't matter all that much. Labour won't win the next election. They've made too many mistakes during the last four years.

 

J.