Jump to content

Norway appoints Muslim woman Minister of Culture


Recommended Posts

Besides culture and ethnicity are extremely important to most people in the world, to ignore that in favor of "individual personality" is to be voluntarily blind in political matters. Individual personality is relevant between individuals but its not how states can conduct relations with one another. Never has been and never will be.

 

You're correct in that it shouldn't be important. And neither should "ethnicity".

 

What makes you think the world wants to be united? If there was such a desire it would be spontaneous, from the bottom up - not spoon fed by propaganda and politicians. And "democracy" will certainly not prevail when the usual method of delivery is on the wings of NATO bombers. I'm sorry to say but your argument is 99.9% wishful thinking.

 

I have no idea what the "world wants" - whatever that extreme generalization means, and that is not relevant to the discussion. What NATO does or does not do is also not a part of the discussion (you can of course argue that NATO does or does not advance multiculturalism, but that is not what we're talking about here). The change will not come from any particular strata in society, it is a product of the advancement of the human race. Inventions from the written language to paper, the printing press, the telegraph, the telephone, and the Internet have enabled the free exchange of ideas and culture across the world. As ideas and knowledge became more powerful, so did the state have to adapt to give more power to ideas and philosophies over physical might.

 

First came the rule of law, then at some point nationalism (the notion that a state should be defined by its ethnic/cultural identity, not by its ruler). After this, democracy (the notion that all people in the country have equal rights to influence the country). These are all gradual advancements that have made it possible to govern a country even under the increased spread of knowledge and power of ideas. Nationalism is currently being democratized by allowing all people equal say in defining a the ethnic/cultural identity of the state. Can you see how democracy is related to the dissolution of nationalism (of course, you won't notice this at all if you live in a democratic monocultural society)?

 

What is happening right now is that the advancements in physical infrastructure and information infrastructure are creating an increasingly global society (it's really been going on since the dawn of civilization but the rate of change is increasing). The states of the world are therefore under pressure to adapt to these changing circumstances. I'll give you an analogy. A free market fosters competitive companies who work, by innovating and copying others, towards good business practices. Multiculturalism fosters a competitive society, by absorbing all the elements of cultures it encounters ("ideas" or "memes"). I could also compare this with biology, but I think you get what I'm talking about now.

 

Just as a larger, free market will leave a smaller, protectionist market uncompetitive and backwards, so will a multicultural society leave isolated societies behind. You know, it's not a coincidence American movies, brands and culture are so popular around the world. America is just a huge melting pot of all the different European cultures, and has seen some immigration from other parts of the world as well (I won't mention the Native Americans - that part always makes me sad).

 

I will say this, a good sort of multiculturalism works in countries where it isn't an elaborate propaganda. The US prides itself on it, yet racial divisions are still extremely present. On the other hand you have Brazil or Cuba (but oh so undemocratic!), where whites, natives and blacks work together and the question of race is nowhere near as important as in the "progressive" US.

And let me remind you that we had a functional multicultural society in Bosnia before the current model of multiculturalism was even concieved. It went to **** only when the economy was so bad that dissolution became inevitable, but it worked for a long while.

 

What propaganda are you talking about?

 

Yes, I'm sure you had a more functional society in Bosnia before the economic hardship. Whenever people suffer, they seem to want to destroy their society, and regress to a more primitive state of living (just look at the absurd extremist parties popping up in democratic societies whenever the economy falters).

 

What is this "new" model of multiculturalism you are talking about? Are you sure you're just not throwing **** on a concept you just believe you don't like?

 

So, 3 conclusions:

a) multiculturalism can work when its spontaneous, born out of necessity

b) it doesn't have to exist under a democratic rule

c) multiculturalism created by a) is true multiculturalism because the "cultures" that comprise it are really preserved

 

a) Of course. I am not talking about a single person or group of persons forcing other individuals to adopt modern philosophies. Multiculturalism will, in maybe 200 years, have become the only modern way of thinking through natural evolution of society like I described above, just like nobody today in the civilized world wants their country to be an absolute monarchy.

b) Of course not. But we're talking what is LIKELY here. Anything is possible under the right circumstances.

c) Not at all necessarily! Actually first of all, no culture is ever preserved absolutely in any meaningful sense, because they change over time. In an ideal multicultural society, ideas will be traded between cultures and even as every larger ELEMENT of a culture will likely exist somewhere, the individual culture, as a singular unit, will disappear instantly.

  • Like 1

"Well, overkill is my middle name. And my last name. And all of my other names as well!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the double post, couldn't edit last post.

 

Rofl. So you live in a country of ~9.5M inhabitants, that is 3rd in asylum requests per capita. Never mind that even within the link you posted, over 66% of said requests were rejected. Wow, you guys are so cosmopolite! I bet you have even seen lots of Africans on TV!

 

Seriously, lol. You fail at statistics (which doesn't bode well for your career as a scientist), you fail at reading, and you Google-Fu is weak. Or maybe you just think everyone but you is really dumb and will readily accept your bull**** without a second thought.

