The slow revolt of Western electorates

[Savannah]

4 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

. (There are obvious upsides to these kinds of societies, such as the fact that your women and daughters are property, that nepotism (

 

You are not serious, but still...
Who's property do you think that daughters of the infidels would exactly be considered in an islamist society? 
You must be aware of what's happened to the Yazidis? 

And in Rotherham? 

[Jo498]

I think very often the claim that "multiculturalism has failed" is pure rightwing signalling. It is in any case very unclear compared to which initial or hoped for successes or goals it has failed. So it is probably easy to claim both some success as well as failure because there are no clear criteria for either.

But there are probably two points why the talk of failure is understandable. At least in Germany for about 3 decades or more (1960s until 1990s) it seemed that the immigrants were, sometimes slowly, but overall integrating themselves well into the "mainstream" culture. So they became in most important respects "Germanized" and secularized and of the old culture only a few colorful touches, the food, maybe certain but isolated "exotic" manners etc. remained. Of course this is probably still true about the vast majority, especially 2nd/3rd generations (born in the 70s-90s). But in the last 20-25 years it has become more clear that there still is a fair amount of ghettoization, that within a small minority islamist extremism (or also political struggles that are imported, like Kurds vs. Turks) is prevalent and that there are also still some strict traditional family structures (with honor killings as a rare and extreme manifestation). So the situation is more complicated and the integration/westernisation not as unidirectional and fast than one might have hoped 30 years ago.

The other point is that German society has become far less traditionalist than it was only 30 years ago. So the gap between progressivist embracing of gay rights, gender quota, more liberal (not only sexual) mores becoming mainstream and traditionalist immigrants has become wider. If no politician or public personality except for some progressivist fringe even thinks of something like gay marriage, the wider gap between those who don't care either way and traditionalist immigrants who are deeply offended/disgusted by the very idea remains hidden. If this changes and Conchita Wurst becomes a starlet those rifts appear, like in the violent gay-bashing lyrics of some immigrant rap musicians.

[Rippounet]

7 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

Why can’t multiculturalism be a choice? Some societies can decide to be multicultural (and fail or succeed), others can reject that choice.

Ideally, it should be. But for many Western countries, it is far too late. Once citizenship is granted to vast numbers of people with different cultures, the society is de facto multicultural.
And then, as you wrote, the problem here comes from a very specific "other." Many large Western countries were always multicultural in the first place.
The question as I see it is not whether we want to have multiculturalism or not ; these days it is widely unpopular for obvious understandable reasons. The question is to know whether the existing institutional and legal frameworks in our Western countries need to be changed or not.

1 hour ago, Jo498 said:

I think very often the claim that "multiculturalism has failed" is pure rightwing signalling

I agree. The semantics used in the last couple of pages are typically rightwing. But it's also interesting to address and discuss some narratives that are becoming widespread throughout the West and its electorate.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Our cultural memory when it comes to multiculturalism, etc. seems incredibly short-sighted. There was a point in American history (late 19th and early 20th century) where Asian immigrants, particularly those of Chinese origins, were regarded as having foreign cultural values that were antithetical to "Western" and American society, somehow making them incapable of integration/assimilation into the United States. Now, does anyone in the United States say anything against Asian immigration? If so, it's barely a blip on the radar. There were even similar cries against other immigrant groups, even European ones (e.g. Irish, Russians, Italians, etc.). 

[Werthead]

It is interesting to see how many things that are considered "traditionally British" were introduced to this country by immigrants: fried fish was brought in by Jewish immigrants from Portugal and Spain, who also opened the first fish and chip shop in the 1860s. Tea - obviously - came from China and was introduced to the UK only in the late 17th Century (Samuel Pepys, in his famous diary, notes it as being a fad in London which had just started). Indian food is now the most popular type of food in the UK (even it chicken tikka masala was actually created in Scotland, but by either Pakistani or Bangladeshi immigrants depending on who you believe).

I think the counter-complaint about the speed and rate of integration does bear some examination, though, but there was pretty large numbers of migration from the Indian subcontinent in the 1960s that we survived and adapted to it. If anything, the current influx of migration from Eastern Europe is considerably less jarring. That isn't to say that migration should continue unimpeded (as our crumbling railways show, there's hard limits on how many people can physically live in relatively small parts of this not-huge island, and we're fast approaching them), but that it isn't something that cannot be handled.

[Happy Ent]

1 hour ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

There was a point in American history (late 19th and early 20th century) where Asian immigrants, particularly those of Chinese origins, were regarded as having foreign cultural values that were antithetical to "Western" and American society, somehow making them incapable of integration/assimilation into the United States.

