The Refugee crisis

**Frownland** · 11-10-2015, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

Well if your point amounted to anything but, "I don't like nationalism, so I'm just gonna cross my arms and hold my breath until everyone starts playing nice," then maybe reiterating it would be worthwhile. You're in college. Your pamphlets must have had more to say than that.

And that laws representing our values are a form of assimilating immigrants in itself.

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 11-10-2015, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

^There already is something that coerces people into adopting, or at least adhering to, vital beliefs of a culture. It's called legislation.

no... legislation moderates behavior... not belief/ideology.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

It's possible to have a conversation with JWB without reiterating your point ad nauseum? This is news to me.

yes, it is possible. it just requires you being open to discussion rather than focusing on defending your point. you approach discussions with me the same way nationalist lower class europeans approach arriving immigrants.

**Goofle** · 11-10-2015, 01:39 PM

I think a large part of the problem/backlash in regards to this specific immigration issue is less about "culture" (in a broad sense), and more specifically about the religious ideals that many of the immigrants share.

Islam in it's most literal form doesn't sit well with commonly held western values and culture so I'm guessing a large number of those protesting are essentially fearful of what could happen as a result of it. I'm not stupid enough to think that a few thousand immigrants will turn these countries into Islamist states, just explaining why there may be more to the reaction than fear of another nationality of people.

Unknown Soldier · 11-10-2015, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

also... with regard to the previous argument over whether culture matters.. i would really think that one over again if i was you.

I have and I live in one of the biggest and most multicultural cities in the world and ever since I've been a kid it's always been the same, and I see no reason to change it and its nice to watch things evolve.

Quote:

keep in mind that modern multiculturalism is largely a social experiment. this isn't the ordinary way in which societies have functioned throughout history. people in a community sharing a common cultural identity has always been a vital part of any truly functional society. this isn't to say you can't have sub-cultures within the larger shared culture. however, for this to work, all of these sub-cultures have to at least be compatible with the larger shared culture.

This sounds like you're working with a small town mentality here. To be honest society has often worked this way historically, regardless of whether the newbies originally came in peace or as conquerors and it usually ends up with the newbies eventually being absorbed into the greater culture of the original one.

Quote:

to import people from foreign cultures and say the only thing that matters is a shared language and respect for the law is making a pretty drastic assumption about the importance (or lack thereof) of culture in a functional society. and to my knowledge, there aren't many historical precedents you can draw upon to suggest that this radical version of multiculturalism is plausible.

Just the type of rhetoric that a nationalist would come out with.

Quote:

i would say that western countries need to lay out the most vital beliefs and principles that are at the core of their way of life - things like pluralism, secularism, democracy, free speech, feminism, etc. if the sub-cultures that are imported are compatible with these ideals, then perhaps multiculturalism can work. if not, then you have a basic recipe for conflict and tension. to expect anything else while importing these kinds of cultures defies all common sense to me.

They already do in the legislature, but if the country is a democracy it has to allow the newcomers a certain amount of cultural liberty, because if not the country is not operating as its own legislation suggests it should do.

Quote:

so... for example... a lot of muslim immigrants in europe hold ideologies with little to no respect for these central ideals or the western way of life. if you import enough of these people(the conservative muslims, i'm not speaking about all muslims), then they will gather into clusters and develop their own communities which exist within the host country but make little to no effort to interact with said country to any extent beyond what is pragmatically necessary for them to exist. when you have this sort of thing, you once again have a basic recipe for tension and conflict. instead of compatible sub-cultures within a larger shared culture you have competing cultures. you have an in group/out group situation within a single society. these in group/out group tendencies are what is at the root of nationalism. it isn't some social construct... it is something ubiquitous to all human societies. there's a good reason for that. so you really need to consider that when constructing a multicultural society.

Have you ever been to Europe, out of America or even out of your state? because based on what your saying, it looks like you've just watched a few news reports and read a few newspapers concerning the life and times of immigrants in Europe.

Quote:

imagine the shoe was on the other foot and you imported massive amounts of westerners with no respect for islamic or arab culture to saudi arabia. when the current inhabitants of saudi arabia then predictably became hostile to the new arrivals, would you similarly say too bad and its their fault for being so xenophobic? or maybe question whether the westerners should've been imported into that society in the first place?

Firstly, who the **** wants to go and live in a desert and secondly loads of westerners do because they're paid well to go and work there. The non-democratic laws as you well know restrict them their freedom so they have no real desire to stay there longer than they have to.

