• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

NYT Denmark Struggles With Its Migrants

Status
Not open for further replies.
Good job with the shitposting, completely ignoring the points made.

The occupation difference between men/women are 7% on austrians without migration background(77% vs 70%), 11% with EU-intern migration(79% vs 68%). Between men/women of turkish origin it is 23% (65% vs 42%).

It's not shit posting. You are just posting what I am saying. That socioeconomics does play a big part and that the people at the bottom struggle the hardest.

As so does systemic racism. Studies in Sweden show widespread mistreatment in both recruiting processes and housing availability. And I doubt the rest of the EU is much better.

No country is building enclaves just for immigrants. What happens is that most immigrants from non western countries have low paying jobs or they live on welfare, so they live where housing is cheap. So they all move to the cheapest neighborhoods in a city and once they become entrenched there, you'll find islamic schools and halal butcher, which attracts even more of their countrymen. Ghetto forming is a natural process that city planners are unable to stop.


Can't speak for the rest of the EU but here is Sweden the richer municipalities don't take any immigrants and thus they are forced into the same areas that face the biggest socioeconomic challenges. One could argues that this is almost like a metafor for the whole EU were some countries won't take refugees.
 

Rest

All these years later I still chuckle at what a fucking moron that guy is.
Which new ideas does the culture of Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Somalia for example introduce and share that is compatible with western society? Honestly curious.
Art, music, language, fashion. You know, the things that make us human and not animals.
 

otapnam

Member
Also America never had welfare programs and benefits like the nordic countries do. This is the one key difference that sparks such stong hate against the immigrants/refugees among the natives.


Yeah - even without welfare programs and benefits offered and they still didnt want the chinese here.

Didn't they have such laws until the 1960s?

they did, I was just referring to when it was enacted - i forgot how long it lasted until.
 

Dalibor68

Banned
It's not shit posting. You are just posting what I am saying. That socioeconomics does play a big part and that the people at the bottom struggle the hardest.

As so does systemic racism. Studies in Sweden show widespread mistreatment in both recruiting processes and housing availability. And I doubt the rest of the EU is much better.

Wtf does that have to do with the higher unemployment rates of women from those cultures compared to other women (relative to those of men)? That was what I was discussing with Jumeira.

That's not cultural, communities don't embed low achievement and crime into a cultural norm, that's almost always down to poor education and failed programs to help these communities. Low unemployment of women? Again is this what youve been led to believe with internet articles or government figures?



Art, music, language, fashion. You know, the things that make us human and not animals.

I was obviously asking for specific examples.
 

SkyOdin

Member
Wtf does that have to do with the higher unemployment rates of muslim women compared to other women? That was what I was discussing with Piecake.



I was obviously asking for specific examples.
It could be related to how Muslim women are much more likely to be targeted by hate crimes than Muslim men: their manner of dress due to their culture means that their religion is far more visible. Muslim women may be turned away by prospective employers because they wear headscarves.
 

Dalibor68

Banned
It could be related to how Muslim women are much more likely to be targeted by hate crimes than Muslim men: their manner of dress due to their culture means that their religion is far more visible. Muslim women may be turned away by prospective employers because they wear headscarves.

There is no proof for that whatsoever.

If you read the statistics there is a trend - those turkish-austrians with an university degree do find jobs (only 5% of them are unemployed, same as people with eu-migration background; nonmigration-background it's 4,6%), so there is no big discrimination there. If you look further, 61% of turkish-austrians however only have compulsorary school as highest degree(vs 11% of austrians, 8,5% of eu-migrants - that is literally a 50% difference). At the same time the average turkish-austrian household is 1,5x bigger and living in the district with the biggest austrian-turkish population I can tell you by far the most women walking around with kids and/or child carriages are turkish women, same if I look into friends' families. So if you count two and two together you will find that most of them statistically are not somehow over-educated women who are unemployed because the damn racists are throwing away their applications but because most of them do not have any education and become housewives. (not that there is something inheritly wrong with being a housewive) Also not every turkish-austrian women wears a headscarf, quite the opposite (I could only find this book from 2009 which cites it as roughly 30%+ of women with turkish and north african origin wearing a headscarf here.)

http://www.integrationsfonds.at/fileadmin/content/migrationintegration-2016.pdf

Page 85 for household size.
Page 61 for unemployment by migration background and education.
Page 61 also for highest finished education by migration background.
 

petran79

Banned
I'm not European so I personally wouldn't know but what makes Middle eastern Muslims specifically so hard to integrate versus other groups? Especially considering other Muslim groups like Pakistanis in the UK or Turkish people in Germany have been able to integrate much better. As an outsider this leads me to believe that it's something else that's the route of the problem as oppose to any inherent fault towards the migrants. Of course again I'm not European but I am interested to know.

Not all Muslims and Muslim countries can be labelled the same. Eg Pakistan and Turkey are different.

Almost half of Europe (South and South East) were under Arab or Ottoman rule. Especially in the Balkans there are many mosques of that era and a considerable amount of native Muslims who lived there for centuries. That region has a shared history with the Ottoman Empire. My grandfather had to migrate from Turkey to Greece in the 1920s and he knew Turkish, just like my grandmother who was born in Northern Greece that was under Turkish rule just few years ago before her birth.

Because of that those countries are able to understand Middle East people better. Due to Ottoman rule many traits in the language, customs and cuisine survived. Both positive and negative, even till today. Also there was considerable diaspora of Europeans in Middle Eastern countries in the previous centuries. Eg Egypt, before Nasser started the nationalization.

While European countries that were under German, Austrian and Russian rule till the early 20th century had a different history, closer to the European ideals of today.
 
There is no proof for that whatsoever.

If you read the statistics there is a trend - those turkish-austrians with an university degree do find jobs (only 5% of them are unemployed, same as people with eu-migration background; nonmigration-background it's 4,6%), so there is no big discrimination there. If you look further, 61% of turkish-austrians however only have compulsorary school as highest degree(vs 11% of austrians, 8,5% of eu-migrants - that is literally a 50% difference). At the same time the average turkish-austrian household is 1,5x bigger and living in the district with the biggest austrian-turkish population I can tell you by far the most women walking around with kids and/or child carriages are turkish women, same if I look into friends' families. So if you count two and two together you will find that most of them statistically are not somehow over-educated women who are unemployed because the damn racists are throwing away their applications but because most of them do not have any education and become housewives. (not that there is something inheritly wrong with being a housewive) Also not every turkish-austrian women wears a headscarf, quite the opposite (I could only find this book from 2009 which cites it as roughly 30%+ of women with turkish and north african origin wearing a headscarf here.)

http://www.integrationsfonds.at/fileadmin/content/migrationintegration-2016.pdf

Page 85 for household size.
Page 61 for unemployment by migration background and education.
Page 61 also for highest finished education by migration background.