Book recommendation in the vein of this argument: T C Leonard, Illiberal Reformers https://www.amazon.com/Illiberal-Reformers-Eugenics-Economics-Progressive/dp/0691169594. (Not read yet, only listened to a long interview with Leonard about it.)

[Kalbear]

Also, I think that it's clear that multiculturalism isn't a thing. 

The US culture is one - or at least was one - that was fairly permissive of different religions, languages, individual and local communal traditions and values. That is by itself a culture. It is even a unifying culture - a culture that says 'everyone can do things the way they want, and we're gonna be happy about that, so long as you let me do my thing too'. There were other unifying factors in there too, which have changed over time but largely been majority values - patriarchy, religiousness (doesn't matter which religion, only that you're part of one), independence. 

What is happening now as far as I can tell is that the US is becoming more and more bicultural. And not along pro-Islamic/anti-Islamic lines either (as is happening in Europe in a few places). There are certain norms that are becoming increasingly unacceptable to groups, and that is dividing them. Patriarchy is one that is being fought. Religiousness is openly being fought. Individuality is being fought. These are ways in which groups largely disagree with each other at a base level. Some of that manifests itself as anti-Muslim, but most of it manifests itself as simply anti 'the people in that group'. Which happens to be a big chunk of people that look different and have significantly different sets of local customs.

But I think it's a category error to mistake the US fighting against multiculturalism, because the US has never been multicultural. It has been a single culture that has worked to transform every group of people that comes in, and has in turn been somewhat transformed by every group of people that comes in.

[James Arryn]

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Also, I think that it's clear that multiculturalism isn't a thing. 

The US culture is one - or at least was one - that was fairly permissive of different religions, languages, individual and local communal traditions and values. That is by itself a culture. It is even a unifying culture - a culture that says 'everyone can do things the way they want, and we're gonna be happy about that, so long as you let me do my thing too'. There were other unifying factors in there too, which have changed over time but largely been majority values - patriarchy, religiousness (doesn't matter which religion, only that you're part of one), independence. 

What is happening now as far as I can tell is that the US is becoming more and more bicultural. And not along pro-Islamic/anti-Islamic lines either (as is happening in Europe in a few places). There are certain norms that are becoming increasingly unacceptable to groups, and that is dividing them. Patriarchy is one that is being fought. Religiousness is openly being fought. Individuality is being fought. These are ways in which groups largely disagree with each other at a base level. Some of that manifests itself as anti-Muslim, but most of it manifests itself as simply anti 'the people in that group'. Which happens to be a big chunk of people that look different and have significantly different sets of local customs.

But I think it's a category error to mistake the US fighting against multiculturalism, because the US has never been multicultural. It has been a single culture that has worked to transform every group of people that comes in, and has in turn been somewhat transformed by every group of people that comes in.

As a Canadian, I have a slightly different view. Potpourri vs. melting pot, to use the old standby. Americans welcome all (in theory) but expect those newcomers to largely assimilate into the American norm, ie Asian-Americans are clearly expected to emphasize the latter. There are generalized and specific examples of same, ie the need (changing I hear) to relinquish former citizenship, etc. You're melted into America, leave that which doesn't fit at the door.

In Canada it's more like 'bring it with you, it adds to the flavour' and we don't generally expect people to make a conscious choice of abandoning the cultures they come from, we haven't traditionally demanded people give up citizens hips elsewhere in order to get Canadian citizenship, etc. 

Tl; dr: Toronto is pretty multi-cultural in a real sense.

[Kalbear]

My impression of Canada is that this is a bit more lip service than it deserves and that there are Canadian norms that you expect them to obey too. If I had to guess, it'd be because Canada is basically big cities and then nothing, so there's a lot of room for either bigger melting pots and 'little x' areas in cities along with people off in the boonies doing whatever. There is definitely a Canadian cultural set of norms, and if a culture came in and expected to change, say, the love of hockey or weird-ass public television, they'd have a problem. 

My overall point is that the concept of multiculturalism is flawed as it corresponds to things like immigration, at least as far as the US is concerned. There are definitely different cultures in the US - especially now - but as long as you fit into them, you're locally fine, and fitting in isn't that difficult. Or...well, at least it wasn't. 

[James Arryn]

Just now, Kalbear said:

My impression of Canada is that this is a bit more lip service than it deserves and that there are Canadian norms that you expect them to obey too. If I had to guess, it'd be because Canada is basically big cities and then nothing, so there's a lot of room for either bigger melting pots and 'little x' areas in cities along with people off in the boonies doing whatever. There is definitely a Canadian cultural set of norms, and if a culture came in and expected to change, say, the love of hockey or weird-ass public television, they'd have a problem. 

My overall point is that the concept of multiculturalism is flawed as it corresponds to things like immigration, at least as far as the US is concerned. There are definitely different cultures in the US - especially now - but as long as you fit into them, you're locally fine, and fitting in isn't that difficult. Or...well, at least it wasn't. 

