Norway appoints Muslim woman Minister of Culture

[Gorgon]

What's the point of a minister of culture. I mean doesn't that pretty much take care of itself. We have a minister of the arts so we can subsidise the theaters, balet dancers gotta work too you know.

[Rosbjerg]

Some very interesting thoughts regarding nationalism.

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

 

Citizenship also existed before nationalism - but you're right in the fact that today it is defined and seen as an integral part of nationalism.

[Junai]

What's the point of a minister of culture. I mean doesn't that pretty much take care of itself. We have a minister of the arts so we can subsidise the theaters, balet dancers gotta work too you know.

Indeed. And with all the organizations who've misused their funding lately, I bet we'll see some changes after the next election. The Labour solution has been to put out any fire by throwing money at it. It simply doesn't work. Never did.

[Drowsy Emperor]

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.

 

She's not that sort of problem, everyone goes through endless background checks way before they get the opportunity to be a high ranking official.

 

But try banning minarets now like Switzerland did. Or burquas.

 

Point being - she's more likely to hold the side of or at least distance herself from any dispute regarding any islamic issue. If for no other reason then that she'll be under pressure from islamic organizations "to do her part" for them.

[obyknven]

This tread is excellent example of Stockholm syndrome. Western society so sick. Looks like social form of AIDS.

[Meshugger]

I do find it odd that multiculturalists in high political positions aren't that open about being against the nation state. It is dishonest since i find multiculture the anti-thesis of nationalism. I mean, multiculture means no set of ethics, law or language (everyone participates in their respective societies according to which culture they feel that they belong).

 

Also, why do you have to have multiculture as an agenda? It happens all the time through trade since humanity crawled out of the slime. It's an organic effect in terms of people meeting each other.

[Hurlshort]

I do find it odd that multiculturalists in high political positions aren't that open about being against the nation state. It is dishonest since i find multiculture the anti-thesis of nationalism. I mean, multiculture means no set of ethics, law or language (everyone participates in their respective societies according to which culture they feel that they belong).

 

Also, why do you have to have multiculture as an agenda? It happens all the time through trade since humanity crawled out of the slime. It's an organic effect in terms of people meeting each other.

 

You have an odd definition of multiculturalism. That is not how it works at all in the diverse regions of the US.

 

Honestly listening to some of you makes me feel like I live in a Utopian society or something. People in the Bay Area are immensely proud of being Americans AND proud of their diverse native cultures. I'm a 30-minute drive from any type of community I am looking for. If I want authentic Japanese, Indian, Persian, Russian, Vietnamese, Greek, or French food I can find it. I get to celebrate Cinco de Mayo, Chinese New Year, Ramadan, and the 4th of July every year. I can go to a Buddhist temple, a mosque, or any Christian denominational church and feel welcome.

[Meshugger]

Eh, you do have a common national culture. Nationality based on an ideal of a life of liberty and pursuit of happiness. What you are talking about is minorities working within the same framework since the nation was formed. That is your national identity, which is unique.

 

There's a reason why the US is called new world, you know.

[Rostere]

Eh, you do have a common national culture. Nationality based on an ideal of a life of liberty and pursuit of happiness. What you are talking about is minorities working within the same framework since the nation was formed. That is your national identity, which is unique.

 

There's a reason why the US is called new world, you know.

You're making even less sense now. Access to and acceptance of all cultures IS multiculturalism.

[Humodour]

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

 

The faster this is accepted, the faster it can be fixed.

 

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

 

Says the Romney supporter?

[Meshugger]

Eh, you do have a common national culture. Nationality based on an ideal of a life of liberty and pursuit of happiness. What you are talking about is minorities working within the same framework since the nation was formed. That is your national identity, which is unique.

 

There's a reason why the US is called new world, you know.

You're making even less sense now. Access to and acceptance of all cultures IS multiculturalism.

