What are your views on Multiculturalism in Ireland? - Threadbanned User List in OP

McHardcore

This topic of this thread is on peoples views on the benefit of multiculturalism in a country. There are attempts by posters here to steer the topic into a straw-man debate on illegal immigration.

Multiculturalism can consist of migrants arriving legally, or even 1st or 2nd generation born. Using John Doe1’s example of Nobel Prize winners, we can see that there is a dis-appropriate number of awards given to immigrants from other countries. These candidates may not have been able to exceed in their area of expertise using the resources of their own country. Similarly, their new country may not have the pool of candidates that could have reached these levels of expertise. Together, they mutually benefit one another resulting in the higher number of Nobel prizes won by immigrants. This is an example of the benefits of multiculturalism.

There are posters who will name a certain nationality of people and argue why these wont assimilate into a society for whatever reason. A similar argument was made against Germans in America a century before. At the time, these came over and built restaurants, guesthouses and even their own beerhouses. They kept their own German speaking schools that coexisted with English language schools. They were heavily discriminated against. Even Woodrow Wilson once said

“Any man who carries a hyphen about with him, carries a dagger that he is ready to plunge into the vitals of this Republic when he gets ready.”

They were seen as a race of “Huns” or barbaric raiders and spoke a language that the Americans could not understand. The Irish were similarly demonised.

However, over time, their assimilation worked to the benefit of America. Their influence on the education system can be seen today. “Kindergartens” were based off the schools from Germany. Germans introduced Physical Education (PE) as a schools subject. Vocational Education was a German public school concept, as were gymnasiums in schools. These even made their way over here to the benefit of Ireland. Germans pushed for universal education, something not common in America at the time. It wasn't just the education system either. Germans had a strong tradition of rest and outings on weekends. They influence brought picnic grounds, bandstands playgrounds, bowling alleys and concert halls to towns. The fact that these are seen as “American” culture now owes to their success at integration into that society.

People can let their xenophobic views cloud their judgement when it comes to the benefits of multiculturalism. History has shown us that this is a short-term problem and can be majorly beneficial to a country longer-term.

Dyr

McHardcore wrote: »

However, over time, their assimilation worked to the benefit of America.

Did the Sioux feel that way?

McHardcore

Bambi wrote: »

Did the Sioux feel that way?

They were less assimilated and more decimated.

ExMachina1000

[Deleted User] wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/09/eu-draft-declaration-sets-out-stricter-rules-on-migrant-integration

"Migrants to Europe must learn the language of their new home countries and encourage their children to integrate in the light of the recent Islamist terror attacks, EU governments plan to say in a declaration drafted by France, Austria and Germany."

"NGOs publishing “content hostile to integration will be excluded from receiving” state support under the terms of the resolution."

"“Along with recognition of European values, what successful integration means above all is learning the language of one’s new country, earning a living for oneself and for one’s family, and supporting the integration of one’s children …"

Finally. The west has awoken

biko

McHardcore wrote: »

This topic of this thread is on peoples views on the benefit of multiculturalism in a country.

Funny how you think of America. The peaceful coexistence of the original natives and the settlers didn't work out at all well.

Edit, beaten by Bambi

McHardcore

biko wrote: »

Funny how you think of America. The peaceful coexistence of the original natives and the settlers didn't work out at all well.

Edit, beaten by Bambi

Funny how it took you at least 15min to write the same response as Bambi.

biko

I'm getting slow

Gervais08

biko wrote: »

I'm getting slow

Possibly so (aren’t we all??) but I get to hum a Peter Gabriel classic whenever I see your username so thanks!!!

Wibbs

McHardcore wrote: »

This topic of this thread is on peoples views on the benefit of multiculturalism in a country. There are attempts by posters here to steer the topic into a straw-man debate on illegal immigration.

Well OK then. Let's have a look...

Multiculturalism can consist of migrants arriving legally, or even 1st or 2nd generation born. Using John Doe1’s example of Nobel Prize winners, we can see that there is a dis-appropriate number of awards given to immigrants from other countries. These candidates may not have been able to exceed in their area of expertise using the resources of their own country. Similarly, their new country may not have the pool of candidates that could have reached these levels of expertise. Together, they mutually benefit one another resulting in the higher number of Nobel prizes won by immigrants. This is an example of the benefits of multiculturalism.

1) Other than Switzerland the biggest example is the US. A nation founded and reliant upon immigration. This fundamental difference keeps being avoided. And it's not as if the US has the best record as far as multicultural strife goes.

