UK Muslims targeted for speaking out about terror

[NOK222]

Yeah like you said, innovation is hardly unique in God's country.

 

Now, this isn't directly at you, but what people mean when they say "in-tur-grat in our culture" is usually coming from an Anglo-Saxon materialistic view point. Good on the the immigrants for not wanting to emulate that. 

[Oerwinde]

When I say integrate, I mean have an understanding and acceptance of local values as well as a good enough grasp of the predominant language that they can be understood when speaking it and understand when being spoken to. By acceptanceof local values I mean for example, while an immigrant doesn't have to celebrate christmas, they can't complain that the locals celebrating christmas while they're around Is some sort of insult to them.

[NOK222]

 

 

local values

 

You mean things like honesty, hard work and all that jazz? Once again, you're assuming immigrants don't have that. 

[Malcador]

Funny to recall this topic as I walked by some street signs written in Chinese here.

[BruceVC]

Funny to recall this topic as I walked by some street signs written in Chinese here.

Malc I read on the Internet that there are restaurants in Canada that you are allowed to take the family moose to? That must be convenient

[Walsingham]

1) What is the future of the nationstate for a nation that has previously been culturally homogenic? With no common ideals, traditions, laws or language that binds it together, what's left?

2) Why should a country become multucultural as a moral good? Why shouldn't it be seen as natural occurance of people moving and conducting commerce with each other without the need of it being a political agenda?

3) Should only first world countries become multicultural? Or is every country obliged to do so in the long run?

4) What will happen when there is no countries left with any distinct culture? What would be great about Japan being just an island, but with no distinctly japanese about it?  

 

1) Well, you ARE going to have common laws provided you have a unitary legislature and judiciary. Given this wouldn't the dialogue informing the democratic process shape a national consensus?*

2) I agree that a strategic objective of multi-culturalism as policy is creepy and weird.

3) I know I'm practically quoting the BNP here, but I agree that Western liberals do their damndest to 'preserve' culture in the rainforest, but not in Tooting Beck. I query preserve, because they seem to want to freeze it as a work of art, without concern for the people who adhere to it.

4) There will ALWAYS be Yorkshire.

 

 

 

*I worked this out as I was writing.

[Oerwinde]

 

 

local values

You mean things like honesty, hard work and all that jazz? Once again, you're assuming immigrants don't have that.

I mean more like don't murder your daughter because she's dating a mexican.(this happened in Vancouver, dude didn't even think he did anything wrong) Edited October 22, 2013 by Oerwinde

[NOK222]

 

 

local values

You mean things like honesty, hard work and all that jazz? Once again, you're assuming immigrants don't have that.

I mean more like don't murder your daughter because she's dating a mexican.(this happened in Vancouver, dude didn't even think he did anything wrong)

 

Um, so you're saying a psychopath killing someone is someone who failed to integrate to their culture? 

[Lexx]

If the killing is part of their "honor-system", then probably, yeah. Happened a few times in Germany as well. Turkish father / brother killing the daughter / sister because she had sex or is dating someone they don't like, etc.

[NOK222]

Well, charge them with murder, make an example out of them. 

[Nonek]

Unfortunately there have been many instances of this supposed "honour" killing (I see nothing honourable in multiple assailants butchering women) in England, this needs to be stamped out with far harder sentencing, and acknowledged as both evil and wrong.

[Walsingham]

While I'm not against more severe sentencing, I do have to ask if that's necessarily the best way to tackle it. As a cultural value system wouldn't it make more sense for academics, church leaders, ordinary folk to try and engage and neutralise the logic?

 

As one of my least favourite people once said: you can't arrest an idea.

[Rostere]

I think that i have asked this before, but i will ask again: 

 

1) What is the future of the nationstate for a nation that has previously been culturally homogenic? With no common ideals, traditions, laws or language that binds it together, what's left?

2) Why should a country become multucultural as a moral good? Why shouldn't it be seen as natural occurance of people moving and conducting commerce with each other without the need of it being a political agenda?

3) Should only first world countries become multicultural? Or is every country obliged to do so in the long run?

4) What will happen when there is no countries left with any distinct culture? What would be great about Japan being just an island, but with no distinctly japanese about it?  

