Main Edition
US
FR
The burning car represents impotent rage(Alaattin Dogru/Anadolu Agency via Getty)
What the street barricade was to France in the 19th century, the burning car has become in the 21st: a preferred means of violent protest, and a key theatrical symbol of political defiance. In 2005, after two boys named Zyed Benna and Bouna Traoré died while running from police, rioters burned close to 9,000 cars across France in unrest that ultimately led President Jacques Chirac to declare a state of emergency. This year, after an officer shot and killed a boy named Nahel who was trying to drive away from a police stop in the Paris suburb of Nanterre, thousands more cars have gone up in smoke, while shops and police stations have been attacked in hundreds of cities and towns across the country. The wave of violence has swept through the weekend.
But if the barricade remains a symbol of revolution, the burning car mostly represents impotent rage â and Franceâs political petrification. Street barricades had an important and clear purpose â to take control of neighbourhoods and to prevent the forces of public order from circulating through cities. True, the builders of 19th-century barricades usually went down to defeat, at least in the short term. In June of 1848, the army killed thousands in Paris, spelling an end to the radical phase of the short-lived Second Republic. In the spring of 1871, conservative republican forces slaughtered thousands more as they crushed the radical Paris Commune. But, in both cases, the people had shown their power, and in subsequent decades French governments moved to grant at least some of their demands. In the decades after the Commune, French workers gained paid vacations, a minimum wage, old-age pensions, the right to strike, and public works programs. Church and state were separated, and the educational system put under state control.
By contrast, the burning car of the 21st has done little for the communities in question, or to help advance the riotersâ professed goals. Quite the contrary, in fact. Most immediately, the cars themselves belong overwhelmingly to members of the same communities as the rioters. And in the longer term, the events of the past week are most likely to benefit the far-Right, possibly even bring it to power in the next presidential election. This is not the fault of the rioters, who have desperately few options for constructive action. It is rather the product of Franceâs changing political landscape in the 21st-century.
The riotersâ professed goals are easily summarised. They want an end to police violence against members of their community, and more broadly an end to discrimination against them. They wanted the same things in 2005, even if hooligans took advantage of the unrest for their own purposes, as they are doing now.
The communities in question are, as the French put it, âissued from immigrationâ, principally from North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa. When they started arriving in France in large numbers in the Fifties and Sixties, they followed many other waves of foreign immigrants to the country: of Italians, Jews, Poles, Spaniards, Portuguese and others. It is often forgotten, but between the wars France was the leading country of immigration in the Western world, and by the Eighties fully a quarter of the French population could count at least one grandparent born elsewhere. These earlier immigrant groups often met with discrimination, violence, and even â under the collaborationist Vichy regime of World War II â deportation to Nazi death camps (a fate that also befell Jewish families with French roots going back centuries). But after the war their story gradually turned into a French success story, as assimilation took its course. The process was aided by the stateâs heavy-handed insistence, implemented above all through an authoritarian school system, that groups could only gain acceptance if they wholly abandoned their earlier national identities and embraced a French one. Today, it is not unusual to find people with Italian, Polish, Jewish or Iberian surnames in the wealthiest and most visible strata of French society.
But this process has, so far, happened far more slowly and less completely with the newer immigrant groups, especially those from North Africa. Cultural differences have been greater than with the earlier groups, while the schools lost much of their earlier zeal for turning students into model French citizens after the uprising of 1968 led to a massive overhaul of the French educational system. Most importantly, the new groups have been shunted away into suburban housing projects â the so-called citĂ©s â out of sight and out of mind of the countryâs ruling elites. Numbers are hard to come by, because the French state, in the name of treating all its citizens equally, refuses to keep statistics on the relative economic performance of different ethnic and religious groups (or even their numbers). But every major French city is ringed by citĂ©s where people of North African and black African descent dominate, and where rates of unemployment, poverty and crime far exceed national averages. The government does admit that nearly six million people, or a tenth of the countryâs population, inhabit so-called âurban policy priority districtsâ.
Writing after the 2005 riots, I concluded that âthe French Republic⊠desperately needs to find some way to offer the youths of the suburbs a meaningful form of integration into broader society.â Needless to say, this has not happened. True, even before 2005, a steady stream from the new immigrant populations was escaping the citĂ©s and joining the French middle class, and that pattern has continued. President Emmanuel Macronâs cabinet today includes Rima Abdul-Malak, from a Lebanese Christian background, as Culture Minister, and Pap Ndiaye, son of a Senegalese father, as Education Minister. But the citĂ©s themselves remain as miserable as ever. Meanwhile, the horrific Islamist terror attacks of 2015, which killed hundreds, led the state to grant expanded powers to the police â in particular, loosening the restrictions in use of fatal force when officers feel threatened â which did nothing to reduce social tension.â
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeFor too long the West has been taking in far too many people. Because we did not roll out the red carpet and prostrate ourselves, we have been bullied as racists. If life was really so terrible, then why are they still there?
Multiculturalism just does not work. It creates a society even more divided than the homogeneous ones. We are living in the most miserable era in history even though we are at the most prosperous. “The community” is dead, and it has been replaced by tribes. The aristocracy has been replaced by the technocrats and political elite. The indifference is still there, so it should come as no surprise if Marine LePen wins the next election.
To be allowed to live in another country is a gift, yet it is all too often taken for granted.
Whatever the merits of your more general point, to subscribe to the idea that we’re “living in the most miserable period in history” wrecks any chance of it being taken seriously. As if you’d know how miserable or otherwise general populations were in previous eras? Concepts around mental health are a fairly recent addition to mainstream discourse, giving an entirely ahistorical perspective on the daily grind of previous generations.
I’d say you should let Peter enjoy a bit of rhetorical hyperbole. Perhaps, belabored a bit more, what he’s saying is that, given the material prosperity we enjoy, we are more miserable than we should be. Far more miserable. You’ve seen the stats for suicide, mental illness and now trans — the ultimate in misery and insanity combined.
You’re probably right, and my criticism of his “miserable” point was a little harsh, but i think it’s important to keep these things in proper perspective; it’s far too easy to simply doom-monger when our ancestors have been through hell and back and survived.
I would say it is the most miserable era *relative to material conditions* – and I suspect that may be his point.
Because our ancestors have been to hell and back we should have learned something. We havenât.
Right Lesley , the younger generation appear to have regressed because of the medias push for communist propaganda . We know Biden works for and is paid big money by China and he has just undone decades of help and guidance to Taiwan from the U.S. by announcing no more help and support .
The Biden crime family has enriched themselves by many more millions from the CCP , no question about it .
Right Lesley , the younger generation appear to have regressed because of the medias push for communist propaganda . We know Biden works for and is paid big money by China and he has just undone decades of help and guidance to Taiwan from the U.S. by announcing no more help and support .
The Biden crime family has enriched themselves by many more millions from the CCP , no question about it .
