The more I think about it, the more I feel that whole nationalism thing in the 19th century was just one giant academic pipe dream picked up by the ruling class for practical reasons and is treated way too respectfully today.What defines a "nation", after all? Kakugo put it very well when he called it an "artificial and increasingly decrepit identity concocted in the late XIX century". It was keeping up with the Johnsons on a national basis. "France" now has a "nation", so "we" need a "nation", too, justified by some creative twisting of history and a sense of unity akin to the collective joy of a football match. And while liberal arts students today hear their professors talk about the virtue of self-sacrifice for society's sake and put posters of Che on their wall, back then it was pulping regional differences for the nation's sake, attractively depicted by revolutionary artists to appeal to Pietist university males:Mrs. Germania and Mrs. Italia, just in the proper age range to get married to the boldest college loudmouth.Considering how much suffering the whole collective neurosis of nationalism has brought upon the world, I'm sickened by how positive and progressive this dangerous mirage is being displayed in public schools. Not "national unification", but free trade and the division of labor pulled Europe from the dusty floor of history. Unfortunately, the latter is seen as a mere precursor for the "greater goal" of nationalism, just as inter-European trade was apparently seen as a justification for a single European state.But I'm rambling.
That is not fair. Nationalism brought down the empires of old and made the old fashioned overt and direct imperialism for ever obsolete.I would say there exist two distinct nationalisms. The nationalism of France and the nationalism of the Corsicans for example have nothing in common. And only one of them is nationalism. The other is pure statism grasping for legitimacy in taking on the mantle of an artificial state-created nation.
Sphairon:Considering how much suffering the whole collective neurosis of nationalism has brought upon the world...
On LRC a fascinating writer, who's name article completely escapes me, wrote something along these lines in reference to sacrificing for the greater good. Basically, everyone is told that everyone else suffers in "this" way as a means of justification for making people suffer. So, now under nationalist standards, everyone suffers where before nationalism no one really had to make such sacrifice. One shining example I guess would be disarming the people. On a national scale the idea is pushed as a greater good, so even if you feel that you have a right to defend yourself (which if you live you certainly do), you are not allowed to have a gun because if you have guns then criminals have guns. Further perpetuating the idea that by disarming honest citizens you disarm the criminals, which we all know is complete bull.
Now I'm rambling.....
I guess, I mean to say, I really like your outlook on this subject. It makes perfect sense that everyone is just "keeping up with the Johnsons", especially when the idea that all political bases movements seem to be taken from the same thought pattern as electing the high school prom queen and king. Nice insight.
Marko: That is not fair. Nationalism brought down the empires of old and made the old fashioned overt and direct imperialism for ever obsolete.I would say there exist two distinct nationalisms. The nationalism of France and the nationalism of the Corsicans for example have nothing in common. And only one of them is nationalism. The other is pure statism grasping for legitimacy in taking on the mantle of an artificial state-created nation.
My only issue here, and if I'm misreading please let me know, is the question of how you would separate true nationalism from statism pushing nationalism. I can't personally think of a period in which they are separated, and it makes perfect sense to push nationalism as means of achieving statist goals. Take 9/11 ( I know it's been used to death and I'm sorry for using it again). US National Pride was at an all time high after that, and the government could do no wrong. That is why we ended up in Iraq despite the fact that everyone is 99.9% sure that the reasons we were told we went were not the real reasons (read: oil). The state used nationalism as a weapon to attack another nation and drive us into a prolonged hopeless war, all the while taking away American Liberties one by one. Even now the so called tea party movements seems singly devoted to deposing the "liberals" so the "conservatives"(another funny joke) can run everything again.
Bah, I'm just talking now, I'll end it there.
But this is not nationalism. What you are describing is just the "us and them" mechanic. The "us and them" is much older than nationalism. With this sort of thinking you can think of Lakers and Kings fans as Kings and Lakers nationalists.
Marko: But this is not nationalism. What you are describing is just the "us and them" mechanic. The "us and them" is much older than nationalism. With this sort of thinking you can think of Lakers and Kings fans as Kings and Lakers nationalists.
OK, if we are not talking about the many definitions of nationalism I read, what is your definition of nationalism?
Some of the ones I have found, even on an immediate internet search include but are not limited to:
What form of the word are you talking about exactly? I know a governmental body doesn't define a culture, but a government body is defined (at least at first) by it's peoples culture. Also, this is by no means any form of defense for government of any kind.
I guess, now that I put further thought into it, is the "us and them" mechanic not the largest part of nationalism? If I see my nations culture as the best, I am inherently assigning the discussion an "us and them" mechanic. If you define people as "other", you are saying they are either subordinate or not fitting within a culture. So, when you have pride for a nation and the people therein, then all nations outside the one you feel national pride for becomes "other". "Other" in this case inherently includes and "us and them" mechanic.
I hope I am not over reading this, and believe me, I am not trying to fight with anyone on this subject. I am inherently curious though, and I cannot apologize for that.
