The Refugee crisis

**Frownland** · 11-10-2015, 10:05 AM

One of those Sunni majority countries like Syria?

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 11-10-2015, 10:12 AM

nice strawman

**Frownland** · 11-10-2015, 10:19 AM

Thanks. Seriously though, beyond maybe language, is assimilation really that important?

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 11-10-2015, 10:20 AM

yes... i would say culture matters, and multiculturalism in europe is causing a good deal of cultural and ethnic tension, which in turn is fueling the reemergence of nationalist and right wing sentiments.

**Frownland** · 11-10-2015, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

yes... i would say culture matters, and multiculturalism in europe is causing a good deal of cultural and ethnic tension, which in turn is fueling the reemergence of nationalist and right wing sentiments.

Fair enough. I disagree that people being close minded about other cultures (this applies to both sides) is justification enough for immigrants to make flagrant lifestyle changes. Might as well support segregation because integration causes too much tension if that's the way you look at it.

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 11-10-2015, 11:01 AM

i think that putting the onus on the inhabitants of a country to change their mentality rather than putting the onus on the new immigrants to adapt to the culture of the host country is a rather strange policy, tbh.

it has always sort of been assumed that assimilation is an important component of multiculturalism. people by their very nature have tribal instincts, and culture will continue to matter whether we like it or not.

interestingly enough, the only ideology i've ever heard of which actually tried to eliminate any nationalist sentiments whatsoever is communism. and in all the cases i've looked into where people have attempted to implement communism, it has resulted in extreme forms of nationalism which come closer to resembling fascism. this was true in the soviet union, and it's certainly true in china and north korea today.

at the end of the day, though, the real point to me is that i don't support isolationism but i do think immigration policies should be based solely on the benefit of the host country and not on humanitarian concerns. simply because the prospect of taking in every lost soul the 3rd world has to offer is a hopeless cause; the only way to really attempt to tackle 3rd world suffering has to come from changing the situation in those countries, not importing their victims to richer countries.

**Goofle** · 11-10-2015, 11:10 AM

JWB 4 Prez

**Frownland** · 11-10-2015, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

i think that putting the onus on the inhabitants of a country to change their mentality rather than putting the onus on the new immigrants to adapt to the culture of the host country is a rather strange policy, tbh.

It's a strange policy to not want people to be close-minded to other cultures/xenophobic? It's obviously a two way street: immigrants should assimilate to the point that they follow the law and can communicate while the current inhabitants be understanding that people from different countries have a tendency to practice different lifestyles from their own.

My integration analogy still stands.

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 11-10-2015, 11:28 AM

@ goofle not sure if that's sarcasm but i'll take the endorsement either way

another somewhat interesting thing to me is that it's often pointed out by conservatives that it seems to only be western countries which are expected to put aside nationalist sentiments and embrace multiculturalism. with perhaps a few exceptions such as hong kong, israel, etc.. which interestingly enough got that way due to the legacy of western colonialism. but look at a country like japan.... which is relatively rich, modern, and democratic. yet extremely and openly nationalist and xenophobic, and yet catches very little flack from the international community for being so.

when you point this out to many liberals they will say things like the west got so rich through a legacy of colonialism so they sort of owe it to the rest of the world. or you hear things like american and european interventions in the middle east led to the current situation, so we owe it for example to the syrian people to take on this burden because our foreign policy contributed to their suffering.

yet i return to the question of why not saudi arabia? why not qatar? for the shia refugees... why not iran? these countries have openly waged proxy wars throughout the islamic world, including in iraq and syria. they are just as responsible as the west, if not more so. and once again, they share many cultural and religious similarities with the people in question. but nobody seems to expect the saudis to open their borders to these people. perhaps it is because us westerners are more forward thinking than the saudis. or perhaps it is because the saudis have more direct experience dealing with the ethnic tensions in the middle east and they know better than we do the hazards involved.

iraq is a perfect example of a "country" that isn't really a country because it comprises of at least 3 ethnic sects which don't particularly like each other. and so when we eliminated the current authoritarian dictatorship that was holding that country together through sheer fear and intimidation, we predictably get the current situation with ISIS, the kurds, and the shia led govt in the south, all 3 of which are mutually hostile to one another. this alone should be proof enough of the importance of cultural solidarity.