 

Let's stick to the facts. The numbers relevant are the one concerning the actual immigration, rejection rates are irrelevant - if Sweden rejects 99% of all immigrants but still have a larger amount relative to our population, that does not prove your point. (The number of applications is an indicator of this, however not the most important number. Please remind me in the future to not link to articles by citing anecdotes, but with a list of all the most neccessary information in an easy to read and understand summary or a suggestion to READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE).

 

So let's first reexamine your original statement:

I live in a country that has significant (as in, you couldn't imagine how much up there in comfy Scandinavia) immigration [...]

 

To make things clear about where we stand, I aimed to refute that Sweden does not have "significant" immigration. In fact, I would also like to extend that refutation to include the counter- claim that Sweden has more significant immigration than Spain (the country you are referring to). To the numbers, then. The article states that Spain approved 350 asylum seekers in 2009 (out of 4480). Sweden approved 7095 asylum seekers, out of 23930 who came here. People who seek asylum are the best indication of extra-cultural "immigrants", since they often are forced to flee, without knowledge of existing culture, from impoverished and wartorn countries, which in turn often have non- Western cultures. We want to try to avoid people who immigrate from a similar culture, or with the explicit intent to adopt a Swedish monoculture since they won't contribute to multicultural society. Let's continue on.

 

Let's have a look at Wikipedia (which you link to yourself) - immigration to Spain, and immigration to Sweden. At the bottom of both articles are 2011 data which reveals that out of the countries listed, Austria has the highest amount of immigrants (15,2%), followed by Sweden at 14,3%. Spain comes after Belgium and Germany with only 12%. But that includes numbers from within Europe, people with similar culture (Right? Which comparison do you prefer?). We can also see the number of residents born in a non- EU state - where Sweden is the highest with 9,2%, with Spain only at 8,9%, leaving Austria in between. Also, I would like to draw attention to the graphics showing where the immigrants come from. Spain has a VERY LARGE percentage of non- EU immigrants coming from Spanish- speaking Latin America. Hardly a "culture clash", eh?

 

Let's delve deeper and take a look at official Eurostat data in the chart here - numbers in thousands of people. Notice how Sweden and Spain have similar numbers (especially pre- 2007) in spite of Spain having FIVE TIMES the population of Sweden.

 

So, do you still think I can't imagine how "significant" immigration Spain has?

 

I live in a country of 47M of which roughly 12% are immigrants, a majority of which weren't born in the EU. I have friends (*SHOCK!!!*) of Middle Eastern, Maghrebi, South American and East European descent. I have shed more sweat and tears (not blood, fortunately) alongside some of them than your pale armchair theorist ass has in your whole life. So do us both a favor, take your insinuations that I'm a xenophobe and kindly go **** yourself.

 

Oh! The "I have many friends who are..." argument. I've never seen that one executed so masterfully before. Also, I like the part with sweat and tears, it makes you sound like an edgy, overwrought, (maybe wannabe working class?) kind of guy.

 

Maybe you have more immigrant friends than I have. But could you please post an exact number so that I know just how right you are and how wrong I am? It would seem to me as an intelligent and statistically sound way to end the debate about the immigration levels of Sweden and Spain.

 

Those swearing words really are your specialty - I mean, I'm not averse to a strong word myself when the context demands it, but still, I wonder how I am supposed to win this argument when you have so many of them, in one single post. Not to mention the insults.

 

"You fail at statistics (which doesn't bode well for your career as a scientist), you fail at reading, and you Google-Fu is weak. Or maybe you just think everyone but you is really dumb and will readily accept your bull**** without a second thought.", "pale armchair theorist ass", "go **** yourself".

 

Me, I can't even come up with half that good arguments. Please, if you've saved some textbooks from rhetorics class, can I buy them? "go **** yourself". Is that Plato or did you come up with it yourself? Truly, an intelligent and thought- evoking comment.

 

Okay, sorry for all the sarcasm and irony. But please. Swearing words and insults that are not even funny to read, just skip those. Let's stick to the facts and keep things reasonably civil. You must understand that you seem like a xenophobe to me. Don't respond with swearing and insults, that will just make you look worse.

Edited by Rostere

"Well, overkill is my middle name. And my last name. And all of my other names as well!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or lets do an example on a smaller scale: This forum. We all share one thing that binds us together: We like RPGs, especially ones made by Obsidian. We have agreed to a set of rules, a set of conduct and even talk the same language! Those who break the rules are warned and then banned, and thus we have created our own miniculture of our own. Other people not so interested Obsidian are tolerated as long as they play by the rules set up by the forum. Hell, they can even have subforum if they want to.

 

Now, some people suggest that we should change this. We should invite people who love cooking in korean, racing cars in german, and musical theory in swahili and 50-60 other different groups of interest. They will have their own code of conduct, communicate in their own languages and follow their own rules. Soon enough there's no clear majority and people will have nothing in common. What will then happen? How will mods manage it? What will be the common identity that sets Obsidian forum apart from all other forums?

 

The premise of your argument seems to be that when a new group moves to Sweden, that they won't embrace Swedish culture in any way. That does not have to be what happens. You can celebrate your traditions and heritage and still take part in your new home's cultural identity.