Being a Lakers fan does not make you a Lakers nationalist, because being a Lakers fan tells nothing of your view of the state. This is the same reason a feminist is not called a female nationalist and a punk rocker is not called a punk nationalist. In all cases we are talking about strong group identities, about what we could call nationalist sentiment. But nationalism is more than a sentiment, it is an ideology albeit filled with sentimentalism and not at all a concise one.I would make a claim there are two different nationalisms, both built on similar sentimentalism but very different in their view of the state. Civic nationalism or court nationalism is older and generally charecteristic of Western Europe. It was built from the European order of 1648. It postulates the soverignity of the state. It denies there is any distinction between the nation and the state (actually between the nation and the body of the subjects of the state). It arose in order to justify whatever already centuries old state it was employed by and to make it more energetic by socialy engineering a national conscience among people who had nothing in common other than they were subjects of one and the same king, often by forcefully destroying existing ethnic and linguistic diversity. Robespierre is a good example of a civic nationalist. Today it is the accepted, the politicaly correct form of nationalism. It is what is understood as `nationalism` in the Anglo-Saxon world where nationality is synonymous with citizenship.Ethnic nationalism or popular nationalism is younger and generally characteristic of Central and Eastern Europe. It was born in 1848, the year known as the Spring of Nations. It postulates the soverignity of the nation (actually a better word would be of the ethnic people). It understands there is a distinction between the nation and the state. It arose by awakening already ethnicaly distinct peoples to the importance of their shared origin and language wherever those peoples were found regardless of any state borders or wishes of the state to then declare most existing princely states and empires arbitrary and completely illegitimate and rising up against them for the sake of the ethnic people and its rights. Malcolm X is a good example of an ethnic nationalist. Today it is the prosecuted, the politicaly incorrect form of nationalism. It is what is understood as `nationalism` in Eastern Europe where nationality is synonymous with ethnicity.Ethnic nationalism is misguided but it is not evil. It is misguided because it is collectivist beliving that a nation rather than just its members can have rights. But, it is not evil, it does not equate the nation with the state, the state with the nation. On the contrary it is very much aware of the distinction.I would dare say ethnic nationalism is in one way similar to liberalism. Liberals will experience almost every possible state as arbitrary and nothing but violence. The only stae they will grant legitimacy is one that seeks to protect the rights of the induvidual. Ethnic nationalists will alike experience almost every possible state as arbitrary and nothing but violence granting legitimacy only to the state that seeks to protect the rights of the nation to autonomous development in all its ethnic lands. Both are internally inconsistent because they grant any legitimacy to the state at all. Neither an induvidual nor a nation can be free with the state aparatus set above them. But in a sense it is harder to forgive this error to liberalism because the rights that the ethnic nationalists are concerned about are bogus, while those that concern the liberals are not.But this is why libertarianism is built on liberalism. Ethnic nationalism on the other hand has a long lasting, queer connection and influence on collectivist forms of anarchism.
I see what your saying, thanks for explaining that so thoroughly. I can agree, going with your explanation, that there definitely seems to be two separate identities of nationalism itself. I need to learn to be equally as detailed in my posts.
From what your saying, the politically corrected form of nationalism is directly tied to the state:
Marko: It arose in order to justify whatever already centuries old state it was employed by and to make it more energetic by socialy engineering a national conscience among people who had nothing in common other than they were subjects of one and the same king, often by forcefully destroying existing ethnic and linguistic diversity.
So, your arguing more on behalf of ethnic nationalism because it has led up the advent of libertarianism?
It is not connected to libertarianism. But it did lead to many liberal consequences. What it did is pull some ground from undearneath the state. It said unles this and this and this is true, then the state has no right to exist. Whereas before just about any state could be seen as legitimate. The aspect of the states most affected by this was the instinct to expand geographicaly into any direction it can. It has made it unpractical. Should one state today try to annex its neighbour it will have to deal with the populace in the newly aquired region that refuses to grant the new authority legitimacy no matter what the policy of the center. This was not true in pre-modern times before national awakenings. Back then while resistance could occur it had to do with economic exploitation and class and was therefore not assured. Today your power will be resisted for simply flying the wrong flag. That is already grounds enough to prevent you from establishing any semblance of legitimacy .I would also say that the reason most de-colonialisation movements in the latter half of 20th century were Marxist-Leninst was because of the concessions to ethnic nationalism that Lenin wrote into Marxism. He took an ideology that glorified imperialism by capitalist states and turned it into one that was opposed to imperialism and spoke of national self-determinaton and the right of ethnic nations for autonomous cultural development and therefore made it acceptable to the colonialised world. Without this spread of some of the principles of popular nationalism through Marxism-Leninism decolonialisation probably would not have occured in the decades it did but only later. Eg, at the end of the day the was mayority of Vietnamese joined the Vietminh because they felt the French had no right to rule over them, not because they read Das Kapital.
Justin: From what your saying, the politically corrected form of nationalism is directly tied to the state:
Civic nationalism is presented as being policialy correct because it is "inclusive" and accepting of "diversity". But this is bogus. Civic nationalism historicaly sought to do away with any diversity and still does albeit not as overtly. Not as a goal in itself, but in order to tie this new powerful force of nationalist sentiment to a state category, rather than to an anthropological category.
In France which has always been the most extreme example there it was until a decade or two ago illegal to give children Breton or other non-French names. 200 years ago, only 45-50% of its people were ethnicaly French. In reality this "inclusivness" is tyranny because there is no choice. Anybody who holds French citizenship ie, is the subject of the French state is required to identify as a Frenchman. Whereas in Slovakia for example it is perfectly understood that not all citizens of Slovak Republic are of Slovak nationality and are permitted to declare themselves as a part of whichever nation they feel themselves a part of.