You can't use your above argument about importing massive amounts of westerners eastwards as it's not really plausible and there is no real historical evidence either for this type of experiment. The nearest you can use for this type of experiment would be the Ottoman Empire and how it treated non-muslims within its western borders.

**Frownland** · 11-10-2015, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

no... legislation moderates behavior... not belief/ideology.

Legislation moderates behaviour, that's very good of you to notice. However, the laws still reflect the value of the country that they are enforced in. You can have a belief that, say, throwing kids off of the bridge is your best and most effective way to worship god. You're still allowed to believe that and it can be the very definition of your existence, but if you throw a kid off of a bridge then you will be tried by the law, which reflects the ideology that throwing kids off of bridges is unacceptable in any circumstance. So you're right, Mr. Literal. Unfortunately you missed or ignored my real point.

Having to spell things like this out for you was the main inspiration for my reiteration comment.

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 11-10-2015, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goofle

I think a large part of the problem/backlash in regards to this specific immigration issue is less about "culture" (in a broad sense), and more specifically about the religious ideals that many of the immigrants share.

Islam in it's most literal form doesn't sit well with commonly held western values and culture so I'm guessing a large number of those protesting are essentially fearful of what could happen as a result of it. I'm not stupid enough to think that a few thousand immigrants will turn these countries into Islamist states, just explaining why there may be more to the reaction than fear of another nationality of people.

well when i say culture i include religion as an aspect of that.

but i do think immigration can lead to problems without the religious concern. the problems arise when you get competing cultures within a single society rather than compatible sub-cultures of a larger shared culture.

this form of multiculturalism is really based on the american social experiment and the idea has always been one of a "melting pot."

like george friedman from the strafor poltiical think tank made the point about the difference between mexican immigration into the southwest united states and say italian immigration to america 100 years ago. the key difference is that the southwest states represent a 'borderland' which is an area which has cultural ties to both mexico and the united states... and have at one time been part of mexico and are now a part of the united states. so this presents a unique dynamic with regard to assimilation vs the assimilation of italian immigrants within a few generations. the italians left their homeland behind so assimilation was vital. they still maintained some aspects of their culture. you can see it to this day in parts of jersey/ny etc. but the american italian culture is an american culture... it is not the same as the culture that exists in italy today.

with mexico... it's a lot more blurry. because a lot of these areas have close cultural ties to mexico and large mexican populations. so continuing to import mexicans on a mass scale to these areas won't lead to them assimilating in a few generations, the way the european immigrants did. it will just make the areas you import them to a lot more mexican.

Unknown Soldier · 11-10-2015, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

well when i say culture i include religion as an aspect of that.

but i do think immigration can lead to problems without the religious concern. the problems arise when you get competing cultures within a single society rather than compatible sub-cultures of a larger shared culture.

What are you on about! You make this sound like a planet of the apes scenario. The only competing cultures are usually the cultures at the bottom of line, coming into conflict with the new wave of immigrants moving into their neighbourhood and nicking their jobs.

Quote:

this form of multiculturalism is really based on the american social experiment and the idea has always been one of a "melting pot."

Maybe they should make the pot of sterner material then.

Quote:

like george friedman from the strafor poltiical think tank made the point about the difference between mexican immigration into the southwest united states and say italian immigration to america 100 years ago. the key difference is that the southwest states represent a 'borderland' which is an area which has cultural ties to both mexico and the united states... and have at one time been part of mexico and are now a part of the united states. so this presents a unique dynamic with regard to assimilation vs the assimilation of italian immigrants within a few generations. the italians left their homeland behind so assimilation was vital. they still maintained some aspects of their culture. you can see it to this day in parts of jersey/ny etc. but the american italian culture is an american culture... it is not the same as the culture that exists in italy today.

The first sensible post you've made in this thread.

Quote:

with mexico... it's a lot more blurry. because a lot of these areas have close cultural ties to mexico and large mexican populations. so continuing to import mexicans on a mass scale to these areas won't lead to them assimilating in a few generations, the way the european immigrants did. it will just make the areas you import them to a lot more mexican.

I can tell you that a lot of the so called Mexicans that cross into the USA are not actually Mexicans, but Latins from other countries that pass through Mexico in waves to try and get into the USA, Those that don't end up staying in Mexico and those that do just try and assimilate wherever they can.