2) Nobel winners are an absolutely tiny percentage of any population, immigrant or no.

3) run that same graphic from the foundation of the Nobel prize rather than 1969 and you'll see a bit of a shift. Why they have 69 as the start point suggests the graph maker knows this.

4) Factor in ethnicity into the same graph and certainly in the case of America you'd be forgiven for thinking that Jewish immigrants good, others not so much.

But OK, we'll add an increase in the likelihood of Nobel prize winners to the list of exotic foods and people to the list of positives.

There are posters who will name a certain nationality of people and argue why these wont assimilate into a society for whatever reason. A similar argument was made against Germans in America a century before. At the time, these came over and built restaurants, guesthouses and even their own beerhouses. They kept their own German speaking schools that coexisted with English language schools. They were heavily discriminated against. Even Woodrow Wilson once said

“Any man who carries a hyphen about with him, carries a dagger that he is ready to plunge into the vitals of this Republic when he gets ready.”

They were seen as a race of “Huns” or barbaric raiders and spoke a language that the Americans could not understand. The Irish were similarly demonised.

I'm afraid this smells of a bit of a copy paste from again a US viewpoint and one that is either ignorant of history, aimed at those equally ignorant of same and/or twisting the realities to fit their purpose.

The bit you fail to mention was Wilson was referring to hyphen Americans in general. Unlike today when American culture loves, or is near obsessed with claiming heritage(s) in front of "American", back then the conservative view was you say you're American, not [insert origin culture here]-American. Today an American in conversation telling you they're Irish/Polish/Italian American or whatever is common, it was not common back then. Quite the opposite in fact. Indeed most would have avoided that kind of conversation like the plague. That really only came along when the melting pot narrative became popular.

Secondly and kinda muy importante he came out with that during the First World War. Y'know, the one where Germany was America's enemy. It was a war propaganda speech. At the same time in the UK their royal family who were of German extraction changed their name to Windsor to avoid the same anti German feeling during the war. When the Second World War came along for America the culture turned against Asian Americans and threw a shedload of the Japanese Americans into camps. Then with the Cold War it was reds under the bed. America likes her scapegoats and internal enemies.

However, over time, their assimilation worked to the benefit of America. Their influence on the education system can be seen today. “Kindergartens” were based off the schools from Germany. Germans introduced Physical Education (PE) as a schools subject. Vocational Education was a German public school concept, as were gymnasiums in schools. These even made their way over here to the benefit of Ireland. Germans pushed for universal education, something not common in America at the time. It wasn't just the education system either. Germans had a strong tradition of rest and outings on weekends. They influence brought picnic grounds, bandstands playgrounds, bowling alleys and concert halls to towns. The fact that these are seen as “American” culture now owes to their success at integration into that society.

Eh...no. Half truths or again ignorance of history. For a start the word gymnasium doesn't mean PE in schools, certainly not those of Germanic origin, though I can see how an anglophone American commenter might think so. "Germans had a strong tradition of rest and outings on weekends" and Italians, Irish, Jews, Arabs, Spanish don't? Must have missed that memo. All Abrahamic faiths have the day of rest and recreation to one degree or another. The playground was an English innovation, picnics are French if anything, bandstands had been around in the US from the mid 19th century. Bowling has been around for a very long time in one form or other and the bowling alley in the US has no particular ethnic origin unless New York- American is one. You forgot, or rather the American viewpoint forgot to mention Christmas trees and cards. They are German in origin, but in Britain and her ex empire, so off the map for an American commentator.

Your list reminds me of the "all the things Muslims invented" that did the rounds a few years back. Mostly nonsense and more about a slant being supported.

People can let their xenophobic views cloud their judgement when it comes to the benefits of multiculturalism. History has shown us that this is a short-term problem and can be majorly beneficial to a country longer-term.

A short term problem eh? In fact when we look at multicultural nations in Europe made up of disparate ethnicities we see the problems are very rarely with the first generations, but increase with subsequent generations. This goes quadruple with migrant populations that stand out from the native. The problems get worse.

jmreire

The 1st generation remember very well what they have left, and have no wish to return to, so basically keep the head down, and try not to attract too much attention to them selves. The 2nd generation, who are Citizens of their adopted Country, have no such memory's of "The Old Country", plus, as Citizens they cannot be removed. So are free to behave as they wish, be that good or bad. I know one or two such Families, where the 2nd Generation visit their cousins and grandparents ,,, but don't show any great inclination to return and live there. And yet, the trend and inclination is to change the existing culture of their adopted Country, to be the same as the Country they have left,, and starting the cycle all over again.

