Germany never changes... German leader says multiculturalism has failed.

[BlackCat]

Well, be assured that a lot of USainas in this thread will will ask for your scalp

[DriXnaK]

Like who?

[Heraclitus]

It's half happening, and yet not. See the case of the Saudi Prince who recently killed his gay lover for being gay.

Since Saudi Arabia is such a ****ed up country I have to ask. Is this actually a real story and if so can you give me a link?

[Dinner]

http://www.whatsonxiamen.com/news14973.html It's been in the news for days. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk...6908-22610809/ http://www.allvoices.com/contributed...ex-driven-fury http://www.huliq.com/10280/saudi-pri...nvicted-murder

[curtis290]

The USA is something of an aberration where "multiculturalism" is concerned. We, along with Canada, Australia and maybe a handful of other young nations, are a place where nationality and ethnicity are, at least in theory, completely divorced. American identity is largely based on acceptance of a set of abstract ideas or principles. That's really not the usual situation around the world.

EDIT: Which isn't to say that anti-immigrant backlashes are good, but HC does have a point here.

In America's case, at least, that's not quite true. Our immigration was European. Our immigrants had a relatively common background. The initial immigrants were dissident Protestants, the ideology this country was founded on. So yeah, they accepted an abstract set of principles, but they had a common history. The most recent wave of Mexican immigration is different. First, it comes from a border nation, so we are slowly becoming a northern Mexico. But they come from a completely different background than we do, and aren't assimilating in the same way (and whether that's our fault or theirs is irrelevant, it's our country). Accepting an abstract set of principles is no longer enough. Our immigration laws are way too liberal as it is, we are no longer a nation of immigrants. So we should follow the path of the UK and Germany and the Scandinavian countries, who significantly limit immigration and insist that the immigrants assimilate. It's what's best for everyone, both the natives and immigrants.

As for the rest of the posts, let me say, good job everyone. There were a lot of great posts here, much better than I'm used to seeing here. In fact, there's nothing else I really have to contribute to this thread, it's all been said in here. I'll just quote the good stuff.

I think Americans have a hard time understanding why saying Germany should be inhabited by Germans dosen't sound evil to the average European. And saying Pakistan should be inhabited by a Muslim majority doesn't seem evil to the average Pakistani. In both cases this is not a decision people can make for them, it is something they have a right to decide themselves.

This isnot a European thing. Think Japan, Iran, South Korea, Taiwan, Ethiopia, Turkey ect. this is the default human norm all over the planet, former WASPy countries are more or less freaks in this regard, perhaps with France also being a universalist state.


European countries don't really have ideas to base themselves around. Why have a Poland a Roumania a Denmerk if they are all based on and only on ideas like universal human rights, democracy, rule of law, multiculturalism, welfare state, high taxation ect. why not just apply for US statehood or just absolve national sovereignty in favour of some Transcontinental spanning Liberal state? Why bother preserving the local languages?


Deep down despite constant scolding from the EU most European citizens do expect fellow citizens to share the same nationality. And yes nationality is synonymous with the ethnic group. Someone's nationality means being part first and foremost part of a nation not a state. Austro-Hungarians did think of themselves as Austro-Hungarians but when asked for their nationality they would state German, Hungarian, Serbian, ect. in also if you asked some inhabitants of a region of Western Russia a century or more ago what their nationality was they would say Polish not Russian.

Great post! First, you point out the obvious human truth that no liberal can understand, that nations and societies should exist. The ideas of multiculturalism and diversity are new, and common sense (as well as recent research by Robert Putnam) tells us that because societies have always been homogenous, diversity isn't necessarily a good idea. It leads to distrust and the corrosion of values, and whether or not that's the fault of the immigrants or the natives is irrelevant. No people should be forced to open its border to other peoples. And this is the problem with the EU: it seeks to dissolve the nation-state within Europe. We've been told that we're entering this global economy where the nation-state is no longer relevant. Well, it is. It has been a meaningful form of social organization for a long time, and it's not going to go yet. I don't want to see it disappear into a great big, liberal, global economy based on the freedom of movement of goods, capital, and people.