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 11-10-2015, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

I have and I live in one of the biggest and most multicultural cities in the world and ever since I've been a kid it's always been the same, and I see no reason to change it and its nice to watch things evolve.

which city is that?

Quote:

This sounds like you're working with a small town mentality here. To be honest society has often worked this way historically, regardless of whether the newbies originally came in peace or as conquerors and it usually ends up with the newbies eventually being absorbed into the greater culture of the original one.

no.. i'm from south florida. i grew up in a multicultural society. one where haitians, jamacans, cubans, puerto ricans, mexican, guatemalans, black americans, white americans all existed in close proximity. the result? you get neighborhoods which are haitian, neighborhoods which are mexican, neighborhoods which are black, etc.

keep in mind all of these people come from relatively similar cultures in comparison to europe vs asia or north africa... and even so there is ethnic tension. guatemalans were often targeted by black gangsters for robberies and were generally looked down upon. black american gangs and haitian gangs would shoot eachother up despite both being black. mexicans and puerto ricans and cubans etc similarly didn't always get along with eachother.

yet i'd say it's just about workable... the situation they have down there, if they do some reforms on poverty and education etc. this is without dealing with people who come from a completely alien cultures such as the islamic world.

Quote:

Just the type of rhetoric that a nationalist would come out with.

worthless dismissal with no substance. provide some historical precedents, then.

Quote:

They already do in the legislature, but if the country is a democracy it has to allow the newcomers a certain amount of cultural liberty, because if not the country is not operating as its own legislation suggests it should do.

yea... but if the culture in question is incompatible with that of the host country then they shouldn't be importing that culture in the first place.

Quote:

Have you ever been to Europe, out of America or even out of your state? because based on what your saying, it looks like you've just watched a few news reports and read a few newspapers concerning the life and times of immigrants in Europe.

no, i haven't been to europe. i've been up and down the east coast of the united stated. i've talked to quite a few people from your country who share this point of view, and i try to keep up on international affairs. i assume you similarly have opinions about american politics.

Quote:

Firstly, who the **** wants to go and live in a desert and secondly loads of westerners do because they're paid well to go and work there. The non-democratic laws as you well know restrict them their freedom so they have no real desire to stay there longer than they have to.

You can't use your above argument about importing massive amounts of westerners eastwards as it's not really plausible and there is no real historical evidence either for this type of experiment. The nearest you can use for this type of experiment would be the Ottoman Empire and how it treated non-muslims within its western borders.

it's a hypothetical situation... basically an analogy. failing to entertain the hypothetical is a sign of a lack of intelligence.

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 11-10-2015, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

Legislation moderates behaviour, that's very good of you to notice. However, the laws still reflect the value of the country that they are enforced in. You can have a belief that, say, throwing kids off of the bridge is your best and most effective way to worship god. You're still allowed to believe that and it can be the very definition of your existence, but if you throw a kid off of a bridge then you will be tried by the law, which reflects the ideology that throwing kids off of bridges is unacceptable in any circumstance. So you're right, Mr. Literal. Unfortunately you missed or ignored my real point.

Having to spell things like this out for you was the main inspiration for my reiteration comment.

yea, people have the right to believe **** that goes against our core principles... but my point is that it is unwise to import said people on a massive scale.

Lilja · 11-10-2015, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

these people are mainly sunni muslims - why don't the sunni majority countries that are in close proximity to syria take these refugees? you know... societies which come much closer to resembling their culture and which they would have a much easier time assimilating into? why not turkey, saudi arabia, egypt, etc...? why sweden, germany, england, etc...?

the answer is simple. the world knows that western countries are just one big charity at this point. the leaders of saudi arabia and turkey are simply too smart and their stakes are too high for them to make that same mistake.

You do realise that turkey has taken in the largest amount of syrian
Refugees at this point (1.7 million). Those are just the documented ones.

My question mainly was in reference to individual countries increasing the amount they are taking in. Is this occurring in other countries besides Sweden and Germany presently?

About the affect taking in groups of another religion in large numbers that was discussed by another. Yes there are clusters of groups where the majority are muslim and have created a mostly segregated society. Look up Rinkeby in Sweden. Can larger amounts
Of immigrants affect the current poulation. Yes if the current population amounts to ten million and we are taking in 2000 a day. Is this good or bad? I cannot say . It will be interesting in the future though.