As an urban Canadian, I often say I have no idea what that means...being a Canadian...except in the negative. We're not American, we're not British, we're not French, etc. We don't really have an overt cultural identity other than the fact that we're a conglomerate. Hockey isn't really a culture, though it's maybe as close as we get.

But, as you identify, rural Canada might be a bit more nativist/like America...though as you also identify, that's a pretty significant minority. But someone growing up in Brandon Manitoba or Sarnia Ontario might have a clearer idea of what a Canadian is, as opposed to the urban clarity of what it isn't.

[Wouter]

19 hours ago, Rippounet said:

So yes, that study seems quite worthless to me. I'm genuinely surprised that the numbers are so low for Christians, and that does make me question some of my assumptions. What you conclude or suggest is still ludicrous though, since you obviously want to equate Islam with fundamentalism, and fundamentalism with a political agenda  -at least.

 

Now the question I'd really like you to answer is what you propose exactly. In spite of our differences, we still agree on some things. What I don't get is what this leads to exactly, if not ethnic cleansing (as some supporters of the National Front acknowledge from time to time).
France has pretty much closed its borders already (the current numbers of immigrants and refugees are rather low here). Depriving foreigners of some rights is completely pointless, but I have no solid reason to object. So... What is it that you are saying?

 

I don't want to equate Islam with fundamentalism. But rich donors in Saudi-Arabia, in the rest of the Gulf, in Iran etc want it to, and the amount of hate propaganda thrown towards muslims in Europe has been highly succesful, sadly. This is what that study shows (by the way: 15.000 radical muslims - radical enough to take action - is a very frightening number. It only takes one to drive a truck or to fire an AK47), sadly. 

I think it's questionable to say that France, or at least Europe in a more general sense, has pretty much closed its borders already. Certainly, in Belgium there is still a lot of pressure from media, "opinion maker", "experts" and much of the political landscape to open the borders, some using statistics to say "we are not doing enough for the people of Aleppo". 

Something else the present power in the government won't do is to stop the spread of salafist ideals. It has proven to be almost impossible in western democracies to get even the vilest hate-preachers out of the country, I doubt mosques (especially if financed from abroad, as many are) have been watched the way they should have been and islamist propaganda also flows freely over the internet.

Specifically for Belgium, the combination of law, law enforcement and especially the judicial apparatus (including penal installations) have proven to be utterly incapable of making an impression on young criminals, especially those with immigrant backgrounds. The feeling of impunity is quite strong here. A lack of political will to tackle this is the root cause for this problem, and it acts counterproductive as the local, so-called "kleine criminaliteit" ("small criminality") being left unchecked is a great way to turn large parts of the population against immigrants, if the perpetrators also tend to be of immigrant background.

Another problem with some current politicians, with sentiments probably similar to those of Reinfeldt, is to more and more attack the own cultural symbols as things that have to be removed because they may offend newcomers.

In short, I want to get rid of the excesses. You don't have to organise pogroms to drive muslims out of europe. But you don't have to bend over backwards for them, either. Remember that Europe is Europe, and not the Rif mountains in North-Africa.

As for the refugees, many of those are coming for economic reasons and taking those eventually will result in self-destruction as the welfare state collapses. Actual refugees of war need to be helped in the region, especially by the countries who have been supplying a steady stream of men, weapons, money, moral support and propaganda, such as the Gulf States, Turkey and Iran. If those countries refuse to take their responsibility, then by all means help those who need it, but in the region. Until they can return home because the war is over, which should be the intention. 

 

[Wouter]

3 hours ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

There was a point in American history (late 19th and early 20th century) where Asian immigrants, particularly those of Chinese origins, were regarded as having foreign cultural values that were antithetical to "Western" and American society, somehow making them incapable of integration/assimilation into the United States.

What is left today in US or US/Asian society, of those foreign cultural values?

[Rippounet]

41 minutes ago, Wouter said:

In short, I want to get rid of the excesses. You don't have to organise pogroms to drive muslims out of europe. But you don't have to bend over backwards for them, either. Remember that Europe is Europe, and not the Rif mountains in North-Africa.

Thank you for your answer. I think it would be hard to disagree with what you write. However, we may be in different situations. I get the feeling that the French government acted on all the fronts you suggest with surprising willpower for what it supposed to be a socialist/liberal one.
Two symbolic facts perhaps.
Since 2015, French authorities have gone as far as blocking islamist websites (the Senate even considered making browsing one reprehensible). I'm not sure what to make of this, but I know there were many measures taken against radical preachrs and their congregations, with the full support and cooperation of Muslim religious authorities.
As for our borders... I understand France has welcomed between 70,000 and 80,000 refugees. A google search tells me Belgium welcomed at least 20,000, and possibly as many as 39,000. Similarly, it seems Belgium welcomes more than 100,000 immigrants per year, agains France's 200,000.
Considering the sizes of our respective countries, I think these figures go a long way to explain our different perceptions and perspectives..