 

Culture is constantly changing. I'd say that every culture on Earth is a product of previous cultures mixing. Of course a nation will have common laws (obviously), language if that is necessary. Ideals and traditions will be different, but I'd say that a place where different traditions and ideals can meet and interact is a great place for thinkers and philosophers, indeed a great place for any individual to reflect on values and morals.

 

With regards to 2 - in an increasingly connected world, people move around more often. The best place in such a world is the place with the highest tolerance for any foreign culture. It's a question about if you want to be ahead of the pack, or if you want your country to be the isolated xenophobic **** of the world. Essentially it's kind of like the old struggle of mercantilism/protectionism vs. free trade, but with cultural ideas.

 

Every country WILL eventually become more tolerant of foreign cultures in the long run. At least every successful country. In 200 years from now, the world probably won't consist of small communities unwilling or incapable to interact with each other over small cultural differences. More likely a person would be able to travel, live and do business anywhere without feeling racism or prejudice.

 

You make it sound like countries will end up with no culture at all. Point four is really a misunderstanding. In world shaped by multiculturalism, the "great stuff" in Japanese culture will be accessible anywhere and not be uniquely "Japanese" or confined to the Japanese islands in any way at all. Indeed, the interesting things in Japanese culture will have intermingled and been reinterpreted by other cultures in ways we couldn't even have imagined today. In a multicultural world, instead of cinemas everywhere playing the same locally produced movies over and over again (France anyone? lol), they would have a broad repertoire with productions from all over the world, something new every screening.

 

None of the great stuff about any culture will disappear. Instead, the awful stuff which came along with that same culture will disappear, being replaced/influenced by elements from another culture. It's kind of like capitalism or evolution, but with art/ideas. Cultures mix, nobody buys the bad mixes, everybody buys the good mixes.

 

All this stuff about the horrors of multiculturalism is also a spit in the face to the Americans of this forum. They live in a country which essentially is the largest and longest "experiment" in multiculturalism in history - the mix of European cultures which some hundred years back would have been thought completely, fundamentally incompatible. In the 19th century, the immigration of Catholics was a great issue and people talked about how the lazy, inferior and immoral Catholics would be unable to integrate into American society. Today it's the same thing all over with Muslims. I think that the American multiculturalist experiment has been a resounding success and that we should learn from that.

 

Multiculturalism is nice, as long as it doesn't involve incompatible cultures still stuck in the Middle-Ages.

 

Yes, that is essentially the problem: when you in the name of multiculturalism import people (although technically, they import themselves) who don't like or understand the ideals of multiculturalism themselves. Immigrants should face an ultimatum on arrival: this is our society, accept and tolerate it or we'll send you right back to where you came from with no further procedure.

 

A funny and ironic example of this is from a friend of mine: many years ago in his primary school, they held a "school election" - common in Swedish schools, a mock election where the results are published so the students can see which party would be in power if they were the voters. Anyway, "Sverigedemokraterna" - Swedish Democrats, the Swedish nationalist party, won only two votes. Later he found out, interestingly, that those votes had come from two immigrants - one Somalian and one Eritrean. They both wanted desperately that SD would kick out the other ethnic group, and were completely convinced that their own ethnic group were paragons of society whom SD surely wanted in Sweden.

[Meshugger]

Finally someone understood to debate the idea multiculturalism in itself. I was almost giving up hope. (Rostere that is)

 

So the limit is set to common social ground for a nation is that everyone is equal to the law, which in turn is based on the moral and ethic conduct of the citizens. I do not think that our ideas on a multicultural society is that much different except i wouldn't call it multicultural, but rather one dominating culture with minority groups here and there. I think the only dividing point is that you seem to see it as enforceable ideal, where i see it as a byproduct of people meeting on their own terms without any outside force demanding it. I do not get why you got the idea of xenophobic isolation, when the point was more like you cannot make two adults have hugs and kisses just because the government thinks it is a swell idea and makes the lawmakers warm and fuzzy inside.

 

What i am definately sceptical about is how multiculture is a self-correcting system. If that were the case, then was the Roman empire better of collapsing and was the introduction of the dark ages a multicultural highmark or a fluke in the grander scheme of things?