Not that surprised tbh.
In Sweden people with muslim sounding names have a 28% lower chance of getting an interview.
http://www.oxfordresearch.se/media/260507/rapport-forskning-diskriminering-muslimer-sverige.pdf
 

Pusherman

Member
http://www.volkskrant.nl/magazine/voorwaarts-in-de-strijd~a991983/

That's an article about employment among strict conservative christian women in the Netherlands. It describes very recent improvements in a community that traditionally sees the woman's place at home. In fact, one of our christian parties, the SGP, only allowed women on their ticket after a court order in 2006. And that party got 3 seats in parliament during the last elections, which is close 200.000 votes. Are those voters too culturally different from the rest of the Netherlands? Should we question their place in our liberal Democracy? I don't know what you're trying to prove with those numbers about Turkish-Austrian women but would whatever conclusion or theory you've come up with also hold true for conservative christian natives?

Besides, in the study Arbeidsmarktparticipatie van opgeleide moslimvrouwen (Can't link on my ipad but it's the first result, it is in dutch however) the scholars do cite discrimination and lower socioeconomic status as reasons for their underperfomance on the jobmarket. And in an analysis on female job-participation in the Netherlands' 4 biggest counties (title: arbeidsparticipatie van vrouwen van 25 tot 35 jaar in de vier grote gemeenten) , commisioned by one of our ministries, culture was only mentioned in a brief aside in the chapter on non-western women, largely playing a role among first generation immigrants. Most of the onus for their decision to work or not, however, was placed on an insufficient knowledge of the language, the difficulties of working and raising a family, lack of orientation on the jobmarket, discrimination, and a lack of faith in their ability to get hired.

Blaming culture or religion for the lower rates of non-western female job-participation doesn't correspond with the actual academic literature. Again, unemployment and poverty are problems for these migrant communities, not problems made by them.
 

Dalibor68

Banned
http://www.volkskrant.nl/magazine/voorwaarts-in-de-strijd~a991983/

That's an article about employment among strict conservative christian women in the Netherlands. It describes very recent improvements in a community that traditionally sees the woman's place at home. In fact, one of our christian parties, the SGP, only allowed women on their ticket after a court order in 2006. And that party got 3 seats in parliament during the last elections, which is close 200.000 votes. Are those voters too culturally different from the rest of the Netherlands? Should we question their place in our liberal Democracy? I don't know what you're trying to prove with those numbers about Turkish-Austrian women but would whatever conclusion or theory you've come up with also hold true for conservative christian natives?

So you go into whataboutism. Fine. What does the segment of "strict conservative women" have to do with anything here? I am talking about the turkish-austrian (female) group as a whole. You come here and throw in something about a fringe group of strict conservative christian women. You do realize that "strict conservative christian women" are already included in the "natives" and "EU-migration background" metrics as well, yes? Yet the results are the way they are. So then you will know that picking that out is completely irrelevant.

Besides, in the study Arbeidsmarktparticipatie van opgeleide moslimvrouwen (Can't link on my ipad but it's the first result, it is in dutch however) the scholars do cite discrimination and lower socioeconomic status as reasons for their underperfomance on the jobmarket. And in an analysis on female job-participation in the Netherlands' 4 biggest counties (title: arbeidsparticipatie van vrouwen van 25 tot 35 jaar in de vier grote gemeenten) , commisioned by one of our ministries, culture was only mentioned in a brief aside in the chapter on non-western women, largely playing a role among first generation immigrants. Most of the onus for their decision to work or not, however, was placed on an insufficient knowledge of the language, the difficulties of working and raising a family, lack of orientation on the jobmarket, discrimination, and a lack of faith in their ability to get hired.

Blaming culture or religion for the lower rates of non-western female job-participation doesn't correspond with the actual academic literature. Again, unemployment and poverty are problems for these migrant communities, not problems made by them.

Again. The gap between men and women who are employed is literally three times higher with austrian-turkish people than native austrians.

It's absolutely ridiculous to claim that this somehow is because they get discriminated so much on applications. Even if that was true, and in general it probably is to some extent based on the last names, that doesn't single out muslim women because muslim men have the same names. And the statistic LITERALLY shows that turkish people with an academix degree find the same amount as jobs as people with eu-migration background and only a tiny bit below that of native austrians. And again, by the estimates we have only 30%+ of austro-turkish women actually wear headscarves.

It is the low-educated(and in that group they are overrepresented by a huge margin) group that is mainly unemployed and at the same time you have statistics clearly showing their households are bigger and birth rates higher - after completing compulsary school a lot of them become housewives and not because of coincidence but because of the very conservative values that are propagated in those circles.

And in particular response to the bolded: aside from family raising, how are those at all female-only issues? They are not. And btw, in most (western and central anyways, or at least in austria) there are measures in place for parental leave for the father, so family raising isn't a female-only issue either. Think many would accept that? How can you with a straight face argue this has nothing to do with backwards conservative culture?
 
Regarding the Drumpf part is me saying that the people who vote for xonophobic parties are mostly the ones who staunchly oppose things like feminism and LGBTQ rights.

Well first of equating all Islam as problematic is strange since there are as many types of Islam.
Granted I'm no fan of Saudi wahhabism (or Saudi Arabia for that cause) but I don't think all forms of Islam are like wahhabism.
Granted many POC are from a lower socioeconomic background but that doesn't mean that they aren't allowed to flee from war and oppression.
We have spoken about this before and you are adamant that the Muslims or POC are the ones who need education about progressive issues but you always leave out the white cis gendered people who spout the exact same shit (see Drumph video, and I'm sure I can find something similar with rightwing EU parties).
I've seen you here before using the cultural and religious circumstances as a bat and I'm sick of it.
I have tried to communicate that you should try and make some contact with said people who do real work with said oppressed groups, but you are never interested.
I'm mostly sick of is in fact you don't present a solution past looking at "background, culture and religion."

I'm starting to think you aren't arguing in good faith.
If you are sick of my posts, there is an ignore function.

Throughout this thread (and in others) I have never voiced any support for far right parties or anything like that and will never vote for those. They disgust me just as much as they do you, but I do see how people are pushed that way by lack of believable solutions from traditional parties they don't trust anymore. Support for the far right here is also mostly from the lower educated and rural population which are feeling left behind more and more. Familiar story, since that is how Brexit happened also. That should not be ignored by traditional parties.

I did not equate all of Islam with the more problematic branches. In the post you quoted I even said: "I don't believe Muslims themselves are a problem." So I don't know how you can say that I did. I pointed out those problematic branched exist and are growing in influence, for example through preaching towards young and more easily influenced Muslim youth, while their parents aren't even aware that is happening until it is too late. Prominent Muslim politicians here have pointed that out also and see it as a growing problem. So if they are worried about that, I tend to listen because they know the subject far better.

The discussions are about immigration and in the case of Europe mostly Muslim immigration. That there are problematic views among white males is not news. It is also a problem that should be solved. Plenty of people in Western Europe still hold racist, sexist and/or homophobic views which should be addressed and solved. And let's not get started on Eastern Europe with this. However, that is not the subject of the debate, so why should I suddenly include that in the discussion? "They have backwards views to" does not excuse other people having them also, certainly not when the groups discussed hold them in relative larger numbers.