 

Your use of these forums is a great example of diversity working. We are an incredibly diverse group here with quite a few different beliefs. Many of us come from vastly different cultures, and not all of us speak English as our primary language. We are brought together by a fairly simple thing, video games. It seems like a person's home country would be a bigger common thread than that.

 

Well, what you are talking about is a majority/minority-society with a common social norm and identity. Nothing wrong with that.

  • Like 1

"Some men see things as they are and say why?"
"I dream things that never were and say why not?"
- George Bernard Shaw

"Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man."
- Friedrich Nietzsche

 

"The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."

- Some guy 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's stick to the facts. The numbers relevant are the one concerning the actual immigration, rejection rates are irrelevant - if Sweden rejects 99% of all immigrants but still have a larger amount relative to our population, that does not prove your point. (The number of applications is an indicator of this, however not the most important number.
Well, the problem is your links aren't supposed to prove my arguments, they are supposed to reinforce yours, but they are failing rather miserably at that. All I have to do is point a flaw in your analysis or how you only consider the part of the data that suits your purposes. No matter how you try to spin it, a larger relative amount of refugees or refugee applications does not equal a larger (or even comparable) actual immigration. Asylum applications are not a good measurement of actual immigration, as people fleeing from their countries of origin comprise only a portion of migration movements.

 

 

To make things clear about where we stand, I aimed to refute that Sweden does not have "significant" immigration. In fact, I would also like to extend that refutation to include the counter- claim that Sweden has more significant immigration than Spain (the country you are referring to). To the numbers, then. The article states that Spain approved 350 asylum seekers in 2009 (out of 4480). Sweden approved 7095 asylum seekers, out of 23930 who came here. [...]
From this point on I'm going to snip your posts and remove all chaff. I'm used to seeing verbal diarrhea and empty flourish used to obfuscate and divert attention, so don't bother, I'm just skimming over it and editing it out. The bottom line is that you have failed to produce evidence that demonstrates that the number of asylum requests is proportional and therefore representative of the number of total immigrants. In essence, you haven't established how your refugee argument is relevant. So that's a lot of words to prove... nothing.

 

 

Let's have a look at Wikipedia (which you link to yourself) - immigration to Spain, and immigration to Sweden. At the bottom of both articles are 2011 data which reveals that out of the countries listed, Austria has the highest amount of immigrants (15,2%), followed by Sweden at 14,3%. Spain comes after Belgium and Germany with only 12%. But that includes numbers from within Europe, people with similar culture (Right? Which comparison do you prefer?). We can also see the number of residents born in a non- EU state - where Sweden is the highest with 9,2%, with Spain only at 8,9%, leaving Austria in between.
Irrelevant. Comparing based on percentages is misleading in this context. With a population roughly five times greater, those percentages mean that non EU-residents in Spain account for more than three times the amount of total immigrants in Sweden. Total immigrants in Spain are close to 2/3 of Sweden's total population.

 

But since, clearly, numbers are not your forte, take a look at the pretty colors:

 

http://epp.eurostat....gions,_2008.PNG

 

Play around with the charts generator a bit, between 2000-2008 (before the economic downturn started to discourage immigration), the mean yearly population increase for Spain was around 13%. The corresponding rate for Sweden is about 4,8%. Again, with a much smaller population. The natural growth rate in the same time period is 1,18 for Spain and 0,8 for Sweden which means the increase is squarely a result of mass immigration. That's the actual impact of what we're discussing.

 

 

Also, I would like to draw attention to the graphics showing where the immigrants come from. Spain has a VERY LARGE percentage of non- EU immigrants coming from Spanish- speaking Latin America. Hardly a "culture clash", eh?
Hang on, those aren't "real" immigrants, then? Pretty inelegant how you dismiss them. Not really surprising though, and pretty much in line with the lack of real world knowledge of immigrants and other cultures displayed in the rest of your posts.

 

 

Let's delve deeper and take a look at official Eurostat data in the chart here - numbers in thousands of people. Notice how Sweden and Spain have similar numbers (especially pre- 2007) in spite of Spain having FIVE TIMES the population of Sweden.
Those are specifically naturalization figures. Again, a subset of the total immigrant population. Meaningless data is meaningless. I already rebutted this cherry picking fallacy above, it's not worth discussing further.

 

 

So, do you still think I can't imagine how "significant" immigration Spain has?
This is the first thing you've written that isn't total bollocks. But then again, even a broken clock is right twice a day, eh?

 

 

Oh! The "I have many friends who are..." argument. I've never seen that one executed so masterfully before. Also, I like the part with sweat and tears, it makes you sound like an edgy, overwrought, (maybe wannabe working class?) kind of guy.
Glad you liked it. It's just a reference to my time eating dirt in an airborne infantry unit, comprised of about 30% immigrants, a few of which I still consider my friends. Figured you'd fix on that, but it's not something worth explaining to a weekend social engineer with newly dropped balls. Next.