Gervais08

jmreire wrote: »

The 1st generation remember very well what they have left, and have no wish to return to, so basically keep the head down, and try not to attract too much attention to them selves. The 2nd generation, who are Citizens of their adopted Country, have no such memory's of "The Old Country", plus, as Citizens they cannot be removed. So are free to behave as they wish, be that good or bad. I know one or two such Families, where the 2nd Generation visit their cousins and grandparents ,,, but don't show any great inclination to return and live there. And yet, the trend and inclination is to change the existing culture of their adopted Country, to be the same as the Country they have left,, and starting the cycle all over again.

The vast majority of the scum bombing, raping and stabbing across Europe tend to be second generation.

Cordell

Gervais08 wrote: »

The vast majority of the scum bombing, raping and stabbing across Europe tend to be second generation.

First generation is usually grateful and they know deep down that their people are the ones responsible for the, let's say, poor miserable and underdeveloped areas that Africa and the Middle East are. The second generation grows up hearing that we are responsible, so obviously they are easier to swing into radicalisation.

McHardcore

Wibbs wrote: »

1) Other than Switzerland the biggest example is the US. A nation founded and reliant upon immigration. This fundamental difference keeps being avoided. And it's not as if the US has the best record as far as multicultural strife goes.

You can selectively discount Switzerland and cherry pick the US if you want and even then your point still doesn't stand. Nearly all countries are founded on immigration. The people have to come from somewhere. Its not a "fundamental difference". Every country (bar Japan) in the list has a dis-appropriate large number of Nobel prize winners that are immigrants.

Wibbs wrote: »

2) Nobel winners are an absolutely tiny percentage of any population, immigrant or no.

Oh please. This is another poor attempt at a straw man fallacy: John Doe1 originally proposed using the number of Nobel Prize winners as a metric for the success of a population. It was not implied that all members of the population were Nobel Prize winners.

Wibbs wrote: »

3) run that same graphic from the foundation of the Nobel prize rather than 1969 and you'll see a bit of a shift. Why they have 69 as the start point suggests the graph maker knows this.

What are you implying and how do you know that the "graph maker knows this"? You might want to back up whatever conspiracy you are suggesting with some sources.

Wibbs wrote: »

4) Factor in ethnicity into the same graph and certainly in the case of America you'd be forgiven for thinking that Jewish immigrants good, others not so much. But OK, we'll add an increase in the likelihood of Nobel prize winners to the list of exotic foods and people to the list of positives.

What happened here? You were attempting to discredit immigrant Nobel Prize winners as a benefit to a society and then just gave up and accepted it?
It's not the actual Nobel Prizes themselves that are positive for a society, it's what they signify. The number of immigrant Noble prize winners are an indication of the benefit these immigrants are bringing to a multicultural society. Nobel Prizes, by definition, are awarded to to those who have conferred the greatest benefit to humankind. Yes, add that to the list of positives along with the food that you mentioned.

Wibbs wrote: »

The bit you fail to mention was Wilson was referring to hyphen Americans in general.

Wrong.
"German Americans became “hyphenated Americans” who suspiciously practiced their own traditions instead of “assimilating” into Anglo-American culture. .As President Woodrow Wilson once admonished: “Any man who carries a hyphen about with him, carries a dagger that he is ready to plunge into the vitals of this Republic when he gets ready.”. I stated that the Irish were similarly demonised.

Wibbs wrote: »

Unlike today when American culture loves, or is near obsessed with claiming heritage(s) in front of "American", back then the conservative view was you say you're American, not [insert origin culture here]-American. Today an American in conversation telling you they're Irish/Polish/Italian American or whatever is common, it was not common back then. Quite the opposite in fact. Indeed most would have avoided that kind of conversation like the plague. That really only came along when the melting pot narrative became popular.

That's a very interesting story. I'm not sure what point you hope it adds?

Wibbs wrote: »

Secondly and kinda muy importante he came out with that during the First World War. Y'know, the one where Germany was America's enemy. It was a war propaganda speech. At the same time in the UK their royal family who were of German extraction changed their name to Windsor to avoid the same anti German feeling during the war. When the Second World War came along for America the culture turned against Asian Americans and threw a shedload of the Japanese Americans into camps. Then with the Cold War it was reds under the bed. America likes her scapegoats and internal enemies.