Can't speak for the rest of the EU but here is Sweden the richer municipalities don't take any immigrants and thus they are forced into the same areas that face the biggest socioeconomic challenges. One could argues that this is almost like a metafor for the whole EU were some countries won't take refugees.
How can they refuse immigrants? If someone wants to move there and can pay for it, they should be free to do so. Or are we talking social housing and refugee placement? Because those tend to be in cheaper areas and should be more spread out indeed.
 
If you are sick of my posts, there is an ignore function.

Throughout this thread (and in others) I have never voiced any support for far right parties or anything like that and will never vote for those. They disgust me just as much as they do you, but I do see how people are pushed that way by lack of believable solutions from traditional parties they don't trust anymore. Support for the far right here is also mostly from the lower educated and rural population which are feeling left behind more and more. Familiar story, since that is how Brexit happened also. That should not be ignored by traditional parties.

I did not equate all of Islam with the more problematic branches. In the post you quoted I even said: "I don't believe Muslims themselves are a problem." So I don't know how you can say that I did. I pointed out those problematic branched exist and are growing in influence, for example through preaching towards young and more easily influenced Muslim youth, while their parents aren't even aware that is happening until it is too late. Prominent Muslim politicians here have pointed that out also and see it as a growing problem. So if they are worried about that, I tend to listen because they know the subject far better.

The discussions are about immigration and in the case of Europe mostly Muslim immigration. That there are problematic views among white males is not news. It is also a problem that should be solved. Plenty of people in Western Europe still hold racist, sexist and/or homophobic views which should be addressed and solved. And let's not get started on Eastern Europe with this. However, that is not the subject of the debate, so why should I suddenly include that in the discussion? "They have backwards views to" does not excuse other people having them also, certainly not when the groups discussed hold them in relative larger numbers.


How can they refuse immigrants? If someone wants to move there and can pay for it, they should be free to do so. Or are we talking social housing and refugee placement? Because those tend to be in cheaper areas and should be more spread out indeed.


You may not have voiced support but you do use many of the same arguments as them.
Again you are using the rhetoric of pointing to one group as a problem instead of the problems being for the group.

Again I'm not buying your framing of the problem. How can people frame it as a problem caused BY muslims when we have the exact same problems with white people in our own countries? Doesn't that strike you has a bit hypocritical?
If you framed the argument with "all people in the EU need to learn more about feminism and other progressive ideas" I would be by your side!
But I don't think you do.

About the declining of immigrants i meant refugees, not immigrants.
 

Pusherman

Member
That wasn't whataboutism at all. I was trying to make two points.

1) We have religiously conservative natives living in Europe, in the Netherlands alone numbering into the hundreds of thousands. These people fit in here. Their conservative culture does not impede them from being Europeans/Dutch people. So what are you trying to say about religiously conservative muslims? How are they different, except ethnically, from the aforementioned conservative Christians? As someone raised muslim I immediately understand that people like to bring up conservative muslims as a way of questioning their place here. They're too different. They're medieval. They don't fit in. My example of the conservative christians was meant to show the double standard often in play when discussing religious conservatism. The Netherlands has a significant minority of extremely conservative christians. Their views on gender roles, sexuality and morality are often worse than the average Dutch muslim. And this segment of society is very politically active, all based on their faith. So why are discussions on conservatism always about muslims? Again, what are you trying to say about European muslims with your statistics and do you think they fundamentally differ from my example of native conservative christians.

2) Statistics do not tell a story on their own. The beauty of academics is that they help us understand statistics, controlling for many factors and allowing us to move beyond simple 'common sense' and intuition. You mentioned statistics on Turkish-Austrian female particupation on the jobs market and I tried to showcase how such numbers could in fact be intepreted differently and what other reasons besides culture scholars have concluded are perhaps behind the disproportional numbers. Now, I'll grant you that the Netherlands is not Austria and so different factors could be at play but if academic study has concluded that culture is unlikely to be the sole or even most important reason for women being behind men in the Netherlands I don't see why you should just come to that conclusion solely because of the raw statistics.
 

Dalibor68

Banned
That wasn't whataboutism at all. I was trying to make two points.

1) We have religiously conservative natives living in Europe, in the Netherlands alone numbering into the hundreds of thousands. These people fit in here. Their conservative culture does not impede them from being Europeans/Dutch people. So what are you trying to say about religiously conservative muslims? How are they different, except ethnically, from the aforementioned conservative Christians? As someone raised muslim I immediately understand that people like to bring up conservative muslims as a way of questioning their place here. They're too different. They're medieval. They don't fit in. My example of the conservative christians was meant to show the double standard often in play when discussing religious conservatism. The Netherlands has a significant minority of extremely conservative christians. Their views on gender roles, sexuality and morality are often worse than the average Dutch muslim. And this segment of society is very politically active, all based on their faith. So why are discussions on conservatism always about muslims? Again, what are you trying to say about European muslims with your statistics and do you think they fundamentally differ from my example of native conservative christians.

Those conservative christians you talk about. They are included in this statistic. This statistic includes everyone. Natives = liberal, moderate, conservative natives. Austroturks = liberal, moderate, conservative austroturks. And yet the average of both is so completely different.


2) Statistics do not tell a story on their own. The beauty of academics is that they help us understand statistics, controlling for many factors and allowing us to move beyond simple 'common sense' and intuition. You mentioned statistics on Turkish-Austrian female particupation on the jobs market and I tried to showcase how such numbers could in fact be intepreted differently and what other reasons besides culture scholars have concluded are perhaps behind the disproportional numbers. Now, I'll grant you that the Netherlands is not Austria and so different factors could be at play but if academic study has concluded that culture is unlikely to be the sole or even most important reason for women being behind men in the Netherlands I don't see why you should just come to that conclusion solely because of the raw statistics.

Yes and granted I don't have the numbers from the Netherlands either, so I can't say for sure, but I don't think it will be that different because it's pretty much a european phenomenon.

I don't think it is just intuition when the statistics literally indicate this.

If it was really just discrimination because of the last name on the application then this has no merit as muslim men have the same last names.

If it was really just discrimination because of headscarves, then a) how is that possible when only 30%+ wear headscarves to begin with and b) those with academic degrees find the same amount of jobs as everyone else?

The birthrates of austroturkish women are higher. The average households are bigger. The amount of women with only the most basic education is 4-5x higher than the natives. This is so glaring.

I mean what sounds more likely to you. That after they finished compulsorary school they send applications everywhere for the rest of their lives but continually always get turned down by racists or that they become housewives, which fits with the households/birth rate/unemployment in relation to education statistics exactly and everybody knows this culture is more patriarchal and conservative in terms of family.

And it fits with personal observation as well as someone who's been living in the country's district with the biggest austro-turkish population for 24years. Of course that is just an anecdote and not really relevant.
 

Darkangel

Member
Countries should have the right to reject multiculturalism if it's what the people want. If people don't want to assimilate then they can stay home.
 

Piecake

Member
Not all cultural differences deserve to be respected or accepted.

Then you'll always have trouble assimilating immigrants and will have ethnic enclaves where the people living there won't identify with the nation's culture and ideals.

Do you want to feel good by shitting on someone else's culture and beliefs or do you want to work towards integration and assimilation? Shitting on someone's beliefs will only make you feel good and make the person you are shitting on dislike you. It certainly won't change that persons mind and will likely harden that person against change because now they feel like they don't and will never identify with that nation's culture.