Yeah. Poor old me philosophy doesn’t usually work, but there is obviously a big problem there which cannot be ignored. Immigrants mostly bring their own worldview with them. Some do mix in quite well but others, depending on the culture, don’t. These cultures usually come from places which are violent and where they would not have the priveleges, justice and safeguards that they get in their new country.
I would say it is the most miserable era *relative to material conditions* – and I suspect that may be his point.
Because our ancestors have been to hell and back we should have learned something. We havenât.
Yeah. Poor old me philosophy doesn’t usually work, but there is obviously a big problem there which cannot be ignored. Immigrants mostly bring their own worldview with them. Some do mix in quite well but others, depending on the culture, don’t. These cultures usually come from places which are violent and where they would not have the priveleges, justice and safeguards that they get in their new country.
You’re probably right, and my criticism of his “miserable” point was a little harsh, but i think it’s important to keep these things in proper perspective; it’s far too easy to simply doom-monger when our ancestors have been through hell and back and survived.
I’d say you should let Peter enjoy a bit of rhetorical hyperbole. Perhaps, belabored a bit more, what he’s saying is that, given the material prosperity we enjoy, we are more miserable than we should be. Far more miserable. You’ve seen the stats for suicide, mental illness and now trans — the ultimate in misery and insanity combined.
Defining a unity by difference makes no logical sense – a multicultural society. A unity requires a definition that unites: identifies common characteristics.
This is the root of the problem. Iâve been an American expat in Ireland for one year, another in the Netherlands, and two years in France. Tourists and immigrants need to behave as visitors to othersâ home land, attempt to speak the language and behave respectfully in that culture. Over time, the locals may appreciate certain traits that you bring to the table, or they may not. Either way you need to make an attempt to assimilate. Multiculturalism implies multiple cultures can coexist. The melting pot that is America accepts many nationalities, but only one culture. Diverse influences far from its British roots, but one set of values nonetheless. Europe is learning that hard lesson real time.
Which culture is that? Baseball caps? McDonalds?
E Pluribus Unum
Perhaps it’s the novels of Henry James, Edith Wharton, Scott Fitzgerald, Herman Melville, and Nathaniel Hawthorne.
Why be so nasty? It is a culture of fierce individualism, exploration, invention and optimism. Or, at least, it has been and that is the dream. Culture exists today, not just in the art and buildings of those long dead.
E Pluribus Unum
Perhaps it’s the novels of Henry James, Edith Wharton, Scott Fitzgerald, Herman Melville, and Nathaniel Hawthorne.
Why be so nasty? It is a culture of fierce individualism, exploration, invention and optimism. Or, at least, it has been and that is the dream. Culture exists today, not just in the art and buildings of those long dead.
But is the US a haven of interracial peace and harmony?
âThe melting pot that was America accepted many nationalities, but only one culture.â This corrected description is more accurate of America today. We are now a salad without enough dressing to hold it together.
Canada is the only nation that has officially accepted multiculturalism, and with enormous immigration it is still rather peaceful.
Do you think that may be something to do with being the second largest nation on Earth, with a population of only 35 million?
Do you think that may be something to do with being the second largest nation on Earth, with a population of only 35 million?
Canada is the only nation that has officially accepted multiculturalism, and with enormous immigration it is still rather peaceful.
There is a strong tendency for people from a Jewish background , like myself , and the writer of this article, to think of immigrants as victims and any movement to curb immigration as nationalist and racist , and even neo -nazi .
David A Bell is also a US citizen and , despite being seemingly a (Princeton) historian of Napoleonic France , has a typically American perspective on these riots , saying they are about justice and an end to police brutality . However the rioters in France were not the descendants of slaves and were part of a quite recent voluntary migration . Nevertheless he sees them as merely defending themselves from a racist and oppressive state .
Thus the experience of US blacks is mixed up in his mind with the experience of Jews in the holocaust to bring about a distorted take on what is happening , with the threat being not from the rioters themselves but supposedly from a potential far -right reaction .
Which culture is that? Baseball caps? McDonalds?
But is the US a haven of interracial peace and harmony?
âThe melting pot that was America accepted many nationalities, but only one culture.â This corrected description is more accurate of America today. We are now a salad without enough dressing to hold it together.
There is a strong tendency for people from a Jewish background , like myself , and the writer of this article, to think of immigrants as victims and any movement to curb immigration as nationalist and racist , and even neo -nazi .
David A Bell is also a US citizen and , despite being seemingly a (Princeton) historian of Napoleonic France , has a typically American perspective on these riots , saying they are about justice and an end to police brutality . However the rioters in France were not the descendants of slaves and were part of a quite recent voluntary migration . Nevertheless he sees them as merely defending themselves from a racist and oppressive state .
Thus the experience of US blacks is mixed up in his mind with the experience of Jews in the holocaust to bring about a distorted take on what is happening , with the threat being not from the rioters themselves but supposedly from a potential far -right reaction .
The young islamist generation at least in Scandinavia loves segregation, they seek it. Many not so islamist in thinking just prioritize their culture, the clan and family even if they re employed in the public sector. The result is sabotage, and corruption.
There is a chance that Sweden may be learning their lesson and be more discerning as to who they allow in.
Water and oil don’t mix, neither do Islam with Western Culture.
It is not “far right” that rises in France it is just the right who are their only bulwark against the French communists who really are very radical and many of them were illegals who brought their extreme communism with them when they invaded .
It is not “far right” that rises in France it is just the right who are their only bulwark against the French communists who really are very radical and many of them were illegals who brought their extreme communism with them when they invaded .
There is a chance that Sweden may be learning their lesson and be more discerning as to who they allow in.
Water and oil don’t mix, neither do Islam with Western Culture.
Multiculturalism was never the intention . It was assumed all migrants would integrate into mainstream society . When it became obvious many migrant groups had no desire or intention to do so âmulticulturalismâ was wheeled out to describe and validate the unlooked for new reality .
Some immigrants are bringing in partly a better culture than that we have drifted into. The uprising against schools that are grooming their children here and in Canada was headed up by Islamic families whilst most western families, not all, who agreed with them couldn’t find the courage to do the same.
Didnât stop the âsuperior cultureâ they came here with encouraging the grooming of thousands of white girls most infamously in Rotherham , but elsewhere too .
Didnât stop the âsuperior cultureâ they came here with encouraging the grooming of thousands of white girls most infamously in Rotherham , but elsewhere too .
This. “It was assumed all migrants would integrate into mainstream society”.
Exactly. Welcome and peace.
But don’t try to change the place that welcomed you. YOU change to fit in.
Some immigrants are bringing in partly a better culture than that we have drifted into. The uprising against schools that are grooming their children here and in Canada was headed up by Islamic families whilst most western families, not all, who agreed with them couldn’t find the courage to do the same.
This. “It was assumed all migrants would integrate into mainstream society”.
Exactly. Welcome and peace.
But don’t try to change the place that welcomed you. YOU change to fit in.
