 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
One aspect of this discussion is a problem of libertarianism.
i) Not everything immoral has to be illegal.
ii) The problematic nature of making something illegal is not evidence that it's
moral enough for us to ignore it and get on with our lives.
An ugly thought about immigrants (even misuse of statistics about them to foment
hatred) may be an immoral thing. Surely, the idea of thought-crime, where the
state sets up certain kinds of thoughts to be penalized, is problematic, likely
an immoral state of conduct itself.
But take the example of a crowded theatre. Parents are always telling their
children what to do-- don't talk too loud, don't put your muddy feet on the
seat, don't play with the hair of the person in front of you. Wouldn't it be
crazy if every aisle were to have a (secret) police officer writing tickets
every time a kid was noisy, touched something, dirtied something? Who would
doubt that there is a need for parents to exercise admonition-- in the case of
teenagers by themselves with no parents, perhaps the nearest and bravest
stranger has to fulfill that role. At the same time, it is probably an
unwritten rule that theatre goers have to be ready to accept a finite amount of
noise and hair-pulling if babies are sitting behind them. It's just a fact of
life, the cost of civilization that you gotta endure it once in a while.
Now back to adults. Some adults do things and say things and purchase things
that, if they had some "adult supervision", they'd get admonished about. It's
like the brave adult next to the rowdy teenagers in the theatre. But hey,
perhaps that's another cost of civilization, is some push-back and hassle, if
not something worse, when you remind your neighbor what civilized behavior is
like.
It's the difference between nihilo- and paleo-libertarianism.
Then we could add religion-based admonishment to the question, and make it
really interesting.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
>> Not familiar with Sweden but given such numbers I suggest you try to
>> worry about something else. Unemployment is probably nearly fully
>> explained by lack of relevant education. I don't suppose Finland
>> recognizes Iraqi grades. So any PhD from Iraq is effectively totally
>> uneducated, and can not talk, read or write Finish fluently, so he'll be
>> in a segment of the market with a high unemployment rate.
>
> Somehow that paragraph expresses quite well the utopistic view of
> immigrants coming from poorer countries: That most of them are well
> educated and that they have emigrated to Europe for work, and the only
> thing that is preventing them from getting a job is the language barrier
> and bureaucracy (or racist discrimination).
I think that among the immigrants there are a lot of asylum seekers,
those that flee their country because they fear for their lives there.
judging from your numbers I guess that your biggest problem is or was
with the russians not with middle and far east asylum seekers.
> You asked for some reference to the 60% figure.
no I didn't.
> Well, let me ask you for some reference of that point of view you are
> expressing.
books and newspaper sources in the Netherlands plus some talking to
foreigners. Does that answer your question?
>
> It may not be a politically correct way of thinking, but it nevertheless
> makes sense: If a person emigrates from a poor country to Europe, there's
> a rather high probability that he doesn't have almost any kind of education
> and the reason he is emigrating is because he wants to live in a richer
> country with social welfare and free services. I know I would.
In most cases only the better educated have any change of a successful
entry in europe.
> Of course there are prominent excpetions, there always are, but we are
> talking about averages here.
>
>> The main problem is segregation, if you put them all in low quality
>> suburbs, they start forming communities outside mainstream Finland when
>> the number reaches some threshold.
>
> One of the main problems is indeed segregation. The main problem with
> segregation is that it's self-inflicted. In many cases immigrants are
> segregated because they want to be segregated. They want to live in their
> own mini-communities, separated from the hosting community. They don't want
> to integrate into the hosting culture. They want to preserve their own
> culture and reject the hosting culture.
Most groups first try to integrate when the numbers are low. When they
feel they are considered a lower type of people and the numbers increase
they turn into themselves. What you describe are 20+ year old immigrant
communities. (there is a brilliant standup routine by Najib Amhali (a
dutchman from Moroccan descent) talking about entertaining a group of
dutch expats somewhere in Africa. Unfortunately only in Dutch).