Oh, ok, I see. Awesome, thanks for the fantastic explanation.
Marko,
I disagree somewhat. If I remember it correctly it was not Lenin that changed Marxism into national socialism, socialism in one state, it was Stalin. Stalinism is one nation Marxism spread from one nation to another at a time. Lenin as well as Marx was true internationalists, global socialists/communists.
I also disagree with the premises that Stalinism was the main cause behind the de-colonization movement. It gave it the ideology but it got its legitimacy from Woodrow Wilson, the US WWI president and the father of the United Nations (UN) as well as Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Franklin D. Roosevelt was a Wilsionian Democrat, he believed in the self-determination of nations. (Not in the Marxist sense, the self-determination of the masses/collective/nation but the self-determination of individuals.) Roosevelt demanded of Winston Churchill and the other Allies that they would after the war (WWII) allow for the self-determination of any people, otherwise the US would not support the Allies. Without this and the subsequent support of the US none o the de-colonization would have taken place. You have to remember the Suez crises as the turning point. France and the UK sent troops to occupy the Suez/Egypt. The US blackmailed UK/France to retreat by telling them that all economic support and the Marshall plan would be abandoned if the French and the British didn’t retreat, pull their troops back home. This was the signal for every (Marxist) “liberation” movement. The US could not interfere in the self-determination of local “liberation” movements without losing face and international credibility. Too late the US understood that the de-colonization movement was a Trojan horse for authoritarian and totalitarian socialism.
I have no time of day to give to imperialist nostalgia.
I did not state an opinion as regards to de-colonialization, I stated facts. I believe as did Wilson and Roosevelt that individual self-determination is of outmost importance but I reject the idea of self-determination based for ethnic and/or religious (collective) purposes. I also am a pragmatist and do not see the point in self determination where history has become a facts on the ground. I have very little tolerance for the Corsican, Basque, Tyroler, Northern Ireland, etc separatist movements. No tolerance whatsoever for extra legal violence in liberal democratic states.
Self governance yes but separation no. Sweden and Finland was the first two countries that resolved these issues without war. In 1920 Sweden and Finland had a dispute as regards to an island in the Baltic Sea, Aland. The island was close to Finland so geopolitically it was Finnish but all of the population was ethnic Swedes. The issue was resolved by arbitration by the UN (at that time the precursor to it the League of Nations). It was resolved that Aland belong to Finland and that it was to be an autonomous region, self governed as regards to tax and local issues. Aland had veto power as regards to international treaties.
To get back to the issue at hand. Without the US there would not have been any de-colonization in the 20th century. If de-colonization is a good or bad thing the scholars will quibble. From a theoretical point it was an outmost necessity but the outcome so far has been disastrous in Africa and in the former Yugoslav republics. It has so far led to totalitarian regimes, war, famine and poverty. I have hope for the former Yugoslav republic but am very pessimistic about most of Africa. South Africa which I had great hopes for is fast going in a way that points to Zimbabwean future. I hope I’m wrong.
I am not so naive that I believe that de-colonization is always good but not so cynical as to believe that it is better for the Russian and Chinese people to live under a severely authoritarian rule just to keep the lid on.
I believe as did Wilson and Roosevelt that individual self-determination is of outmost importance but I reject the idea of self-determination based for ethnic and/or religious purposes. I also am a pragmatist and do not see the point in self determination where history has become a facts on the ground. I have very little tolerance for the Corsican, Basque, Tyroler, Northern Ireland, etc. separatist movements. No tolerance whatsoever for extra legal violence in liberal democratic states as in the Basque region, in Corsica and Northern Ireland.
Self governance yes but separation no. Sweden and Finland was the first two countries that resolved these issues without war. In 1920 Sweden and Finland had a dispute as regards to an island in the Baltic Sea, Aland. War was close at hand. The island was close to Finland so geopolitically it was Finnish but all of the population was ethnic Swedes. The issue was resolved by arbitration by the UN (at that time the precursor to it the League of Nations). It was resolved that Aland belong to Finland and that it was to be an autonomous region, self governed as regards to tax and local issues. Aland had veto power as regards to international treaties.
To get back to the issue at hand. Without the US there would not have been any de-colonization in the 20th century. If de-colonization is a always a good thing the scholars will quibble. From theoretical point it was an outmost necessity but the outcome so far has been disastrous in Africa and in the former Yugoslav republics. It led to totalitarian regimes, war, ethnic and religious cleansing as well as economic stagnation and failed states.
Read your post... need to go throw up now.
Marko,thanks for your very enlightening statements on the subject. Ethnic nationalism certainly contributed to weakening the imperialist empires of Europe, and I was too vague when I lumped in what you call civic nationalism with its more beneficial brother. I'm sorry for that.Nevertheless, before nationalism succeeded in Germany, it was not an imperial power - whereas the new ultra-nationalist sentiment that arose with the founding of the Reich in 1871 led to the acquisition of several parts of Africa. And this was not 17th century civic nationalism, but a Prussian-dominated, top-to-bottom kind of nationalism fueled by a very popular nationalist sentiment, especially among intellectuals and the bourgeois.Bottom line, the German states should've stopped with their tariff union. Trade yes, politics no.Justin,
yes, LRC is one of the few sources where you can have pro-market and anti-nationalist sentiment at the same time. It's refreshing.As for the greater good mentality, it's quite disturbing how there seems to be the automatic assumption that it's moral to suffer for a collective of millions, most of whom you don't even know, as long as they live in the same arbitrarily defined area. But it also goes to show how thin the line between state-left and state-right really is, when even Michael Moore invokes the coziness of nationalization during WWII to make green central planning attractive for his readership. Oh well.