 

That's just being nice, which is a pretty damn loose definition for a political movement. Read again what i said, I was talking about cultural identity. In Hurlshot's case, they were all proud Americans. A nation founded on an ideal. That's their cultural identity.

 

The problem that i was talking about is that germans, japanese, persians, russians and whatnot have their cultural identity. They have their own code of conduct, customs, ethics and language and to a certain degree: ethnicity. They move to another country where they all keep being germans, japanese, persians and russians. What is the cultural identity of the nation if it is all consisted of germans, japanese, persians and russians? Either it will morph into a completely different one (various south american countries), separate ministates in a looser federation (Switzerland) or a dominant culture will be the defining one (Anglo-saxon in the US, Australia, etc...).

 

That's why i find it pointless to have a nation of true multicultularism to begin with when there's no underlying fabric that binds people together as a society. Being nice to one another? Oh please, there has to be a more sound social foundation than that. What is right and wrong? What rights and obligations should an individual have? What is the role of the state in relation to the citizen and so on...

 

That's why i am more for free trade as an expression of multiculture, since it is a voluntary act between two different actors that share a common interest: trading.

[Oerwinde]

I do find it odd that multiculturalists in high political positions aren't that open about being against the nation state. It is dishonest since i find multiculture the anti-thesis of nationalism. I mean, multiculture means no set of ethics, law or language (everyone participates in their respective societies according to which culture they feel that they belong).

 

Also, why do you have to have multiculture as an agenda? It happens all the time through trade since humanity crawled out of the slime. It's an organic effect in terms of people meeting each other.

 

You have an odd definition of multiculturalism. That is not how it works at all in the diverse regions of the US.

 

Honestly listening to some of you makes me feel like I live in a Utopian society or something. People in the Bay Area are immensely proud of being Americans AND proud of their diverse native cultures. I'm a 30-minute drive from any type of community I am looking for. If I want authentic Japanese, Indian, Persian, Russian, Vietnamese, Greek, or French food I can find it. I get to celebrate Cinco de Mayo, Chinese New Year, Ramadan, and the 4th of July every year. I can go to a Buddhist temple, a mosque, or any Christian denominational church and feel welcome.

 

This is why Canadians are starting to reject the "Mosaic" idea of multiculturalism rather than the "Melting Pot" that Americans have. America welcomes immigrants and embraces their differences (in theory) as long as they all become "American" in Canada its "come on in and do your thing" and what that has lead to, at least in BC, is all the immigrants gather and form their own cliques where they speak their own language and celebrate their old country. Its quite common to have people live here for up to 20 years without learning either of the official languages. The idea that Americans can embrace other cultures, but still have a common "American" culture is a very appealing one to a lot of us who see the "mosaic" idea as one of our own culture disappearing as the immigrant population grows and the natural born shrinks.

 

Also, why is it that when western countries try to preserve their own culture thats ignorant, or intolerant, or racist, but when other countries do it its anti-imperialist?

[obyknven]

our view of multiculturalism

[Rosbjerg]

That's very accurate - if you go into it with the mentality that you are vastly superior and your culture is the only relevant and that you have nothing to learn from the person you are adressing - you are gonna have a bad time.

[Nepenthe]

The minister of culture post is traditionally one of the filler posts in nordic cabinets, either used to appease some minor party head honcho into supporting the government (Finland right now), or handed off to a woman/minority/somebody from some place as far off from the capital to "promote equality". Looks like they were looking at somebody to will the second role and really hit the jackpot with her.

 

Personally consider both cases to be total bull****, as am a fervent believer in meritocracies - and yes, I know that as a white heterosexual male from the capital region, I will personally suffer from all kinds of affirmative action where less competent people will be chosen above me due to their personal characteristics. I'm sure that the irony will escape most.

[Gorth]

I thought it was the most cruel and unusual punishment they could inflict on Breivik in the absence of a death penalty.