 

 

Maybe you have more immigrant friends than I have. But could you please post an exact number so that I know just how right you are and how wrong I am? It would seem to me as an intelligent and statistically sound way to end the debate about the immigration levels of Sweden and Spain.
Oh, no, you don't. You don't get to decide whether I deserve to be labelled a xenophobe. Your presumption that you do, by virtue of evaluating whether a certain amount of immigrant acquaintances is above an arbitrary threshold made up on the fly is sufficient proof that I'm not one is both laughable and pathetic. Funny thing is that, I, by definition, could not simultaneously be a xenophobe and have > 0 immigrant friends.

 

 

You must understand that you seem like a xenophobe to me. Don't respond with swearing and insults, that will just make you look worse.
Because your approval means so much to me. This is merely a pastime to me and all I care about is setting the record straight. So far I've only attacked your favorite care bear ideology of happy-times, not immigrants or immigration itself. This subtle nuance is just something else to add to the long list of Things Rostere Does Not Understand. Get cracking.

- When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been to Malta and it sure isn't some multicultural paradise. Its a strongly catholic country of approximately half a million people, and not really representative of anything.

Cyprus's multicultural status is even more dubious what with the ever present threat of conflict that hangs over it. In fact, its a very divided place and probably a prime example of multiculturalism not working.

 

Besides culture and ethnicity are extremely important to most people in the world, to ignore that in favor of "individual personality" is to be voluntarily blind in political matters. Individual personality is relevant between individuals but its not how states can conduct relations with one another. Never has been and never will be.

 

It will be a gradual process and in the end, everyone will adopt multicultural, democratic ideals because that is the only philosophy that can unite the world.

 

What makes you think the world wants to be united? If there was such a desire it would be spontaneous, from the bottom up - not spoon fed by propaganda and politicians. And "democracy" will certainly not prevail when the usual method of delivery is on the wings of NATO bombers. I'm sorry to say but your argument is 99.9% wishful thinking.

 

I will say this, a good sort of multiculturalism works in countries where it isn't an elaborate propaganda. The US prides itself on it, yet racial divisions are still extremely present. On the other hand you have Brazil or Cuba (but oh so undemocratic!), where whites, natives and blacks work together and the question of race is nowhere near as important as in the "progressive" US.

And let me remind you that we had a functional multicultural society in Bosnia before the current model of multiculturalism was even concieved. It went to **** only when the economy was so bad that dissolution became inevitable, but it worked for a long while.

 

So, 3 conclusions:

a) multiculturalism can work when its spontaneous, born out of necessity

b) it doesn't have to exist under a democratic rule

c) multiculturalism created by a) is true multiculturalism because the "cultures" that comprise it are really preserved

 

The logical conclusions that can be drawn from your train of thought are disturbing.

 

If you are concluding that multiculturalism is bad, then what are you proposing it be replaced with? And how do you propose enforcing the replacement policies?

 

Boo has, predictably, ignored my requests for further information on his beliefs about race and culture.

 

But to anybody else reading this who supports what are Boo's seemingly highly xenophobic views, I've got an open question: how would you police the elimination of multiculturalism whilst protecting everybody's human rights (including those of immigrants - sorry, but they're human too)?

 

Multiculturalism itself doesn't require enforcement. Multiculturalism is the acceptance of other cultures because history has shown us that trying to force people to adopt the local culture and abandon their own leads to violence, social tension, and the repeated violation of human rights. E.g. if a person cannot practice their own culture, within the laws, then is their freedom of expression not being violated? And if you're enforcing prevention of them practising their own culture, how else can you do that other than by forceful coercion - yet another human rights violation?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's have a look at Wikipedia (which you link to yourself) - immigration to Spain, and immigration to Sweden. At the bottom of both articles are 2011 data which reveals that out of the countries listed, Austria has the highest amount of immigrants (15,2%), followed by Sweden at 14,3%. Spain comes after Belgium and Germany with only 12%. But that includes numbers from within Europe, people with similar culture (Right? Which comparison do you prefer?). We can also see the number of residents born in a non- EU state - where Sweden is the highest with 9,2%, with Spain only at 8,9%, leaving Austria in between.
Irrelevant. Comparing based on percentages is misleading in this context. With a population roughly five times greater, those percentages mean that non EU-residents in Spain account for more than three times the amount of total immigrants in Sweden. Total immigrants in Spain are close to 2/3 of Sweden's total population.

 

You want to compare immigration in absolute numbers? How bizarre. Have a look at this list. So, according to you, Germany should have double the effects of immigration that you're talking about. Not to talk about Russia or the US! The issue of immigration in Spain must be tiny or irrelevant compared to what they're experiencing in the US. Maybe you should take a lesson from our American forum members about the effects of immigration? Clearly, from that list, they must have felt immigration much more than you have.

 

I think you will find that it's obvious that you will need to compare the impact of immigration to the number of people already in a society - for a small country, a smaller number of immigrants will make a larger impact. To make a thought experiment, let's assume the Community of Madrid suddenly became an independent nation. A citizen of Madrid (with the largest percentage of foreign population in today's Spain) would meet with a Spaniard (that is, Spain excluding Madrid). The Spaniard would then say that the Madrilenian had no idea of the effects of immigration, referring to the larger absolute number of immigrants in Spain (that is, Spain excluding Madrid). Don't you see the absurdity of the situation? By which I'm not referring to the notion that Madrid would break free from Spain, but the absurd argument of the Spaniard, that is, your argument.