I'm not convinced that the problem lies fundamentally with Muslims, except that there are so many of them. Within the group unhelpfully labeled Muslims there are a lot of variations. It includes Urban Turks from Istanbul as well as rural "Turks" from around Diyarbakir. Brandy-drinking Bosniaks as well as khat-chewing Somalis, if you'll excuse my tone. Not to mention Christian Middle Easterners are almost as clannish and different from Westerners as the Muslims.

As for American exceptionalism, it "works" only at the cost of segregated cities with razor-sharp racial divides, and the world's largest prison population to enforce it. But social darwinism apparently works for you as you've always lived it and don't know a different life. Europeans still remember their traditional, homogeneous, high-trust societies mostly devoid of those same problems you have "solved" in this pragmatic manner, and are suffering a transformational crisis.

Denying that there have been tremendous changes in Europe in a short time due to immigration, globalization and inter-European integration (anti-immigration sentiment often goes hand in hand with EU skepticism) is impossible, and there is a need to discuss it honestly. What Merkel appears to be doing is trying to take command of the discussion and not abandoning it to the fringes of politics. From one perspective it could be seen as an outcome of the traditional parties' fear of losing control of the direction of politics.

I agree, there needs to be honest discussion. But this is nearly impossible because of political correctness and liberal dogma that we're not allowed to speak out against. What a bunch of hippocrites liberals are.

Many americans don't understand the problems of Europe.
If we had a multicultural society as the USA, then we wouldn't have these problems. But getting to the USA is a lot harder then getting to Europe. Not to mention that the USA asks immigrants to pay $10,000 on before hand. That attracts a completely different kind of people. The people that get to the USA want to become American. There's no true multiculturalism in America. (or at least not the one Merkel talks about).

I also doubt if it's possible to have true multiculturalism.
Some cultures are group-based, patriarchal, others (our) are based on the right of the individual.
Without claiming that 'our' culture is 'better' then the other cultures, it is absolutely possible to say that it's hard to 'merge' these cultures together. In the patriarchal cultures the acts of the individual have impact on the image and position of the others of his group. That just doesn't fit in with the western juristic system, that's focused on the individual.

There's nothing wrong with a country claiming a dominant culture, and asking it's citizen to adopt to this culture. (and be able to stay diverse as well).
It can't be compared to Nazism or Fascism. Hitler & Co thought there were better people and lesser people. They teached that the superior ubermench was allowed to get rid of the untermench. That's not at all what the people in Europe say more and more. It's not racism, it's realism, it's not always possible to merge cultures together. one may disagree with that, but it's completely ridiculous to always Godwin it at once. (Godwinning is an automatic lose anyway, btw). It's also a showcase of being completely ignorant of what happened in the 30's and 40's of the past century.

Political correctness increases the problems because it doesn't address it and it sends people to more extreme political views. If there will ever be a new form of fascism, then it's caused by mainstream politician ignoring the problems, pushing people who suffer under these problems to the edges of society.

Great post!

Multiculturalism as defined by some would be about accepting change. It would be about accepting that muslims can build a mosque in your neighborhood if they have money for the site and than have loud prayers 5 times a day from the loudspeakers (that would be if you went all the way to allwoing them to "feel at home"), it would be about accepting living in your village where your grandparents/family lived for generations in your own culture, to have the village settled with 500 foreigners in a year and now you have the place you lived in fundamentally changed by them in a short time space, with potential crime, other issues that were not present before, or simply move out. I disagree with that notion.

All in all, people who did not want to go to foreign countries, have foreign cultures move into your own home and than take over by sheer numbers. That is really a problem for a minority (still), or even a majority, where certain issues are felt on a wider scales.

In the US this cannot be a problem as what was there from the "original" culture it was assimilated into the "new" American culture by force or otherwise, noone was asking Native Americans much at the time, so you do not have those type of issues anymore, just different ones, issues between different people coming together to live in one place...