This is the root of the problem. Iâve been an American expat in Ireland for one year, another in the Netherlands, and two years in France. Tourists and immigrants need to behave as visitors to othersâ home land, attempt to speak the language and behave respectfully in that culture. Over time, the locals may appreciate certain traits that you bring to the table, or they may not. Either way you need to make an attempt to assimilate. Multiculturalism implies multiple cultures can coexist. The melting pot that is America accepts many nationalities, but only one culture. Diverse influences far from its British roots, but one set of values nonetheless. Europe is learning that hard lesson real time.
The young islamist generation at least in Scandinavia loves segregation, they seek it. Many not so islamist in thinking just prioritize their culture, the clan and family even if they re employed in the public sector. The result is sabotage, and corruption.
Multiculturalism was never the intention . It was assumed all migrants would integrate into mainstream society . When it became obvious many migrant groups had no desire or intention to do so âmulticulturalismâ was wheeled out to describe and validate the unlooked for new reality .
I’ve come to the same conclusion. Until fairly recently, I was still defending multiculturalism. The last 8 years have led me to the conclusion that this has been Western Europe’s biggest mistake. Taking in vast numbers of people from other countries will only work long term if they are close enough to the home culture that living side by side doesn’t create parallel societies. See: the refugees from the former Yugoslavia who came to Austria in massive numbers in the 90s. Close historical and cultural ties meant that they have slotted right into life here. Just a generation later, they are holding leading positions in economic and political life (e.g. Alma Zadic, the Minister for Justice).
I just don’t see the same thing happening for the people who have come in in the past 8 years. A study was done recently about the attitudes of different groups of immigrants in Austria. It found that 50% (yes, you read that right) of new immigrants from Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria thought that Austrian women are “too free”. How are we supposed to deal with that? This is too far away from our own culture to accept and hardcore assimilation measures will just provoke a backlash.
At the end of the day, it’s our culture, our equality, our rights – we shouldn’t have to budge an inch to be accomodating or be called racists for that refusal. But it’s a forlorn hope to think that all of those entrants will simply say en masse “oh yes, you are right!”, abandon their original belief systems and slot right in. Social tension will be the result, 10-15 years down the line. I think many people in Germany and Austria are looking at the unrest in France and know that we are looking at our own future.
Ironically, one of the main drivers behind my change of heart about multiculturalism was my own experience of integrating in a foreign country and living side by side with Vienna’s immigrant groups (10th district).
When you’ve been through integration yourself, you a) get VERY tough indeed in your attitudes to people who don’t bother to engage with their adoptive home and its culture, and b) realise that any talk of the state somehow being able to influence integration is utter rubbish. Integration is a personal decision, the state cannot control it. If members of a certain group are consistently failing to integrate and causing trouble, you have to stop them coming in. It is that simple.
My goodness, 25-year-old me would not believe that 41 year-old-me would write such things. And yet here we are.
Donât despair!
Wait until you reach 80+ before coming to any meaningful conclusions!
Well, I’m 83 and am glad she has put away childish things and recognized hard reality. Better late than never… except when it’s too late.
Well, I’m 83 and am glad she has put away childish things and recognized hard reality. Better late than never… except when it’s too late.
I had the same experience when I moved to Germany. I did not speak a word of German at the time and I got on very well with migrants of various backgrounds. I was appalled at how hateful they were to the Germans and yet they themselves made no effort. Luckily I persisted and picked up the language and with it the culture. Being an Australian made it easier because the core beliefs were similar. I would not have to betray anything to fit it.
And there you have it Katherine, you are correct in saying that some cultures just donât fit together. Far from being a horrible thing, it is in fact a wonderful thing. It is a big planet and there is room for different belief systems. Bringing people in from Africa or the Middle East or Asia is not the answer.
The time has come to speak up with kindness and acceptance. The time has come for a lot of people to head home.
Well done for making the effort. We English speakers have an advantage that other immigrants don’t, in that our native language is the global language. And plenty of English-speaking expats therefore think that they don’t have to bother learning the local language. Such an arrogant and disrespectful approach. The same demands for language fluency should apply to everyone, and 3 years in a country is enough to absorb enough of the language to do the basics independently (going to the supermarket, the doctor, getting stuff done with the authorities).
I’ve met immigrants in Austria that have been there for 30+ years and still can’t put a decent sentence together in German and I honestly have no idea how that is possible.
Good point, Katherine and Peter D. I’ve lived in Hungary for several years, and while I do make a lot of mistakes when speaking the language, I use it as much as possible outside of my job (I’m an English teacher) I feel it’s a must to learn the local language. While many younger people speak English, lots of older people do not, and I would be unable to communicate with my neighbours, kids’ teachers, shopkeepers and many others. In the capital, Budapest, a lot of people don’t bother, as it’s such a multicultural city, where many speak English, but where I live (a village) you need to know at least a basic level of Hungarian. I also feel incredibly grateful for living here. Despite what the media say, it’s a great place to live, very safe with lovely people.
I loved Budapest as well although I was only there for a week with my wife. They don’t seem to have any immigrants, so it is easier for them at the moment.
Yes, Budapest is a beautiful city and much safer than many other capitals. Hungary has become much more multicultural, even in smaller cities and towns, but definitely more so in Budapest. There is still a sense of social cohesion, though (although I’m not sure about Budapest, as I don’t live there) I think a lot of it is down to Hungarians not being willing to sacrifice their culture. People are generally expected to integrate and learn the language (again less so in Budapest, which is more of a melting pot and where many people speak English) Also, the immigration being slower probably allowed for better integration.
Yes, Budapest is a beautiful city and much safer than many other capitals. Hungary has become much more multicultural, even in smaller cities and towns, but definitely more so in Budapest. There is still a sense of social cohesion, though (although I’m not sure about Budapest, as I don’t live there) I think a lot of it is down to Hungarians not being willing to sacrifice their culture. People are generally expected to integrate and learn the language (again less so in Budapest, which is more of a melting pot and where many people speak English) Also, the immigration being slower probably allowed for better integration.
I loved Budapest as well although I was only there for a week with my wife. They don’t seem to have any immigrants, so it is easier for them at the moment.
Correct…try learning Greek though!
Ancient or Modern?
The great advantage the British had was that Latin and Greek was taught from the mid 16th century. The rigour of the training to learn Greek made learning semitic Arabic relatively easy and the Aryian languages such as Persian( language of the Mughal Empire ) , Urdu and Hindi were straightforward. Many of the SOE officers who fought in Greece and the Balkans were classicists which helped them learn the languages.
Indeed, and it is little short of a national disgrace that we have virtually given up on teaching these languages.
e.g. Enoch Powell.
Indeed, and it is little short of a national disgrace that we have virtually given up on teaching these languages.
e.g. Enoch Powell.
The great advantage the British had was that Latin and Greek was taught from the mid 16th century. The rigour of the training to learn Greek made learning semitic Arabic relatively easy and the Aryian languages such as Persian( language of the Mughal Empire ) , Urdu and Hindi were straightforward. Many of the SOE officers who fought in Greece and the Balkans were classicists which helped them learn the languages.