[NOK222]

The minister of culture post is traditionally one of the filler posts in nordic cabinets, either used to appease some minor party head honcho into supporting the government (Finland right now), or handed off to a woman/minority/somebody from some place as far off from the capital to "promote equality". Looks like they were looking at somebody to will the second role and really hit the jackpot with her.

 

Personally consider both cases to be total bull****, as am a fervent believer in meritocracies - and yes, I know that as a white heterosexual male from the capital region, I will personally suffer from all kinds of affirmative action where less competent people will be chosen above me due to their personal characteristics. I'm sure that the irony will escape most.

 

How qualified are you for anything?

[Rostere]

That's just being nice, which is a pretty damn loose definition for a political movement. Read again what i said, I was talking about cultural identity. In Hurlshot's case, they were all proud Americans. A nation founded on an ideal. That's their cultural identity.

 

The problem that i was talking about is that germans, japanese, persians, russians and whatnot have their cultural identity. They have their own code of conduct, customs, ethics and language and to a certain degree: ethnicity. They move to another country where they all keep being germans, japanese, persians and russians. What is the cultural identity of the nation if it is all consisted of germans, japanese, persians and russians? Either it will morph into a completely different one (various south american countries), separate ministates in a looser federation (Switzerland) or a dominant culture will be the defining one (Anglo-saxon in the US, Australia, etc...).

 

That's why i find it pointless to have a nation of true multicultularism to begin with when there's no underlying fabric that binds people together as a society. Being nice to one another? Oh please, there has to be a more sound social foundation than that. What is right and wrong? What rights and obligations should an individual have? What is the role of the state in relation to the citizen and so on...

 

That's why i am more for free trade as an expression of multiculture, since it is a voluntary act between two different actors that share a common interest: trading.

 

I fail to see how you think being nice to one another is an unsound social foundation.

 

If you go back to read my earlier posts you will see how I write a lot about moral convictions and how those are the only limiting factor against the unity of humanity as a whole. Some people do not believe in democratic principles, and in tolerance. Unlike you, who seem to group together this with "ethnicity" (whatever that means in your vocabulary, I'm not sure) I think tolerance and understanding for different people in spite of superficial differences is a sign (and a product) of an advanced, healthy society. Acceptance and tolerance are neccessarily found in all healthy societies. You speak of multiculturalism as having no "underlying fabric", this couldn't be more wrong. In fact, multiculturalism has the strongest possible (and indeed also most general) underlying fabric - the one of mutual respect, tolerance, the recognition of the democratic rights of our peers. This is so simple, yet so very powerful. I can't imagine a more powerful "underlying fabric" to bind together a society.

[alanschu]

This is why Canadians are starting to reject the "Mosaic" idea of multiculturalism rather than the "Melting Pot" that Americans have. America welcomes immigrants and embraces their differences (in theory) as long as they all become "American" in Canada its "come on in and do your thing" and what that has lead to, at least in BC, is all the immigrants gather and form their own cliques where they speak their own language and celebrate their old country.

 

This is what I love about my country.

 

Its quite common to have people live here for up to 20 years without learning either of the official languages.

 

Define "common."

 

The idea that Americans can embrace other cultures, but still have a common "American" culture is a very appealing one to a lot of us who see the "mosaic" idea as one of our own culture disappearing as the immigrant population grows and the natural born shrinks.

 

Perhaps the Canadian culture is one that cannot be strictly defined based on some type of profiling. Or ironically, our culture is more the lack of defined culture. Furthermore, perhaps this is ideal and your way of thinking is backwards?

[Humodour]

This is why Canadians are starting to reject the "Mosaic" idea of multiculturalism rather than the "Melting Pot" that Americans have. America welcomes immigrants and embraces their differences (in theory) as long as they all become "American" in Canada its "come on in and do your thing" and what that has lead to, at least in BC, is all the immigrants gather and form their own cliques where they speak their own language and celebrate their old country.

 

This is what I love about my country.

 

Its quite common to have people live here for up to 20 years without learning either of the official languages.

 

Define "common."