In Europe the issue with multiculuralism is not that everyone shoud become Chineze (as if we go by numbers alone, this is what will happen), but that countries and cultures should both be "protected" from being overrun by outsiders ala Fiji on national scale, but most frequently on a local scale... and on the other hand - welcomed - by the insiders as long as the law and the customs of the country you came in are respected. Ie being a good guest in someone elses home, and there will be no issues... so no outcries if your girl has to go to school, but in your area of Afghanistan this is forbidden for girls, as an extreme... or requests for loud prayers from your mosque in the neighborhood, just as this is the part of your own baggage that you brought with from wherever you came from...

but on the other hand, no discrimination if you are black/yellow/green/whatever as long as you try to live, ie get an education, job, family, stay out of crime etc... and so on... treat all the criminals the same, all the successful people the same - this should be multiculturalism, treatment on merit and not on origin, it is only that the term is being abused from time to time.

That is all, but issues arise where the local culture is displaced by sheer volume of foreign influx at particular spots, so local people who did not want to move to Pakistan are furious that Pakistan came to them. I see no problem with them feeling that way, but in principle this is the error from a state which allowed such problems to arise, by allowing too high immigrant influx over a too short space in time, and where only solution for a local is to move away to another part of his country where the "change" did not happen, often going with lower local property prices etc... So instad of being assimilated in becoming British, German, French etc... they have assimilated an area to become Pakistan in UK, or Turkey in Germany, or Algeir in France... etc... where you may not be sure if women need to wear a burqa in the neighborhood or face verbal/other kinds of assault... that is an issue, and has nothing to do with "multiculturalism" as such.

Great post! A nation should be able to protect its borders. A people should not be forced to disintegrate and accept whatever culture happens to move in. Never before in history has this been forced on people. But in the era of neoliberalism, we're told that the nation state is irrelevant as an economic and social unit, and that everyone will be better off if people, capital, and goods can move through borders freely. Well, I am an American, not one of 7 billion actors in the global economy.

I am not. As Europe becomes more diverse indigenus people will lean more and more to the right. In America one can neatly predict what % of people will vote Republican on average based on the presence of NAMs (non (east) asian minorities - meaning basically Blacks, Mexicans, Pakistanis, ect.) in their neighbourhoods.

Diversity has also been shown to lower social trust, and if one looses more and more faith in the state will one still trust it to spend your tax money to keep afloat the ever more expensive (burdened by second and third generation NAMs as well as a aging native population) welfare state?

Awesome post. Are you referring to the work by Putnam in your second paragraph? I agree with you 100% about the state. This is why social conservatives in the US are so anti-statist. They don't want to fork over their resources to Mexicans who move here just to collect welfare checks, since it's easier to do that than live in Mexico.

@ Hera

If the first condition can't be fulfilled you are correct and in the end this will lead to civil war. I hope you are wrong...

My opinion in this matter is that Merkel is correct. Our society will change. We won't be able to stop that. However, this change should happen gradually so we don't destroy what we have built up.

And your last line is stupid-people scaremongering BS. Unfortunately it works.

I'd agree with the second paragraph. Liberals don't understand that change (as in economic development, for example) needs to happen slowly. When change occurs too quickly it is extremely difficult on the society. Similarly, immigration can occur as long as it happens slowly, so that the imigrants can assimilate and the society can become accustomed to the immigrants. If it happens too quickly, disorder will follow.

Still there are A LOT OF problems when talking about the mexicans and their wilingness/ ability to learn proper English...

Most definitely. There are a lot of Spanish-only elementary schools.

What she said made perfect sense, namely, that immigrants had to learn German and adopt German values including work values instead of just trying to sponge off of the social safety net while not trying to integrate.

Definitely.

That's more or less it. Merkel is telling immigrants they have to learn German and not suck up welfare or at least that's what many of the papers here are reporting. This doesn't sound remotely controversial and the US demands the same thing (I.E. demands people learn English and limits welfare for even legal immigrants who have been here less then 10 years).

Yeah.

First: You Godwin, you lose.

