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

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
....
> 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.

Although not specifically a "counter post", I did, in my reply, state
specifically that racism is destructive and irrational.  Your general point,
however, that immigrants receive too little in the way of specific welcome and
acceptance, I grant as correct.  I thank you for suggesting (by implication) a
specific constructive action that an individual might take in opposition to
racism.

For the record, to anyone who has recently immigrated to my country (the U.S):
Welcome.

Also for the record, to any and all who insist on saying: "I'm not a racist, I
just don't like immigrants.":
Oh Puhleeeeeeeeeeeez! Who do you think you're kidding?

Best Regards,
Mike C.

Post a reply to this message

> Also for the record, to any and all who insist on saying: "I'm not a racist, I
> just don't like immigrants.":
> Oh Puhleeeeeeeeeeeez! Who do you think you're kidding?

That should, of course, be: WHOM do you think you're kidding?
(grins with embarrassment)

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> 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 ;)

> Ah a proof by reductio ad absurdum, conclusion: Dutch papers are 
> different from Swedish.

> So all losers go to Scandinavia and we keep the slightly better lot, 
> interesting.

  As always, there just is no discussing with you. So I'll stop.

  Conversation implies trying to understand what the other is saying,
not trying to constantly undermine every single point he is presenting.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Mike the Elder <zer### [at] wyanorg> wrote:
> Also for the record, to any and all who insist on saying: "I'm not a racist, I
> just don't like immigrants.":
> Oh Puhleeeeeeeeeeeez! Who do you think you're kidding?

  That's exactly the multiculturalist brainwashing: Criticizing immigration
and immigration policies always implies racism. It's simply impossible for
someone to not to be racist and criticize immigration at the same time.
Anyone who is not racist must have a completely positive attitude towards
immigration.

  It's a strong weapon at shutting up people, really. They have successfully
implanted the notion that criticizing immigration and/or immigration policies
is racism. Nobody wants to be racist. Thus nobody dares to criticize anything
related to immigration, not even in their minds.

  Why is it so hard to accept the notion that racism and immigration
critique don't necessarily have to go hand in hand? Why is it so hard to
accept the notion that someone can be completely non-racist, and still
criticize immigration policies? Is it really so hard to even consider the
possibility that automatically equalling immigration critique with racism
is just false propaganda?

  I am not a racist. I don't even oppose immigration. I welcome immigration.
The kind of immigration which makes the society better for all, the people
of the country and the immigrants themselves.

  I oppose immigration policies which result in segregation and animosity
between groups. Careless immigration policies just do that, and the worst
thing is that the people who pass those immigration policies can't see it.
The worst thing is that people refuse to see it. They just close their
eyes and ears and repeat the mantra that everything is well. They repeat
all the mantras taught to them by the multiculturalist fanatics: There is
no problem. The only problem is that western white males are racist.

  But hey. Don't listen to me. After all, I oppose immigration and ergo
I'm automatically a racist, and nobody wants to listen to racist people.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> 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 ;)
> 
>> Ah a proof by reductio ad absurdum, conclusion: Dutch papers are 
>> different from Swedish.
> 
>> So all losers go to Scandinavia and we keep the slightly better lot, 
>> interesting.
> 
>   As always, there just is no discussing with you. So I'll stop.
> 
>   Conversation implies trying to understand what the other is saying,
> not trying to constantly undermine every single point he is presenting.
> 
The first citation has a ;), the other don't. And there is a reason for 
that, viz. that I mean it. It might really be possible that the asylum 
seekers and economic migrants that go to Scandinavia have a different 
composition. It might also be very possible that for some reason the 
papers in Sweden present their analysis different from the Dutch. So we 
end up here with the funny situation that I acknowledge your point and 
you think that I try to 'undermine every single point' you make. 
Interesting (note the absent emoticon).

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> So we 
> end up here with the funny situation that I acknowledge your point and 
> you think that I try to 'undermine every single point' you make. 

  And then people accuse me of posting obscure posts which can be (perhaps
intentionally) easily misinterpreted.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message