|
Post by MC anunnaki on Jan 16, 2005 10:34:35 GMT -5
Annunaki: can you name a multi ethnic society, past or present, where the "multi-ethnicity" was an asset and not a problem? Ancient Persia, Greece and Rome? I don't know much about older civilisations, but I refuse to buy the garbage about how people of different ethnicities can't get along just because of that. I and plenty of other non-European immigrants who have adapted are functioning perfect in the Swedish society along with non-Europeans who've been adopted by Swedes. It goes without saying that as long as you share common values and culture then your society isn't going to break down just because some people don't have blonde hair and blue eyes. The main problem with immigration in Sweden (and I suspect the rest of Europe) is with immigrants who refuse to assimilate, who cling to the parts of their cultures which are not compatible with Swedish culture. Only the hardcore racist believes that people can only get along if they're of the same race/ethnicity. I don't buy that crap, so yes, I believe multi-ETHNIC socities can work. Multi-CULTURAL (and no, culture is not written in our DNA) socities though, is a completely different thing. That requires people of different cultures to live amongs each other and respect each other's cultures and traditions (something I find Muslims in particular to have difficulties doing). I don't think a multi-cultural society works in the long run since humans aren't exactly prone to respect what we perhaps dislike. There's nothing however that says an adopted Korean, an immigrant Iranian and an ethnic Swede (that would be myself and two of my closest friends) can't get along just fine because we all share the same culture and the same values. That said, of course I don't think you can just import one million immigrants of a completely different culture and expect both Swedes and immigrant to get along fine from day one. It takes time and willingness from the immigrants to leave their own culture back in their home countries. First generation immigrants probably seldom feel truly connected to a new country (unless they, like I, were brought here at a very young age), but if the immigrants are willing to assimilate then future generations will function better and better. I'd say the reason why I function well in Swedish society is because I've lived here since I was 3 and because my parents from the very beginning made the decision to adapt to the Swedes instead of trying to make the Swedes adapt to them. Because of that I learned the language fluently, grew up with Swedish customs and traditions and got along perfectly with ethnic Swedes who don't view me as some form of 'invader'.
|
|
|
Post by vela on Jan 16, 2005 17:09:29 GMT -5
Fatman: Europeans spread in the the rest of the world as conquerors who forced the locals to accept them. They could do it becouse they belonged to a superior civilization. The result was the spreading of this superior civilization. Of superior destructive capabilities, yes. Superior "civilization", that's debatable. This comment only reflects either ignorance or prejudice. Have you heard of the concept the point of diminishing returns? The moment we reach that point, that's when the rich countries will close their borders.
|
|
|
Post by vela on Jan 16, 2005 17:20:29 GMT -5
Ancient Persia, Greece and Rome? I don't know much about older civilisations, but I refuse to buy the garbage about how people of different ethnicities can't get along just because of that. ... ... Very well put, Anunnaki. I agree with what you wrote! I would just qualify the following about multi-culturalism: If we could think of culture as a spectrum or a scale of many points, we'd recognize that some cultures are at varying distances from our own, some are near or even very near, others are far or very far. In other words, what I'm trying to say is that there are degrees of cultural compatibility/incompatibility. Even within its own native citizens every nation has a range of acceptable cultural values. We're not carbon photocopies of the neighbor and the neighbor, etc. Get my idea?