 

Play around with the charts generator a bit, between 2000-2008 (before the economic downturn started to discourage immigration), the mean yearly population increase for Spain was around 13%. The corresponding rate for Sweden is about 4,8%. Again, with a much smaller population. The natural growth rate in the same time period is 1,18 for Spain and 0,8 for Sweden which means the increase is squarely a result of mass immigration. That's the actual impact of what we're discussing.

 

Let's see. The population of Spain in 2000 was somewhere around 40,26 million. If the mean yearly population increase of Spain is 13%, we get, for the population of Spain in 2008, the equation pop_2008 = (pop_2000)*((1,13)^ 8), where "pop_2008" is the population of Spain in 2008, and "pop_2000" is the population of Spain in 2000. This would mean that Spain whould have had a population of a whopping 107,02 million in 2008 (compared to the actual 45,56 million). Surely, that is not what you are trying to say?

 

I understand it can be too much to ask everyone for a general understanding of math, but in this discussion, it's going to be hard for you if you don't understand at least the basics.

 

Also, I would like to draw attention to the graphics showing where the immigrants come from. Spain has a VERY LARGE percentage of non- EU immigrants coming from Spanish- speaking Latin America. Hardly a "culture clash", eh?
Hang on, those aren't "real" immigrants, then? Pretty inelegant how you dismiss them. Not really surprising though, and pretty much in line with the lack of real world knowledge of immigrants and other cultures displayed in the rest of your posts.

 

I assumed that your statement about me not having any idea about serious immigration was aimed to ridicule my opinions on multiculturalism. If the massive immigration you speak of consist of ~50% (an example) people who already speak the official language, are descended from people of your country and come from former parts of your country, that's hardly relevant to a discussion about multiculturalism. I understand that the culture of Latin America is way different from that of Spain in your opinion, just as the culture of Finland is radically different from the culture of Sweden in my opinion, but those will remain opinions as long as you can't quantify "culture" in some meaningful way.

 

Maybe you have more immigrant friends than I have. But could you please post an exact number so that I know just how right you are and how wrong I am? It would seem to me as an intelligent and statistically sound way to end the debate about the immigration levels of Sweden and Spain.
Oh, no, you don't. You don't get to decide whether I deserve to be labelled a xenophobe. Your presumption that you do, by virtue of evaluating whether a certain amount of immigrant acquaintances is above an arbitrary threshold made up on the fly is sufficient proof that I'm not one is both laughable and pathetic. Funny thing is that, I, by definition, could not simultaneously be a xenophobe and have > 0 immigrant friends.

 

It was an ironic statement. You were meant to understand that your inital statement about your "immigrant friends" was "laughable and pathetic" because it adds nothing to your list of arguments. We are arguing about the immigration levels of different countries. Remember? Also, you've got serious issues if you take offence at some guy from the internet thinking of you as one kind of individual or the other.

 

You might not be aware of this, but the "Some of my best friends are [insert ethnicity here]" comment is so commonly heard from people with racist views it's become a joke.

Edited by Rostere

"Well, overkill is my middle name. And my last name. And all of my other names as well!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup. The US and Germany are actually good examples of the effects of immigration. France, too. But those don't factor into our argument, because you aren't German, French or a US citizen. Your "thought experiments" are useless in the face of actual evidence of the impact of sizable immigrant communities on the countries that harbor them. Interestingly, while you can find lots of stuff on Indians in the UK and Latinos in the US, it's a bit harder to find anything on Pakistanis in Sweden, for instance.

 

Plato failing you, bro?

 

 

Let's see. The population of Spain in 2000 was somewhere around 40,26 million. If the mean yearly population increase of Spain is 13%, we get, for the population of Spain in 2008, the equation pop_2008 = (pop_2000)*((1,13)^8), where "pop_2008" is the population of Spain in 2008, and "pop_2000" is the population of Spain in 2000. This would mean that Spain whould have had a population of a whopping 107,02 million in 2008 (compared to the actual 45,56 million). Surely, that is not what you are trying to say?

 

I understand it can be too much to ask everyone for a general understanding of math, but in this discussion, it's going to be hard for you if you don't understand at least the basics.

No, the yearly percent rate is an order of magnitude less. I added one percent symbol too many. That's because the eurostat site handles crude yearly rates and those are not percentages. If you bothered to dig up the numbers from the site and do the math, you'd see that the numbers given don't add up for Sweden either if you take it at face value (upping Sweden's pop to a hefty 13,5M), but you chose not to note that. Of course that would be a good indicator that you aren't following the comparison, don't know where the figures come from -despite having provided the source yourself- or are simply attempting to equivocate. Which one is it?

 

So I'm going to rephrase it so you don't get confused again. A mean yearly rate of 13 (per 1000), or a 14,4 percent increase for the years 2000-2008 (that's nine years' worth of increases to consider, not eight, btw. You want pop figures for Jan 1st, 2000 and 2009), versus a 4,8 (per 1000) average yearly or 4,4 percent increase in the same period, for Spain and Sweden, respectively. Discuss that instead of making a petulant rebuttal based on errata.