Child’s play! Give Welsh a go!!
It sounds like Greek to me!
My husband is trying to learn Greek. Ho hum.
Efkaristo!
Efkaristo!
Ancient or Modern?
Child’s play! Give Welsh a go!!
It sounds like Greek to me!
My husband is trying to learn Greek. Ho hum.
I lived in Austria for a year, and outside of work, where communication had to be ‘business clear’ — spoke my bad German. I got corrected constantly (well, they are Austrians!) but also quickly became beloved. I have a quick wit that helped, but the main thing was that I realized that people just will not speak English or another non-native language after 5:00 PM. If you want to drink with people, you have to go all in with your miserable German — which won’t stay that way.
“The same demands for language fluency should apply to everyone, and 3 years in a country is enough to absorb enough of the language to do the basics independently”
Three months.
A bumper sticker I saw in Florida: âWelcome to America. Now learn English.â
A bumper sticker I saw in Florida: âWelcome to America. Now learn English.â
Good point, Katherine and Peter D. I’ve lived in Hungary for several years, and while I do make a lot of mistakes when speaking the language, I use it as much as possible outside of my job (I’m an English teacher) I feel it’s a must to learn the local language. While many younger people speak English, lots of older people do not, and I would be unable to communicate with my neighbours, kids’ teachers, shopkeepers and many others. In the capital, Budapest, a lot of people don’t bother, as it’s such a multicultural city, where many speak English, but where I live (a village) you need to know at least a basic level of Hungarian. I also feel incredibly grateful for living here. Despite what the media say, it’s a great place to live, very safe with lovely people.
Correct…try learning Greek though!
I lived in Austria for a year, and outside of work, where communication had to be ‘business clear’ — spoke my bad German. I got corrected constantly (well, they are Austrians!) but also quickly became beloved. I have a quick wit that helped, but the main thing was that I realized that people just will not speak English or another non-native language after 5:00 PM. If you want to drink with people, you have to go all in with your miserable German — which won’t stay that way.
“The same demands for language fluency should apply to everyone, and 3 years in a country is enough to absorb enough of the language to do the basics independently”
Three months.
Peter,
Core beliefs? Do you mean your common Christian heritage?
For some of us that is true although I know that on the whole there is a rejection of the Christian culture it would appear.
For some of us that is true although I know that on the whole there is a rejection of the Christian culture it would appear.
One thing I find annoying is that when female journaliats go to Muslim countries they wear a scarf out of respect. However, when Muslims come to a non- Muslim country they don’t take it off out of respect. There is female journalist on CNN, living in London, who talks about the persecution of women in Iran if they don’t cover their hair, but she wears a hijab. It seems hypocritical to me.
It is probably safer for her in Iran if she did wear the hijab. Women have been tortured there for not wearing one.
That’s my point. She’s not in Iran.
That’s my point. She’s not in Iran.
You don’t understand hijab. It is are a religious observance undertaken by pious Muslim women (cf. also, the yarmulke, a religious observance undertaken by pious Jewish men). The CNN journalist is, evidently, a pious Muslim, so she wears hijab, but she also rightly objects to the persecution of thoroughly or somewhat secular Muslim women who chose not to undertake the observance. How exactly is it hypocritical to undertake a religious observance, while being solicitous of the human rights of those who choose not to undertake it?
It is probably safer for her in Iran if she did wear the hijab. Women have been tortured there for not wearing one.
You don’t understand hijab. It is are a religious observance undertaken by pious Muslim women (cf. also, the yarmulke, a religious observance undertaken by pious Jewish men). The CNN journalist is, evidently, a pious Muslim, so she wears hijab, but she also rightly objects to the persecution of thoroughly or somewhat secular Muslim women who chose not to undertake the observance. How exactly is it hypocritical to undertake a religious observance, while being solicitous of the human rights of those who choose not to undertake it?
They fled from those hell holes for good reason. Nothing but force will persuade them to return.
t
Well done for making the effort. We English speakers have an advantage that other immigrants don’t, in that our native language is the global language. And plenty of English-speaking expats therefore think that they don’t have to bother learning the local language. Such an arrogant and disrespectful approach. The same demands for language fluency should apply to everyone, and 3 years in a country is enough to absorb enough of the language to do the basics independently (going to the supermarket, the doctor, getting stuff done with the authorities).
I’ve met immigrants in Austria that have been there for 30+ years and still can’t put a decent sentence together in German and I honestly have no idea how that is possible.
Peter,
Core beliefs? Do you mean your common Christian heritage?
One thing I find annoying is that when female journaliats go to Muslim countries they wear a scarf out of respect. However, when Muslims come to a non- Muslim country they don’t take it off out of respect. There is female journalist on CNN, living in London, who talks about the persecution of women in Iran if they don’t cover their hair, but she wears a hijab. It seems hypocritical to me.
They fled from those hell holes for good reason. Nothing but force will persuade them to return.
t
“50% (yes, you read that right) of new immigrants from Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria thought that Austrian women are âtoo freeâ.”
It’s probably more than 50%, it’s probably as high even amongst second generation immigrants from that part….
But the most worrying part is, the majority of Austrian women (or other W European or US / Canadian) women would still support “human right” and immigration, and call you racist for suggesting there might be a tiny problem.
While also complaining about “misogyny” and “patriarchy ” in Western cultures.
Misguided compassion not based on truth.
Misguided compassion not based on truth.
Is there a better and worse way to live a human life? Pose that question to almost anyone and immediately you will hear âyes, of course.â But on reflection doubt sets in. One usually doesnât have to wait terribly long. This is the pickle in which the modern world has situated itself.
I thought it was pretty obvious how to live a better life. The trouble is we have a weakness for doing the wrong thing occasionally.
I thought it was pretty obvious how to live a better life. The trouble is we have a weakness for doing the wrong thing occasionally.
I’ve experienced a similar change of heart, Katherine – I also wonder what the younger (idealistic) me would think of the older me’s current beliefs. In my case, it was teaching students with migrant backgrounds, starting about a decade ago, that prompted a rethink. Many of my students had been here for decades but their English was often poor (and partly explained their tendency to plagiarise – plus many didn’t appear to have a cultural aversion to the idea of cheating), they were insulated from wider society (to the extent that I was often one of the few British people they interacted with), and they were wildly naive about what it takes to become successful in this country. The experience really opened my eyes. Plus, there’s a lot of research on the impacts of migration on social cohesion showing the latter is adversely affected by rapid, mass migration. I could conveniently ignore this like others do but that strikes me as cowardly. If the evidence is staring you in the face and there’s enough of it, then it can’t be ignored.
You are quite right but perhaps you are more qualified to speak up than some.
You are quite right but perhaps you are more qualified to speak up than some.
Please don’t patronise by using the word ” culture”?! Be honest, this is a racial and Islamic issue, so why pretend otherwise?