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Jan 17, 2005 4:14:45 GMT -5
Ok, "superior" will always be debatable; also, I wrote that post because I was annoyed by Fatman's comments, I didn't mean to offend. BTW I am an immigrant myself. It's not a racial thing, a civilization can be "superior" to another in a determinate moment in history and inferior in another. So, Vela: if you found the tone offending I apologise. This told, the immigrants (as opposed to conquerors) who go from place A to place B, demonstrate with their actions that they prefer (consider "superior") place B. As place A is as it is because of his citizens, they, migrating, make place B a little more like place A, so by their own standard, a worse place. Don't know much about history, but if I remember well from high school Rome and the cities of Greece had democracy (sort of) within the dominant ethnic group (Romans or, say, Spartans) and dominance on the other ethnic groups. They weren't multi ethnic societies, but empires, with a dominant ethnic group imposing tributes to the others. Also, I fail to see how the presence of many ethnic groups should have been an advantage for this empires. As for migration in Europe now, sadly the law of deminishing return does not apply because it's not the market, but the politicians who decide, and politics has its own logic. Annunaki: you can't say that "...people with different ethnicities can't get along..." is garbage only because you don't like the idea. Ethnic ties are a powerful, primitive force wired in our brains. Societies are not based on a contract-like agreement between the citizens, but on istinctive social behaviour; otherwise how could we abide the thousand laws we don't even know? Such behaviours are reinforced if you are within people you consider your kind. In Ireland people is still fighting along ethnic lines (protestant - chatolic, actually it's an ethnic division). See what the Basque are doing. Or the riots in the U.S.A.. When you were a child in Sweden, didn't the other children perceive you as different?
|
|
|
Post by vela on Jan 17, 2005 20:21:46 GMT -5
Ok, "superior" will always be debatable; also, I wrote that post because I was annoyed by Fatman's comments, I didn't mean to offend. BTW I am an immigrant myself. It's not a racial thing, a civilization can be "superior" to another in a determinate moment in history and inferior in another. So, Vela: if you found the tone offending I apologise. This told, the immigrants (as opposed to conquerors) who go from place A to place B, demonstrate with their actions that they prefer (consider "superior") place B. As place A is as it is because of his citizens, they, migrating, make place B a little more like place A, so by their own standard, a worse place. Don't know much about history, but if I remember well from high school Rome and the cities of Greece had democracy (sort of) within the dominant ethnic group (Romans or, say, Spartans) and dominance on the other ethnic groups. They weren't multi ethnic societies, but empires, with a dominant ethnic group imposing tributes to the others. Also, I fail to see how the presence of many ethnic groups should have been an advantage for this empires. As for migration in Europe now, sadly the law of deminishing return does not apply because it's not the market, but the politicians who decide, and politics has its own logic. No offense taken, nock. And no need to apologise either... everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion. You have a valid point in your arguments about migration. However, in my opinion every case of one people migrating to a foreign country has to be considered and judged on its own merits. It is true that politicians decide about these matters but the big transnational corporations have a lot to do with those decisions and usually those same corporations don't care about ethnicity as long as their profits are up.
|
|
|
Post by MC anunnaki on Jan 18, 2005 1:38:40 GMT -5
Societies are not based on a contract-like agreement between the citizens, but on istinctive social behaviour; Behaviour that can very well include people of different ethnicities as long as we all don't behave like knuckledragging cavemen. Such behaviours are reinforced if you are within people you consider your kind. In Ireland people is still fighting along ethnic lines (protestant - chatolic, actually it's an ethnic division). See what the Basque are doing. Or the riots in the U.S.A.. Well, nothing disproves that a multi-ethnic/multi-racial society can't work. European history has also proven that people are good at killing off eachother regardless of how close they are racially. When you were a child in Sweden, didn't the other children perceive you as different? I'm sure some did, but no one behaved like an ass because of it and that's my point. Do I perceive my Korean friend as looking different from myself? Yes. Does that mean anything to me? No. To her? No.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Jan 18, 2005 11:59:33 GMT -5
Ok, I think we are not very distant in the end. I never said that I can/want to prove that multi ethnic societies can't work; I just wanted to say that at present multi ethnicity seems to be more a problem than an asset. I was asking about childhood just to point out that to recognise "racial" (better, phenotypical) differences is a wired (as opposed to cultural) ability. Sweden is one of the most civilised and rich Country on hearth, and civilisation and well being can overcome nature under certain circumstances. But if something happens that stirs emotions and feelings (as calamities, war, soccer matches or huge waves of immigrants lowering the quality of life), the "when in doubt stick to your kind" rule will apply. And if you have many "kinds" in the same nation this would be a problem.