Good... you need some heavy cleansing so that you can get ethno-nationalism out of your system!
My personal opinion is that ethnic and/or religous based nationalism are the worst of -ism:s..
Sphairon, you correct. The problem is that you show me an ethnic nationalist and I will show you a hypocrite. And in nine cases out of ten I will be right. There has hardly been an ethnic national state that was not imperialist. Greece was imperialist in relation to Macedonians as was Serbia, Poland in relation to Ukrainians...The ideology of ethnic nationalism is so removed from real understanding of rights and so sentimental that it lends itself well to a slide into a completely preferences based outlook. There have been many ethnic national states that pursued assimilatory policies in regard to their ethnic minorities. This should be contrary to everything they were purportedly built on, but there you have it. (Albeit there was a qualitative difference here. Such states worked to fool and pressure the minorities into switching their ethnicity. They did not arbitrarily declare state jurisdiction as trumphing ethnic self-identification as a basis for nationality.)
Homo Illuminatus?: My personal opinion is that ethnic and/or religous based nationalism are the worst of -ism:s..
I am not a moral relativist. A moral relativist believes that all values are equal value, I abhor moral relativist especially post-structural and post-colonial ideologues such as Foucault, Edward Said et al.
I believe that there are economic and political systems that have a higher standing, preference before others systems such as liberal democracy and free market economy (aka Capitalism). Therefore I am of the opinion that the US constitution is the highest form of government yet achieved and Anglo Saxon capitalism is the best form of economic order. As being a consequentialist libertarian, alongside Milton Freidman and FA Hayek, I am of the opinion that these two systems give the most individual freedom and most prosperity for all. It is not a matter of taste but a matter of historic fact.
However I am a value nihilist i.e. metaphysical and/or objective moral does not exist. All values have a historic and cultural (evolutionary) context. Ayn Rands Objectivism is no different from the Roman Catholic Churches orthodoxy. Absolute morals both and both are full of bull as well as being impossible to prove the existence of. They have to be taken on faith.
Sure, of course as someone who knows values have a historic and cultural context you must understand that to someone grounded in the concept of rights such as myself, a consequentialist is just another abhorrent relativist.BTW, there is Anglo Saxon capitalism? Is that something like Jewish physics?
ProudCapitalist: david_z:Another interesting detail about the scandinavian countries is a largely homogeneous population. Well, not any more it isn't! 20% of "Swedes" are already muslims (by immigration or birth by immigrants during the last 20 years). Sweden with 9 million citizens recieved 100 000 (one hundered thousand) Iraqi refugies during the one year of 2008 alone. By 2035 a MAJORITY of the "Swedes" will be ARABS. Your "homogeneous population" variable should factor that in in krder to compare it to for example Gaza and how standards of living hav been there for the last half century... And that was just a humble note to the statician...
david_z:Another interesting detail about the scandinavian countries is a largely homogeneous population.
Well, not any more it isn't!
20% of "Swedes" are already muslims (by immigration or birth by immigrants during the last 20 years). Sweden with 9 million citizens recieved 100 000 (one hundered thousand) Iraqi refugies during the one year of 2008 alone. By 2035 a MAJORITY of the "Swedes" will be ARABS. Your "homogeneous population" variable should factor that in in krder to compare it to for example Gaza and how standards of living hav been there for the last half century...
And that was just a humble note to the statician...
Most "Muslims" in Sweden are irreigious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Sweden#Demography
Periodically the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
Thomas Jefferson
Wanderer: ProudCapitalist: david_z:Another interesting detail about the scandinavian countries is a largely homogeneous population. Well, not any more it isn't! 20% of "Swedes" are already muslims (by immigration or birth by immigrants during the last 20 years). Sweden with 9 million citizens recieved 100 000 (one hundered thousand) Iraqi refugies during the one year of 2008 alone. By 2035 a MAJORITY of the "Swedes" will be ARABS. Your "homogeneous population" variable should factor that in in krder to compare it to for example Gaza and how standards of living hav been there for the last half century... And that was just a humble note to the statician... Most "Muslims" in Sweden are irreigious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Sweden#Demography
Not only that but 20% of Swedes are not muslim. 10% of Swedes are immigrants and I severly doubt that the largely atheist white population has been converted to Islam.
I always laugh at these estimates of muslims/arabs/spanish/catholic/irish/italian/german/black etc will be the majority by this date because they are coming or giving birth at this rate etc etc etc.
Yet what seems to happen time and time again? The germans came to america, and only spoke german at first. The even had their own german newspapers. It was believed that Americans would all eventually be speaking german. Yet oddly enough, even though a majority of whites in America are of german descent, only a minority actively still speak german. Cultures/people naturally get assimilated.
A.L.Pruitt: I always laugh at these estimates of muslims/arabs/spanish/catholic/irish/italian/german/black etc will be the majority by this date because they are coming or giving birth at this rate etc etc etc.
No shit. Like all the people freaking out about "Eurabia". History has shown that if the people are allowed to integrate, they will learn the language, mix with the local populations, probably throw in a few words from their mothertongue (for things like food) and everyone lives happily ever after.