Cultureâs premise is religion.
In America African American culture is different than European culture but it’s not based on religion.
on raggae , rap and dope?
Yes. And reflexive homicidal violence.
I was in a nightmare living next to that stuff in London. Their children can sleep through it but mostly we cannot.
Yes. And reflexive homicidal violence.
I was in a nightmare living next to that stuff in London. Their children can sleep through it but mostly we cannot.
It is mostly Christian culture I believe but expressed in the way of their culture. A lot of black culture into this country is an asset but not all of course.
on raggae , rap and dope?
It is mostly Christian culture I believe but expressed in the way of their culture. A lot of black culture into this country is an asset but not all of course.
In America African American culture is different than European culture but it’s not based on religion.
Maybe but one has to tread carefully with that otherwise it is counter productive. I have found in one culture that they do not have the capacity to forgive. It is not taught. If you offend them they might never forgive or forget it. In one sense this is their power over us and why some are afraid to offend them even the government.
Your kind of blunt honesty is out of fashion. Please adapt to the cringing new mores.
Nicky isn’t honest he’s mean.
And almost never constructive.
And almost never constructive.
Nicky isn’t honest he’s mean.
Cultureâs premise is religion.
Maybe but one has to tread carefully with that otherwise it is counter productive. I have found in one culture that they do not have the capacity to forgive. It is not taught. If you offend them they might never forgive or forget it. In one sense this is their power over us and why some are afraid to offend them even the government.
Your kind of blunt honesty is out of fashion. Please adapt to the cringing new mores.
“My goodness, 25-year-old me would not believe that 41 year-old-me would write such things. And yet here we are”
And therein lies the problem. What made you a supporter of multiculturalism? Were you persuaded to believe that having a negative view was low status?
Probably just lack of experience.
Something like that, yes. And for a long time I was afraid to criticise it for fear of being labelled racist or intolerant. I also thought that displaying boundless tolerance was to take the high moral road.
These days I think tolerance is only a good thing in moderation.
And the dilemma we now face is this: because we have driven ourselves into a cul de sac with our own kindness, welcome culture, exaggerated tolerance and naive belief that our liberal societies can withstand anything, we now need to reverse the other way to get out. Be tougher, less permissive, also more authoritarian…in order that our liberal societies can survive. The irony…
Get ready for some unpleasant showdowns.
People’s views tend to mature as they get older. That is why Starmer’s intention to give the vote to sixteen year olds could be a disaster although it will bring him more votes.
âCould beâ ought to be changed to âwill beâ. Teenagers are very emotional and apt to follow the bright shiny things even if they are dangerous.
âCould beâ ought to be changed to âwill beâ. Teenagers are very emotional and apt to follow the bright shiny things even if they are dangerous.
I understand exactly what you say.
The pressure on individuals to censor themselves and keep quiet has been a very potent weapon
People’s views tend to mature as they get older. That is why Starmer’s intention to give the vote to sixteen year olds could be a disaster although it will bring him more votes.
I understand exactly what you say.
The pressure on individuals to censor themselves and keep quiet has been a very potent weapon
Probably just lack of experience.
Something like that, yes. And for a long time I was afraid to criticise it for fear of being labelled racist or intolerant. I also thought that displaying boundless tolerance was to take the high moral road.
These days I think tolerance is only a good thing in moderation.
And the dilemma we now face is this: because we have driven ourselves into a cul de sac with our own kindness, welcome culture, exaggerated tolerance and naive belief that our liberal societies can withstand anything, we now need to reverse the other way to get out. Be tougher, less permissive, also more authoritarian…in order that our liberal societies can survive. The irony…
Get ready for some unpleasant showdowns.
We all – every community – have been betrayed by the progressives or Leftists who saw multiculturalism as a weapon in their fight to overturn the traditional nation state and its core values and identity (family/Christianity). The UK has proven to be a better more tolerant melting pot than any other state, something magical, but no thanks to the demonic lefty politicians who from the 80s stopped assimilation in schools, branded our own culture as racist, turned a blind eye to horrors like honour killing and religious radicalisation and from the 90s just opened the floodgates to the one thing which always provokes friction – mass uncontrolled immigration and ghettoization. The Fake Blairite-Lite ‘Tories have continued with this EU/Blair Open Border policy for all 13 years, screwing up unplanned for public servives for all. And this unthinking Lab/Tory ‘Elite’ then let another new poison enter the bloodstream; state driven ideological identitarianism, casting the entire white native population as raycist and further appeasing threats like islamism. Our craven elite and the Left has wished this all upon us.
Well said.
You are right but who is going to listen? Certainly not the Tories who don’t have the will to stop the boat people most of whom are a completely different culture to us.
You’re a grown-up. Most people your age are still kids.
Excellent. Thank you for sharing. I think you hit the nail on the head.
I would caveat that by saying mass immigration of cultures vastly different than one’s own is a recipe for disaster. Everything moves along when the immigration numbers are small enough that those with great differences in belief never aspire to force change in the society they chose to join. But when those communities are large, and the country is democratic, they not only aspire to change the country, but demand it as a right.
And, in fact, they are not wrong. By inviting so many of the same opinion in and granting citizenship by the millions to them, in a democracy, they DO have that right.
Our blindness to this reality is the problem.
Donât despair!
Wait until you reach 80+ before coming to any meaningful conclusions!
I had the same experience when I moved to Germany. I did not speak a word of German at the time and I got on very well with migrants of various backgrounds. I was appalled at how hateful they were to the Germans and yet they themselves made no effort. Luckily I persisted and picked up the language and with it the culture. Being an Australian made it easier because the core beliefs were similar. I would not have to betray anything to fit it.
And there you have it Katherine, you are correct in saying that some cultures just donât fit together. Far from being a horrible thing, it is in fact a wonderful thing. It is a big planet and there is room for different belief systems. Bringing people in from Africa or the Middle East or Asia is not the answer.
The time has come to speak up with kindness and acceptance. The time has come for a lot of people to head home.
“50% (yes, you read that right) of new immigrants from Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria thought that Austrian women are âtoo freeâ.”
It’s probably more than 50%, it’s probably as high even amongst second generation immigrants from that part….
But the most worrying part is, the majority of Austrian women (or other W European or US / Canadian) women would still support “human right” and immigration, and call you racist for suggesting there might be a tiny problem.
While also complaining about “misogyny” and “patriarchy ” in Western cultures.
Is there a better and worse way to live a human life? Pose that question to almost anyone and immediately you will hear âyes, of course.â But on reflection doubt sets in. One usually doesnât have to wait terribly long. This is the pickle in which the modern world has situated itself.