> The problem is aggravated by
> multiculturalists who are encouraging them to do so (and who brainwash
> them to believe that the majority of people in the hosting country are
> racist and discriminatory).
>
> You just have to look at countries like Sweden and France to see this.
> It is also slowly happening here.
>
>> The main thing is making them feel at home and welcome. I don't see much
>> of that in the tone of your posts.
>
> You are misunderstanding.
No, your tone and your subject choice may be interpreted as aggressive
towards immigrants. I know that if I were an immigrant I would be
annoyed by it. That is irrespective of your intentions.
> I don't have any problem with immigration.
> What I have problems with is immigration policy. An immigration policy
> which results in immigration problems. It's precisely the type of
> immigration policy which causes segregation.
>
> There are countries with different immigration policy and where
> immigration works much better. I think Canada is one good example.
> Finland should learn from Canada, not from Sweden and France.
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
4774fce3@news.povray.org...
> You just have to look at countries like Sweden and France to see this.
Well, I can't talk for Sweden but France has been an immigration land for a
couple of milleniums, so it's not like the phenomenon is new, let alone
worth worrying about in the long term. 20% of the population (including our
hungarian/greek/jewish president) has at least a foreign grandparent. The
French even managed to absorb the Vikings
http://www.viking.no/e/france/chronology.html, who were possibly the most
annoying kind of unwanted, violent-prone immigrant ever. They sure raised a
lot of hell, until they married local women of course.
In fact, every population who was said at one time to be unable or unwilling
to "integrate into the hosting culture" did so eventually. Italian
immigrants, from the 19th century up to the mid 20th, were the subject of
considerable debate and hostility, including mass murder. Who cares now?
Immigrants arrive, life is a bitch for everyone for a few generations, good
old sex ends up erasing the cultural hang-ups and finally (figurative)
heterosis takes over.
So, if you are worried about immigration where you live, marry an immigrant,
that should do wonders :D
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:17:58 +0100, "Gilles Tran" <gitran_nospam_@wanadoo.fr>
wrote:
>The French even managed to absorb the Vikings
>http://www.viking.no/e/france/chronology.html, who were possibly the most
>annoying kind of unwanted, violent-prone immigrant ever. They sure raised a
>lot of hell, until they married local women of course.
Wait a minute! True the Vikings were bad but what about the Angles and the
Saxons? We are still hearing them moan about the last lot of immigrants. And
they tried a closed door policy in the 13 th century. But I think that they ran
out of money :)
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > You asked for some reference to the 60% figure.
> no I didn't.
I got confused.
> > Well, let me ask you for some reference of that point of view you are
> > expressing.
> books and newspaper sources in the Netherlands plus some talking to
> foreigners. Does that answer your question?
If newspapers in Netherlands have the same policies as in Sweden, hardly.
> In most cases only the better educated have any change of a successful
> entry in europe.
I wish that was the case. It certainly doesn't seem so.
> Most groups first try to integrate when the numbers are low. When they
> feel they are considered a lower type of people and the numbers increase
> they turn into themselves.
IMO that feeling is mostly a self-perpetuating myth. As new immigrants
arrive, they are told this myth and they believe it, and they start hating
the hosting culture right from the beginning. Also the children born to
the immigrants are told this myth and they grow up hating the hosting
culture. (For example in Sweden this phenomenon has gone so far that there's
a general attitude among immigrant youth that they must destroy swedes.)
Sure, there *are* racists, but saying that the general population is
racist is like saying the general population are murderers and thieves
because there are *some* people who are murderers or thieves.
Keeping up this myth is not going to solve immigration problems.
The irony is that passing more and more laws criminalizing slighter and
slighter cases of "racism" is only perpetuating the myth ("why would
they pass these laws if there was no widespread problem of racism?").
And the sad thing is that these laws are not the same for everyone.
There's no racist element in a black man committing an act of violence
towards a white man. However, there always is a racist element in a white
man committing an act of violence towards a black man.