A.L.Pruitt: The germans came to america, and only spoke german at first. The even had their own german newspapers. It was believed that Americans would all eventually be speaking german. Yet oddly enough, even though a majority of whites in America are of german descent, only a minority actively still speak german. Cultures/people naturally get assimilated.
The germans came to america, and only spoke german at first. The even had their own german newspapers. It was believed that Americans would all eventually be speaking german. Yet oddly enough, even though a majority of whites in America are of german descent, only a minority actively still speak german. Cultures/people naturally get assimilated.
My mother's side of the family is like that. They sure had some "encouragement" to assimilate during WWI, however...
Wanderer:No shit. Like all the people freaking out about "Eurabia". History has shown that if the people are allowed to integrate, they will learn the language, mix with the local populations, probably throw in a few words from their mothertongue (for things like food) and everyone lives happily ever after.
Exactly. It would be incorrect to state they have no influence, the "standard/def facto" culture will influenced, in that either things will be changed or be added or some perhaps even disappear e.g language, customs, traditions etc But the vast majority of its current structure will remain unchanged (in terms of analyzing the effects of growing minorities).
Wanderer:My mother's side of the family is like that. They sure had some "encouragement" to assimilate during WWI, however...
Yes, unfortunately, that was both the state and the people, although if the state had avoided its mass propaganda, they may not have felt that "encouragement".
I'd hate to be the party pooper, but ...I don't think the development of Muslim communities in contemporary Europe is comparable to other, intra-European migratory processes of the past.First of all, there is an astonishing tendency among this group to immigrate directly into the welfare system of those European nations which harbor most of them today. One of the most pressing factors when it comes to cultural assimilation is the need to learn the new language to get along in one's job - a factor that has been mitigated, if not completely eradicated by generous welfare payments of European governments. Add to that the fact that welfare payments often adjust to the number of children in a family, and you have an incentive structure that promotes a whopping growth of locked, separated communities.Additionally, the gap between the liberal Judeo-Christian culture (yeah, I know how objectionable this term may be, but it conveys best what I mean) of Europe and hierarchical Islamic societal structures is way, way bigger than the differences between a German immigrant in the US and his US-born neighbors. It leads to grotesque scenarios, such as liberal Europeans bending over to make their Islamic guests feel at home while conservative Muslim daddies consider it a disgrace for their daughters to socialize with said Europeans.You know, it may all be a product of the welfare state, but what you have is a growing community of dependent, yet condescending Muslim citizens who are certainly not afraid to use the electoral system against the hand that feeds them once their numbers are large enough. I don't mean to say that all European Muslims are like that, I personally know a number of very kind and congenial Muslims, but it's a tendency that cannot be denied, in my opinion. So, just idly waiting for our Muslim friends to become like us may be Europe's first-class ticket down the primrose path ...
Sphairon:First of all, there is an astonishing tendency among this group to immigrate directly into the welfare system of those European nations which harbor most of them today.
Is it only tendancy among that group? Or all groups? I think the difference of todas welfare system is a point worth noting.
However, I want you to show me a source which shows how many muslims claim welfare as opposed to other immigrants and the domestic population. Also how many do you think work, but also claim benefits?
Sphairon: One of the most pressing factors when it comes to cultural assimilation is the need to learn the new language to get along in one's job - a factor that has been mitigated, if not completely eradicated by generous welfare payments of European governments. Add to that the fact that welfare payments often adjust to the number of children in a family, and you have an incentive structure that promotes a whopping growth of locked, separated communities
I don't believe you read through my post properly. I noted the german immigrants in america. They spoke german, had german newspapers, didn't speak english. I think your mistaken in attributing the welfare state to the establishment of an islamic community. That is natural all over the world. The domestic population does this. Rich live/associate with rich, gated communities, religious small towns etc etc etc. Yet over the years they are all still able to interact and communicate in the market place.
I also severely disagree with your point about muslims working and speaking the language. I see them speaking english, danish and swedish in each relative country. I see them working. And don't think that I have only had limited contact. I used to go to a school in england that had an extremely large Pakistani community
Sphairon:Additionally, the gap between the liberal Judeo-Christian culture (yeah, I know how objectionable this term may be, but it conveys best what I mean) of Europe and hierarchical Islamic societal structures is way, way bigger than the differences between a German immigrant in the US and his US-born neighbors. It leads to grotesque scenarios, such as liberal Europeans bending over to make their Islamic guests feel at home while conservative Muslim daddies consider it a disgrace for their daughters to socialize with said Europeans
I believe the point your making is the gap is too large to bridged? But what of the gap chinese and japanese immigrants to america? Catholic Hispanics? Tribal blacks?
It seems they have all been assimilated, some better than others. Even given the differences, I still don't think it matters. Look at hindu indians in Britain. They work and speak english.
Sphairon: I don't mean to say that all European Muslims are like that, I personally know a number of very kind and congenial Muslims, but it's a tendency that cannot be denied, in my opinion. So, just idly waiting for our Muslim friends to become like us may be Europe's first-class ticket down the primrose path ..
Sometimes they have cause to be pissed off. They don't start ever fight.
Overall however, your arguments are not arguments that the state should intervene against immigrants. But that instead the state should refrain from acting. Still even with state intervention, I'm just not worried. If I one day must speak spanish to get what I want, or speak english but pay a "higher price", then so be it.