 

The idea that Americans can embrace other cultures, but still have a common "American" culture is a very appealing one to a lot of us who see the "mosaic" idea as one of our own culture disappearing as the immigrant population grows and the natural born shrinks.

 

Perhaps the Canadian culture is one that cannot be strictly defined based on some type of profiling. Or ironically, our culture is more the lack of defined culture. Furthermore, perhaps this is ideal and your way of thinking is backwards?

 

I don't know who you're quoting, but what they are promoting is called 'assimilation'. It is a racist immigration policy which Australia officially dumped in the 60's (although subsequent immigration policies remained racist until 1972 when full multiculturalism was introduced).

 

And thank god Multiculturalism was introduced. It is what makes this country so amazing. And I much prefer dealing with Asians, Indians, Africans and whoever else, rather than my racist, bigoted white bogan kin here (which is obviously stereotyping us white Aussies - a large minority are genuinely great people). When I say bigoted white bogen, I'm talking about the kind that like to hurl abuse at fine upstanding citizens who happen to have a different skin colour or hold the hand of someone of the same sex. **** them.

 

Also, multiculturalism has given Australia one of the best gifts of all: amazing food. And hot half-breed women. *cough* Eurasians *cough*

 

Actually, it's amazing how free your country can become when it's not held back by some small-minded nationalistic notion of "cultural identity". We're all just humans. Bigots need to stop trying to label and divide us.

[213374U]

I fail to see how you think being nice to one another is an unsound social foundation.

 

If you go back to read my earlier posts you will see how I write a lot about moral convictions and how those are the only limiting factor against the unity of humanity as a whole. Some people do not believe in democratic principles, and in tolerance. Unlike you, who seem to group together this with "ethnicity" (whatever that means in your vocabulary, I'm not sure) I think tolerance and understanding for different people in spite of superficial differences is a sign (and a product) of an advanced, healthy society. Acceptance and tolerance are neccessarily found in all healthy societies. You speak of multiculturalism as having no "underlying fabric", this couldn't be more wrong. In fact, multiculturalism has the strongest possible (and indeed also most general) underlying fabric - the one of mutual respect, tolerance, the recognition of the democratic rights of our peers. This is so simple, yet so very powerful. I can't imagine a more powerful "underlying fabric" to bind together a society.

This is beautiful, but not very practical. Methinks you haven't actually immersed yourself in a society that has attempted to get "multiculturalism" to work, or any society other than your own, for that matter.

 

I live in a country that has significant (as in, you couldn't imagine how much up there in comfy Scandinavia) immigration, and have had the fortune of coming into contact with many due to jobs I've held. And let me tell you, being nice just doesn't cut it. There's no way to write "being nice" into law, and laws, my friend, are the structure that keeps chaos and anarchy at bay. The are also, by their very nature, a tool and a means to bend wills. There's this little thing called moral minimums where tolerance simply has no place, and as Mes suggests, moral minimums differ from culture to culture. "Democracy" is nice, only there's no true democracy anywhere, and the devil hides in the details.

 

I think it's quite telling that you speak so fondly of "tolerance" but are so quick to dismiss conflicts arising from cultural differences, the solution apparently being simply general niceness. Do you believe people don't love their culture, their customs, their ways? I think your stance is deeply arrogant; those people and their little cultural idiosincrasies should simply drop their generations-old beliefs and customs and "be nice". What if they'd rather continue being who they are instead of conforming to your poorly defined idea of "nice"? Tolerance only goes so far.

 

And, historically, multiculturalism has been proven a failure as a foundation for state-building. Deep down, humans are still deeply tribal. Yes, even iPhone-toting humans. Sad but true.

[Nepenthe]

How qualified are you for anything?

Very.

[Drowsy Emperor]

I fail to see how you think being nice to one another is an unsound social foundation.