2nd: you seem to know hardly anything about european politics. You most probably only read a couple of headlines. If you name Merkel a nutjob then you don't know what you're talking about. She's the most political correct prime minister of Europe. (as all Germans have been since WWII, for obvious reasons).

You also work with numbers. Because the USA has larger number of minorities, we shouldn't make a big deal out of it. It's not about numbers. It's about differences, as I said earlier in this thread. The differences are bigger in Europe because we attract a different kind of immigrants.

Lastly you definition of racism is completely off the table. Setting rules and protecting ones one culture has nothing to do with racism. Racism is that you treat different people differently.
And please stop godwinning. Talking about populism and demagogy, the godwin is the uber form of populism and demagogy.

Good post.

Guys, whatever points can be made about European "racism" or "multiculturalism" in general, getting people to learn the friggin language isn't in any way part of some racist program. That is simply not the way the debate runs here. As far as I can tell there also aren't any absurd demands like "learn German or you'll be deported", the whole debate is mainly centered around education and what can be done to improve it. The only thing that sometimes is debated in the field of sanctions is if social welfare money should be tied to certain things (like doing a language course or so). But that isn't in any way special - unemployed Germans can see cuts too if they refuse to do certain qualification measures offered to make them more fit on the job market.

The people who are mostly ****ed if they dunno how to speak in the country *they are permanently living in* are those immigrants or those with immigrant backgrounds who missed the boat since their parents never learned the language and - worse - didn't care if their children who are often now German citizens ever started learning it in school. These are the ones who will end up in low paying jobs (with luck) or unemployed, criminal or even - at least in some cases - as extremists not because they're brown people or muslims, but mostly because without knowing the mainstream language you just don't have that many chances - that is pretty much the same everywhere.

Since the first wave of immigration after WWII to western Germany was regarded as "guest workers" for low skilled work (means they were thought to work for a while, then leave on their own again) education was thought to be unimportant (they also didn't have their kids with them in the beginning), and in result we have now a certain layer of society that is basically doomed to be underclass. This is bad for them and bad for the rest of society in case they end up indeed as criminals or purely living on social welfare.

Good post.

Fact is that unless a culture is compatible with Western ideology and culture then it's not going to work. In Europe it's even worse because the unique identity of each county is more pronounced than in the US. That's not to say that the US doesn't have its own unique identity, but our system used to be a true melting pot and was based on that idea so it was easier for people to blend in and become part of it. Instead though, we had a bunch of worthless ****ing idiots called liberals/progressives/socialists/whatever name they are currently hiding behind come in and decide the west should act like a salad bowl. Now what you have is colonization of the west and if you say anything about it you're a racist. It's just common sense in the end really. No country can continue to exist if its citizens don't hold the values and culture that country was founded on. If you populate Europe with muslims who don't conform then you aren't going to have Europe anymore, you're going to have a colony from the Middle East and that's exactly what you have going on.

Great post! You've expressed a lot of sentiments here that most people are too scared to admit due to the fear from condemnation by the politically correct crowd.

Islam is not a problem in the long term. Citizens in Muslim countries have access to internet porn (even if they have to jump a few hoops to get it), Western popculture (which is basically toxic), contraception and the US is busy making one country at a time safe for feminist ideology.

As long as Middle Eastern economies keep growing I can confidently say that the Muslim world will be much like 1970's Europe in a few decades. Islam except in its most militant form is not immune to the same memetic disease that killed Christianity as a global religion.

This is basically modernization thesis right here, and I disagree with you. How do you explain the Iranian revolution of 1979? There you had a liberal, secular state that was anti-clerical in nature that enjoyed great levels of economic growth. The population wasn't very religious, and it had a national identity dating much farther back than Islam (unlike some countries in the Middle East with artificially created borders less than a hundred years old). No one saw that revolution coming. It doesn't make sense according to liberal theory or modernization thesis. Additionally, why do people in the US continue to turn to religion? I think both of these pheneomena can be explained by the lack of meaning liberalism provides. People need rules, morality, a sense of community, and meaning in their lives. Liberalism doesn't provide this.