A.L.Pruitt: Is it only tendancy among that group? Or all groups? I think the difference of todas welfare system is a point worth noting. However, I want you to show me a source which shows how many muslims claim welfare as opposed to other immigrants and the domestic population. Also how many do you think work, but also claim benefits?
I think we agree that welfare statism promotes a general tendency to become dependent. As for specific sources, there's the classic What Does Muslim Immigration Cost Europe? by Jihad Watch which claims that
An estimated cost of immigration of 225 billion Swedish kroner in 2004, which is not unlikely, would equal 17.5% of Sweden's tax income, among other things.Yet over the years they are all still able to interact and communicate in the market place.And it remains to be hoped that the same will be true for Muslim communities; yet there have been historic precedents where an initially small group of secluded Muslim conquerors slowly, but steadily enslaved domestic populations, making them dhimmis in the process.I don't mean to say there is a Muslim conspiracy to achieve this goal; but it may eventually become a tendency, perhaps one pursued only by single individuals, but enforced through the dynamic of Muslim social structures. I see them speaking english, danish and swedish in each relative country.Especially among women not born in Europe, knowledge of domestic languages seems to be very superficial, if existent at all. But my personal experiences may taint my general observation here.But what of the gap chinese and japanese immigrants to america? Catholic Hispanics? Tribal blacks? Asian immigrants are often living in their own ethnic communities as well, but seem to fare well in competitive markets which earns them respect. Hispanic and European culture are somewhat intermingled. As for tribal blacks, I don't really know.The bottom line, I think, is still that forced redistribution in welfare states impedes productive exchange between peoples and cultures. It creates an "us vs them" mentality instead of a system of mutually beneficial exchange.Sometimes they have cause to be pissed off. They don't start ever fight. Yeah, I definitely dislike how the "anti-Islamists" in Europe totally overlook US military penetration of Arab nations and brush it off as "a necessary measure against terrorism" which, of course, has no conncection whatsoever to the perpetuation and even intensification of religious and political violence around the world. It's frustrating.Overall however, your arguments are not arguments that the state should intervene against immigrants. But that instead the state should refrain from acting.Yes. I believe that with drastic cuts in the welfare state, many problems concerning immigration could be solved without employing "kick-them-out" methods. Then, we'd see whether I was misinformed by anti-Islamists about the nature of our Muslim friends or whether it's all been a scam indeed. ;)
I guarantee it's the welfare state that is to blame. Compare American and Canadian Muslims with European Muslims. North American Muslims are quickly integrated (out of economic necessity, if nothing else), in contrast to European Muslims.
Wanderer: I guarantee it's the welfare state that is to blame. Compare American and Canadian Muslims with European Muslims. North American Muslims are quickly integrated (out of economic necessity, if nothing else), in contrast to European Muslims.
This is unfair. Muslims in America are invited economic immigrants, skilled middle-class professionals from the elite in their country. Muslims in Europe are just migrant laborers who managed to stay in place and keep bringing in more of through smuggler rings along the Mediterranean. They are lower-class.
The equivalent to America is the Latino.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Stranger: This is unfair. Muslims in America are invited economic immigrants, skilled middle-class professionals from the elite in their country. Muslims in Europe are just migrant laborers who managed to stay in place and keep bringing in more of through smuggler rings along the Mediterranean. They are lower-class. The equivalent to America is the Latino.
This isn't entirely the case. There are Muslims in America that are lower class as well. And not all Latino's are poor lower class in America. I can guarantee you that isn't the case at all. If you look at all the people who live in Latino Ghetto's, the common thread is that they fail to integrate into our society. A large portion of them can't even speak the native language. People who fail to integrate into a society are of course stuck being supported by the welfare state of whatever country they live in. They can't find jobs because of lack of education, language barriers, and the inability to make social contacts outside their own communities. Furthermore, if you look at the poor education system in America, a free guaranteed education doesn't help at all because there is no actual attempt to help lift people out of their welfare dependency.
Justin:If you look at all the people who live in Latino Ghetto's, the common thread is that they fail to integrate into our society. A large portion of them can't even speak the native language. People who fail to integrate into a society are of course stuck being supported by the welfare state of whatever country they live in. They can't find jobs because of lack of education, language barriers, and the inability to make social contacts outside their own communities. Furthermore, if you look at the poor education system in America, a free guaranteed education doesn't help at all because there is no actual attempt to help lift people out of their welfare dependency.
You have describe Europe's muslim underclass.
I wonder if it is really helpful to think in terms of Muslim immigration. Muslim immigrants in Western Europe come from a variety of cultures and while I claim no knowledge on the subject I can not imagine the outcome being the same for all.
How many of the "hardworking Asians and Indians" are in fact Moslem? Do Bosnian Muslims and Turks live comparable lives? How about Albanians and Algerians? Africans and Pakistanis?
Stranger: The equivalent to America is the Latino.
Fair enough, but Latinos get integrated quickly, with the third generation often knowing English far better than Spanish. Sure, they keep their Catholicism and other minor aspects that hearken back to Latin America, but for all intents and purposes become "American" very quickly.