 

If you go back to read my earlier posts you will see how I write a lot about moral convictions and how those are the only limiting factor against the unity of humanity as a whole. Some people do not believe in democratic principles, and in tolerance. Unlike you, who seem to group together this with "ethnicity" (whatever that means in your vocabulary, I'm not sure) I think tolerance and understanding for different people in spite of superficial differences is a sign (and a product) of an advanced, healthy society. Acceptance and tolerance are neccessarily found in all healthy societies. You speak of multiculturalism as having no "underlying fabric", this couldn't be more wrong. In fact, multiculturalism has the strongest possible (and indeed also most general) underlying fabric - the one of mutual respect, tolerance, the recognition of the democratic rights of our peers. This is so simple, yet so very powerful. I can't imagine a more powerful "underlying fabric" to bind together a society.

This is beautiful, but not very practical. Methinks you haven't actually immersed yourself in a society that has attempted to get "multiculturalism" to work, or any society other than your own, for that matter.

 

I live in a country that has significant (as in, you couldn't imagine how much up there in comfy Scandinavia) immigration, and have had the fortune of coming into contact with many due to jobs I've held. And let me tell you, being nice just doesn't cut it. There's no way to write "being nice" into law, and laws, my friend, are the structure that keeps chaos and anarchy at bay. The are also, by their very nature, a tool and a means to bend wills. There's this little thing called moral minimums where tolerance simply has no place, and as Mes suggests, moral minimums differ from culture to culture. "Democracy" is nice, only there's no true democracy anywhere, and the devil hides in the details.

 

I think it's quite telling that you speak so fondly of "tolerance" but are so quick to dismiss conflicts arising from cultural differences, the solution apparently being simply general niceness. Do you believe people don't love their culture, their customs, their ways? I think your stance is deeply arrogant; those people and their little cultural idiosincrasies should simply drop their generations-old beliefs and customs and "be nice". What if they'd rather continue being who they are instead of conforming to your poorly defined idea of "nice"? Tolerance only goes so far.

 

And, historically, multiculturalism has been proven a failure as a foundation for state-building. Deep down, humans are still deeply tribal. Yes, even iPhone-toting humans. Sad but true.

 

What he said.

 

Except I don't think multiculturalism as seen in Europe was conceived as an idealistic project. Its a result of the failure (or overt success, depending on your point of view) of the capitalist system whose culture of hedonism left Europeans without the adequate birth rates to cover their aging work force.

The German green party program (which I had to write a piece on) pretty openly states that the immigrants are necessary and if you read between the lines it turns out that multiculturalism (as seen in our time) is a concession that had to be given for them (immigrants) to be better integrated into the political and cultural system. There are other reasons as well, certain countries were more open to certain immigration as a way to preserve influence in their ex colonial states.

 

Its a weak and short sighted policy because it tries to solve a problem, not by addressing the underlying cause (the capitalist system of production and its ideology of hedonism) but in typical businesslike fashion it looks for the quickest and cheapest solution to patch up the holes and pronounce the end product, a leaky ship, the new Titanic of freedom and multiculturalism.

 

A system where a single child costs such obscene amounts of money to rear and educate, a system that lets its basic unit (the family) be dissolved and crumble while at the same time accepting that the only solution is to import "other people's children" wholesale can only be pronounced a failure in the long run.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Drowsy Emperor

[Humodour]

I fail to see how you think being nice to one another is an unsound social foundation.

 

If you go back to read my earlier posts you will see how I write a lot about moral convictions and how those are the only limiting factor against the unity of humanity as a whole. Some people do not believe in democratic principles, and in tolerance. Unlike you, who seem to group together this with "ethnicity" (whatever that means in your vocabulary, I'm not sure) I think tolerance and understanding for different people in spite of superficial differences is a sign (and a product) of an advanced, healthy society. Acceptance and tolerance are neccessarily found in all healthy societies. You speak of multiculturalism as having no "underlying fabric", this couldn't be more wrong. In fact, multiculturalism has the strongest possible (and indeed also most general) underlying fabric - the one of mutual respect, tolerance, the recognition of the democratic rights of our peers. This is so simple, yet so very powerful. I can't imagine a more powerful "underlying fabric" to bind together a society.