|
|
|
Post by vela on Jan 18, 2005 20:53:04 GMT -5
Carl Jung – The Undiscovered Self
Amazing. Even though this was written in 1957 and yet sounds so current.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Jan 18, 2005 23:03:18 GMT -5
Jung is not referring to ethnic or racial minorities.
|
|
|
Post by vela on Jan 19, 2005 14:26:03 GMT -5
Jung is not referring to ethnic or racial minorities. Neither was I.
|
|
|
Post by nordicyouth on Jan 19, 2005 16:14:45 GMT -5
Badabapbapbam...I'm lovin' it! This thread just won't die...
|
|
|
Post by visigodo on Jan 19, 2005 16:41:02 GMT -5
I think the reason why this thread, doesn’t die-out is because of how pertinent this issue is. There is non-white migration occurring in Europe, and some Europeans are starting to voice their opinion on the matter.
And although economics tends to be the major reason why immigration occurs. Its democracies that decide and not 100% profit motives that decide how a nation is to be governed. European social system is designed by democracies, not by multinational firm who want cheap labor. People decide, and if there is a growing consensus of limiting or stopping immigration to the E.U. by European citizens, then so be it.
|
|
|
Post by MC anunnaki on Jan 20, 2005 1:41:34 GMT -5
I just wanted to say that at present multi ethnicity seems to be more a problem than an asset. Naturally, everything is filled with problems. Immigration into Europe is quite new too. We just can't expect things to be honkydory from the start. But if something happens that stirs emotions and feelings (as calamities, war, soccer matches or huge waves of immigrants lowering the quality of life), the "when in doubt stick to your kind" rule will apply. Well, I haven't seen this "stick to your kind" attitude amongst ethnic Swedes. It's more prevalent among immigrants actually. Swedes are more pissed off about certain groups of immigrants who don't want to assimilate. What do you mean with immigrants lowering the quality of life? Apart from rising crime (which is done by a small minority of immigrants) quality of life hasn't gone down here, not as far as what I can see. But then again, some Swedes think quality of life goes down if they can't afford three tvs, one vacation abroad every year and new clothes every month... And if you have many "kinds" in the same nation this would be a problem. It's never a problem unless you make it a problem. My husband's family would never side with to them unknown Swedes rather than with me if something happened. I work the same way. I wouldn't side with Iranians I don't know just because we share ethnicity; I'd side with people I do know and who matters to me. I have nothing against closing the borders if that's what the majority of a people of a country vote for. Since there has been assimilation problems in many European countries I'd think it's actually a good idea to do just that for 10-15 years or so. I just don't believe in the race war racists so desperately long for, nor do I believe it's realistic to think that all non-whites and their descendants in Europe can be thrown out.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Jan 20, 2005 3:44:08 GMT -5
Annunaki: the fact that immigrants are more loyal to their ethnicities than Swedes themselves is proof that only culture and well being can restrain the very human attitude to prefer your own kind. You can't count on such cultural conditioning under all circumstances. Swedes soccer supporters seem to apply the stick with your kind rule, for instance ... Then, you admit that immigration creates problems. Of course it would be madness to desire a racial war, or to even think to reimpatriate non Europeans who are already here. But I see you can agree on closing the borders. That was my point: as immigrants are more a problem than an asset, and as there is no obligation to let them in, let's close the borders. It seems this is also the result of this poll ...
|
|
|
Post by vela on Jan 20, 2005 10:28:06 GMT -5
... ... But I see you can agree on closing the borders. That was my point: as immigrants are more a problem than an asset, and as there is no obligation to let them in, let's close the borders. It seems this is also the result of this poll ... A few post back you admitted being an immigrant yourself. (Aren't we all?) Just imagine, what if the country you migrated to had its borders shut down and refused to let you in? But, oh no!. You are "different", right? Your kind can only improve and elevate the quality of life of whatever country you chose to migrate to. The rest? No! They will only degrade and lower the quality of life of society. Can you see what your saying? Who appointed you as judge?
|
|