Stranger: Justin:If you look at all the people who live in Latino Ghetto's, the common thread is that they fail to integrate into our society. A large portion of them can't even speak the native language. People who fail to integrate into a society are of course stuck being supported by the welfare state of whatever country they live in. They can't find jobs because of lack of education, language barriers, and the inability to make social contacts outside their own communities. Furthermore, if you look at the poor education system in America, a free guaranteed education doesn't help at all because there is no actual attempt to help lift people out of their welfare dependency. You have describe Europe's muslim underclass.
Isn't the issue we are talking about though? You said in a previous post that it is unfair to blame the welfare state for that. I have just made the argument for how it is at least in part a problem with the welfare state. What I am saying is that the people who immigrate to other countries and cannot themselves integrate into the native population, have no hope of getting out of lower class social status. And, you have that just as much in any part of a migrating culture here in America.
The point, they choose not to integrate themselves into a culture. They are not turned away at the gates and told they are not allowed to be a part of it. As it is here in America with Latinos, it is thusly like that in Europe with the Muslim Population. An argument has been made here that they are thrust into the underclass of a society. But why not all of them then? Why not just turn them away, a nation doesn't need poor dependent non native members to push it forward. Like Latinos in America, there are Latino politicians, business owners and entrepreneurs. I am sure Muslim versions of these people exist in Europe as well. All of these successful immigrant people are such because they didn't limit themselves to only staying within their cultural norms, but expanded themselves to include the new culture they have chosen to exist in.
So, there really is no hope of Muslims "taking over" in any place they decide to immigrate to, if for no other reason than if they choose to not integrate, they will live as poor underclass state dependent citizens.
Justin: Isn't the issue we are talking about though? You said in a previous post that it is unfair to blame the welfare state for that. I have just made the argument for how it is at least in part a problem with the welfare state. What I am saying is that the people who immigrate to other countries and cannot themselves integrate into the native population, have no hope of getting out of lower class social status. And, you have that just as much in any part of a migrating culture here in America.
Sorry, I thought you argued that the absence of a welfare system lead to Muslim integration in America.
You guys sound confused on a chicken and egg analogy between immigration and welfare, as if the two are intertwined. A very typical republican argument.
We don't have welfare because of immigrants. We have welfare because we culturally accept socialism and as a result vote such measures in. Many immigrants don't even vote on the matter. We voted on welfare first. It can not be concluded in absolute that we have immigrants souly based on our welfare status.
Recent studies show that our immigration issues were a result for high labor demand in addition to increasing minimum wage laws. It's a form of convenient outsourcing for local business's really. More specifically it's been the housing industries boom that may have been the culprit of heavy Latin American immigration. We had the jobs and they were willing to fill that need in the market. The fact that our country fosters better living conditions comes after the fact that immigrants come here for work. Conversely since the housing bubble burst we now observe that immigration from Latin America has dropped sharply, correlated with a steep drop in demand for labor in the housing industry. (There was a reason why illegals flocked to hardware stores to get work, Lowes, Builders Square, ect....) I'd like to point out that as a country, you would rather have immigration issues as opposed to emigration issues.
Back to the sidetopic at hand. Some theorize that a certain type of invasion occurs based on heavy quantities of immigration. The issue however comes with how people, being a social animal, creates various connections with supposed 'illegals'. It doesn't take but one or two generations for those 'illegals' to quickly become legal natives bread into the nation.
How can you invade a country by massive immigration? Do the immigrants burn and pillage or are they offering some economic output? Is it still an invasion after 1 or 2 generations? At which time breading has already heavily resulted between the two culturs. Are the half native/alien children also a part of that invasion?
What are you scared of, that a mass influx of immigrations will jeopardize your freedom? Are you scared they will vote disastrous political policies? Well is that not an argument against a stupid governmental system and not the supposed 'naive' immigrant himself? The intellectual and economic result of voting always results the lowest common denominator, thats not the immigrants fault. Especially if he/she didn't vote.
Why is it that people void the application of economics from the peripheral view of immigration and treat it as a special exception?
Read the Law Comparative Advantage
Justin:This isn't entirely the case. There are Muslims in America that are lower class as well. And not all Latino's are poor lower class in America. I can guarantee you that isn't the case at all. If you look at all the people who live in Latino Ghetto's, the common thread is that they fail to integrate into our society. A large portion of them can't even speak the native language. People who fail to integrate into a society are of course stuck being supported by the welfare state of whatever country they live in. They can't find jobs because of lack of education, language barriers, and the inability to make social contacts outside their own communities. Furthermore, if you look at the poor education system in America, a free guaranteed education doesn't help at all because there is no actual attempt to help lift people out of their welfare dependency.
This is a good post. Ghetto's happen to all majority and minorities alike. Despite a cultures intellectual history a ghetto will always foster a state of despair. This is the result of governmental welfare. This is why you usually see these conditions around 'projects'.
A good cinematic example appears to be district 9. Where a super race from space, able to construct inter-gallactic space devices, fall subject to the same consequences of living in a state run concentration camp. Fiction I know but a nice parallel.
filc:You guys sound confused on a chicken and egg analogy between immigration and welfare, as if the two are intertwined. A very typical republican argument.
Not at all, we tied social welfare being given to immigrants and that is a system that keeps them state dependent, ultimately making it harder for them to integrate into foreign societies.
filc:We don't have welfare because of immigrants. We have welfare because we culturally accept socialism and as a result vote such measures in. Many immigrants don't even vote on the matter. We voted on welfare first. It can not be concluded in absolute that we have immigrants souly based on our welfare status.