 

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

4 hours ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

Our cultural memory when it comes to multiculturalism, etc. seems incredibly short-sighted. There was a point in American history (late 19th and early 20th century) where Asian immigrants, particularly those of Chinese origins, were regarded as having foreign cultural values that were antithetical to "Western" and American society, somehow making them incapable of integration/assimilation into the United States. Now, does anyone in the United States say anything against Asian immigration? If so, it's barely a blip on the radar. There were even similar cries against other immigrant groups, even European ones (e.g. Irish, Russians, Italians, etc.). 

While there is something to that, there are important differences today.  First, the world is much smaller in the sense that with the internet and near universal telephone coverage there is a much stronger connection to 'the old country' than there was back in the day.

Second, the cultural impetus to assimilate is going away.  Immigrants today are celebrated (by some) for their differences, and phrases such as 'assimilation' and 'melting pot' are considered 'micro-agressions.'  Immigrants today are rewarded socially and economically for not assimilating into the American culture.

[Happy Ent]

22 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

While there is something to that, there are important differences today. 

Another difference, which I mentioned upthread is that I really don’t think this is about multiculturalism. It’s about Islam, and I suspect we improve our discourse by saying this. (I do understand the arguments against multiculturalism from Sowell etc. But I’m willing to ignore those.) 

There is no US-style success story anywhere about Islam integrating into a secular society, as far as I know. (I’m happy to be told I’m wrong.) 

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, Happy Ent said:

Another difference, which I mentioned upthread is that I really don’t think this is about multiculturalism. It’s about Islam, and I suspect we improve our discourse by saying this. (I do understand the arguments against multiculturalism from Sowell etc. But I’m willing to ignore those.) 

There is no US-style success story anywhere about Islam integrating into a secular society, as far as I know. (I’m happy to be told I’m wrong.) 

I think you'd need to define what you mean by secular and integration. 3 million muslims live in the US, and muslim laws or issues have not been particularly relevant or important in the US internally at all - and that's been the case for a long time. Well-respected and admired sports stars and other members of society in the US have converted publicly, and that again hasn't been a source of any particular ire. I suspect that this isn't the example of what you're wanting, however. 

[James Arryn]

22 minutes ago, Happy Ent said:

 

There is no US-style success story anywhere about Islam integrating into a secular society, as far as I know. (I’m happy to be told I’m wrong.) 

What do you mean by success? NBA championships? Check, check, mega-check. Heavyweight championships? Multi-check. Superb Owls? Check. NCAA championships, Olympic Gold Medals, etc...check, check, check. A lot of these go back like 50 years, too. I suspect we're going to be looking either at no true Muslim, no true success or no true integration, though.

 

edit: no true ninja'd!

[Jo498]

It cannot be Islam per se. In the US there were conversions already in the 1960s, mostly blacks, so it was even politicized.

In many European nations there have been several million muslims in France and Germany and there was neither terrorism nor fear of terrorism from them until comparably recently. So either it is a new wave of more extremist muslims coming from the ever more unstable near/middle East. And/or more muslims who were born in the West or had been living there for many years "radicalized" themselves in the last 10-20 years whereas this had not happened before.

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, Wouter said:

What is left today in US or US/Asian society, of those foreign cultural values?

I can only speak for what I know of locally, but San Francisco's Chinatown might be a good example of this. You have a couple of older generations of Chinese in this neighborhood that I think it's safe to say never really assimilated. Many of them don't speak english, they often dress (in what I assume) is a traditional fashion. They have Chinese newspapers and literature. Chinese schools and Art Centers and the like. It seems to me that this neighborhood is a bit of a bastion of sorts. 

[Tijgy]

9 hours ago, Werthead said:

The perception that multiculturalism has failed or is failing is widespread, but if it had failed there would be vastly more social disruption, upheaval and chaos than there actually is (i.e. almost none at all). I can only speak of the UK so the experience in other countries may be different.

As a country which has the highest relative number of jihadists and which is considered to be the capital of radical islamic terrorism, I actually would consider there is a lot of disruption and chaos.

Only in the last two days, there have been a terror attack, someone arrested in Austria and someone else (again) in Belgium. It is impossible to count how many anti-terror operations there have been in my country (Belgium) since the attacks last year in Paris. 

Every day when I go to my work, I see at least two soldiers and maybe some heavily armed police officers. If you walk near the buildings of the government, it almost looks if Belgium is under siege. 

In my eyes this is not normal.