I’ve experienced a similar change of heart, Katherine – I also wonder what the younger (idealistic) me would think of the older me’s current beliefs. In my case, it was teaching students with migrant backgrounds, starting about a decade ago, that prompted a rethink. Many of my students had been here for decades but their English was often poor (and partly explained their tendency to plagiarise – plus many didn’t appear to have a cultural aversion to the idea of cheating), they were insulated from wider society (to the extent that I was often one of the few British people they interacted with), and they were wildly naive about what it takes to become successful in this country. The experience really opened my eyes. Plus, there’s a lot of research on the impacts of migration on social cohesion showing the latter is adversely affected by rapid, mass migration. I could conveniently ignore this like others do but that strikes me as cowardly. If the evidence is staring you in the face and there’s enough of it, then it can’t be ignored.
Please don’t patronise by using the word ” culture”?! Be honest, this is a racial and Islamic issue, so why pretend otherwise?
“My goodness, 25-year-old me would not believe that 41 year-old-me would write such things. And yet here we are”
And therein lies the problem. What made you a supporter of multiculturalism? Were you persuaded to believe that having a negative view was low status?
We all – every community – have been betrayed by the progressives or Leftists who saw multiculturalism as a weapon in their fight to overturn the traditional nation state and its core values and identity (family/Christianity). The UK has proven to be a better more tolerant melting pot than any other state, something magical, but no thanks to the demonic lefty politicians who from the 80s stopped assimilation in schools, branded our own culture as racist, turned a blind eye to horrors like honour killing and religious radicalisation and from the 90s just opened the floodgates to the one thing which always provokes friction – mass uncontrolled immigration and ghettoization. The Fake Blairite-Lite ‘Tories have continued with this EU/Blair Open Border policy for all 13 years, screwing up unplanned for public servives for all. And this unthinking Lab/Tory ‘Elite’ then let another new poison enter the bloodstream; state driven ideological identitarianism, casting the entire white native population as raycist and further appeasing threats like islamism. Our craven elite and the Left has wished this all upon us.
Well said.
You are right but who is going to listen? Certainly not the Tories who don’t have the will to stop the boat people most of whom are a completely different culture to us.
You’re a grown-up. Most people your age are still kids.
Excellent. Thank you for sharing. I think you hit the nail on the head.
I would caveat that by saying mass immigration of cultures vastly different than one’s own is a recipe for disaster. Everything moves along when the immigration numbers are small enough that those with great differences in belief never aspire to force change in the society they chose to join. But when those communities are large, and the country is democratic, they not only aspire to change the country, but demand it as a right.
And, in fact, they are not wrong. By inviting so many of the same opinion in and granting citizenship by the millions to them, in a democracy, they DO have that right.
Our blindness to this reality is the problem.
In the UK, “multiculturalism” means you are only allowed to criticise the British way of life: everything non-British is above reproach. France has tried to follow a different path, by trying to pretend that everyone in France must buy-in to French values. But it has become impossible to ignore the Islamic counter-culture that has been allowed to flourish in France. So centrist politicians, like Macron, have attempted appeasement, but ended up with the worst of both worlds.
Yes and to suggest there is such a thing as an indigenous Brit is a form of blasphemy (hate speech) punishable by excommunication (cancellation or even prosecution).
Try living in Australia where the indigenous population invented everything and it was a paradise until the white fellas showed up. Now we constantly have to acknowledge the elders past, present, and emerging. Have welcomes to country at every event. The Aboriginal flag and the Torres Strait Islander flag flies at every school.
Our kids are taught that Europeans poisoned the Aborigines and raped the women. And this at a primary school level (Elementary school for the Americans).
It is getting a bit much
There is no balance. The demonisation of the Europeans and idolisation of the Aboriginals (the noble savage). No, maybe that is a kind of balance but not the fruitful, beneficial kind. The attitudes reveal more about the bearer of the attitudes than the object.
Did not many British convicts suffer and die whilst working (hard Labour) on the establishment and construction of modern Australia? Assuming they didnât die whilst being transported.
âTransportationâ as it was called, was the alternative to public hanging* and seen as a rather benign policy that had the added advantage of populating the Empire**.
(* In effect slow strangulation.)
(**Albeit with undesirables!)
Reminds me of a joke – no doubt politically incorrect. A British businessman on being asked if he had a criminal record, when going through Australian passport control, replied he didnât know it was still a requirement.
Off course those convicts were accompanied by Warders, which some say was the major contributing factor in Australiaâs completely ridiculous OTT response to the Scamdemic.
Good one!
I think it was English cricketer on Ashes tour.
Sod PC.
Off course those convicts were accompanied by Warders, which some say was the major contributing factor in Australiaâs completely ridiculous OTT response to the Scamdemic.
Good one!
I think it was English cricketer on Ashes tour.
Sod PC.
Ahh.. hence why of course Australia has such an intellectual and artistic learned culture… blaggism?
Well it does explain the extraordinary display of Australian sportsmanship we witnessed yesterday at Lordâs.
But the trick was first deployed by English cricketer Grace?
But the trick was first deployed by English cricketer Grace?
Well it does explain the extraordinary display of Australian sportsmanship we witnessed yesterday at Lordâs.
Transportation was only to Australia. Prior to 1857, The East India Company was staffed largely by younger sons of gentry and merchant classes. Britain was unusual compared to other European countries because it had a large yeoman, franklin, merchant and gentry classes whose younger sons received an education( a very tough one based upon Classics, Maths contact sports and Christianity ), a little money and the family name: the rest was up to them. Continental Europe had an aristocratic class whose sons lived off the family estate and never went into business or overseas : the result was The French Revolution.
What we see today in France is result of a despotic absolute monarchy, brittle aristocracy , supported by a dissolute clergy overthrown by doctrinaire brittle intellectual middle class. In the case of England, Parliament , which means to speak, is an evolution of the Anglo Saxon monarchy rule through consultation and consent; re stated by Edward III belief “That which affects all must be consulted by all ” and further developed in The Glorius Revolution and The Bill of Rights of 1689. The British system has evolved based upon learning from experience.
France today is conflict between Republican( Royalists have little influence )Catholic Conservatives and atheistic Marxists, both are doctrinaire, intellectual, haughty, unbalanced, and brittle. They lack the elasticity, supplenesss, emotional balance and stability where evolution requires organisms to be responsive to survive and thrive. If one looks at top athletes in tennis, football, rugby, boxing, martial arts, etc one of their skills is the ability to accelerate while changing direction, keeping their balance and remaining in control.
France has allowed into their country large numbers of people who lack the abilities to enter advanced manufacturing and the knowledge economy plus who ignore laicite which is a very brittle doctrinaire belief.
Prior to Australia didnât we transport to the American Colonies?
Absolutely correct! But a certain “War of Independence” put paid to that little scheme. In 1787, the Botany Bay “experiment” began and the rest is history.
Yes
Absolutely correct! But a certain “War of Independence” put paid to that little scheme. In 1787, the Botany Bay “experiment” began and the rest is history.
Yes
Prior to Australia didnât we transport to the American Colonies?
Reminds me of a joke – no doubt politically incorrect. A British businessman on being asked if he had a criminal record, when going through Australian passport control, replied he didnât know it was still a requirement.