> > You are misunderstanding.
> No, your tone and your subject choice may be interpreted as aggressive
> towards immigrants. I know that if I were an immigrant I would be
> annoyed by it. That is irrespective of your intentions.
Yes, if a message can be interpreted in more than one way, the most
negative interpretation should always be assumed. That's the right
attitude which will bring friendship and peace to the world.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The awareness that racism is irrational and destructive is something that is
achieved by an individual sentient consciousness. It cannot be legislated into
existence as a property of a society. The number of ignorant, frightened and
insecure people who are going to say to themselves: "You know, now that a large
bureaucracy has passed a rule, I guess I'll just have to change my ways," is
none at all. Passing legislation telling racists not to be racists is like my
posting a note on my refrigerator asking my cat to please not eat the tuna
casserole I've left out on the table. Even if the note states quite clearly
that the consequences are likely to include being thumped with a newspaper and
being called "Bad Kitty", the capacity of document to reverse the creature's
basic instincts is certain to remain negligible.
Scary? No more so than the reality of the human condition in general. Were we
really waiting for government regulation to become the impetus for a more
rational and benevolent world? If one believes that the rights which one has
are determined by which rights governments do and do not see fit to grant, one
is already lost.
It makes no more sense to say "We'll organize a socio-political movement to keep
ham-fisted bureaucracies from acting like ham-fisted bureaucracies," than it
does to say, "We'll pass a law to keep racists from acting like racists."
One can decide to work to overcome racism within oneself and encourage other
individuals who have achieved the requisite level of intellectual development
to do the same. The mountain of evidence against the proposition: "Human
beings, generally, are good and kind, but we need to laws and penalties to
regulate the behavior of a few bad apples," is SO overwhelming that it is
amazing that even the most fantasy-prone of thinkers can remain attached to it.
Yet, I hear some version of it being passed off as an axiom on a nearly daily
basis. Rationality has never been a majority position in the entire history of
the human species and has extremely little prospect of becoming such in the
foreseeable future. Asking "What can I do to oppose racism?" is a question
that I would strongly urge every thinking person to ask himself or herself.
Asking "What should SOCIETY do to oppose racism?" is pointless and just plain
silly.
Best Regards,
Mike C.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>> In most cases only the better educated have any change of a successful
>> entry in europe.
>
> I wish that was the case. It certainly doesn't seem so.
Can't speak for Europe, but it's generally quite true in the US
(ignoring illegal Mexicans).
>> Most groups first try to integrate when the numbers are low. When they
>> feel they are considered a lower type of people and the numbers increase
>> they turn into themselves.
>
> IMO that feeling is mostly a self-perpetuating myth. As new immigrants
> arrive, they are told this myth and they believe it, and they start hating
> the hosting culture right from the beginning. Also the children born to
> the immigrants are told this myth and they grow up hating the hosting
> culture. (For example in Sweden this phenomenon has gone so far that there's
> a general attitude among immigrant youth that they must destroy swedes.)
Can't speak for Europe, but it is totally believable. I've seen this
phenomenon in a number of countries I've lived in/visited. There's
always been a seed of truth behind their paranoia, but generally way
overblown.
--
Liberal Household: Tresspassers will be lectured!
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
> In fact, every population who was said at one time to be unable or unwilling
> to "integrate into the hosting culture" did so eventually. Italian
> immigrants, from the 19th century up to the mid 20th, were the subject of
> considerable debate and hostility, including mass murder. Who cares now?
> Immigrants arrive, life is a bitch for everyone for a few generations, good
> old sex ends up erasing the cultural hang-ups and finally (figurative)
> heterosis takes over.
Never been to France, but it does seem to me like things are quite bad
there regarding immigration. In my town we have a number of immigrants
who were originally from North Africa but had moved to France. They're
all educated - some obtained PhD's in France. They came to the US
because they got sick of it there - quite a bit of discrimination is
what they claimed. I remember during the riots (immigration ones - not
the job ones) a while back, BBC had a link to a report that stated that
North Africans in France were *four* times more likely to get a job if
they changed their name on the resume to a French one (and indeed, many
did officially change their names for this reason).