Integration and assimilation happens in the 2nd and 3rd generation. Identifying with a nation's dominant culture is a powerful force, especially when that dominant culture gives them more freedom and choice. It is not guaranteed though and can be fucked up by excluding them and insulting their identity.
 

Rosenskjold

Member
Very interesting thread in general. A very complex issue, with loads of "surveys" pointing in either direction, which makes it difficult to figure out what the right course of action is. The Danish government introduced a 2020 economic plan where part of it is changing the financial aid you're given as a parent. They're proposing that you only get full financial aid for the first two children, 50% for the third and nothing for the fourth, fifth etc. This was immediately labeled as anti-immigrant by the opposing parties.

I feel one of the posts really nailed the situation, saying you either have parties wanting to throw them all out or parties basically saying "it's all good, Danes just need to be more accepting." What I would like is just an honest politician admitting, no one really knows how to make everything work out the best for everyone.


Which new ideas does the culture of Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Somalia for example introduce and share that is compatible with western society? Honestly curious.

Let's start with music, the amazing detail to quarter-tone phrasings.
 

RoadHazard

Gold Member
Then you'll always have trouble assimilating immigrants and will have ethnic enclaves where the people living there won't identify with the nation's culture and ideals.

Do you want to feel good by shitting on someone else's culture and beliefs or do you want to work towards integration and assimilation? Shitting on someone's beliefs will only make you feel good and make the person you are shitting on dislike you. It certainly won't change that persons mind and will likely harden that person against change because now they feel like they don't and will never identify with that nation's culture.

Integration and assimilation happens in the 2nd and 3rd generation. Identifying with a nation's dominant culture is a powerful force, especially when that dominant culture gives them more freedom and choice. It is not guaranteed though and can be fucked up by excluding them and insulting their identity.

Integration is extremely important, but that doesn't mean we should start accepting everything about every person's culture, religion and beliefs. We're not gonna start accepting stoning gay people, or guys having child brides, sorry. We're also not gonna rewind our gender equality work hundreds of years to appease those who come here with terrible values. Those people (and don't say they don't exist) will have to adapt to our society, not the other way around. We won't accept your regressive values if they go against what we as a modern and progressive society have agreed upon.

And 2nd generation immigrants often turn out more problematic than their parents. Which is largely because those parents have failed to integrate and become productive members of society. Dad doesn't work or speak Swedish, mom doesn't work or speak Swedish, the family lives entirely on welfare. The example that sets is devastating. Total segregation happens, and 15 years later you have gangs of senseless criminals shooting each other, killing innocent bystanders, and blowing 8-year-olds up with hand grenades (that just happened the other week here in Gothenburg). And no, that shit doesn't happen because they're Muslim, but it does happen because they live in a parallel society. Which I realize you're saying we should avoid by accepting other cultures, but again, we can't do that unconditionally. We have to uphold our modern and progressive values. So what do we do? I'm not sure, really. Sadly.

(Many Muslims do integrate excellently and become superb contributing members of society, but far too many never do.)
 

Piecake

Member
Integration is extremely important, but that doesn't mean we should start accepting everything about every person's culture, religion and beliefs. We're not gonna start accepting stoning gay people, or guys having child brides, sorry. We're also not gonna rewind our gender equality work hundreds of years to appease those who come here with terrible values. Those people (and don't say they don't exist) will have to adapt to our society, not the other way around. We won't accept your regressive values if they go against what we as a modern and progressive society have agreed upon.

And 2nd generation immigrants often turn out more problematic than their parents. Which is largely because those parents have failed to integrate and become productive members of society. Dad doesn't work or speak Swedish, mom doesn't work or speak Swedish, the family lives entirely on welfare. The example that sets is devastating. Total segregation happens, and 15 years later you have gangs of senseless criminals shooting each other, killing innocent bystanders, and blowing 8-year-olds up with hand grenades (that just happened the other week here in Gothenburg). And no, that shit doesn't happen because they're Muslim, but it does happen because they live in a parallel society. Which I realize you're saying we should avoid by accepting other cultures, but again, we can't do that unconditionally. We have to uphold our modern and progressive values. So what do we do? I'm not sure, really. Sadly.

(Many Muslims do integrate excellently and become superb contributing members of society, but far too many never do.)

Canada is genuinely different from other Western countries in terms of its attitude toward immigrants. It's far more welcoming than basically everywhere else.

"Compared to the citizens of other developed immigrant-receiving countries, Canadians are by far the most open to and optimistic about immigration," Irene Bloemraad, a sociologist at UC Berkeley and its chair of Canadian studies, wrote in a 2012 study published by the Migration Policy Institute.

"In one comparative poll, only 27 percent of those surveyed in Canada agreed that immigration represented more of a problem than an opportunity. In the country that came closest to Canadian opinion, France, the perception of immigration as a problem was significantly higher, at 42 percent."

Why? According to Bloemraad, the Canadian government has spent decades attempting to foster tolerance and acceptance as core national values, through policies aimed at integrating immigrants and minority groups without stripping them of their group identity.

For example, Canada emphasized permanent resettlement and citizenship in its immigration policy, rather than the sort of guest worker policies you've often seen in the US and Europe.

This actually worked in reshaping the values of citizens, making them more tolerant. Bloemraad explains:

A key aspect of the "Canadian model" lies in the view that immigration helps with nation building. Bolstered by the federal government, this view goes beyond political and intellectual elites to be embraced by a significant proportion of ordinary Canadians.

Indeed, one recent paper found that, in Canada, those who expressed more patriotism were also more likely to support immigration and multiculturalism. In the United States this correlation went in the opposite direction: those expressing greater patriotism were more likely to express anti-immigrant attitudes.

Trudeau's inclusionary politics have worked, then, because he's operating in a country that has long prioritized tolerance as a matter of public policy.

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/8/11879482/ramadan-justin-trudeau-canada

This right here is a successful immigration policy. Canada did not change its laws to permit stoning or any other such nonsense. It did not lose its modern and progressive values.

What it did was put forth policies that integrated immigrants into the society without stripping them of their group identity and made Canadians feel pride and a sense of nationalism in their multicultural identity. It prioritized integration, inclusiveness, tolerance, and multiculturalism over in-group loyalty, being judgmental, and scapegoating

Being poor does not mean that the 2nd generation is any less integrated than an 2nd generation immigrant who is middle class. All it means that he/she is poor. That person can feel that they are not part of society, but that feeling comes from the nation trying to strip away their group identity and shitting on it, and the citizens of that nation not treating minority residents as 'true' citizens of that nation.

Immigrant enclaves are going to happen. It is part of human psychology to want to be around people who are similar to us and who we relate to. It has been like this throughout history and will continue to be like this. Immigrant enclaves do not necessarily mean that they aren't integrated into the nation's society. All integration takes is for that community to feel that they are a part of that society and a valued member of it. Stripping away group identity by shitting on their culture is a good way to kill integration.
 
You may not have voiced support but you do use many of the same arguments as them.
Again you are using the rhetoric of pointing to one group as a problem instead of the problems being for the group.