Ahh.. hence why of course Australia has such an intellectual and artistic learned culture… blaggism?
Transportation was only to Australia. Prior to 1857, The East India Company was staffed largely by younger sons of gentry and merchant classes. Britain was unusual compared to other European countries because it had a large yeoman, franklin, merchant and gentry classes whose younger sons received an education( a very tough one based upon Classics, Maths contact sports and Christianity ), a little money and the family name: the rest was up to them. Continental Europe had an aristocratic class whose sons lived off the family estate and never went into business or overseas : the result was The French Revolution.
What we see today in France is result of a despotic absolute monarchy, brittle aristocracy , supported by a dissolute clergy overthrown by doctrinaire brittle intellectual middle class. In the case of England, Parliament , which means to speak, is an evolution of the Anglo Saxon monarchy rule through consultation and consent; re stated by Edward III belief “That which affects all must be consulted by all ” and further developed in The Glorius Revolution and The Bill of Rights of 1689. The British system has evolved based upon learning from experience.
France today is conflict between Republican( Royalists have little influence )Catholic Conservatives and atheistic Marxists, both are doctrinaire, intellectual, haughty, unbalanced, and brittle. They lack the elasticity, supplenesss, emotional balance and stability where evolution requires organisms to be responsive to survive and thrive. If one looks at top athletes in tennis, football, rugby, boxing, martial arts, etc one of their skills is the ability to accelerate while changing direction, keeping their balance and remaining in control.
France has allowed into their country large numbers of people who lack the abilities to enter advanced manufacturing and the knowledge economy plus who ignore laicite which is a very brittle doctrinaire belief.
Well they became a great culture in the end apart from the last ten or twenty years which can apply to all western nations.
âTransportationâ as it was called, was the alternative to public hanging* and seen as a rather benign policy that had the added advantage of populating the Empire**.
(* In effect slow strangulation.)
(**Albeit with undesirables!)
Well they became a great culture in the end apart from the last ten or twenty years which can apply to all western nations.
That is a perfect example of what happens with uncontrolled immigration, from the Aboriginal perspective of course. You see you are descended from immigrants that ignored rules and culture of the natives and eventually all but eliminated it and restricted it to few isolated spots, similar scenario unfolded in North America of course. Not sure this is some sort of poetic justice, but perhaps just a way human societies work. We cannot be bothered to have children any more as it doesnât fit with our hedonistic priorities (Iâm not an exception there), so those cultures that are increasing in numbers will take more prominent place. Not making any moral judgment either way, just trying to understand the drivers of the process.
The so-called natives of australia and New Zealand (and the US) weren’t so native at all. The same with the Turks, so how far do you want to go back with your grievances? Why the double standards where the west (i.e. white people) is involved?
Iâm really not sure what grievances and double standards you have in mind. I explicitly said that Iâm not making any moral judgement on the process. I think you are making assumptions on what I think, not what I actually wrote. I was simply looking at the past examples of mass immigration and effect it had on incumbent population and culture. It was clearly catastrophic, in my opinion. E.g. ânativeâ Americans went from 100% of population to less then 1%, and of course they lost 99% of resources (mainly land) in the process. If the term native is correct, or not they were established populations over many centuries. Of course, everyone has moved from somewhere at some point in the past. That is the whole thing, we think we can freeze these migrations at the point when we are happy with the setup, and this is not the case, it will keep happening and defining factor will be population size and perceived benefits of certain move, as it has always been.
Respectfully, the Australian aborigines claiming that the Brits destroyed their rich culture is a bit… erm…
You’re very much right that the entire of history is essentially groups moving around, and plundering, or displacing others (often by force). Having said that, at the time of British arrival aboriginal Australians were essentially running around killing each other in the bush. Incest and child rape were commonplace, as was human sacrifice. Despite the quite abundant natural conditions, starvation was common. Pillaging and murder of other tribes was commonplace; easier than hunting and picking for yourself.
That is perhaps a result of isolation for so long (no exposure to new ideas, to prompt change), I’m not an expert on these matters so I won’t speculate too deeply. And I really don’t wish to be churlish, but it’s rather fatuous for their current “elders” to be attempting to revise history with the notion that they were akin to the ancient Greeks, until these barbarians arrived from Europe and destroyed everything they had built. That’s just objectively nonsense on stilts. There was nothing to destroy, they hadn’t bothered to build anything.
I feel like, given the day and age we are now in, that I must now explicitly add the disclaimer of the bleeding obvious: none of the above is a defence of barbaric treatment of native cultures by invading ones. [Eye roll at having to state the obvious, but this is 2023]. Anyhow, I think the point stands otherwise, and is robust enough to stand up to scrutiny. There have been many great cultures burned to ash by invaders, and some middling or crap ones burned to ash by invaders. Nowadays I think it is taboo to accept this fact â any lost culture or practice must be treated as hallowed and saturated in ‘ancient wisdom’, even if was one centred around cannibalism, or incest, with absolutely no cultural artefacts of value. It’s a bit weird.
Appropos of nothing the Tiwi islands off the coast of Darwin have the largest per capita of indigenous transgender people in Australia. I found that interesting because they haven’t been influenced by social media or social trends.
How interesting, I didn’t know that. I wonder if there is an environmental factor there that we are unaware of?
Like it’s in the water?!
Actually not as crazy as it sounds. Alex Jones was right about the water turning the frogs queer! …he got lambasted and mocked for saying that, but despite his typical bombastic presentation he was right â a study had found that atrazine (a pesticide) in the water was responsible for making male frogs grow female sex organs. This phenomenon is “chemical feminization”.
Some of the other common environmental contaminants, like glyphosate, are also capable of acting as powerful endocrine disrupters. They enter the food supply and waterways, and end up in our bodies.
I appreciate that this sounds wacky, but if you look up the atrazine / feminization thing, or glyphosate / endocrine dysfunction, you will find that it’s actually reasonably plausible that we could see broad based ‘sex effects’ off the back of hormone disruption from environmental factors. No doubt there are social factors too (especially in the west, where gender is almost a new religion), but a physical driver may also be at play.
Yes, and estrogen in river water from the birth control pill and estrogen from plastics. It would seem like it’s time for some research because there’s also an increase in breast cancer.
Yes, and estrogen in river water from the birth control pill and estrogen from plastics. It would seem like it’s time for some research because there’s also an increase in breast cancer.
Actually not as crazy as it sounds. Alex Jones was right about the water turning the frogs queer! …he got lambasted and mocked for saying that, but despite his typical bombastic presentation he was right â a study had found that atrazine (a pesticide) in the water was responsible for making male frogs grow female sex organs. This phenomenon is “chemical feminization”.
Some of the other common environmental contaminants, like glyphosate, are also capable of acting as powerful endocrine disrupters. They enter the food supply and waterways, and end up in our bodies.