This is beautiful, but not very practical. Methinks you haven't actually immersed yourself in a society that has attempted to get "multiculturalism" to work, or any society other than your own, for that matter.

 

I live in a country that has significant (as in, you couldn't imagine how much up there in comfy Scandinavia) immigration, and have had the fortune of coming into contact with many due to jobs I've held. And let me tell you, being nice just doesn't cut it. There's no way to write "being nice" into law, and laws, my friend, are the structure that keeps chaos and anarchy at bay. The are also, by their very nature, a tool and a means to bend wills. There's this little thing called moral minimums where tolerance simply has no place, and as Mes suggests, moral minimums differ from culture to culture. "Democracy" is nice, only there's no true democracy anywhere, and the devil hides in the details.

 

I think it's quite telling that you speak so fondly of "tolerance" but are so quick to dismiss conflicts arising from cultural differences, the solution apparently being simply general niceness. Do you believe people don't love their culture, their customs, their ways? I think your stance is deeply arrogant; those people and their little cultural idiosincrasies should simply drop their generations-old beliefs and customs and "be nice". What if they'd rather continue being who they are instead of conforming to your poorly defined idea of "nice"? Tolerance only goes so far.

 

And, historically, multiculturalism has been proven a failure as a foundation for state-building. Deep down, humans are still deeply tribal. Yes, even iPhone-toting humans. Sad but true.

 

What he said.

 

Except I don't think multiculturalism as seen in Europe was conceived as an idealistic project. Its a result of the failure (or overt success, depending on your point of view) of the capitalist system whose culture of hedonism left Europeans without the adequate birth rates to cover their aging work force.

The German green party program (which I had to write a piece on) pretty openly states that the immigrants are necessary and if you read between the lines it turns out that multiculturalism (as seen in our time) is a concession that had to be given for them (immigrants) to be better integrated into the political and cultural system. There are other reasons as well, certain countries were more open to certain immigration as a way to preserve influence in their ex colonial states.

 

Its a weak and short sighted policy because it tries to solve a problem, not by addressing the underlying cause (the capitalist system of production and its ideology of hedonism) but in typical businesslike fashion it looks for the quickest and cheapest solution to patch up the holes and pronounce the end product, a leaky ship, the new Titanic of freedom and multiculturalism.

 

A system where a single child costs such obscene amounts of money to rear and educate, a system that lets its basic unit (the family) be dissolved and crumble while at the same time accepting that the only solution is to import "other people's children" wholesale can only be pronounced a failure in the long run.

 

lol. And I suppose you also think that Breivik was just fighting the good fight, albeit in a misguided manner.

 

Oh, and FYI: there is nothing wrong with hedonism. Enjoying oneself isn't modern society's problem. Enjoying oneself without giving a damn about others is society's problem - and in that regard the root of the problem does indeed lie partly at insufficiently regulated capitalism. But hedonism ain't the cause here buddy. Sex ain't the reason society is in trouble. Drugs are not the reason society is in trouble. Increasing acceptance of the fact that two men can love each other as much as a man and a woman is not the reason that society is in trouble. And you know what? Muslims aren't even the reason society is in trouble.

 

The reason happens to be far less bigoted, and far more logical: people being greedy is the cause of society's problems. Sound like hedonism? It's not. For example: I can **** my girlfriend all day if I want to. It's completely hedonistic. But it doesn't cost anybody anything. (And I'm sorry to break it to you, but yes this is true of two men ****ing as well.)

Edited October 2, 2012 by Tale

[Hurlshort]

Not the classiest argument he has ever made, but Krezack does have a fair point.

 

History shows that these cultural issues are simply a matter of time. In a few generations, these differing cultures will adapt to one another. History also rarely reflects well on those who discriminate.