Everyone is supposed to conform to the US ideals and standards. There's not supposed to be such a thing as an Kenyan-American or Irish-American or any other sort of American, there's just American. You pledge allegiance to this country and only this country. This country supersedes your religion and your heritage. You conform to the ideology of this country and you embrace our culture and manner. That was the original idea that anyone around the world could come to this country and be an American. Doesn't work that way now. Now you come to America and you're still from your home country living the same way you did back there and you're supposed to take pride in it and flaunt it. If an American questions this you take them to court and call them a racist. The salad bowl was created because the progressives thought it was arrogant to expect people to come to this country and become Americans. Instead we should "respect" their cultural heritage and foster it. Hence you have large amounts of people who don't assimilate into our country, and in Europe it's even worse.

Great post! You call 'em like you see 'em. I think most Americans and Europeans feel the same way, although they aren't able to express their views because of the strength of the political correctness movement. Any nation would act this way. Can you imagine if, for whatever reason, Korea saw a surge in immigration from white people? Or Latin Americans? Or Arabs? Or other Asians? I guarantee you any people would respond the same way to immigration and the disintegration of its culture.

I think pretty much every country on the planet operates that way and has forever. How can you have a country if a majority of people don't identify with it? Can you say Rome? The whole idea of multiculturalism is ludicrous and has been shoved down the West's throat for far too long. Europe is finally waking up to the reality of Islam on their doorstep, it might already be too late though based on demographics. Something drastic will have to be done if they want to stop it.

Here here! Multiculturalism is a very recent phenomenon. How liberals have convinced people that it should become dogma is beyond me. How many truly multicultural societies have worked out? Out of the OECD countries, which are the ones that actually have separatist movements? Belgium and Canada, the two most multicultural of them all. It doesn't work. People live in communities of like-minded people, and large groups of societies form nations, usually due to common history, ethnicity, or language. This is a meaningful, relevant form of social organization. We live in communities and nations, and people shouldn't be forced to lose these bonds in the name of multiculturalism. It's another form of liberalism atomizing the individual and corroding important traditional social structures that provide people with community, a set of rules, and meaning, which are some of the most basic human needs.

But liberals believe of individual rights and that society composes of a bunch of contract-making individuals and they can't see this. According to them we live in a global economy (that is and should be removing barriers to the movement of goods, capital, and people across boarders) and we are citizens of this global economy who make contracts with each other. There is no room for society and nationhood within such a philosophy, they are only barriers to global economic and cultural integration. They want us all to live in one big, liberal, multicultural global economy where we trade with each other, where everything moves without impediments. I don't want to live in such a place, I want to live in America. Just as Germans want to live in Germany and Norwegians want to live in Norway.

[Pekka]

YES GERMANY LEARNAED NUTIN FROM TEH PAST they are still YOU KNOW WHAT!!

WIAT I have to continue, ALEX JONES IS CALLIN Gme and he is makeing a lot of sens as well!

[OzzyKP]

Here here! Multiculturalism is a very recent phenomenon. How liberals have convinced people that it should become dogma is beyond me. How many truly multicultural societies have worked out? Out of the OECD countries, which are the ones that actually have separatist movements? Belgium and Canada, the two most multicultural of them all. It doesn't work. People live in communities of like-minded people, and large groups of societies form nations, usually due to common history, ethnicity, or language. This is a meaningful, relevant form of social organization. We live in communities and nations, and people shouldn't be forced to lose these bonds in the name of multiculturalism. It's another form of liberalism atomizing the individual and corroding important traditional social structures that provide people with community, a set of rules, and meaning, which are some of the most basic human needs.

But liberals believe of individual rights and that society composes of a bunch of contract-making individuals and they can't see this. According to them we live in a global economy (that is and should be removing barriers to the movement of goods, capital, and people across boarders) and we are citizens of this global economy who make contracts with each other. There is no room for society and nationhood within such a philosophy, they are only barriers to global economic and cultural integration. They want us all to live in one big, liberal, multicultural global economy where we trade with each other, where everything moves without impediments. I don't want to live in such a place, I want to live in America. Just as Germans want to live in Germany and Norwegians want to live in Norway.