Yes, this is the point I am making. America discriminates against their immigrants. It was the same for the Irish and they didn't fight against the Americans. This was the case before, during and after both world wars. This did not stop them from being beneficial to a multicultural America.

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh...no. Half truths or again ignorance of history. For a start the word gymnasium doesn't mean PE in schools

Wrong.
I never said that gymnasium meant PE in schools. Where are you getting that from? I said that Germans introduced Physical Education (PE) as a schools subject. Vocational Education was a German public school concept, as were gymnasiums in schools. Charles Beck, a German, established the first gymnasium in the United States. This hosted the first school gymnastics program in that country. He taught physical education (PE) classes with a curriculum modeled after the German Jahn's system. Have a read of https://www.academia.edu/1578314/The_German_contribution_to_American_physical_education_A_historical_perspective and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Beck

Wibbs wrote: »

The playground was an English innovation, picnics are French if anything, bandstands had been around in the US from the mid 19th century. Bowling has been around for a very long time in one form or other and the bowling alley in the US has no particular ethnic origin unless New York- American is one.

Wrong.
The first purpose built public playground was in the UK. The concept came from Friedrich Fröbel (1782 – 1852) and these were attached to schools in Germany.
It was German born Dr. Marie Zakrzewska that brought playgrounds to America. http://www.hubhistory.com/episodes/when-boston-invented-playgrounds-episode-111/ https://savingplaces.org/stories/how-we-came-to-play-the-history-of-playgrounds/

Wibbs wrote: »

Bowling has been around for a very long time in one form or other and the bowling alley in the US has no particular ethnic origin

Wrong.
Bowling was brought to America by British, German, and Dutch settlers. Again, its multicultural in origin. You attempt to nit-pick and correct smaller details and claim this discredits the whole of the original point is obvious.

Read the USA's Library of Congress summary on the subject if you won't take my word on it:

German immigrants also brought their reforming zeal to America's recreational life--it can even be argued that Germans invented the American weekend. Before the arrival of the Germans, many communities in the American colonies observed a Puritan sabbath, with an emphasis on rest and family time spent at home. Germans, however, had a long tradition of organized Sunday recreation and were enthusiastic devotees of the Sunday outing. After the arrival of German immigrants, new large-scale recreational facilities began to appear in U.S. towns--picnic grounds, bandstands, sports clubs, concert halls, bowling alleys, and playgrounds, all suitable for a weekend excursion with the family. Germans were also fond of social clubs, and formed singing societies, theater groups, and lodges. Anyone who uses one of today's theme parks, civic orchestras, swimming pools, or urban parks owes a debt to the German passion for recreation.


Or do you think that the Library of Congress is also "half truths and ignorant of history"?

Wibbs wrote: »

Your list reminds me of the "all the things Muslims invented" that did the rounds a few years back. Mostly nonsense and more about a slant being supported.

Thats nice. You should be brave and tell them yourself that their view is nonsense rather than telling others.



I'm not sure why you dont want to believe that German immigrants did not have a beneficial multicultural influence on America all the sources above are telling you otherwise. These are only the influences on Education and pastimes. We haven't even touched on the Sciences, Medicine, Arts and Philosophies for example.

Wibbs

McHardcore wrote: »

You can selectively discount Switzerland and cherry pick the US if you want and even then your point still doesn't stand. Nearly all countries are founded on immigration. The people have to come from somewhere. Its not a "fundamental difference". Every country (bar Japan) in the list has a dis-appropriate large number of Nobel prize winners that are immigrants.

Oh for god's sake, you're studiously avoiding the fact that the United States of America is a nation and culture fundamentally based and as far as human history goes recently so on immigration. It is an ex European colony. Of course all countries are founded on immigration, but again in fundamentally different ways to colonies who relied upon it, to the disadvantage of the locals in every case. And in many cases you're going back to the stone age to look for "immigration" and in that case what locals there were went extinct. After that came migrants on the back of the agricultural revolution. Bit far back too. There have been movements since of course, but almost exclusively on the back of conquest. However even with that there are pretty clear and ancient patterns down to today. Here's a genetic map of Europe:



A Genetic map of the US will show all sorts of jumble with some clustered around areas where people of the same backgrounds migrated to.In the last two hundred years for the most part.