I appreciate that this sounds wacky, but if you look up the atrazine / feminization thing, or glyphosate / endocrine dysfunction, you will find that it’s actually reasonably plausible that we could see broad based ‘sex effects’ off the back of hormone disruption from environmental factors. No doubt there are social factors too (especially in the west, where gender is almost a new religion), but a physical driver may also be at play.
Like it’s in the water?!
How interesting, I didn’t know that. I wonder if there is an environmental factor there that we are unaware of?
Darwin would have written âevolutionary dead endâ in his notebook upon observing the First Nations of Australia âŠ
Where do you get that information about child rape, incests and human sacrifice in Aboriginal Australian communities? I’m aware of current problems with child abuse in those communities, but that’s not evidence of what happened before we arrived 250 years ago when their living arrangements and societies were of course very different. That they built nothing is hardly a criticism. I’m envious of your ability to distinguish great cultures from middling and crap ones.
I’m sorry you’ve taken offense at my views Jake.
I happen to know a fair bit about the matter because I’m an avid reader and researcher, and we have a ‘transported’ English convict in our family line (end up in Tasmania).
“Iâm envious of your ability to distinguish great cultures from middling and crap ones.”
Well we might all draw the lines slightly differently, but actually I think most people instinctively do make these kinds of judgements about a culture, and cultural contributions. And it’s our right to have opinions, and to share them. Personally, it seems self evident to me that the culture that gave us the first attempts fleshing out and protecting the natural rights of man, is superior to one that was disemboweling people and throwing babies into fires to please the sun gods.
Whilst all human beings have equal worth, it does not then follow that all cultures are equal, or that all ideas are equal. They clearly aren’t.
I’m sorry you’ve taken offense at my views Jake.
I happen to know a fair bit about the matter because I’m an avid reader and researcher, and we have a ‘transported’ English convict in our family line (end up in Tasmania).
“Iâm envious of your ability to distinguish great cultures from middling and crap ones.”
Well we might all draw the lines slightly differently, but actually I think most people instinctively do make these kinds of judgements about a culture, and cultural contributions. And it’s our right to have opinions, and to share them. Personally, it seems self evident to me that the culture that gave us the first attempts fleshing out and protecting the natural rights of man, is superior to one that was disemboweling people and throwing babies into fires to please the sun gods.
Whilst all human beings have equal worth, it does not then follow that all cultures are equal, or that all ideas are equal. They clearly aren’t.
Appropos of nothing the Tiwi islands off the coast of Darwin have the largest per capita of indigenous transgender people in Australia. I found that interesting because they haven’t been influenced by social media or social trends.
Darwin would have written âevolutionary dead endâ in his notebook upon observing the First Nations of Australia âŠ
Where do you get that information about child rape, incests and human sacrifice in Aboriginal Australian communities? I’m aware of current problems with child abuse in those communities, but that’s not evidence of what happened before we arrived 250 years ago when their living arrangements and societies were of course very different. That they built nothing is hardly a criticism. I’m envious of your ability to distinguish great cultures from middling and crap ones.
Adam and Eve started in the garden of Eden. We are supposed to populate the earth but not through conquest. There was more than enough room for both races.
Respectfully, the Australian aborigines claiming that the Brits destroyed their rich culture is a bit… erm…
You’re very much right that the entire of history is essentially groups moving around, and plundering, or displacing others (often by force). Having said that, at the time of British arrival aboriginal Australians were essentially running around killing each other in the bush. Incest and child rape were commonplace, as was human sacrifice. Despite the quite abundant natural conditions, starvation was common. Pillaging and murder of other tribes was commonplace; easier than hunting and picking for yourself.
That is perhaps a result of isolation for so long (no exposure to new ideas, to prompt change), I’m not an expert on these matters so I won’t speculate too deeply. And I really don’t wish to be churlish, but it’s rather fatuous for their current “elders” to be attempting to revise history with the notion that they were akin to the ancient Greeks, until these barbarians arrived from Europe and destroyed everything they had built. That’s just objectively nonsense on stilts. There was nothing to destroy, they hadn’t bothered to build anything.
I feel like, given the day and age we are now in, that I must now explicitly add the disclaimer of the bleeding obvious: none of the above is a defence of barbaric treatment of native cultures by invading ones. [Eye roll at having to state the obvious, but this is 2023]. Anyhow, I think the point stands otherwise, and is robust enough to stand up to scrutiny. There have been many great cultures burned to ash by invaders, and some middling or crap ones burned to ash by invaders. Nowadays I think it is taboo to accept this fact â any lost culture or practice must be treated as hallowed and saturated in ‘ancient wisdom’, even if was one centred around cannibalism, or incest, with absolutely no cultural artefacts of value. It’s a bit weird.
Adam and Eve started in the garden of Eden. We are supposed to populate the earth but not through conquest. There was more than enough room for both races.
Turks! Invaders and occupiers of Europe.
Iâm really not sure what grievances and double standards you have in mind. I explicitly said that Iâm not making any moral judgement on the process. I think you are making assumptions on what I think, not what I actually wrote. I was simply looking at the past examples of mass immigration and effect it had on incumbent population and culture. It was clearly catastrophic, in my opinion. E.g. ânativeâ Americans went from 100% of population to less then 1%, and of course they lost 99% of resources (mainly land) in the process. If the term native is correct, or not they were established populations over many centuries. Of course, everyone has moved from somewhere at some point in the past. That is the whole thing, we think we can freeze these migrations at the point when we are happy with the setup, and this is not the case, it will keep happening and defining factor will be population size and perceived benefits of certain move, as it has always been.
Turks! Invaders and occupiers of Europe.
You bring up a very interesting point and perspective. Perhaps it all depends on which group of âimmigrantsâ we are talking about. Regardless, if one prefers the third world culture, lifestyle, squalor and authoritarian rule of the home country, why leave it in the first place? And why chose to settle in a country that has the complete opposite values and culture?
Well from what I saw people move with very different motivations and attitude. Some will become big asset for society and net contributors, while others will just look to exploit what they can and sabotage what they canât. Most people donât consider their culture and lifestyle to be inferior to any other, while many will be assimilated to some point, many will remain insulated. I think speed and scale of immigration is the key factor there. For many itâs purely economical, they are happy to take the benefits, but donât see need to adopt to the existing values, just as mentioned immigrants to Australia, North America etc., had no interest in adopting local values and culture.
Some do and some don’t, as you started out saying, therefore it’s really hard to generalize, isn’t it. As a Brit In the US some old fart said to me “why don’t you just go home”.
Yes, perhaps I wasnât clear. I meant, as a follow up on original comment above, that initial immigrants to US and Australia had little interest and respect for the existing (native) culture and society there, they were labelled savages, threat and nuisance and were dealt with accordingly. There were exceptions of course, but they were small minority. Of course, modern migration has some control in pace and conditions, and I think can offer many benefits for receiving country if they know who they are taking, or get lucky. But overall the pace is pretty high, and control limited, this will inevitably change western societies. Not saying this is good or bad, just that there are parallels in history for situational like this.