Just a bunch of racist, ignorant bs. We've always been multi-cultural. Not just countries like America who are thought of as traditionally multi-cultural but... everyone.

Look at France. According to Wikipedia these are the languages spoken in France:

Bourguignon-Morvandiau, Champenois or Campanois, Franc-Comtois, French, Gallo, Lorrain, Norman, Picard, Poitevin and Saintongeais, Walloon, Angevin, Manceau, Mayennais, Romande, Vivaroalpenc, Auvergnat, Gascon, Languedocien, Limousin, Nissart (Niçois or Niçart), Provençal, Bressan, Dauphinois, Forèzien, Jurassien, Lyonnais, Savoyard, Corsican (Corsu), Ligurian language, Catalan (Northern Catalan), Alsatian (Elsässerdeutsch), West Flemish dialect of Dutch, Lorraine Franconian aka Lothringen, Breton aka Brita or Brezhnoeg, Basque aka Euskara.

We used to live in small tribes and considered our "culture, language, race" to be a few dozen or a few hundred people. Anyone beyond that was a "foreigner". But still people intermingled, interbred, etc. Then these tribes grew and merged and moved around. We now have nation-states and some people (racists) ascribe some meaningful racial identity to those nations. As if French is somehow an insular and special ethnic group that is pure and different from English or German. It isn't. Every racial group and cultural group you wish to preserve is an amalgamation of many others. Everything we take for granted as important critical parts of our culture are things that were created at some point, or borrowed from elsewhere, or adapted, evolved and changed.

What's more Italian than Italian food? Well the pasta came from China and the tomatoes came from the Americas. Hundreds of years ago they were influenced by other cultures. They borrowed some, mixed in a bit of their own flair, and made something new and cool. They, and the world, would be worse off if a bunch of close-minded Italians (i.e. Venetians, Sicilians, Florentines, Romans, Sardinians, Lombards, etc) had closed themselves off from new ideas, new people, and new cultures.

You just don't recognize that kind of diversity and multi-culturalism since our frame of reference changes. You said earlier, about America, that "Our immigration was European. Our immigrants had a relatively common background." It only appears to be a common background to you now, many years later because your frame of reference changes. Ask your anti-immigrant counter-part in 1830 and he'll swear up and down about how those horrible Irish Catholics are ruining the country and distorting American culture and identity. Then ask your counter-part in 1890 (no doubt an Irish-American) and he'll tell you how those dirty Italians, Greeks, Poles, and Jews were ruining the country and distorting American culture and identity. How they are a totally different kind of immigrant than previous ones, and they don't assimilate, and they don't speak English, and they don't blend in with the rest of the country. Now you repeat the exact same tune and pretend that this wave of immigration is somehow different than every single other one that came before. Many years from now an anti-immigrant Irish-American, Italian-American and Mexican-American will stand hand in hand and rant and rave about all the dirty Kenyans, or Indians, or Haitians, or whoever, trying to get in to the country, and how they are *totally* different than when their ancestors came over.

We've grown from a 500 person tribe, to 50,000 person city-state, to a 5 million person nation-state, to a 300 million person super power. Technology makes this both possible and desirable. It isn't going to stop. So... get over it.

[Al B. Sure!]

Just a bunch of racist, ignorant bs. We've always been multi-cultural. Not just countries like America who are thought of as traditionally multi-cultural but... everyone.

Look at France. According to Wikipedia these are the languages spoken in France:

Bourguignon-Morvandiau, Champenois or Campanois, Franc-Comtois, French, Gallo, Lorrain, Norman, Picard, Poitevin and Saintongeais, Walloon, Angevin, Manceau, Mayennais, Romande, Vivaroalpenc, Auvergnat, Gascon, Languedocien, Limousin, Nissart (Niçois or Niçart), Provençal, Bressan, Dauphinois, Forèzien, Jurassien, Lyonnais, Savoyard, Corsican (Corsu), Ligurian language, Catalan (Northern Catalan), Alsatian (Elsässerdeutsch), West Flemish dialect of Dutch, Lorraine Franconian aka Lothringen, Breton aka Brita or Brezhnoeg, Basque aka Euskara.