 

Also, the United States is not as multicultural as you think. There is still a common creed, the american way, the american exceptionalism and the american dream. English is the spoken word in and the laws are written in english. People come from all over the world to become americans and to achieve the ideal of the nation. Sure they will add some extra holidays or have pop-song hit in another language, but in the cultural context that i just explained, they are leaving Korea and Somalia behind them (most of them anyway). So i do not see the "insult" here really. Europe however, does not have any nations built on ideals, which leaves it quite difficult for a nation to suddenly become multicultural over night. The swiss have managed it quite well though, but we have to remember that it was founded by the four groups of people (germans, french, italians and retoromans) to counter outside forces. It didn't go from completely italian to what it is today.

 

I am not entirely sure what you mean about Japan though. Japanese culture is already accessible all over the place. What changes would your scenario be?

[Tsuga C]

Also, the United States is not as multicultural as you think. There is still a common creed, the american way, the american exceptionalism and the american dream. English is the spoken word in and the laws are written in english. People come from all over the world to become americans and to achieve the ideal of the nation.

The hispanics, Mexicans in particular, are deviating from this markedly and many of them foam at the mouth when one tries to assert that English is the proper language of the USA. As such, they are cause for great concern. I'm quite ready to "lock 'n' load" when it comes to their pestiferous ilk. The Muslim arabs in Dearborn, Michigan aren't any better, either.

Edited October 22, 2013 by Tsuga C

[NOK222]

English isn't the U.S.'s official language. 

[Tsuga C]

English isn't the U.S.'s official language.

But it damn well should be and the Founders must be rolling over in their graves at the poisonous influence of these foreigners grows. Hell, old Ben Franklin stomped on the Germans quite hard to ensure that they spoke English, the proper language of our founding people.

[ManifestedISO]

Oh, for the love of revisionist history, not the exalted Founders card. One official language would be the opposite of freedom and justice for all. 

[Tsuga C]

Oh, for the love of revisionist history, not the exalted Founders card. One official language would be the opposite of freedom and justice for all.

Nothing revisionist about my post. And one language is only appropriate to help prevent the Balkanization of the USA. Then again, you're from the People's Republic of Flake-i-fornia, so I suppose your attitude is to be expected as it's been spinning out of control for decades.

[Wrath of Dagon]

You have to know English to become a citizen, but the ballots are printed in a 100 different languages. Go figure.

[kgambit]

You have to know English to become a citizen

 

No, not in all cases.  There are exceptions. 

 

 

You Are Exempt From The English Language Requirement, But Are Still Required To Take The Civics Test If You Are:

• Age 50 or older at the time of filing for naturalization and have lived as a permanent resident (green card holder) in the United States for 20 years   (commonly referred to as the “50/20” exception).

  OR

• Age 55 or older at the time of filing for naturalization and have lived as a permanent resident in the United States for 15 years (commonly referred to as the “55/15” exception).

You may be permitted to take the civics test in your native language, but only if your understanding of spoken English is insufficient to conduct a valid examination in English.

 

Edited October 23, 2013 by kgambit

[Oerwinde]

Americans who complain about the filthy hispanics make me laugh. Spain at one point controlled most of the southern US, of course Spanish is going to be a major US language. Its like Canadians who complain about the french.

Edited October 23, 2013 by Oerwinde

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

You have to know English to become a citizen

 

No, not in all cases.  There are exceptions. 

 

You Are Exempt From The English Language Requirement, But Are Still Required To Take The Civics Test If You Are:

• Age 50 or older at the time of filing for naturalization and have lived as a permanent resident (green card holder) in the United States for 20 years   (commonly referred to as the “50/20” exception).

  OR

• Age 55 or older at the time of filing for naturalization and have lived as a permanent resident in the United States for 15 years (commonly referred to as the “55/15” exception).

You may be permitted to take the civics test in your native language, but only if your understanding of spoken English is insufficient to conduct a valid examination in English.

 

 

Even so, there's no reason to encourage those who won't bother to learn English.

[ManifestedISO]

 

Oh, for the love of revisionist history, not the exalted Founders card. One official language would be the opposite of freedom and justice for all.

Nothing revisionist about my post. And one language is only appropriate to help prevent the Balkanization of the USA. Then again, you're from the People's Republic of Flake-i-fornia, so I suppose your attitude is to be expected as it's been spinning out of control for decades.

 

 

You don't know where I am from, any more than your stewardship of personal ideals represent facts. 

[NOK222]

I wanna believe Tsuga is being extra Jingoist to get a rise.