Again I'm not buying your framing of the problem. How can people frame it as a problem caused BY muslims when we have the exact same problems with white people in our own countries? Doesn't that strike you has a bit hypocritical?
If you framed the argument with "all people in the EU need to learn more about feminism and other progressive ideas" I would be by your side!
But I don't think you do.

About the declining of immigrants i meant refugees, not immigrants.
But the problem is that within those groups these problems are worse. So you do not want to pile that on to your already existing problems too much. I think we can all agree that mostly Muslim countries sadly have a worse track records when it comes to things as women's rights, LGBT rights, etc. So people living there and then moving towards Europe will hold those views more often.

Your argument of "this other group has problems too" just distracts from the problem this thread is talking about. We know there are plenty of problems to fix when it comes to sexism, racism, homophobia, and more. That does not mean it is the job of Western Europe to increase those problems within their borders by getting more people in who hold even more conservative views, while we want to get rid of those views.

And I am not saying that all Muslims hold views we rather not see. But with immigration from mostly Northern Africa and the Middle-east we have seen larger problems with backwards views towards women, the LGBT-community and people from other religions. And that the integration from those regions have been more difficult then others. So that needs to be dealt with and an argument of "other groups also have problems" is not offering any solution.

Those things are the peoples own responsibility if they immigrate in my view. I don't see why a European country should carry the burden of educating and trying to improve the views people hold if they come there. That should be on the one coming there.

Merely pointing this out already gets you pulling the racist and far right card, stopping any possible discussion to be had about this. And that is exactly one of the things that has led to it becoming worse, because for a long time that discussion was not taking place, and now we need to deal with an even more polarized society that has moved further and further towards the political (far) right on this discussion because the left and center has been unable to talk about it and offer answers about how to handle this. Even Muslim politicians are saying that we should look out for influence of the more extreme forms of Islam that are growing in Europe and that there are problems withing Muslim communities that we can't just ignore, so saying that should be dealt with is not far right rhetoric.

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/8/11879482/ramadan-justin-trudeau-canada

This right here is a successful immigration policy. Canada did not change its laws to permit stoning or any other such nonsense. It did not lose its modern and progressive values.

What it did was put forth policies that integrated immigrants into the society without stripping them of their group identity and made Canadians feel pride and a sense of nationalism in their multicultural identity. It prioritized integration, inclusiveness, tolerance, and multiculturalism over in-group loyalty, being judgmental, and scapegoating

Being poor does not mean that the 2nd generation is any less integrated than an 2nd generation immigrant who is middle class. All it means that he/she is poor. That person can feel that they are not part of society, but that feeling comes from the nation trying to strip away their group identity and shitting on it, and the citizens of that nation not treating minority residents as 'true' citizens of that nation.

Immigrant enclaves are going to happen. It is part of human psychology to want to be around people who are similar to us and who we relate to. It has been like this throughout history and will continue to be like this. Immigrant enclaves do not necessarily mean that they aren't integrated into the nation's society. All integration takes is for that community to feel that they are a part of that society and a valued member of it. Stripping away group identity by shitting on their culture is a good way to kill integration.
Why are we still constantly comparing European immigration to US and Canadian immigration, while the two are vastly different as pointed out in this thread earlier already? The policies to get into Canada and the geographical advantage these countries have over Europe when it comes to immigration from the rest of the world is very different.
 

keuja

Member
Pusherman said:
1) We have religiously conservative natives living in Europe, in the Netherlands alone numbering into the hundreds of thousands. These people fit in here. Their conservative culture does not impede them from being Europeans/Dutch people. So what are you trying to say about religiously conservative muslims? How are they different, except ethnically, from the aforementioned conservative Christians? As someone raised muslim I immediately understand that people like to bring up conservative muslims as a way of questioning their place here. They're too different. They're medieval. They don't fit in. My example of the conservative christians was meant to show the double standard often in play when discussing religious conservatism. The Netherlands has a significant minority of extremely conservative christians. Their views on gender roles, sexuality and morality are often worse than the average Dutch muslim. And this segment of society is very politically active, all based on their faith. So why are discussions on conservatism always about muslims? Again, what are you trying to say about European muslims with your statistics and do you think they fundamentally differ from my example of native conservative christians.

How conservative are you talking about? If you are talking the kind that advocates the implementation of Sharia laws, practice polygamy, or have their women wear the full burqa, no, they don't fit in, regardless of what you think.
Yes unfortunately there is double play because of the overall poor reputation of the muslims community (high crime rate in some areas and all those killings in the name of Islam by terrorrists) and because it is a religion from "elsewhere". I don't agree with this and think this is part of a vicious circle, just telling it how it is.
 

Dalibor68

Banned
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/8/11879482/ramadan-justin-trudeau-canada

This right here is a successful immigration policy. Canada did not change its laws to permit stoning or any other such nonsense. It did not lose its modern and progressive values.

What it did was put forth policies that integrated immigrants into the society without stripping them of their group identity and made Canadians feel pride and a sense of nationalism in their multicultural identity. It prioritized integration, inclusiveness, tolerance, and multiculturalism over in-group loyalty, being judgmental, and scapegoating

Being poor does not mean that the 2nd generation is any less integrated than an 2nd generation immigrant who is middle class. All it means that he/she is poor. That person can feel that they are not part of society, but that feeling comes from the nation trying to strip away their group identity and shitting on it, and the citizens of that nation not treating minority residents as 'true' citizens of that nation.

Immigrant enclaves are going to happen. It is part of human psychology to want to be around people who are similar to us and who we relate to. It has been like this throughout history and will continue to be like this. Immigrant enclaves do not necessarily mean that they aren't integrated into the nation's society. All integration takes is for that community to feel that they are a part of that society and a valued member of it. Stripping away group identity by shitting on their culture is a good way to kill integration.

Again with the comparisons to North America.

The comparisons with America bug me out since the amount and type of immigration received from the Middle East is completely different from that entering Europe.

Unlike America, Europe is not separated from the Middle East by two oceans and entire continents; instead, it's geographically connected. Literally. This means that not only European countries don't get to pick the best and brightest from the region, but that anybody can get in.

Mediterranean Europe is just a very short trip by boat from North Africa, but people are also traveling through car, bus, train and even on foot. Immigrants literally step in. Unlike America, we are not only getting artists, doctors and middle class folks looking for a better life, but lots of war scarred people from troubled areas, peasants with ass backwards beliefs and even ISIS defectors and sympathizers. There's no filter. Europe is also receiving them at a pace that would probably give most Americans a heart attack.

In comparison, America is getting the closest thing to immigration royalty. The mere fact that a Middle Eastern person immigrating to the US has to jump through so many hoops (from buying an expensive ticket to getting a visa) automatically casts aside the poor and the disadvantaged. Those are the ones entering Denmark and other European countries en masse.

There's a reason Iranian and Lebanese immigrants from the 80's never caught much flack in comparison to the latest wave of Middle Eastern immigrants. The differences are staggering.
 

RoadHazard

Gold Member
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/8/11879482/ramadan-justin-trudeau-canada

This right here is a successful immigration policy. Canada did not change its laws to permit stoning or any other such nonsense. It did not lose its modern and progressive values.