We used to live in small tribes and considered our "culture, language, race" to be a few dozen or a few hundred people. Anyone beyond that was a "foreigner". But still people intermingled, interbred, etc. Then these tribes grew and merged and moved around. We now have nation-states and some people (racists) ascribe some meaningful racial identity to those nations. As if French is somehow an insular and special ethnic group that is pure and different from English or German. It isn't. Every racial group and cultural group you wish to preserve is an amalgamation of many others. Everything we take for granted as important critical parts of our culture are things that were created at some point, or borrowed from elsewhere, or adapted, evolved and changed.

What's more Italian than Italian food? Well the pasta came from China and the tomatoes came from the Americas. Hundreds of years ago they were influenced by other cultures. They borrowed some, mixed in a bit of their own flair, and made something new and cool. They, and the world, would be worse off if a bunch of close-minded Italians (i.e. Venetians, Sicilians, Florentines, Romans, Sardinians, Lombards, etc) had closed themselves off from new ideas, new people, and new cultures.

You just don't recognize that kind of diversity and multi-culturalism since our frame of reference changes. You said earlier, about America, that "Our immigration was European. Our immigrants had a relatively common background." It only appears to be a common background to you now, many years later because your frame of reference changes. Ask your anti-immigrant counter-part in 1830 and he'll swear up and down about how those horrible Irish Catholics are ruining the country and distorting American culture and identity. Then ask your counter-part in 1890 (no doubt an Irish-American) and he'll tell you how those dirty Italians, Greeks, Poles, and Jews were ruining the country and distorting American culture and identity. How they are a totally different kind of immigrant than previous ones, and they don't assimilate, and they don't speak English, and they don't blend in with the rest of the country. Now you repeat the exact same tune and pretend that this wave of immigration is somehow different than every single other one that came before. Many years from now an anti-immigrant Irish-American, Italian-American and Mexican-American will stand hand in hand and rant and rave about all the dirty Kenyans, or Indians, or Haitians, or whoever, trying to get in to the country, and how they are *totally* different than when their ancestors came over.

We've grown from a 500 person tribe, to 50,000 person city-state, to a 5 million person nation-state, to a 300 million person super power. Technology makes this both possible and desirable. It isn't going to stop. So... get over it.

A la Curtis, Good Post!


But pasta didn't get to Italy from China. The origins of pasta in the West are still unknown but lasagna was known to the Romans.

[DriXnaK]

Bourguignon-Morvandiau, Champenois or Campanois, Franc-Comtois, French, Gallo, Lorrain, Norman, Picard, Poitevin and Saintongeais, Walloon, Angevin, Manceau, Mayennais, Romande, Vivaroalpenc, Auvergnat, Gascon, Languedocien, Limousin, Nissart (Niçois or Niçart), Provençal, Bressan, Dauphinois, Forèzien, Jurassien, Lyonnais, Savoyard, Corsican (Corsu), Ligurian language, Catalan (Northern Catalan), Alsatian (Elsässerdeutsch), West Flemish dialect of Dutch, Lorraine Franconian aka Lothringen, Breton aka Brita or Brezhnoeg, Basque aka Euskara.

This is your example of multiculturalism in France? Now tell me, which of those languages are non-western European in nature? Idiot. You should stick to pushing a cause no one cares about and leaching off of donations in your non-profit.

We used to live in small tribes and considered our "culture, language, race" to be a few dozen or a few hundred people. Anyone beyond that was a "foreigner". But still people intermingled, interbred, etc. Then these tribes grew and merged and moved around. We now have nation-states and some people (racists) ascribe some meaningful racial identity to those nations. As if French is somehow an insular and special ethnic group that is pure and different from English or German. It isn't. Every racial group and cultural group you wish to preserve is an amalgamation of many others. Everything we take for granted as important critical parts of our culture are things that were created at some point, or borrowed from elsewhere, or adapted, evolved and changed.