 

 

I assumed that your statement about me not having any idea about serious immigration was aimed to ridicule my opinions on multiculturalism. If the massive immigration you speak of consist of ~50% (an example) people who already speak the official language, are descended from people of your country and come from former parts of your country, that's hardly relevant to a discussion about multiculturalism. I understand that the culture of Latin America is way different from that of Spain in your opinion, just as the culture of Finland is radically different from the culture of Sweden in my opinion, but those will remain opinions as long as you can't quantify "culture" in some meaningful way.

They speak the official language, but are mostly not descended from people of my country. Read up a bit more on that. Latin American immigrants are overwhelmingly of amerind descent, not Spanish. This is caused by the unequal wealth distribution and pervasive racism that drives people with few resources to leave their native countries. And the "former parts of my country" remark is pretty rich, too. I recommend you read up on the conquest of those countries by Spanish expeditions, and how an empire was carved by dismantling the existing societies and replacing them with an oppressive caste system that became the seed of the eventual revolutions. In short, no, they don't feel Spanish at all.

 

But keep applying POWERFUL THINKING ™ to all these matters, in absence of actual experience dealing with people, it's all you have. Again, your insistence that I "quantify" cultural differences in a short forum post is all the indication anyone should need of actually how little you understand cultural diversity.

 

 

We are arguing about the immigration levels of different countries. Remember?
We were, until you decided to mischaracterize me as a xenophobe because you didn't appreciate my disagreeing with your naïve and arrogant dismissal of cultural distinctiveness and proposal that it should be replaced with "niceness". And I'm the one with issues? Edited by 213374U

- When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody has said immigrants don't need to obey basic traffic and safety laws.

in other words, a other cultures you're not interested, you want to see fake show, dining and entertainment with an exotic flair.

36058-131228-0cc6bdbd3af0ea716a251f1438ce9168.jpg

P.S. front left wheel displeased

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup. The US and Germany are actually good examples of the effects of immigration. France, too. But those don't factor into our argument, because you aren't German, French or a US citizen. Your "thought experiments" are useless in the face of actual evidence of the impact of sizable immigrant communities on the countries that harbor them. Interestingly, while you can find lots of stuff on Indians in the UK and Latinos in the US, it's a bit harder to find anything on Pakistanis in Sweden, for instance.

 

Plato failing you, bro?

 

Of course it's harder. First, I don't think you've searched for Swedish texts (even as I like to think of my country as English- speaking, most texts about Sweden still tend to be in Swedish). Secondly, Latinos in the US are obviously a larger community in absolute numbers. If they are x times as many as some minority group in Sweden, you will find x times as much about them on the Internet.

 

Let's make another example about how bizarre it is to compare immigration in absolute numbers and not in percentages: if we have 10 guys in country X, and 1000 guys in country Y, and 100 people from a foreign ethnic group immigrates to country X, and 101 people from the same foreign ethnic group immigrates to country Y, which country's culture will change the most?

 

By your bizarre logic, the culture of country Y would change more than the culture of country X (in spite of the original culture in country X becoming a minority!). Give me a coherent reason why impact on culture should be measured in absolute numbers.

 

No, the yearly percent rate is an order of magnitude less. I added one percent symbol too many. That's because the eurostat site handles crude yearly rates and those are not percentages. If you bothered to dig up the numbers from the site and do the math, you'd see that the numbers given don't add up for Sweden either if you take it at face value (upping Sweden's pop to a hefty 13,5M), but you chose not to note that. Of course that would be a good indicator that you aren't following the comparison, don't know where the figures come from -despite having provided the source yourself- or are simply attempting to equivocate. Which one is it?

 

Of course I didn't mention Sweden, I only had to make one example in order to show that you've messed up your concepts. It would really be akin to beating a dead horse if I had to show the same thing for Sweden when it was obvious from the first case you had no idea of what you were talking about.

 

a 14,4 percent increase for the years 2000-2008 (that's nine years' worth of increases to consider, not eight, btw. You want pop figures for Jan 1st, 2000 and 2009)

 

It's a question of definition - if you want to "population in the year 2008" to mean the population on January 1st, 2009, and so on, then we have eight years of increases, the measurements of 2001 to the ones in 2009. If you want 2000-2008 to include whatever happened during 2008 (that is, measure at different points with regards to the first and the last year), then for the sake of the argument WRITE THAT OUT EXPLICITLY. Nonetheless, this does not change anything.

 

 

They speak the official language, but are mostly not descended from people of my country. Read up a bit more on that. Latin American immigrants are overwhelmingly of amerind descent, not Spanish.

 

Will do!

 

Mexico:

"According to a paper presented by the American Society of Human Genetics Mexicans were found to be 58.96% European"

"Sonora shows the highest European contribution (70.63%) and Guerrero the lowest (51.98%)."

"Another study, one focusing on the general population in five Latin American nations — Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Mexico, and Puerto Rico, — estimated that about half (50.1%) of Mexican ancestry was of Amerindian origin; 44.3%, European; and 5.6%, African. Compared to the other Latin American countries, Mexico was found to have the smallest amount of African admixture. Mexico has the second largest amount of Amerindian ancestry, topped by Ecuador."

