| Page 2 of 8 |
Nalo
nothing
Posts: 13522
|
 Posted: Sat, 11th Jun 2016 17:41 Post subject: |
|
 |
Last edited by Nalo on Wed, 3rd Jul 2024 06:04; edited 2 times in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 11th Jun 2016 17:42 Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by paxsali on Thu, 4th Jul 2024 21:29; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nalo
nothing
Posts: 13522
|
| Posted: Sat, 11th Jun 2016 17:53 Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by Nalo on Wed, 3rd Jul 2024 06:04; edited 2 times in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 11th Jun 2016 18:51 Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by paxsali on Thu, 4th Jul 2024 21:29; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nalo
nothing
Posts: 13522
|
| Posted: Sat, 11th Jun 2016 19:50 Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by Nalo on Wed, 3rd Jul 2024 06:04; edited 2 times in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 11th Jun 2016 20:17 Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by paxsali on Thu, 4th Jul 2024 21:29; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 11th Jun 2016 21:30 Post subject: |
|
|
If someone says "Uzbekistan is for the uzbeks!" is he a bigot? Yes, no pakis, no iraqis, no afghans, Uzbekistan should be about uzbeks and they should govern themselves and let whoever they want in their country.
Is he a nazi, a bigot, a hateful extremist nationalist? Is what he said extreme?
Side note: Anyone non-uzbeki who is already living there legally is not affected by this view because he is already ... living legally in Uzbekistan.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nalo
nothing
Posts: 13522
|
| Posted: Sat, 11th Jun 2016 21:55 Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by Nalo on Wed, 3rd Jul 2024 06:04; edited 2 times in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 11th Jun 2016 22:35 Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by paxsali on Thu, 4th Jul 2024 21:29; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 11th Jun 2016 22:51 Post subject: |
|
|
Let the political incorrectness commence, brace yourselves:
Heritage is about the past, not the present. You can't say "look how many we are and we were born here, too" and demand to be considered british. Did this muslim's grandfathers get bombed by the nazis for example? He has no connection.
I wonder, what does a muslim british person feel when he sees a ww2 newsreel of british soldiers on the front? Does he think "my forefathers fought for my country when they had to, they shed their blood so I could live free, look at those proud lads" or does he think "ah ok, so that happened and later my parents moved here from Pakistan, good timing"
And let's not talk about the British empire's treatment of other countries ... I stayed at ww2, it's for the best 
So yes, muslims are part of british society, that has nothing to do with heritage, though. And Britain isn't 100% british from what I understand. London is Londonistan, let's be frank here
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 11th Jun 2016 23:11 Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by paxsali on Thu, 4th Jul 2024 21:29; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 11th Jun 2016 23:22 Post subject: |
|
|
This isn't a trial or a duel, I just posted my thoughts. My argument was that muslims are not part of british heritage and will never be true british. Well, IMO. And I have nothing to do with the UK, so basically I am using it as an example.
When I see a ww2 newsreel about the war in Greece, I think "Fuck, we were doing pretty good and then the fucking fascists+nazis fucked us up for no reason, the communist traitors had an opportunity to try to enforce a communist dictatorship and we would become like the other balkan communist countries if they had won the civil war. But when the greeks banded together we kicked some italian ass at least. And after the war many albanians and bulgarians (nazi collaborators) got booted out of my country, good riddings."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 11th Jun 2016 23:25 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 11th Jun 2016 23:30 Post subject: |
|
|
IMO there is a right and wrong and I consider you're wrong.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 11th Jun 2016 23:44 Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by paxsali on Thu, 4th Jul 2024 21:29; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 12th Jun 2016 00:38 Post subject: |
|
|
I consider Muslims born in the uk to be British, doesn't mean that I don't have concerns about some of their practices though.
just the other day I was in a taxi were the driver was fingering his prayer beads whilst driving.
plus Ramadan had started so I would assume that he'd been fasting, hopefully he wasn't too hardline and had broken his fast to drink some water since it was a blazing hot day.
otherwise most of the are fine, not happy with Muslim men marrying woman from Pakistan who speak no English though, it gives the man too much control.