Yet again, Western Europeans.

What's more Italian than Italian food? Well the pasta came from China and the tomatoes came from the Americas. Hundreds of years ago they were influenced by other cultures. They borrowed some, mixed in a bit of their own flair, and made something new and cool. They, and the world, would be worse off if a bunch of close-minded Italians (i.e. Venetians, Sicilians, Florentines, Romans, Sardinians, Lombards, etc) had closed themselves off from new ideas, new people, and new cultures.

You're seriously using food as your example of multiculturalism? Seriously? Could you possibly come up with an example with less impact than this? Unbelievable.

Your entire argument is based on the immigration of a people from a similar culture to another similar culture. Your only true example of multiculturalism is food...My god, where's the examples of more radical changes like Islam taking over Europe as an example of an amazingly positive multicultural success story? Oh wait, there aren't any. That was one of the fluffiest posts I've seen in a long time. Come up with some half way decent examples and I might even remotely take you seriously. You also completely leave out the fact that the immigrants of the past assimilated into society. How many of those immigrants today speak only their native language and actively try to force it on their adoptive populace? How many of those immigrants came in and refused to conform to the culture of their adoptive country? The answer is there weren't any. Back then people weren't tolerant enough to have people come in and colonize the neighborhood. The colonization/salad bowl multiculturalism you see today is a recent phenomenon and made possible by the extreme levels of tolerance displayed by the west.

[Elok]

You forgot to call him a socialist.

[DriXnaK]

There's no need, everyone already knows he's one.

[Monk]

OZZY, DUDE! You're under-estimating the significance of being a nation built on immigration and a nation not built on immigration. Immigrants to the US more or less started over. That's an entirely different situation than the European countries, including but certainly not limited to colonial powers. Add to that the extended welfare state in many countries and try to realize the situations are very much different.

Oh, and you're also not considering the fact that other than exterminating the original population, the US went through a bloody civil war in order to eventually establish a fairly united country. You might benefit from that here in 2010, but I think I'd prefer another option now!

Finally, regardless of what different Europeans thought about each other in 18-whatever, they are - both then and now - closer to each other than the European and, say, Arab. That's true in a religious, political, cultural and historical sense, to say nothing of the linguistic ties. That doesn't mean that all the English and Italians liked each other, sure, but it certainly paved the way for their children to assimilate into the same country.

The idea of all immigrants being lumped together that way is unwise at best and dangerous at worst. At least in Denmark and presumably in many other countries, statistics will show that the Hungarian immigrants of 1956 or the Chilean ones of 1973 blended in virtually without any fuss. There's no German street gangs or any alarming number of Norwegians on welfare either. That's less true for certain other nationalities, to say the least, and you can hardly blame it all on racism.

[Al B. Sure!]

The idea of all immigrants being lumped together that way is unwise at best and dangerous at worst. At least in Denmark and presumably in many other countries, statistics will show that the Hungarian immigrants of 1956 or the Chilean ones of 1973 blended in virtually without any fuss. There's no German street gangs or any alarming number of Norwegians on welfare either. That's less true for certain other nationalities, to say the least, and you can hardly blame it all on racism.

Anyone else find this similar to something a Klansman would say... Black people commit all these crimes and are gang members and need to be deported back to Africa because they threaten the White American way of life!

[DriXnaK]

Are you trying to say that culture has nothing to do with immigration and assimilation? Are you trying to suggest that there is some other reason for the assimilation of some groups while others cause problems? Your post is completely pointless, and like Ozzy, you're trying to say anyone who questions the viability of a group of immigrants is a racist. I expect that from someone as worthless as you.

[rah]

Just more European racism... We truly take for granted things like freedom of religion and democracy here in the US and assume that our fellow first worlders value the same things. Guess not.

1 in 10 want a Fuhrer!

I have to laugh. I'm sure 1 in 10 americans would vote for someone worse than a Fuhrer.