What it did was put forth policies that integrated immigrants into the society without stripping them of their group identity and made Canadians feel pride and a sense of nationalism in their multicultural identity. It prioritized integration, inclusiveness, tolerance, and multiculturalism over in-group loyalty, being judgmental, and scapegoating

Being poor does not mean that the 2nd generation is any less integrated than an 2nd generation immigrant who is middle class. All it means that he/she is poor. That person can feel that they are not part of society, but that feeling comes from the nation trying to strip away their group identity and shitting on it, and the citizens of that nation not treating minority residents as 'true' citizens of that nation.

Immigrant enclaves are going to happen. It is part of human psychology to want to be around people who are similar to us and who we relate to. It has been like this throughout history and will continue to be like this. Immigrant enclaves do not necessarily mean that they aren't integrated into the nation's society. All integration takes is for that community to feel that they are a part of that society and a valued member of it. Stripping away group identity by shitting on their culture is a good way to kill integration.

Comparing immigration to Canada with what's been happening in Europe (especially Sweden and Germany) recently is just silly. It's so completely different. Come back when Canada has taken in the same share of mostly poor uneducated immigrants from cultures very different from your own. Our culture and the culture of most of those who immigrate here simply aren't compatible. People like to talk about multi-culture, but as much as we would want that (and some like to pretend we do) we don't. We have segregation. And while society is surely partly to blame for that, you can't pin it all on it/us. The vast cultural differences make integration very difficult, unless the people coming here are ready to adapt. Like I said, we will not adapt to their regressive values, that's just out of the question. That doesn't mean we can't appreciate positive aspects (food, music, etc) of whatever culture they're coming from, but pretending that's all there is is just naive.
 

Piecake

Member
Again with the comparisons to North America.

America has a shit ton more diversity than Europe and the illegal immigrants from Latin America dwarfs that of Europe. Those illegal immigrants are poor and desperate people.

Ooo! but Muslims are just so different and completely incomparable with our values! That is complete bullshit. Europe apparently just fucking sucks at assimilation and integration and making those immigrants feel like they are part of their nation's society

While America has taken in far less ME refugees than Europe, America has taken in Somali refugees and these Somali refugees have congregated in certain cities, most notably Minneapolis. Minneapolis has a significant Somali and Hmong population. These are poor people who have very different cultures and values than the United States but have integrated and assimilated more or less successfully even though those communities are still comparatively poor.

So please, don't give me that crap that America just doesn't understand. Its rather insulting when a far less diverse nation tells you that you simply don't know what it is like dealing with different cultures.

Comparing immigration to Canada with what's been happening in Europe (especially Sweden and Germany) recently is just silly. It's so completely different. Come back when Canada has taken in the same share of mostly poor uneducated immigrants from very different cultures. Our culture and the culture of most of those who immigrate here simply aren't compatible. People like to talk about multi-culture, but as much as we would want to we don't have that. We have segregation. And while society is surely partly to blame for that, you can't pin it all on it/us. The vast cultural differences make integration very difficult, unless the people coming here are ready to adapt. Like I said, we will not adapt to their regressive values, that's just out of the question. That doesn't mean we can't appreciate positive aspects of whatever culture they're coming from, but pretending like that's all there is is just naive.

This is what no one seems to fucking get. Integration and assimilation just doesn't fucking happen in the first generation. It happens in the 2nd and 3rd generation. It is going to be hard work, it is going to be difficult, and its going to take time.

Frankly, I find it rather pitiful that you are claiming that Europe has had a much tougher time with cultural differences, diversity, and immigration when Canada and especially The USA are far far more ethnically and culturally diverse than any European state. You think all of those people were well educated middle class people? Lol. The thing that is different is European nations are actually having to deal with ethnic and cultural diversity seriously for the first time since like WWII. And they apparently suck at it.

Oh, but I forget. Muslims are the boogey men.

I never said it was going to be easy. I said that is the way to do it. If you don't want to do it, then fine, but you better stop pretending that Europe is the leader in humanitarian and progressive values,or whatever the hell Europe prides itself on, considering that a little bit of diversity brought all of that to a screeching halt.
 

Dalibor68

Banned
This is what no one seems to fucking get. Integration and assimilation just doesn't fucking happen in the first generation. It happens in the 2nd and 3rd generation. It is going to be hard work, it is going to be difficult, and its going to take time.

Except the complete opposite is happening with 2nd and 3rd generation muslims in europe. Recent study by University Münster:

Und trotzdem schätzen sich von den Jüngeren deutlich mehr als religiös ein, nämlich 72 Prozent.

And yet (despite them visiting mosques less), they call describe themselves a religious in much higher numbers.

So meinen 72 Prozent der Befragten aus der ersten Generation, aber nur 52 Prozent der Befragten aus der zweiten/dritten Generation, dass sich Muslime an die deutsche Kultur anpassen sollten.

72% of those asked from the 1st generation, but only 52% of those form the 2nd and 3rd generation say "Muslims should adapt to german culture".

Literally almost any other group integrated just fine, even traditionally barely religious people like the iranian refugees from 1979. But no, it just can't have anything to do with the religion and oppressive culture, it must be the bad bad majority society despite any indicator speaking against that (being the main culprit). You are so strapped down by your ideology that I don't see us reaching any common ground.
 

Funky Papa

FUNK-Y-PPA-4
America has a shit ton more diversity than Europe and the illegal immigrants from Latin America dwarfs that of Europe. Those illegal immigrants are poor and desperate people.

Ooo! but Muslims are just so different and completely incomparable with our values! That is complete bullshit. Europe apparently just fucking sucks at assimilation and integration and making those immigrants feel like they are part of their nation's society

While America has taken in far less ME refugees than Europe, America has taken in Somali refugees and these Somali refugees have congregated in certain cities, most notably Minneapolis. Minneapolis has a significant Somali and Hmong population. These are poor people who have very different cultures and values than the United States but have integrated and assimilated more or less successfully even though those communities are still comparatively poor.

So please, don't give me that crap that America just doesn't understand. Its rather insulting when a far less diverse nation tells you that you simply don't know what it is like dealing with different cultures.
Hi,

I wrote that post.

I'm an European citizen who worked for American companies for a very long time and has lived in America for a while, at times working with first generation immigrants. You could say I'm somewhat familiar with the way America handles immigration.

I also happened to further the point of that post with a follow up that you may find interesting.

Europe has dealt with (some) previous immigration waves with success. France and Germany received mass amounts of immigrats from Italy and Spain after WW2 and Yugoslavia during the 90's. Those families are now fully integrated, not unlike many Polish people in the UK and a large amount of Romanians in Spain. It should be noted that both Spanish and Italian immigrants also faced significant discrimination at the time.

One of the chief differences is that while immigrants tend to be insular as it's easier to find support within a community, some Muslim immigrants are specially insular. Many French and Spanish citizens immigrating to Germany and France during the 50's and the 60's quickly married outside of their group and opened business catering the main population. One generation in their descendants considered themselves citizens of their parents' host country instead of Spanish or Italian. The same is also true for many Latinamerican immigrants today. Mixed couples are plentiful.