 

So, for Mexico, apparently having some of the largest percentage of Amerindian genes still leaves the country with about 45-70% European heritage. Hardly "overwhelmingly amerind descent", if you ask me.

Edited by Rostere

"Well, overkill is my middle name. And my last name. And all of my other names as well!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's make another example about how bizarre it is to compare immigration in absolute numbers and not in percentages: if we have 10 guys in country X, and 1000 guys in country Y, and 100 people from a foreign ethnic group immigrates to country X, and 101 people from the same foreign ethnic group immigrates to country Y, which country's culture will change the most?

 

By your bizarre logic, the culture of country Y would change more than the culture of country X (in spite of the original culture in country X becoming a minority!). Give me a coherent reason why impact on culture should be measured in absolute numbers.

Right, and your examples work because there are lots of countries with populations of 10. You give a reason why cultural impact should be evaluated from a relative standpoint as opposed to the actual size of the immigrant communities forming within a given country. Your argument would have some merit if there were countries where the native population was being turned into a minority or close to it by immigrants, but in Europe that hasn't happened for centuries.

 

In reality, strictly both approaches are likely flawed, but who cares? Discounting other factors such as geographic and chronological dispersion, population density, ethnicity compositions, etc is what makes this fun, right?

 

 

It would really be akin to beating a dead horse if I had to show the same thing for Sweden when it was obvious from the first case you had no idea of what you were talking about.

Sigh. The comparison worked just the same because the orders of magnitude considered are the same for both countries. You know that, I know that, and it's clear that the errata is the only way you'll worm your way out of the corner you got into by suggesting that immigration in Sweden is greater than in Spain - an argument that a dream team composed of Cicero, Plato and Gautama wouldn't want to touch with a 10-foot pole. But whatever, I didn't know what I was talking about etc. Address the points now and quit squirming.

 

 

Nonetheless, this does not change anything.
Uh, a population increase of ~14% in nine years that is attributable to immigration "does not change anything"? We are talking several millions, here, not tens or hundreds of thousands as in Sweden, remember.

 

Forget physics, with such hand-waving skills you should be a prestidigitator!

 

Oh, and I did specifically write increases for 2000-2008. Increase for the year 2000 takes into consideration pop figures for Jan 1st, 2000 and 2001. It's clear it's nine years' worth of increases, and I also made a reference to the economic downturn which in Europe was felt in late 2008-early 2009. Don't be afraid to count on your fingers if you have to.

 

 

Will do!

[...]

So, for Mexico, apparently having some of the largest percentage of Amerindian genes still leaves the country with about 45-70% European heritage. Hardly "overwhelmingly amerind descent", if you ask me.

Apparently "will do" doesn't mean what you think it means. Re-read the part where I specifically mention immigrants, not Latin Americans as a whole. Immigration is not homogeneous, and obviously, those less well-off are more likely to migrate. Edited by 213374U

- When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody has said immigrants don't need to obey basic traffic and safety laws.

in other words, a other cultures you're not interested, you want to see fake show, dining and entertainment with an exotic flair.

36058-131228-0cc6bdbd3af0ea716a251f1438ce9168.jpg

P.S. front left wheel displeased

 

I've said this before, but you are really bad at this. I miss LoF.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just example of cultural diversity. Immigrants in multicultural Sweden can do this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZStMWYh0VTM

P.S. Very nice songs

 

 

YES! I can totally see how appointing a minister of culture that is muslim will immediately allow to the extreme slippery slope where people can now go on Jihads and subjugate women and basically result in transplanting Syria into Norway!

 

Or, is what you did capitalize on a slippery slope?

 

Is preventing the wedding ceremony you displayed truly a representation of repressing multiculturalism? Heck, is the video you show even an accurate representation of a wedding in Chechnya?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Education solves everything, people may be right in the attitudes of Conservative Muslim Immigrants, but their children will benefit for the education and not display some of the ignorance their third world counterparts did.

  • Like 2

Ka-ka-ka-ka-Cocaine!


Z9SVsCY.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hurlshot

 

OK, If you have nothing to say

 

alanschu

 

You got me totally misunderstood. This video is just an example of cultures with whom your multiculturalism will never work. Or perhaps you would like to "civilize" these brave and warlike people to become respectable (helpless) townsfolk? Why this type of culture preserved in Russia (evil and xenophobic), and were completely destroyed in the multicultural United States and Canada?

 

 

ME_499_Civil1-640x199.png

 

NKKKK

 

... and their children will lose their culture to the glory of multiculturalism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
... and their children will lose their culture to the glory of multiculturalism.

 

In my view, that's a good thing. That's the point they'll see that a lot of the world doesn't want to be under Shaira Law.

Ka-ka-ka-ka-Cocaine!


Z9SVsCY.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Education solves everything, people may be right in the attitudes of Conservative Muslim Immigrants, but their children will benefit for the education and not display some of the ignorance their third world counterparts did.