America is not a model for Europe, by any stretch of the imagination. And as I pointed out hardly a shining model for multiculturalism. Unless you just count predominantly White and European culture in origin. Your German American list is great, an Irish list would be interesting, as would a Swedish, now please do the same for African Americans, or Hispanics, or Natives. Of those immigrant Nobel prize winners how many were illegals? How many were headhunted by US universities and research centres?

Oh please. This is another poor attempt at a straw man fallacy: John Doe1 originally proposed using the number of Nobel Prize winners as a metric for the success of a population. It was not implied that all members of the population were Nobel Prize winners. What are you implying and how do you know that the "graph maker knows this"? You might want to back up whatever conspiracy you are suggesting with some sources.

I merely asked the question why did the graph maker start in 1969 for an accolade that had been handed out since the 1890's? If someone fired up a graph of the demographics of the Olympic games and started in 69, I'd wonder why. So pretty simple question I would have thought. No "conspiracy" required.

What happened here? You were attempting to discredit immigrant Nobel Prize winners as a benefit to a society and then just gave up and accepted it?
It's not the actual Nobel Prizes themselves that are positive for a society, it's what they signify. The number of immigrant Noble prize winners are an indication of the benefit these immigrants are bringing to a multicultural society. Nobel Prizes, by definition, are awarded to to those who have conferred the greatest benefit to humankind. Yes, add that to the list of positives along with the food that you mentioned.

Oh please. The highest percentage is the US. See above. And still the majority of prizes doled out were to "locals", or as local as one can get in the US. And again Nobel prize winners are as miniscule a percentage of a population as one can get and is not exactly reflective of the wider society. It's like pointing at a Black mayor of some US city or other and claiming African Americans are doing so well.

Wrong.
"German Americans became “hyphenated Americans” who suspiciously practiced their own traditions instead of “assimilating” into Anglo-American culture. .As President Woodrow Wilson once admonished: “Any man who carries a hyphen about with him, carries a dagger that he is ready to plunge into the vitals of this Republic when he gets ready.”. I stated that the Irish were similarly demonised.

Again completely avoid the important part as to why German Americans were targetted by Woodrow at that particular time. World War One. It's hard to miss, even if trying to.

That's a very interesting story. I'm not sure what point you hope it adds?

The obvious one?

Yes, this is the point I am making. America discriminates against their immigrants.

As does everywhere else, or at least discriminates against those least like the natives. Another great positive for multiculturalism. But this time...

This did not stop them from being beneficial to a multicultural America.

"Multicultural America", again see the above differences to a European setting. And why don't you cast your eye to other multicultural places in the Americas? How many Nobel prizes racked up by Brazil, or Columbia, or Argentina? It seems as if being multicultural bestows such achievements randomly.

Or do you think that the Library of Congress is also "half truths and ignorant of history"?

It depends on the parts one reads. That's the nature of libraries and they tend to echo the background culture more than they don't. The same library has quite a stock of Edison inventing damned near everything. I'll give you a hint, he didn't. Not by a long shot, but that's the tale the culture generally wants to believe.

Thats nice. You should be brave and tell them yourself that their view is nonsense rather than telling others.

I fail to see what being "brave" has to do with it. Unless you assume that Muslims are likely to respond aggressively to such things? Naughty. And I have actually had that very conversation. No decapitations were involved funny enough. It was an interesting and informative back and forth. I'd have it again. The list was slanted entirely on Muslim inventions, though almost entirely ME examples and was either flat out wrong, half truths, or misattributed and missed a few actual ones. That it was Islam that did it, rather than a deep history of innovation in that part of the globe long before Islam came along, that sadly after a golden age stopped dead, because of Islam. But that's OK. All cultures are wont to claim such things as a personal pride narrative. The Irish love it, the British positively thrive on it. The Americans seem to think they won WW2 single handedly. To the degree I'm almost surprised the Germans and Japanese are even in the picture. However they're not factual and historical, but internal and external cultural "propaganda". America's melting pot another one.

I'm not sure why you dont want to believe that German immigrants did not have a beneficial multicultural influence on America all the sources above are telling you otherwise. These are only the influences on Education and pastimes. We haven't even touched on the Sciences, Medicine, Arts and Philosophies for example.

Again multicultural America. A "multicultural" America that funny enough was for the majority of its history pale of face in near every facet of achievement and life.

Sand

Wibbs wrote: »

Again multicultural America. A "multicultural" America that funny enough was for the majority of its history pale of face in near every facet of achievement and life.