I had a French colleague (non-immigrant). He wasn't very political, but
he also said that there is a lot of prejudice against them, but that no
one admits to it.
Then there is the flip side - a lot of the N African (have no idea how
big or small in numbers) over there have turned out to be thugs.
All this is anecdotal. It certainly seems both sides were feeding off
the other.
--
Liberal Household: Tresspassers will be lectured!
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>> You asked for some reference to the 60% figure.
>> no I didn't.
>
> I got confused.
I answered a question in a reply to you that was intended for me. After
that I answered a question to you that belonged in another subthread. I
see no reason for confusion ;)
>
>>> Well, let me ask you for some reference of that point of view you are
>> > expressing.
>> books and newspaper sources in the Netherlands plus some talking to
>> foreigners. Does that answer your question?
>
> If newspapers in Netherlands have the same policies as in Sweden, hardly.
Ah a proof by reductio ad absurdum, conclusion: Dutch papers are
different from Swedish.
>
>> In most cases only the better educated have any change of a successful
>> entry in europe.
>
> I wish that was the case. It certainly doesn't seem so.
So all losers go to Scandinavia and we keep the slightly better lot,
interesting.
>
>> Most groups first try to integrate when the numbers are low. When they
>> feel they are considered a lower type of people and the numbers increase
>> they turn into themselves.
>
> IMO that feeling is mostly a self-perpetuating myth. As new immigrants
> arrive, they are told this myth and they believe it, and they start hating
> the hosting culture right from the beginning.
Yip, the more reason to be friendly from the start. In order to get the
vicious cycle never to start.
> Also the children born to
> the immigrants are told this myth and they grow up hating the hosting
> culture. (For example in Sweden this phenomenon has gone so far that there's
> a general attitude among immigrant youth that they must destroy swedes.)
>
> Sure, there *are* racists, but saying that the general population is
> racist is like saying the general population are murderers and thieves
> because there are *some* people who are murderers or thieves.
>
> Keeping up this myth is not going to solve immigration problems.
> The irony is that passing more and more laws criminalizing slighter and
> slighter cases of "racism" is only perpetuating the myth ("why would
> they pass these laws if there was no widespread problem of racism?").
>
> And the sad thing is that these laws are not the same for everyone.
> There's no racist element in a black man committing an act of violence
> towards a white man. However, there always is a racist element in a white
> man committing an act of violence towards a black man.
>
>>> You are misunderstanding.
>> No, your tone and your subject choice may be interpreted as aggressive
>> towards immigrants. I know that if I were an immigrant I would be
>> annoyed by it. That is irrespective of your intentions.
>
> Yes, if a message can be interpreted in more than one way, the most
> negative interpretation should always be assumed. That's the right
> attitude which will bring friendship and peace to the world.
>
In, this and several other post by you, you mention the immigrants as a
problem. There is no counter post that shows interest in or friendship
for them. In view of the discussion I though it useful to point out that
this is exactly why immigrants don't feel welcome. It was not meant as a
personal attack, merely as as meta-observation.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
477530dd$1@news.povray.org...
>
> All this is anecdotal. It certainly seems both sides were feeding off
> the other.
Yes, it's pretty rough here for people from African background (usually
maghrebi or subsaharian). They have a lot of barriers to overcome, both
within and outside their communities. OTOH there are lots of encouraging
trends, like the increase of mixed unions or emergence, in the past 20
years, of a middle-class with maghrebi roots. Of course, middle-class people
don't usually riot, so the shift doesn't make headlines.
My point was that these problems, however bad they are at the present time,
are transitional, like some sort of growing pains. Other groups went through
that before and made it anyway, at a time when society was even much less
welcoming.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