The night is dark and the road is long. Come on dead men, return to your homes.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 12th Jun 2016 00:45 Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by paxsali on Thu, 4th Jul 2024 21:29; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 12th Jun 2016 17:01 Post subject: |
|
|
| Nalo wrote: | I think that
A) certainly there were rape gangs but you can't condemn a whole community for the actions of a minority
B) I believe there were also white British men involved in these rape crimes. Not simply a Muslim thing |
Of course,going "it´s ALL dem Muselims!11!" is wrong since only the people involved are to blame. Was merely pointing out that this guys rambling was labeled as boogus and automatically discarded.
| paxsali wrote: |
Now, I don't know what hardware costs in Poland, I guess it's cheaper because everything is stolen from Germany and resold... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 12th Jun 2016 20:56 Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by paxsali on Thu, 4th Jul 2024 21:29; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 13th Jun 2016 09:19 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 13th Jun 2016 15:17 Post subject: |
|
|
| paxsali wrote: |
Aye, you just posted some incoherent diarrhea and expected everyone to kinda, sort of, somewhat understand half-way through emotional rays and telepathy to "get" what you were actually trying to say.
Understood. |
This seems like an unduly harsh response to a valid opinion you seemingly failed to properly consider. Your discarding of emotional aspects of national identity is irrational.
Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be assuming that countries are characterized by their geographical bounds, maybe laws but otherwise little else. You fail to consider their different genesys and historical heritage - key components in a citizen's emotional attachment to the country and the society as a whole. Its like you take the American "melting pot" model as the default that applies to everyone.
Nation states have more distinct mythology beyond "hope for a better life" of the US. People value this heritage, identify with it and don't want it to loose importance in the future by means of demographic dilution.
So when you consider an immigrant from a different culture you will not have any attachment to, lets say, British cultural heritage handed down the ages, because it does not come from your ancestors. For a devout muslim the divide is even larger, not only because the faith is just different, but this faith in particular has many regulations about not fraternizing with non-believers to keep the community insular and protect from assimilation.
In short, less cultural homogeneity -> less emotional attachment between citizens - > less social cohesion -> more crime, conflicts. Colonial powers knew this principle of balkanization well and drew together multicultural countries so that they are divided against themselves and easily controllable. Now it is being sold as virtue.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 13th Jun 2016 16:13 Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by paxsali on Thu, 4th Jul 2024 21:29; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ankh
Posts: 23349
Location: Trelleborg
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nui
VIP Member
Posts: 5720
Location: in a place with fluffy towels
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 13th Jun 2016 17:37 Post subject: |
|
|
As a person so critical of the way others make their points you don't really make your thoughts apparent yourself. Sometimes people are too preoccupied in trying to lay down some rhetorical smack-down (whilst avoiding to put their thoughts out for scrutiny) to formulate a compelling argument. Typically a sign of a fragile ego in need of boosting. But i'm sure this characterization is not applicable to you! 
| paxsali wrote: |
Ok, several things here...
| Tankistas wrote: | | In short, less cultural homogeneity -> less emotional attachment between citizens - > less social cohesion -> more crime, conflicts. |
Interesting theory. Is this a proven fact? Can you provide us some reading / sources to this theory. What is it's name? Who wrote about this first?
Citations needed.
|
As for citations I am always happy to give them, don't have access to SciPub databases currently, but if some topic interest you in particular I can send you papers via PM later. This will do for now:
http://urbanpolicy.berkeley.edu/pdf/HQ_SF82.pdf
TL;DR is that ethnic heterogeneity leads to increases in crime, however this increase is mitigated by barriers in interaction (language, community etc.)
RE: divide and conquer - I never said it was anything beyond basic. Your mind put that there all by itself. My statement was precisely the opposite - it is completely mundane, hence as applicable now as it ever was. You can dance around semantics and split hairs all you want - cultural differences are differences whether tribal cultural or religious and the principle stands. How you personally classify them historically with 20/20 hindsight is meaningless. Christians/Protestants would now seem culturally similar but in the good old days it was enough for open slaughter.
| paxsali wrote: |
why did those colonial powers all and without exception got defeated after all?
|
Now you are just being silly. All powers have dominion until they do not. Most likely brought low by other, greater powers (in more recent history colonial powers let their colonies slip after they got weakened in conflict with other colonial powers). As time goes to infinity everyone's chance of survival goes to zero.
All that aside, I would like to get your views on national identity and its place in modern society, especially in context of the spread of islam in western countires.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 13th Jun 2016 18:56 Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by paxsali on Thu, 4th Jul 2024 21:29; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 14th Jun 2016 02:51 Post subject: |
|
|
| paxsali wrote: | @Tankistas
Easy to say after you first asserted the colonial powers to had some greater insight on the effects of "balkanization" and "multiculturalism" to then backpedal and play it down you really meant divide and conquer...  |
Please read that part of my post again. I never said that the current multiculturalist drive is a conspiracy by some malevolent force to enact D&C. You inferred it. I was trying to use a non specific example of how a state of cultural/ethnic fragmentation and the ensuing lack of cohesion is detrimental to a society. So much so that it was desirable for external enemies to foster it. I did not speak about what means were used to enact this - just that in my admittedly limited knowledge of history the *state* of diversity does not translate to a strength in human societies. My using of the word "sold" may have caused confusion and may not been the best as it implies agency. I meant the rationalizations you can find in the media or in some academic circles.