This is the contradiction for advocates of mass migration when they try to use US history as a tactic. Was America a racist, white supremacist hellhole of slavery and colonial genocide? Or was America a multicultural melting pot which has historically welcomed people of all creeds and colours and thus any border control is a betrayal of true american values? Whats inescapable was that mass migration was a catastrophe for indigenous peoples. And that US politics are completely dominated by racial and ethnic divisions means there is no reason to believe anything will be different in Europe.

Truth is the US was never a nation of immigrants. It was a nation of settlers. There is a difference. And the role of immigration in US population growth throughout that period of settlement is overstated. The vast majority of population growth came from natural births within the US. Back in 1850, less than 10% of the US population was foreign born. For comparison, Ireland right now is at 17% foreign born residents.

Sand

Sand wrote: »

This is the contradiction for advocates of mass migration when they try to use US history as a tactic. Was America a racist, white supremacist hellhole of slavery and colonial genocide? Or was America a multicultural melting pot which has historically welcomed people of all creeds and colours and thus any border control is a betrayal of true american values? Whats inescapable was that mass migration was a catastrophe for indigenous peoples. And that US politics are completely dominated by racial and ethnic divisions means there is no reason to believe anything will be different in Europe.

Truth is the US was never a nation of immigrants. It was a nation of settlers. There is a difference. And the role of immigration in US population growth throughout that period of settlement is overstated. The vast majority of population growth came from natural births within the US. Back in 1850, less than 10% of the US population was foreign born. For comparison, Ireland right now is at 17% foreign born residents.

This settler versus immigrant distinction is huge and applies to other english speaking countries like Canada, Australia, new Zealand as well.

They were fundamentally set up as capitalist Christian countries based on English common law. Those are the backbone principles that underlie these countries. They didn't just randomly throw immigrants together into a melting pot and spit out prosperous and stable societies.

The analogy that works is that it is like adding vegetables into a tomato soup. You can add a variety of other vegetables but fundamentally you will still be left with tomato soup. However, as with everything there is a tipping point at which you lose the original ingredients if you add too much at a time.

ILoveYourVibes

Sand wrote: »

Was America a racist, white supremacist hellhole of slavery and colonial genocide? Or was America a multicultural melting pot which has historically welcomed people of all creeds and colours and thus any border control is a betrayal of true american values?

It wasn't immigration of white people to American that created the genocide or indigenous people it was racism.

Colonial genocide and immigration are very different.

Had white people immigrated into native American society America would look very different. They would be speaking native american langauges instead of english. And yes some of those native americans would be white ..ish ..or black or ...whatever.

ExMachina1000

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Finally. The west has awoken

Don't count on it. I thought Europe had woken up after Charlie Hebdo, then after the mass rapes in Cologne on NYE, then after Barcelona attack, then the Paris/Bataclan attack, then the Berlin, Nice truck attacks, then after the Manchester Arianna Grande attack.

There have been a lot of false dawns in terms of mainstream opinion getting redpilled.

Gervais08

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Don't count on it. I thought Europe had woken up after Charlie Hebdo, then after the mass rapes in Cologne on NYE, then after Barcelona attack, then the Paris/Bataclan attack, then the Berlin, Nice truck attacks, then after the Manchester Arianna Grande attack.

There have been a lot of false dawns in terms of mainstream opinion getting redpilled.

When the media go out of their way to downplay Islamist attacks then we will never get anywhere.

Wibbs

Sand wrote: »

This is the contradiction for advocates of mass migration when they try to use US history as a tactic.

Well a lot of it is down to the fact that the multicultural/melting pot/diversity is our strength is yet another American cultural import parroted by non Americans. It's also a propaganda of sorts as in the mid 20th century America started to come to terms with the fact America was not a melting pot at all. Unless you were White Anglo Saxon and Protestant. The melting pot wasn't so open to Blacks, Catholics, Jews beyond serving the WASP culture. So the narrative was shifted so the American Dream(c) wasn't too rattled. Another lie to tell themselves.

Thinking more on those German Americans. The largest diaspora in the US IIRC. They are White, Anglo Saxon and(mostly)Protestant and WW1 and anti German feeling had them drop their language and keep the head down and become even more "American", to the degree that by WW2 any reds huns under the bed was barely in the mix. They assimilated so completely that German American culture is itself barely in the mix today. Look at Hollywood. Over the last 40 years you can find African, Irish, Asian, Hispanic and Jewish American perspectives. The Italians have made a speciality of it. German American?.. They're just American really. Actually just thinking, the Amish get a look in every so often, but as a quaint curiosity outside of America and I can't recall them being noted as specifically German Americans.