 

Well said. That's really the reason I have so much trouble understanding this whole thing. I teach Muslim students every day. They are proud of their culture, but they are also just typical kids.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This video is just an example of cultures with whom your multiculturalism will never work.

 

Well, they have their own little section of land. I have no beef with the Chechnyans if that's how they decide wedding should be celebrated. I'm curious how that is looked upon by other Chechens to be perfectly honest.

 

Or perhaps you would like to "civilize" these brave and warlike people to become respectable (helpless) townsfolk?

 

I'm mostly indifferent. I have no desire to impose my way of behaving on a different group of people. Your parenthetical remark does say a lot about you, however.

 

 

Why this type of culture preserved in Russia (evil and xenophobic), and were completely destroyed in the multicultural United States and Canada?

 

Great question... why was it? Perhaps your issue doesn't really have much to do with multiculturalism in general, since by your own admission it was able to persist in a place that was decidedly NOT multicultural. How can such behaviour be allowed to persist in a place that doesn't allow it? You've undermined your own argument. Or are the Chechen's more militant because they feel they lack a certain degree of self-determination?

 

 

It's funny that you mention that they cultures are "completely destroyed." Perhaps the cultures feel such displays are no longer necessary? It's not rocket science to recognize that cultures are not static and are constantly evolving and changing, sometimes due to internal pressures and other times due to external ones.

 

Having said that, perhaps the next step of societal evolution frankly IS the dissolution of culture? Who knows if we'll ever get there (probably not), but if human beings were to identify more with being "human beings" instead of a particular nationality, I wonder what sort of changes in the types of conflicts would exist between people.

Edited by alanschu
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Why this type of culture preserved in Russia (evil and xenophobic), and were completely destroyed in the multicultural United States and Canada?

 

Great question... why was it? Perhaps your issue doesn't really have much to do with multiculturalism in general, since by your own admission it was able to persist in a place that was decidedly NOT multicultural. How can such behaviour be allowed to persist in a place that doesn't allow it? You've undermined your own argument. Or are the Chechen's more militant because they feel they lack a certain degree of self-determination?

 

 

It's funny that you mention that they cultures are "completely destroyed." Perhaps the cultures feel such displays are no longer necessary? It's not rocket science to recognize that cultures are not static and are constantly evolving and changing, sometimes due to internal pressures and other times due to external ones.

 

Having said that, perhaps the next step of societal evolution frankly IS the dissolution of culture? Who knows if we'll ever get there (probably not), but if human beings were to identify more with being "human beings" instead of a particular nationality, I wonder what sort of changes in the types of conflicts would exist between people.

 

 

Now they named genocide as social evolution.

http://youtu.be/4IlSQJbEoXY

 

http://www.jstor.org...=21101121167203

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I read that article in college when I took my American Indian Studies class! I believe I have it lying around my classroom somewhere, it is a good one. The main premise is that Native Americans are in a legal battle to protect their lands from environmental hazards. Many different tribes have united to do so. The article is actually a positive one about how this has allowed all the tribes to be more effective as a political force.

 

 

Also, your 20 year-old video is sad, but really moving to a big city looking for jobs can be difficult for anyone, regardless of culture.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I read that article in college when I took my American Indian Studies class! I believe I have it lying around my classroom somewhere, it is a good one. The main premise is that Native Americans are in a legal battle to protect their lands from environmental hazards. Many different tribes have united to do so. The article is actually a positive one about how this has allowed all the tribes to be more effective as a political force.

 

 

Also, your 20 year-old video is sad, but really moving to a big city looking for jobs can be difficult for anyone, regardless of culture.

 

just for comparison.

http://www.themoscow...cle/468391.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I read that article in college when I took my American Indian Studies class! I believe I have it lying around my classroom somewhere, it is a good one. The main premise is that Native Americans are in a legal battle to protect their lands from environmental hazards. Many different tribes have united to do so. The article is actually a positive one about how this has allowed all the tribes to be more effective as a political force.

 

 

Also, your 20 year-old video is sad, but really moving to a big city looking for jobs can be difficult for anyone, regardless of culture.

 

just for comparison.

http://www.themoscow...cle/468391.html

 

That's a great story! It's refreshing to see you post a scenario where multiculturalism existed and flourished.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I read that article in college when I took my American Indian Studies class! I believe I have it lying around my classroom somewhere, it is a good one. The main premise is that Native Americans are in a legal battle to protect their lands from environmental hazards. Many different tribes have united to do so. The article is actually a positive one about how this has allowed all the tribes to be more effective as a political force.

 

 

Also, your 20 year-old video is sad, but really moving to a big city looking for jobs can be difficult for anyone, regardless of culture.

 

just for comparison.

http://www.themoscow...cle/468391.html

 

That's a great story! It's refreshing to see you post a scenario where multiculturalism existed and flourished.

 

This is not multiculturalism. It's indifference. We just trade with them without influence to each other. For example Russians conquer Tartars 460 years ago. Russian and Tartars cultures not influence each to other, it' two parallel worlds without intersections. We have relations, but they have economical, political or military nature.

 

Multiculturalism totally different from this. Multiculturalism it's just soft assimilation by North-American Neo-liberal culture with destruction any other cultures.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...