I know we have social welfare systems because societies always seem to accept socialized ideas. No one said there is immigrants because of social welfare at all. We have immigrants because people grow unhappy living where they are and want to go to some place better. People most likely choose to move to a foreign land because they see opportunity where no such opportunity may exist in their homeland. Your right, most immigrants don't even vote on the matter. I wouldn't mind seeing what would happen if they themselves voiced their opinions and they didn't have some politician telling everyone what this or that immigrant minority wants or needs.
filc:Recent studies show that our immigration issues were a result for high labor demand in addition to increasing minimum wage laws. It's a form of convenient outsourcing for local business's really. More specifically it's been the housing industries boom that may have been the culprit of heavy Latin American immigration. We had the jobs and they were willing to fill that need in the market. The fact that our country fosters better living conditions comes after the fact that immigrants come here for work. Conversely since the housing bubble burst we now observe that immigration from Latin America has dropped sharply, correlated with a steep drop in demand for labor in the housing industry. (There was a reason why illegals flocked to hardware stores to get work, Lowes, Builders Square, ect....) I'd like to point out that as a country, you would rather have immigration issues as opposed to emigration issues.
I can't agree more with you on this point. The fact is, migrant workers are the only sector of the American working class that is willing to take wages competitively. It's not minimum wage that flocks them here, at least not entirely. You have no legal right to minimum wage if your not a citizen, you don't even have a right to work here some would argue. I don't totally agree with either side, but the fact that immigrants come to America and take jobs that no one here wants but need to be done says a lot about whatever culture they may in fact come from. Also, I agree with you again, if poor immigrants from poor countries do not see opportunity here, what chance do the rest of us have. Immigration problems are welcome, but as you said, immigration is down, but no only is it down, emigration is up.
filc: Back to the sidetopic at hand. Some theorize that a certain type of invasion occurs based on heavy quantities of immigration. The issue however comes with how people, being a social animal, creates various connections with supposed 'illegals'. It doesn't take but one or two generations for those 'illegals' to quickly become legal natives bread into the nation. How can you invade a country by massive immigration? Do the immigrants burn and pillage or are they offering some economic output? Is it still an invasion after 1 or 2 generations? At which time breading has already heavily resulted between the two culturs. Are the half native/alien children also a part of that invasion?
I don't know if it's possible to invade or conquer with immigration. When a land conquered another land in ancient Greece for example, they would often wipe out a portion of the population, insert their own government, salt a portion of the farmland so the native people of that land becomes partially dependent on the inserted government, and often times outlaw the native tongue. You don't see that this way. It essentially doesn't matter how many Latino's "invade" America. You only end up with a mesh of the cultures, which is nothing like invading and conquering another land.
filc: What are you scared of, that a mass influx of immigrations will jeopardize your freedom? Are you scared they will vote disastrous political policies? Well is that not an argument against a stupid governmental system and not the supposed 'naive' immigrant himself? The intellectual and economic result of voting always results the lowest common denominator, thats not the immigrants fault. Especially if he/she didn't vote. Why is it that people void the application of economics from the peripheral view of immigration and treat it as a special exception?
I don't think anyone is afraid of that per se. But, there is definitely an issue with expanding the welfare state even larger in my opinion. Can an expansion of such a state jeopardize someone's freedom and rights? I think so, any apparatus that grows a central government will not be increasing freedom at all, but will only end up requiring more money from it's citizens. I don't think anyone has voided the application of economics when it comes to immigration, but when you insert an ever growing ignorant and under educated class of people into an already overtaxed and mostly broken system, how is this aiding in economic growth necessarily? I know there is growth potential, massive growth potential in fact, but by them taking part in the welfare systems of the country they emigrate to will not allow any of that potential to grow to fruition.
filc:A good cinematic example appears to be district 9. Where a super race from space, able to construct inter-gallactic space devices, fall subject to the same consequences of living in a state run concentration camp. Fiction I know but a nice parallel.
I thought that despite District 9 being complete fiction, it made a very good statement about unwanted immigration. Here you have the alien race, in so many ways superior to humans, but also, so much alike. They were stronger and some of them were smarter and very advanced planners. But, they were also addicts kept down by their addiction to cat food, they were horders of junk (my father is such a man and that is a real problem), they fought constantly among themselves too. This is a social problem on two fronts I believe. It is a problem within their own social hierarchy and also a problem with how the city government of Johannesburg handled these unwanted immigrants. I think it's a movie a lot of people should watch simply because of the social statements it does make.
That being said, is this not the truth about immigration in real life as well? And by that I mean there is a problem with both the system immigrants move to in America for example and problems from their native cultures they bring with them.
Peter Jackson surely did a fine job on that movie.
Justin:But, there is definitely an issue with expanding the welfare state even larger in my opinion.
I like to think of it as growing cancer cells. Perhaps the state wants people in that position of helplessness. Perhaps they will vote accordingly to further grow the size of the welfare state. It's entirely analogous to how cancer cell's grow throughout a body.
Unfortunately though for this analogy it's not the welfare dependant that vote for these socialized application, it's the legal average Joe. Now if that welfare continues to grow things may change but as it stands currently welfare projects are not voted in by a 'majority' of voting welfare dependants. Rather these socialism programs are just being voted in by everyone in general. Still I agree with you, we need to fight the cancer now before it grows to big. One thing is for sure, the State is not a benign cancer.