**Goofle** · 11-10-2015, 11:30 AM

Not sarcasm at all. I'm pretty much 100% on board with what you're saying.

11-10-2015, 10:05 AM	#31 (permalink)
Frownland SOPHIE FOREVER Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: East of the Southern North American West Posts: 35,541	One of those Sunni majority countries like Syria? __________________ Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth. d e a f b o x

11-10-2015, 10:19 AM	#33 (permalink)
Frownland SOPHIE FOREVER Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: East of the Southern North American West Posts: 35,541	Thanks. Seriously though, beyond maybe language, is assimilation really that important? __________________ Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth. d e a f b o x

11-10-2015, 10:12 AM	#32 (permalink)
~~John Wilkes Booth~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 2,235	nice strawman

11-10-2015, 10:20 AM	#34 (permalink)
~~John Wilkes Booth~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 2,235	yes... i would say culture matters, and multiculturalism in europe is causing a good deal of cultural and ethnic tension, which in turn is fueling the reemergence of nationalist and right wing sentiments.

11-10-2015, 11:01 AM	#36 (permalink)
~~John Wilkes Booth~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 2,235	i think that putting the onus on the inhabitants of a country to change their mentality rather than putting the onus on the new immigrants to adapt to the culture of the host country is a rather strange policy, tbh. it has always sort of been assumed that assimilation is an important component of multiculturalism. people by their very nature have tribal instincts, and culture will continue to matter whether we like it or not. interestingly enough, the only ideology i've ever heard of which actually tried to eliminate any nationalist sentiments whatsoever is communism. and in all the cases i've looked into where people have attempted to implement communism, it has resulted in extreme forms of nationalism which come closer to resembling fascism. this was true in the soviet union, and it's certainly true in china and north korea today. at the end of the day, though, the real point to me is that i don't support isolationism but i do think immigration policies should be based solely on the benefit of the host country and not on humanitarian concerns. simply because the prospect of taking in every lost soul the 3rd world has to offer is a hopeless cause; the only way to really attempt to tackle 3rd world suffering has to come from changing the situation in those countries, not importing their victims to richer countries.

11-10-2015, 11:28 AM	#39 (permalink)
~~John Wilkes Booth~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 2,235	@ goofle not sure if that's sarcasm but i'll take the endorsement either way another somewhat interesting thing to me is that it's often pointed out by conservatives that it seems to only be western countries which are expected to put aside nationalist sentiments and embrace multiculturalism. with perhaps a few exceptions such as hong kong, israel, etc.. which interestingly enough got that way due to the legacy of western colonialism. but look at a country like japan.... which is relatively rich, modern, and democratic. yet extremely and openly nationalist and xenophobic, and yet catches very little flack from the international community for being so. when you point this out to many liberals they will say things like the west got so rich through a legacy of colonialism so they sort of owe it to the rest of the world. or you hear things like american and european interventions in the middle east led to the current situation, so we owe it for example to the syrian people to take on this burden because our foreign policy contributed to their suffering. yet i return to the question of why not saudi arabia? why not qatar? for the shia refugees... why not iran? these countries have openly waged proxy wars throughout the islamic world, including in iraq and syria. they are just as responsible as the west, if not more so. and once again, they share many cultural and religious similarities with the people in question. but nobody seems to expect the saudis to open their borders to these people. perhaps it is because us westerners are more forward thinking than the saudis. or perhaps it is because the saudis have more direct experience dealing with the ethnic tensions in the middle east and they know better than we do the hazards involved. iraq is a perfect example of a "country" that isn't really a country because it comprises of at least 3 ethnic sects which don't particularly like each other. and so when we eliminated the current authoritarian dictatorship that was holding that country together through sheer fear and intimidation, we predictably get the current situation with ISIS, the kurds, and the shia led govt in the south, all 3 of which are mutually hostile to one another. this alone should be proof enough of the importance of cultural solidarity.