So the takeaway from that would seem to be even if you're virtually identical in colour and creed to the underlying culture any differences remaining should be reduced to almost nothing to get into the melting pot. Not much hope for those of a different colour or creed who stand out.

Gervais08

Gervais08 wrote: »

When the media go out of their way to downplay Islamist attacks then we will never get anywhere.

I don't think they downplay Islamist attacks that much in fairness - after all it gets a lot of clicks and views for them.

What they do downplay is the more mundane low key anti-social behaviour in these majority immigrant areas. The hostility towards the host country. The lack of an attempt to integrate. The lack of respect for local people and customs. These things bubble away in the background but don't really garner much attention.

Mr. Karate

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think they downplay Islamist attacks that much in fairness - after all it gets a lot of clicks and views for them.

Refusing to say the ethnicity of that attacker and pulling the "We don't know what the motive for this attack was." when the guy clearly yells "Allah Akhbar." is downplaying Islamic jihad attacks.

jmreire

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think they downplay Islamist attacks that much in fairness - after all it gets a lot of clicks and views for them.

What they do downplay is the more mundane low key anti-social behaviour in these majority immigrant areas. The hostility towards the host country. The lack of an attempt to integrate. The lack of respect for local people and customs. These things bubble away in the background but don't really garner much attention.

I think that all that is about to change, from AlJazeera today:-

"Austria gov’t agrees to preventive arrests, ban ‘political Islam’
Proposals include the ability to close mosques, strip citizenship and imprison those convicted of ‘terrorism’ for life."

All this and much more in the full article. These proposals were made before after earlier atrocities , but always objected to by one Gov't party. But now, after the recent killings,all of the parties are in agreement. Europe is waking up. Just wait now for the usual Islamic backlash.....

Sand

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

It wasn't immigration of white people to American that created the genocide or indigenous people it was racism.

Colonial genocide and immigration are very different.

I don't agree. Native Americans and Indians (as in India) were both victims of colonialism. The difference between the Native Americans being reduced to a conquered people and the Indians retaining their country, culture and future as an independent people was mass migration. Europeans migrated into America in huge numbers, displacing native Americans and which never left. They didn't in India, where at most they were a tiny military/administrative elite, which left when the empire did.

Mass migration is what destroys indigenous people.

Had white people immigrated into native American society America would look very different. They would be speaking native american langauges instead of english. And yes some of those native americans would be white ..ish ..or black or ...whatever.

What you're missing is that they initially did integrate into native American society. They were a tiny minority, far from any assistance which Europe could offer. Indeed, in many cases they came to America to flee oppression from European governments, so even less likely to get help. They absolutely had to secure alliances with their native american neighbors. They fought alongside them, they traded with them and they intermarried with them.

Again, the decisive factor was mass migration - as numbers of Europeans swelled, suddenly the dynamic changed. It was the European colonists which had the numbers and now they had no need to integrate with natives or abandon any of their European beliefs.

The same thing will play out in Europe unless and until mass migration is ended. Mass migration is a disastrous policy for indigenous Europeans, same as it was for indigenous peoples across the world and throughout history.

Sand

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think they downplay Islamist attacks that much in fairness - after all it gets a lot of clicks and views for them.

What they do downplay is the more mundane low key anti-social behaviour in these majority immigrant areas. The hostility towards the host country. The lack of an attempt to integrate. The lack of respect for local people and customs. These things bubble away in the background but don't really garner much attention.

Yes, there is an attempt to differentiate between violent Islamic terrorism carried out by a minority and 'moderate' Islamic majority. As if the views of the terrorists are wholly alien in these enclaves and sprang out of nowhere. French police are questioning four ten years old's who voiced support for the murder of a teacher recently. They said it was a good thing, and they would murder their teacher should he insult their religion.

If anything, the so-called 'moderate' enclaves are the bigger problem for France. And its an entirely self inflicted, unnecessary problem. Past French governments have inflicted this ongoing, permanent problem on countless future generations of French people.

Yellow_Fern

In fairness it was lack of immunity disease not mass immigration that wiped out Native Americans. However you could point to places like Hawaii, New Caledonia, South Africa, Tibet, and the Comoros Mayotte island were mass migration unended indigenous dominance and way of life.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/13/violent-extremism-migrants-failure-to-integrate-eu

"After a week of disagreements over the contents of the proposed declaration pushed by France, Austria and Germany, references to Islam were removed along with demands for newcomers to learn the languages of their new home and “earn a living for oneself”.