I do appreciate your thoughtful reply RE: D&C. Though I can't help but feel I am being dragged along to argue a point I never made.
Best way to respond would be to outline how I actually think multiculturalism came to be propagated. I have not thought too much in depth about this so there will be plenty to criticize and pick apart.
At best it is a "serendipitous conspiracy" not really a concerted effort but just an organic process when many interests converge. The question that I raise is "who benefits?":
1. Business and industry via supply of cheap labor to keep supply costs low and depress the wages of the remaining population. That tends to decrease wages for low-skilled workers and increase the wages at the top.
http://spa.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/09/21/1532440015603814.abstract
2. Real estate property owners and banks by proxy. Immigration pushes up demand on housing, higher rents, higher property values for property owners. Mortgages have to follow suit, hence, there is interest for banks as this is a good chunk of their business.
http://aut.researchgateway.ac.nz/handle/10292/5573
3. Left/socialist side of the political spectrum can benefit by importing a voting block from countries with sympathetic political climate. Best known example is the latin american immigrants to the US working out well for the democrats. One cant say how much intent was behind that originally in the 1970s, but now it seems intentional. Hence, term "illegal democrat" and the slogan "Build the Wall" from the republicans. (only this part could be seen as kind of intentional and insidious)
Combined with the fact that most of the more well-off segments of the population don't have to compete for jobs with immigrants and can afford to live far from the working class suburbs that immigrants inhabit makes for an attractive proposition. Everyone has the strength to withstand the misfortunes of others.
Finally, certain materialist philosophies that see ethnic differences as artificial pervade media and segments of academia, hence do much in shaping public opinion of people that don't come in contact with such matters directly. Therefore, in the video of the chavy drunk guy that @Nalo posted, while he does not make the most robust academic case for his views, he just lays out his own interests according to his experience as best as he can (given his inebriated state). Experience that the peanut gallery in the comment section mocking him has the luxury of not sharing. This really angers me.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 14th Jun 2016 11:57 Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by paxsali on Thu, 4th Jul 2024 21:29; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 14th Jun 2016 15:29 Post subject: |
|
|
| paxsali wrote: |
Now pls explain to me why that is sold as a virtue and by whom and under which context.
Because to me that sounds like an obvious thing to avoid, right? If one was to accept all above premises as true for the sake of the argument, ofc... |
I am not exactly sure what you mean by the question but it may have happened that the English language proved beyond my capabilities and I messed up the sentence chain. There may have been a jump in thought there
The last part of the sentence - "Now it is being sold as virtue. " part - I was talking about how a multicultural state (as you put it well "multiple cultures and ethnicities can live together in a sustainable way by immigration from outside and with "minimal" assimilation") is portrayed as desirable in large parts of the mainstream media, left side of the political spectrum with the right (with the exception of outright nationalists) not daring to openly oppose it.
Does that make more sense?
As I was talking pretty generally about societal and cultural fragmentation I payed little regard to what means it came to be. I gave an exaggerated example to highlight the underlying principle. I pulled colonial exploitation as it was the first thing that came to mind (French colonialism, and especially in Vietnam was the mental picture - dividing the region into 3 separately administered provinces, playing local mandarins and religious groups against each other, earlier Napoleon had done something similar in the Levant- not with mandarins ofc). No intent to assert that this is exactly equal to current immigration patterns. Just that it leads to problems of larger or smaller extent.
Could have gone with something not obviously intentional but that had the same result like the Sykes-Picot agreement. Borders drawn up where there were none before, conflicting groups forced to coexist within a single state etc. (This an answer to your observation "countries were multicultural to begin with, so they kinda were diveded to begin with in certain aspects of life". You can either put people within borders or borders around people to the same effect. Extrapolating from that study I linked before where barriers inhibit conflict - through engaging in shared statecraft disparate groups are forced to interact and this produces friction where previously there might have been avoidance/peace)
The general idea behind those few sentences was intended as follows:
1. Cultural division leads to low social cohesion.
2. Such an eroded state of society is detrimental enough that external predators had sought to create or at least exploit it in one form or another (the parallel example).
3. Surprisingly, the current societal consensus, narrative from media and policymakers is that multiculturalism is desirable , "Diversity is our strength" etc. (contrary to any historical example I am aware of)
Is that still as unclear? On what point do you think I should reconsider?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 2 of 8 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