Meanwhile, Muslims, and particularly those from certain, less socially developed countries (Lebanese and Iranian Muslims have traditionally integrated themselves very well in their host countries, so did pre-civil war Syrian nationals) are much more socially conservative than your average immigrant. It's not that they don't talk the local language, which most of them understand to a decent degree, but that a sizeable amount of them don't venture outside their communities. It doesn't help that they are much more socially conservative -if not regressive- than their host countries, creating friction with their neighbours.

This is not something that hasn't been examined before. The social dynamics are a complete mess and not very comparable to any other group. A study from the University of Barcelona (IIRC) focusing on the immigrant population of Spain found that most young Muslim women want to marry a man outside of their group, and that those who do so not only become more religiously relaxed, but their children enjoy better academic success. Meanwhile, Muslim men vastly prefer to marry Muslim women. If they marry a local, they largely expect her to convert. Also, their offspring doesn't fare as well as that from Muslim women married to non-Muslim locals.

While there's a core of racists dead set in preventing proper integration, one of the biggest problems with the way we've been handling immigration for the past decades is the idiotic belief that throwing people into low income neighbourhoods and forgetting about them would be enough. After all, it worked during the 50's and the 60's, right? Nevermind the fact that jobs were plentiful back then and those low skilled immigrants were dead set in making their host countries their home instead of replicating the conditions from their homelands or simply fleeing away.

Different immigrant groups carry different attitudes and social conventions that need to be individually addressed. A Lebanese or Jordanian immigrant is probably vastly different from a Syrian, a Libyan or an Afghan refugee like the ones currently rushing towards Europe, and none of them can be expected to thrive like other immigrants did in the 60's.
Yes. America has plenty of experience dealing with immigration. No, America doesn't have much experience dealing with immigration from North Africa and the Middle East. Further, not all countries from that region are the same. There's a huge social and cultural rift between some of them and their respective populations.

Recognizing that not all immigrants are the same and that indeed some of them carry values that are at odds with ours will allow us to create targeted and more humanitarian solutions. We really need to drop that "wow, you suck at integrating" mentality and start realizing that Muslim immigration is a very different thing from intra European, Asian and Latin American immigration, given the clan-based nature of many countries (which in many cases supersedes national identity, making integration even harder) and the way religion embeds in some of their societies.
 

Maedre

Banned
Hi,

I wrote that post.

I'm an European citizen who worked for American companies for a very long time and has lived in America for a while, at times working with first generation immigratns. You could say I'm somewhat familiar with the say American handles immigration.

I also happened to further the point of that post with a follow up that you may find interesting.


Yes. America has plenty of experience dealing with immigration. No, America doesn't have much experience dealing with immigration from North Africa and the Middle East. Further, not all countries from that region are the same. There's a huge social and cultural rift between some of them and their respective populations.

Recognizing that not all immigrants are the same and that indeed some of them carry values that are at odds with ours will allow us to create targeted and more humanitarian solutions. We really need to drop that "wow, you suck at integrating" mentality and start realizing that Muslim immigration is a very different thing from intra European, Asian and Latin American immigration, given the clan-based nature of many countries (which in many cases supersedes national identity, which makes integration even harder) and the way religion embeds in some of their societies.

I think this post summarize the whole situation in europe quiet good.
 

Shiggy

Member
Besides, in the study Arbeidsmarktparticipatie van opgeleide moslimvrouwen (Can't link on my ipad but it's the first result, it is in dutch however) the scholars do cite discrimination and lower socioeconomic status as reasons for their underperfomance on the jobmarket. And in an analysis on female job-participation in the Netherlands' 4 biggest counties (title: arbeidsparticipatie van vrouwen van 25 tot 35 jaar in de vier grote gemeenten) , commisioned by one of our ministries, culture was only mentioned in a brief aside in the chapter on non-western women, largely playing a role among first generation immigrants. Most of the onus for their decision to work or not, however, was placed on an insufficient knowledge of the language, the difficulties of working and raising a family, lack of orientation on the jobmarket, discrimination, and a lack of faith in their ability to get hired.

Blaming culture or religion for the lower rates of non-western female job-participation doesn't correspond with the actual academic literature. Again, unemployment and poverty are problems for these migrant communities, not problems made by them.

I was only able to find this student paper, which I would be very careful to cite here. It doesn't look like it was published in any serious paper, and whether just 15 participants are enough to draw conclusions is also questionable. I'm not quite sure how you even found this paper, but based on my limited Dutch it does not look like it would suffice any higher academic standards.
http://dare.uva.nl/cgi/arno/show.cgi?fid=352503


If we look at more scientific papers, we find evidence that culture and religion do play a decisive role. Ruud Koopmans, professor at the renown Berlin Humboldt University, published the article "Does assimilation work? Sociocultural determinants of labour market participation of European Muslims" in 2015. This study even talks about the discrimination you referred to:

Scholars have been quick to interpret differences in labour market status between natives and immigrants that remain after controlling for education and demographic variables as ‘ethnic penalties’ resulting from discrimination. However, these studies, usually based on general population surveys or census data, have not included measurements of discrimination to substantiate their claims, nor have they ruled out alternative explanations in terms of sociocultural differences between natives and immigrants. I have addressed this gap by analysing the role of several sociocultural variables, complemented by a measure of self-reported discrimination experiences.

By contrast, sociocultural factors contribute a great deal to explaining labour market gaps between natives and immigrants, between immigrant generations and among the four Muslim groups. I considered three types of cultural factors. First, I looked at host-country language proficiency and host-language media consumption. Language is for many jobs a relevant form of human capital, and additionally it is the means by which information about jobs and training opportunities and associated behavioural norms can be transmitted, either in interpersonal conversations or via the mass media. I found that language proficiency and host-language media use have significant positive impacts on immigrant women's labour force participation and reduce immigrant men's unemployment risks. Second, I investigated the role of social capital in the form of social contacts to natives. Both immigrant men's and women's unemployment risks were lower if they had host-country acquaintances, friends or family members. Third and finally, I looked at gender values, which as expected were relevant only for women's labour market position. They explain a considerable portion of immigrant women's lower participation rates compared to native women, as well as differences between the immigrant generations.

Before introducing these sociocultural variables, but after controlling for demography and education, I found large gaps between immigrants and natives, between the immigrant generations, and between the four immigrant ethnic groups. In previous studies, such remaining differences were often labelled as ‘ethnic penalties', but my results show that this is a premature conclusion. The sociocultural variables that I used—either used separately or summarised into a scale—explain most of the differences between immigrants and natives, as well as between the immigrant generations. After their inclusion in the explanatory model, there are hardly any statistically significant differences left between natives and immigrants, as well as between the immigrant generations.

I recommend reading the study as it also elaborates on why discrimination may have a limited effect even though it appears in some field studies.
 
"Birgitte Romme Larsen, a Danish anthropologist who has studied refugees and asylum seekers in rural areas, mentioned an African refugee who did not realize that closing his curtains during the day was interpreted as being unduly secretive. Other newcomers were not aware that congregating and talking loudly at a grocery might offend Danish sensibilities."