The EU capitals nevertheless highlighted the need to improve social cohesion in Europe as part of its reaction to a spate of terrorist murders in Paris, Dresden, Conflans-Sainte-Honorine, Nice and Vienna.

“Integration is a two-way street,” the declaration said. “This means that migrants are expected to make an active effort to become integrated, while help in this regard is important.”

"Talk of sanctions against those who fail to integrate was removed and replaced with a softer warning to NGOs found to be breaking the law.
“Organisations that do not act in accordance with relevant legislation and support content that is contrary to fundamental rights and freedoms should not be supported by public funding, neither on national nor on European level,” the statement said. “Also, the undesirable foreign influencing of national civil and religious organisations through non-transparent financing should be limited.”

"The declaration was subsequently broadened to reflect concerns about the rise of the far-right, as well as Islamist terrorism."


IMHO failure to act strongly on this with something as milquetoast as requiring migrants to learn the language of their host nation and get a job will lead to the rise of the far right more than anything else they can do, its like they're giving Le Pen etc an own goal to go ahead and dissolve the EU

Sand

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/13/violent-extremism-migrants-failure-to-integrate-eu

"After a week of disagreements over the contents of the proposed declaration pushed by France, Austria and Germany, references to Islam were removed along with demands for newcomers to learn the languages of their new home and “earn a living for oneself”.

The EU capitals nevertheless highlighted the need to improve social cohesion in Europe as part of its reaction to a spate of terrorist murders in Paris, Dresden, Conflans-Sainte-Honorine, Nice and Vienna.

“Integration is a two-way street,” the declaration said. “This means that migrants are expected to make an active effort to become integrated, while help in this regard is important.”

"Talk of sanctions against those who fail to integrate was removed and replaced with a softer warning to NGOs found to be breaking the law.
“Organisations that do not act in accordance with relevant legislation and support content that is contrary to fundamental rights and freedoms should not be supported by public funding, neither on national nor on European level,” the statement said. “Also, the undesirable foreign influencing of national civil and religious organisations through non-transparent financing should be limited.”

"The declaration was subsequently broadened to reflect concerns about the rise of the far-right, as well as Islamist terrorism."


IMHO failure to act strongly on this with something as milquetoast as requiring migrants to learn the language of their host nation and get a job will lead to the rise of the far right more than anything else they can do, its like they're giving Le Pen etc an own goal to go ahead and dissolve the EU

This is why I was not impressed by Macron's talk over the last few weeks. It's just talk. Neoliberals simply aren't equipped to identify and address the problem of ethnic divisions in a country. Macron and his ilk are a dead end. For so long as they remain in power, the suffering of indigenous Europeans will grow and grow and grow.

I will add, I agree with the removal of Islam being specified as I think the focus on Islam lends itself to efforts to pretend the issue is Islam only, that non-Islamic mass migration is fine. Its not.

jmreire

Sand wrote: »

This is why I was not impressed by Macron's talk over the last few weeks. It's just talk. Neoliberals simply aren't equipped to identify and address the problem of ethnic divisions in a country. Macron and his ilk are a dead end. For so long as they remain in power, the suffering of indigenous Europeans will grow and grow and grow.

I will add, I agree with the removal of Islam being specified as I think the focus on Islam lends itself to efforts to pretend the issue is Islam only, that non-Islamic mass migration is fine. Its not.

All this will do is fan the flames of Islamic claims of "Islamophobia" and increase the backlash, which will in turn increase the probability of more "Allah Akbar" attacks. It will also weaken the west's position as Islamic radicals claim ( and rightly so) that the west is retreating..again!. All of this "offendedness"is only aimed at the west,,,where are the attacks on China's assault's on Islam? Showing images of Mohammad pales into insignificance compared to what the CCCP are doing to the Uighurs in Xinjiang. Up to a million Muslims in re-education camps, sterilization of women, closing Mosques ( and Christian Churches or other places of worship) Yet no mass demonstrations on the streets calling for boycott of Chinese goods or pictures Xi Jinping with the imprint of a shoe across his face. This is a very one way offendedness.....and its motives very questionable. But for sure this appeasement will not work,and it will give rise to a voter backlash in the EU.

I'm guessing the potential civil war in Ethiopia is going to result in another clamour to get to Europe.