Is this a joke? Cause I'm laughing at how Danes get so offended at someone closing their curtains or people talking in a grocery store.
 

Lime

Member
Hi,

I wrote that post.

I'm an European citizen who worked for American companies for a very long time and has lived in America for a while, at times working with first generation immigrants. You could say I'm somewhat familiar with the way American handles immigration.

I also happened to further the point of that post with a follow up that you may find interesting.


Yes. America has plenty of experience dealing with immigration. No, America doesn't have much experience dealing with immigration from North Africa and the Middle East. Further, not all countries from that region are the same. There's a huge social and cultural rift between some of them and their respective populations.

Recognizing that not all immigrants are the same and that indeed some of them carry values that are at odds with ours will allow us to create targeted and more humanitarian solutions. We really need to drop that "wow, you suck at integrating" mentality and start realizing that Muslim immigration is a very different thing from intra European, Asian and Latin American immigration, given the clan-based nature of many countries (which in many cases supersedes national identity, making integration even harder) and the way religion embeds in some of their societies.

As a leftist with a history of calling European discourse about Muslims (from the Middle East) racist, this is a post I entirely agree with.
 

Lime

Member
"Birgitte Romme Larsen, a Danish anthropologist who has studied refugees and asylum seekers in rural areas, mentioned an African refugee who did not realize that closing his curtains during the day was interpreted as being unduly secretive. Other newcomers were not aware that congregating and talking loudly at a grocery might offend Danish sensibilities."

Is this a joke? Cause I'm laughing at how Danes get so offended at someone closing their curtains or people talking in a grocery store.

They don't get offended, but such things are more frowned upon. If you have curtains closed during the day, you have something to hide - it is very much looked upon as being unnecessarily weird and secretive. It's an irrational belief for sure, but somehow that's something that's almost universal. Sunlight and daylight are good things, so why would you block it out? Maybe it's related to the lack of sunlight in the winter, I don't know.

The talking in the supermarket depends on where you live - urban centers are more open and relaxed, whereas social rules in less populated (and therefore less diverse) areas are more conservative, if you get my point.
 
They don't get offended, but such things are more frowned upon. If you have curtains closed during the day, you have something to hide - it is very much looked upon as being unnecessarily weird and secretive. It's an irrational belief for sure, but somehow that's something that's almost universal. Sunlight and daylight are good things, so why would you block it out? Maybe it's related to the lack of sunlight in the winter, I don't know.

The talking in the supermarket depends on where you live - urban centers are more open and relaxed, whereas social rules in less populated (and therefore less diverse) areas are more conservative, if you get my point.

I'm just laughing that Danes frown upon closing curtains, as if this is the old wild west.
 

bjaelke

Member
I'm just laughing that Danes frown upon closing curtains, as if this is the old wild west.

In my neighbourhood closed curtains means you're dead (lots of old people around) so they don't like it if you leave them closed during the day. I've never heard about the "secretive" stuff before.
 

Shiggy

Member
I'm just laughing that Danes frown upon closing curtains, as if this is the old wild west.

Don't think it's really that strange. I mean, I would not expect it in a city. But in a small neighbourhood in a town or village, where you typically know your neighbours, it's pretty strange if somebody "hides" all day. Where I come from, it's frowned upon if you don't say "hi" to your neighbours, even if you're not very close.
 
But the problem is that within those groups these problems are worse. So you do not want to pile that on to your already existing problems too much. I think we can all agree that mostly Muslim countries sadly have a worse track records when it comes to things as women's rights, LGBT rights, etc. So people living there and then moving towards Europe will hold those views more often.

Your argument of "this other group has problems too" just distracts from the problem this thread is talking about. We know there are plenty of problems to fix when it comes to sexism, racism, homophobia, and more. That does not mean it is the job of Western Europe to increase those problems within their borders by getting more people in who hold even more conservative views, while we want to get rid of those views.

And I am not saying that all Muslims hold views we rather not see. But with immigration from mostly Northern Africa and the Middle-east we have seen larger problems with backwards views towards women, the LGBT-community and people from other religions. And that the integration from those regions have been more difficult then others. So that needs to be dealt with and an argument of "other groups also have problems" is not offering any solution.

Those things are the peoples own responsibility if they immigrate in my view. I don't see why a European country should carry the burden of educating and trying to improve the views people hold if they come there. That should be on the one coming there.

Merely pointing this out already gets you pulling the racist and far right card, stopping any possible discussion to be had about this. And that is exactly one of the things that has led to it becoming worse, because for a long time that discussion was not taking place, and now we need to deal with an even more polarized society that has moved further and further towards the political (far) right on this discussion because the left and center has been unable to talk about it and offer answers about how to handle this. Even Muslim politicians are saying that we should look out for influence of the more extreme forms of Islam that are growing in Europe and that there are problems withing Muslim communities that we can't just ignore, so saying that should be dealt with is not far right rhetoric.


Why are we still constantly comparing European immigration to US and Canadian immigration, while the two are vastly different as pointed out in this thread earlier already? The policies to get into Canada and the geographical advantage these countries have over Europe when it comes to immigration from the rest of the world is very different.


Again you are pointing to a big parts of a whole group as backwards and ignoring the real impact of racism and socioeconomics, cause THAT is the cause of their situation.
You pointing to culture as the sole issue is disingenuous.

Your framing of the problem is one of the biggest problems. You again and again lay the cause of bad integration at the of POC.
It is larger then that.
Am I to assume you think people who flee here shouldn't be allowed in if they come from a socioeconomic background that isn't up to snuff?

Anyways here is a link regarding the problems Muslims face in Sweden.
http://www.oxfordresearch.se/media/260507/rapport-forskning-diskriminering-muslimer-sverige.pdf

In a UN report they said:
"The Swedish philosophy of equality and its public and self-image as a country with respect for human rights, non-discrimination, and liberal democracy blinds it to the structural racism faced by Afro-Swedes and Africans in its midst."
http://qz.com/516017/sweden-is-not-the-tolerant-raceless-paradise-it-claims-to-be/?utm_source=YPL

But you know, lets just IGNORE all that and talk about how Muslims are the only part of this problem since we in the EU are so god damn awesome.
And speaking of Denmark is the country were a municipality wants to make pork MANDATORY....
But yeah.
Its them Muslims fault!
 

Dalibor68

Banned
And speaking of Denmark is the country were a municipality wants to make pork MANDATORY....

Didn't read up on the specific application. I'm assuming it's because they want to protect their national cuisine from a "race to the bottom" ie the smallest common denominator, which seems fair. We've seen it here in practice before - 5% are muslims and don't eat pork, so let's just ban pork as a whole instead of making special meals for those 5%. It even goes so far that while vegetarians, who actually make up a bigger crowd, have to just eat the normal meal without meat(instead of offering a special vegetarian meal) while the main meal get's adjusted to the 5% minority's tastes ie no pork. (Simplest solution would of course be to always offer 1 meat meal, including pork 2-3x a week, and one vegeratian meal).

I doubt "mandatory" means literally having pork-only meals 24/7 and forcing it down their throats. That would of course be wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom