Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

GTA_stu

The Migration Crisis

Recommended Posts

sivispacem

I'm not suffering from xenophobia just because I want a primarily white, Christian nation stay that way.

I'm interested to see you explain your reasoning behind this, because there's no empirical reason for wanting a white Christian nation to stay that way and I'm struggling to find a reason one might want this which isn't effectively xenophobia.

 

It's bad for the native Germans to host that many refugees

Is it? This is a pretty concrete statement, do you have any actual evidence to back this up or is it simply an opinion?

 

Germany is a white nation and it should stay that way.

I wonder, where do you stand on indigenous rights then? Canada used to be a country solely inhabited by indigenous people, who were displaced by foreign migration. But I don't think you'd argue that Canada was a First Nation nation and should be restored to thst way?

 

John, how many Islamist terrorist attacks have happened in Europe in the last 10 years? I count perhaps six attacks in total in the EU- two in France, one in Belgium, one in Denmark, one in Germany, one in Sweden. Totalling 27 fatalities including one bomber. That's excluding the Bulgarian bombing which was claimed by Hezbollah, partially because they're not Islamist and partially because it was probably at the behest of Iran. In the same time, there have been a number of bombings committed by Republican groups; the Massareene shooting, two further murders of PSNI staff or prison officers, and at least four other murders. Four terrorist attacks in Greece between 2009 and 2010 committed by far-left groups. The Bosporus murders in Germany conducted by far right groups, the CasaPound attacks in Italy (again far right), Anders Breivik as you've already mentioned, plus various others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gooeyhole

I'm a nationalist. I'll say that now and with pride. Being from Newfoundland, a place that still feels unique yet proudly Canadian made me that way. We still retained our country even when joining another. Made up of a mix of Irish, English, Scotts and some French sprinkled in. I was formerly hard right but with age have grown to be more of a moderate.

 

>in 20 years a steadily rising population will change Germany

>slippery slope

 

I don't get this at all. More people of a different culture in a country means that they will be influential in what the country is culturally. Maybe I'm pants on head retarded for thinking that way and I'm missing your point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Hang on, you claim that your own region seems culturally distinct whilst simultaneously Canadian by virtue of its history of immigration. I don't see why the same couldn't be applied to basically any contemporary European example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gooeyhole

@Sivispacem

 

1.

 

I am a fan of countries that are what they are to stay what they are when it comes to their culture. Xenophobia isn't a part of it. I am only xenophobic towards extremism. Which is at the very least reasonable. I have zero issue with Muslim folk who do their thing and don't try to dominate. Religion shouldn't necessarily be dominant. When I say Germany or wherever should be a Christian nation I don't mean an oppressive one. Though it is easy to do so.

 

Would you call me anti Christian if I wanted to keep an Islamic nation Islamic? No. Because the Islamic countries know that the way to sustain Islam is by limited immigration. Why do you think Israel isn't taking any refugees?

 

2.

 

Yes. Does money grow on trees? (I'm an asshole, where does the benefit money come from exactly?)

 

3.

 

Why are you so eager to mention Aboriginals exactly? These aren't the same circumstances at all. They killed the natives because they could. Just like the refugees will with Germany. I just hope it's political and not violent slaughter.

Edited by Canadian Badass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gooeyhole

Hang on, you claim that your own region seems culturally distinct whilst simultaneously Canadian by virtue of its history of immigration. I don't see why the same couldn't be applied to basically any contemporary European example.

Newfoundland is made of Anglican churches. It's mostly British. The culture is very much so British. With the modern Canadian Americanized touch to it. The difference gap culturally is far shorter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fonz

I'm a nationalist. I'll say that now and with pride. Being from Newfoundland, a place that still feels unique yet proudly Canadian made me that way. We still retained our country even when joining another. Made up of a mix of Irish, English, Scotts and some French sprinkled in. I was formerly hard right but with age have grown to be more of a moderate.

 

>in 20 years a steadily rising population will change Germany

>slippery slope

 

I don't get this at all. More people of a different culture in a country means that they will be influential in what the country is culturally. Maybe I'm pants on head retarded for thinking that way and I'm missing your point.

No, you misunderstand. The slippery slope is your unwarranted conclusion that an influx of immigrants in, comparatively, trivial numbers will fundamentally change a nation. The logical content doesn't follow; the premises are unsupported.

 

Also, strong cognitive dissonance. You recognize that it is possible for diversity and national identity, in the sense that you understand it, to coexist. You have a first-hand example of it, even. At the same time, you seem unwilling to concede that the same process can occur right now with the Syrian immigrants. Why is that? Of course Germany will change in 20 years, every country will. It's been happening for a long time; if it hadn't, we wouldn't have advanced. It's pretty easy to validate historically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gooeyhole

Yes it will change a nation. White Germans don't have as many kids as Syrian immigrants. In twenty years, the declining white German birth rate will be up against a steady influx of immigrants, and the children of those who came before. And again, as a nationalist, that's giving a green wall a blue coat of paint. You tilt your head to the right, you'll see some green undertones here or there, but no doubt about it, the green wall is now blue. What a terrible metaphor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fonz

Yes it will change a nation. White Germans don't have as many kids as Syrian immigrants. In twenty years, the declining white German birth rate will be up against a steady influx of immigrants, and the children of those who came before. And again, as a nationalist, that's giving a green wall a blue coat of paint. You tilt your head to the right, you'll see some green undertones here or there, but no doubt about it, the green wall is now blue. What a terrible metaphor.

I'm not denying the nation will change. I hope it will. You're just disregarding a myriad of factors, though, major ones like the continuation of the war. You're also greatly overestimating the numbers and swallowing, even if unwittingly, a lot of sensationalist rhetoric. There's no "threat" in any conceivable sense.

 

Besides, even if your scenario were to take place, what's wrong with assimilation? Obviously, you have no problem with it being one of the fundamental reasons your culture is what it is, but at the same time you're unwilling to accept that it can happen in your time. You've adopted a static conception of something that is ever-changing like culture. Do you see the problem here? Things don't evolve by being conserved. And I can hardly imagine that you think we've reached a certain cutoff point in time where we decide we've come far enough and that our cultures needn't evolve any more. What you propose is a-historical if not paradoxical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

I am a fan of countries that are what they are to stay what they are when it comes to their culture.

This isn't really an explanation. It's also not even close to bring empirical and basically leaves exactly the same question- why? Why do you prefer countries maintain a faux cultural identity why is usually a pastiche of reality and usually has little bearing on it anyway?

 

Because the Islamic countries know that the way to sustain Islam is by limited immigration.

You clearly have no idea how immigration actually works, how the political systems of majority Muslim countries function, or fundamentally why the West is so appealing for migrants. Immigration policy differs dramatically from one Muslim majority nation to another.

 

Why are you so eager to mention Aboriginals exactly?

Because they're the real native populations who have been displaced and subjugated by immigrants from whom you're descended. I find it ironic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gooeyhole

@sivispacem

 

Well if it's so clear that I know nothing about immigration, please go on. Why do I know nothing. That just leaves me asking more questions, why?

 

And the reason I want countries to stay the same culturally is so cultural diversity exists and Islam doesn't become the religion of choice in the majority of European countries. It won't in my lifetime. But it will certainly grow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

Destroy European civilization. Destroy. Huh. Now that's a dirty word, destroy. I never thought of it that way. I was only saying how they'd change Germany. The German culture won't be a part of a significant amount of the new Germans mindset or lifestyle. These same people will elect leaders who they relate with. Rules they understand. Rules that can come from religion or their previous country. Is that always a bad thing? I shouldn't answer that. I don't want to get shut down by the word racist. If they take in so many refugees, at the pace they are at next year, the country will be very different by the time I'm 40 (I'm 24 now).

 

That's just an example of two people who think differently. Some will say Sweden is a utopia, others will say it's a tragedy. Not much different than the German situation.

 

Look at Germany 20 years ago, and look at Germany now. Are they the same country? No. Look at Greece 20 years ago and look at Greece now. Are they the same country? No. Look at Canada 20 years ago, and look at Canada now. Are they the same country? No.

 

If you think Germany will change their culture solely due to refugees, you are very, very much so mistaken. Every new generation brings about change.

 

And again, you pull out figures out of your ass. You can't predict how many refugees will be coming in next 20 years without knowing how the state of the war is going to be. So much can change in 20 years that it's ignorant to point to one thing and say "that will cause the downfall of Germany and Western Europe".

 

Also, why are you not talking at all about Lebanon or Turkey, who have taken in the lion's share of refugees? Lebanon has a population of 4.4m, yet has taken in 1.2m. That's a quarter of their population added over the past couple of years. Whereas Germany is "expected" to take in 200k "every year", and has a population of 80m, making it barely a 0.25% increase. Yet you use Germany as your example of 'refugees are here to spread Islam and destroy German culture!'. That's because you are a racist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gooeyhole

Is it such an off base prediction to assume that the Middle East will still be in shambles twenty years from now?

 

And I had no idea Lebanon has taken that many. You should have also mentioned Jordan because they too have taken in a hefty amount. I think they will assimilate better in Jordan and Lebanon when compared to Germany but that's just my opinion. By 2015 standards I'm a racist, fortunately that doesn't mean very much. I've never hurt anyone because of their skin color or bullied anyone for being a different race. I've had friends in my life come and go who aren't white. I currently live in Ontario, in one of the most diverse cities in the world and have Co workers who are different ethnicity and we get along just fine for the most part (minus the nepotism and racial bias, it's the construction industry) but because I said I like countries to stay ethnically homogenous for the most part on a Grand Theft Auto message board I am a racist.

 

Comparing Germany 20 years ago to now and saying the same thing about other countries is a weak argument. Every country is different. I haven't backed all my opinions correctly but that's a reach.

Edited by Canadian Badass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gooeyhole

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/saudi-arabia-offers-germany-200-mosques--one-for-every-100-refugees-who-arrived-last-weekend-10495082.html

 

>offers to build mosques for the refugees in Germany

>won't take in refugees

 

I hope it's just them doing a good deed and not them trying to spread Islam throughout Germany in a very quick manner. I mean there's nothing wrong with promoting Islam, but am I so bad for thinking the Saudis have a motive for paying for those mosques?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

Is it such an off base prediction to assume that the Middle East will still be in shambles twenty years from now?

And I had no idea Lebanon has taken that many. You should have also mentioned Jordan because they too have taken in a hefty amount. I think they will assimilate better in Jordan and Lebanon when compared to Germany but that's just my opinion. By 2015 standards I'm a racist, fortunately that doesn't mean very much. I've never hurt anyone because of their skin color or bullied anyone for being a different race. I've had friends in my life come and go who aren't white. I currently live in Ontario, in one of the most diverse cities in the world and have Co workers who are different ethnicity and we get along just fine for the most part (minus the nepotism and racial bias, it's the construction industry) but because I said I like countries to stay ethnically homogenous for the most part on a Grand Theft Auto message board I am a racist.

Comparing Germany 20 years ago to now and saying the same thing about other countries is a weak argument. Every country is different. I haven't backed all my opinions correctly but that's a reach.

 

Nearly half of Lebanon is Christian. What makes you think they will be assimilated better there than in Germany?

 

It's a 25% increase. A quarter of your population suddenly being added to it. How is that easier to assimilate than the tame 0.25% yearly?

 

 

 

but because I said I like countries to stay ethnically homogenous

 

So you don't like people of different races mixing up. Your opinion is that Britain is for the British, Germany is for the Germans, Canada is for Canadians. Which is pretty racist and definitely xenophobic.

 

My point with the 20 years was that all countries are changing. It isn't a single factor or another that will cause the change. It's just the way it is. So your fears of refugees coming in and outbreeding the "native" population are founded on nothing but racist and xenophobic dreams. It depends on such a number of events to happen perfectly, that it is literally impossible.

 

Oh, and on the mosque stuff, we already discussed it a couple pages back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

Any nation that says it can only consist of X people with X religion is one that is bound to fail and should be condemned. I would hope that all of you would equally criticize Asian countries with that attitude, along with Middle Eastern ones as well. Both of which regions are actively pursuing that type of exclusionist policy.

Edited by Irviding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gooeyhole

Why did you cut out the last of that quote? I said homogenous for the most part. I believe immigration should be strict and infrequent. That doesn't mean we can't take in any refugees at all or accept any immigrants. Sorry for reposting the mosque story btw, I just jumped into it. I refuse to be called an xenophobic because it isn't true and is nothing but an attack on my character. I'd say the same thing about say Chinese refugees if Germany took in so many at once, that it is a bad decision. But the Chinese don't live in a county that is dominated by Islam.

 

Why is it racist for me to not want countries to be bombarded with refugees? Is it so bad to want to keep the money and give it to your own kind? For me, that's not white people, that's Canadian citizens. Why spend the money on poor people abroad when you have poor people at home? I guess I'll never not be a racist or nationalist because I don't consider myself as a citizen of the world, I consider myself a citizen of Canada.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

Why did you cut out the last of that quote? I said homogenous for the most part. I believe immigration should be strict and infrequent. That doesn't mean we can't take in any refugees at all or accept any immigrants. Sorry for reposting the mosque story btw, I just jumped into it. I refuse to be called an xenophobic because it isn't true and is nothing but an attack on my character. I'd say the same thing about say Chinese refugees if Germany took in so many at once, that it is a bad decision. But the Chinese don't live in a county that is dominated by Islam.

 

Why is it racist for me to not want countries to be bombarded with refugees? Is it so bad to want to keep the money and give it to your own kind? For me, that's not white people, that's Canadian citizens. Why spend the money on poor people abroad when you have poor people at home? I guess I'll never not be a racist or nationalist because I don't consider myself as a citizen of the world, I consider myself a citizen of Canada.

 

I asked you a question. What makes you think Lebanon will be a better "home" for the refugees than Germany? Reality points it to the complete opposite way. Is it because of your bias and prejudice?

 

If it wasn't for immigration, Canada wouldn't be what it is. You're not saying countries shouldn't take refugees at all; what you are saying is that they will in effect ruin a country and culture.

 

It is racist when you don't want Germany to be "bombarded", but are ok with Jordan and Lebanon being bombarded. You speak as if immigrants/refugees coming into a country will completely change the way that country works/erase a culture, when there really isn't much evidence of that. You speak as if their national identity would be lost. Like in 20 years from now, Germany will no longer have Oktoberfests, all the churches will have been burnt to the ground and the main language will be some form of Arabic/German mixture, when there's no evidence to point to that at all. You speak as if immigration will lead to the entire world looking like the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gooeyhole

They won't ruin a country or culture if they aren't brought in by the boat load,yeah.I never said anything about Turkey or Lebanon because my knowledge on both those countries is pretty minimal. Why do you think Lebanon and Turkey are better fits? I'm all ear- eyes.

 

Also, isn't alcohol haram? I'm kidding.

 

What I see in twenty years is a loud Muslim minority that's getting closer and closer to evening out, a rise in tensions because the white Germans feel like they are being ran over, rises in crime because refugees are military aged and poor by default, a struggling economy, and worsening of the middle east because people are abandoning their countries for benefits in Europe.

 

But that could be avoided by a lot of factors so I hope that thinge work itself out. My optimism and smile: gone, but who knows what could happen.

Edited by Canadian Badass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

They won't ruin a country or culture if they aren't brought in by the boat load,yeah.I never said anything about Turkey or Lebanon because my knowledge on both those countries is pretty minimal. Why do you think Lebanon and Turkey are better fits? I'm all ear- eyes.

 

Also, isn't alcohol haram? I'm kidding.

 

What I see in twenty years is a loud Muslim minority that's getting closer and closer to evening out, a rise in tensions because the white Germans feel like they are being ran over, rises in crime because refugees are military aged and poor by default, a struggling economy, and worsening of the middle east because people are abandoning their countries for benefits in Europe.

 

But that could be avoided by a lot of factors so I hope that thinge work itself out. My optimism and smile: gone, but who knows what could happen.

 

They aren't being brought in by a boatload. 0.25% is not a boat load. And again, it's not all at once suddenly, it's a process over months/years.

 

Your knowledge on the whole refugee crisis is minimal. If you had done the research before forming your opinion, you'd see the majority of the refugees have been going to nearby countries.

And I'm not the one thinking it's a better fit. You said it. I'm of the opinion that specially in the case of Lebanon it isn't a better fit because a quarter of your population increasing suddenly takes a huge toll on everything.

 

There has been Muslim immigration in western countries since the crusades. Where are the loud Muslim minorities tearing everything apart? 3% of Canada is made up of Muslims. Where are the rising tensions? Rise in crime?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gooeyhole

Ontario has plenty of minority crime. Manitoba has a high murder rate and a lot of Aboriginal crime. South Ontario has ghettos with all sorts of different ethnicities, I should know, I live in Oshawa. Canada and Germany also handle immigration very differently. We don't have many war torn refugees. Unless every person who's a minority that moves to Canada is from a war torn country.

 

This is also a long term issue, it's on a slow burn, we will see what happens soon enough. I'm aware of the neighboring countries like Jordan taking them in but never did the research on Turkey and Lebanon. Sue me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Well if it's so clear that I know nothing about immigration, please go on. Why do I know nothing. That just leaves me asking more questions, why?

Strange negative proof fallacy ignored, you completely fail to take into account the forces that drive either economic migration or asylum seekers as well as completely misrepresenting the Muslim majority/politically islsmic world by falsely claiming they don't welcome foreign migration.

 

Looking at sociological trends over the last century or so, it becomes clear that people displaced by conflict always attempt to reach nations seen as highly politically stable. The best example if this Syria aside is the conflict in the Balkans, particularly the Bosnian genocide. Large numbers of Bosniak Muslims fled the Serb Nationalist occupation- in fact the numbers coming to Western Europe dwarf those that fled Syria- seeking to escape not just their country but wider tumoil in the region (asan aside, I don't see critics complaining about how all those Bosnians fundamentally changed the make-up of Europe). It logically stands to reason that, if you were fleeing war and persecution, you'd do so to a country where such things are comparatively extremely unlikely.

 

Economic migrantsmigrants, by and large, act in the same way. If you look at internal migration in the wider EU/Shengen area, the primary drivers in determining where people aspired to go are based on current growth, employment rates and the perception of economic wealth. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to assume the same applies to many international migrants. Though in this particular case it's pretty open for debate what proportion of these people are economic migrants versus asylum seekers, given that Syria is the single largest source of individuals by a huge margin it's probably safe to say the latter make up an outright majority.

 

Then there's the question of migration to Arab or Muslim countries. Part of the reason you're not seeing this on any great level is the current level of turmoil in the Middle East. Even comparatively stable countries like Egypt are experiencing significant internal conflict at the moment, though that doesn't prevent them from taking large numbers of displaced from Libya. Same applies in the case of Turkey, which is, I think I'm right in saying, the single largest recipient of Syrian migrants. The notion that Muslim majority nations don't permit immigration is simply absurd; outside of the current conflict a huge proportion of citizens of the Gulf states (all of which are politically Islamic) are expatriates, Indonesia has a pretty liberal immigration policy, as does Nigeria and some of the other largely Muslim Northern and Central African states. They simply don't receive the same level of attention as Western nations because they're typically less stable both economically and politically and often experience the same endemic societal issues that people are trying to escape from in the first place.

 

And the reason I want countries to stay the same culturally is so cultural diversity exists an

And you don't think that can happen insude the geographic borders of a state? Why? Moreover, why do you want that? You're not really giving an answer eith your endless list of "I wants".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GTA_stu

Any nation that says it can only consist of X people with X religion is one that is bound to fail and should be condemned. I would hope that all of you would equally criticize Asian countries with that attitude, along with Middle Eastern ones as well. Both of which regions are actively pursuing that type of exclusionist policy.

 

There aren't any countries that do this though. There are countries that try to stay pretty homogeneous, but there's nothing wrong with wanting that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Not sure I agree with the idea that there's nothing wrong with wanting to enforce ethnic and religious homogeny. It certainly doesn't seem to serve any tangible purpose or provide any identifiable benefit and I'm struggling to think of coherent reasons why you might want to do it. Any ideas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GTA_stu

Because generally speaking the more a people in a country identity with one another, the more cohesive and united they are. Having common language, culture, religion, ethnicity helps and encourages that. Having a bunch of groups with conflicting interests fighting and competing for influence and control, isn't beneficial. In every country you see these issues, and they have a lot of negative effects. Homogeneous societies have more trust between themselves and see higher rates of charitable action than non-homogeneous ones do. People are more willing to work together, and get along better, when they are united.

 

Conversely if I put it to you, what benefits do you see in a heavily mixed multicultural multiracial multiethnic society?

Edited by GTA_stu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gooeyhole

I appreciate the lesson sivispacem. I asked the question honestly and not with some agenda or whatever because I wanted to know. Now in your response to Stu I can't help but believe you're playing dumb with him right there. You can't see why a country would like to stay homogenous with so much racial tension and conflict in the world? Even if you disagree with the notion that it helps in any way you must be able to see why a country might try that when you look at other countries like the U.S or Sweden who host a lot of minorities...it's hard to have racial inequality when your nation is 95% _____.

 

 

....but tensions can still flare up religiously. Damn humanity!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Because generally speaking the more a people in a country identity with one another, the more cohesive and united they are.

One what basis? How are you defining a "cohesive" or "united" society here? I can't really see some kind of measure for this so I assume it's simply a case of you believing homogenous societies are more "cohesive" or "united".

 

The only thing I can think of which might be used as a system for determining how cohesive a society are happiness indices. And funnily enough, four of the top five countries have substantial migrant or foreign ethnicity populations- Switzerland at over 20% immigrant, Norway at 15.6% immigrant, Denmark at 8% immigrant and Canada at 16.2% non-ethnic Canadian.

 

Having a bunch of groups with conflicting interests fighting and competing for influence and control, isn't beneficial.

It also isn't actually what happens in most nations subject to migration of this kind

 

Conversely if I put it to you, what benefits do you see in a heavily mixed multicultural multiracial society?

Multicultural influences typically lead to more inclusive, liberal and free societies- shared knowledge and experiences, wider social coverage and the like are clear, empirically demonstrable benefits of multiculturalism in other environments such as the workplace. Improving cultural awareness has knock-of benefits for inter-state relations, strengthens international cooperation and creates economic and political influence abroad.

 

You can't see why a country would like to stay homogenous with so much racial tension and conflict in the world?

This is both a case of confusing correlation with causation and affirming the consequent.

 

Firstly, though much conflict manifests itself as "racial", the causes are typically not. They sit firmly in your typical set of factors for conflict- political posturing, economic stagnation, corrupt societies lacking in fairness and liberty. It's no coincidence that there's a direct correlation between societies with very high standards of living, a lack of economic disparity and strong protections for personal liberties, and low levels of societal tension.

 

Secondly, the assertion that staying homogenous actually prevents this kind of conflict is simply complete nonsense. There are numerous relatively ethnically homogenous societies which have been subject to extreme levels of social tension and conflict because of effectively imaginary societal boundaries. Most notable amongst these being the Rwandan conflict, where the conflict between those aligned with the Tutsi and Hutu tribes killed over one million people despite the fact there's not any clear distinction between the two tribes due to the fact both have intermingled so extensively.

 

In this instance the lines of conflict were basically synthetic cultural identity; those who associated as Hutus weren't necessarily genetically or historically distinct from those who identified as Tutsis. History showws that in an unstable, unequal society people will create artificial cultural, social or ethnic boundaries over which to fight even when none actually exist.

 

You see this with civil wars too where nations fragment along lines based on synthetic factors (political allegence) even if they're members of the same society, cultural and ethnic history, et cetera.

 

I imagine I'm going to draw the ire of the Communists and Anarchists for this, but "class warfare" is the same phenomenon. Here you see people who aren't substantially different from each other in social, genetic or ethnic perspectives engage in conflict ranging from fairly trivial to rather catastrophic based solely on the effectively artificial distinction of wealth. Funnily enough, in societies like those in Scandinavia where economic and social disparity are much less prevalent and even those who are at the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum are comparatively well cared for by the state, this doesn't really manifest itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GTA_stu

 

Because generally speaking the more a people in a country identity with one another, the more cohesive and united they are.

1. One what basis? How are you defining a "cohesive" or "united" society here? I can't really see some kind of measure for this so I assume it's simply a case of you believing homogenous societies are more "cohesive" or "united".

 

2. The only thing I can think of which might be used as a system for determining how cohesive a society are happiness indices. And funnily enough, four of the top five countries have substantial migrant or foreign ethnicity populations- Switzerland at over 20% immigrant, Norway at 15.6% immigrant, Denmark at 8% immigrant and Canada at 16.2% non-ethnic Canadian.

 

Having a bunch of groups with conflicting interests fighting and competing for influence and control, isn't beneficial.

3. It also isn't actually what happens in most nations subject to migration of this kind

 

Conversely if I put it to you, what benefits do you see in a heavily mixed multicultural multiracial society?

4. Multicultural influences typically lead to more inclusive, liberal and free societies- shared knowledge and experiences, wider social coverage and the like are clear, empirically demonstrable benefits of multiculturalism in other environments such as the workplace. Improving cultural awareness has knock-of benefits for inter-state relations, strengthens international cooperation and creates economic and political influence abroad.

 

2. The happiness levels of those countries has far more to do with the economic development, low levels of corruption and inequality, and their general attitudes and culture, than having immigrant populations. If multiculturalism is so great, why are the Sweden democrats now polling as the most popular Swedish party? Why have UKIP gained so much popularity? Why has Marine Le Pen been polling so highly in France? Why did Merkel state that "multiculturalism has failed"?

 

1. I'm defining those terms by their definitions. The proof of multicultural societies being less cohesive and united, lies in their segregated nature. You have Turkish/Arab/Somali/Pakistani etc neighbourhoods across Europe, with combined populations in the millions. In fact the majority of Muslims, ethnic Africans and Asians in Europe, live in enclaves, separate from the native ethnic groups, rather than everyone mixing happily together and living side by side. This causes a lot of tension, and there is a clear lack of cohesiveness and togetherness, and very little unity. Now compare that to South Korea or Japan and you don't see the same.

 

3. Yes it is. When you have different groups in a society who have vastly different identities, morals, social and cultural norms, you're going to get conflict. It's natural. Muslims not wanting non halal food in schools where they are a majority, and "immodestly" dressed women getting harassed by muslims in muslim neighbourhoods or even by muslims in non muslim neighbourhoods, are 2 well known and prominent issues, but there are lot's of other far more subtle issues too.

 

The segregation in cities, and assimilation issues are a clear indicator that there exist groups with conflicting interests who are not together or unified. Areas with a native ethnic population almost always elect native ethnic politicians and officials, or occasionally immigrants who have assimilated very well, and areas with large populations of muslims or immigrants, elect muslim or immigrant politicians and officials, or natives who heavily pander to them, e.g. George Allahway.

 

You have different groups who choose to live apart, have their own separate identities, elect their own officials, pursue their own goals and interests, and effectively exist separately. They don't compete and fight for control of the countries as a whole, but that's only because they're too small of a minority. There is a lot of it at a local level though.

 

4. I'm sorry but you just threw out a load of buzz words with very little meaning. Having immigrants, who typically come from poorer less developed societies certainly doesn't make a society more liberal, especially since these immigrants tend to be very conservative in nature. "Shared knowledge and experience, and wider social coverage" err what? You're just spouting out the usual meaningless, wishy washy leftist BS, and then hilariously try pass it off as a factual benefit.

 

You don't need multiculturalism to improve international cooperation either, or create influence. In fact I don't see how taking the best and brightest away from developing countries actually benefits them, or helps us cooperate with them, "brain drain" is a pretty big hinderance for a lot of poorer countries. We can also get along just fine with other countries without having hundreds of thousands of their people within our borders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acmilano

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34222286

 

Maybe even more refugies will go on the way,with new conflict opening in Kurdish areas of Turkey.

 

 

Turkey should grant independent observers immediate access to the besieged city of Cizre, the Council of Europe has said.

Residents in the mainly Kurdish town say they have been unable to buy food or medical supplies since a military curfew was imposed there.

Turkey launched a security operation against Kurdish militants in Cizre last Friday, which has killed at least 19.

Nils Muiznieks of the Council of Europe called the developments "distressing".

Turkey's Interior Minister Selami Altinok said seven suspected rebels had been killed in the south-eastern city.

At least 12 civilians are also believed to have died. The exact number is disputed.

'Disproportionate force'

Mr Muiznieks, the Council's human rights commissioner, urged Turkey in a statementto allow independent observers to assess the situation in Cizre, which is home to more than 100,000 people.

"I have received reports that public life, including essential services such as healthcare... have been severely disrupted, and that entry and exit from the city have been barred," he said.

"More disturbingly, I have also received serious allegations of disproportionate use of force by security forces against civilians."

Edited by acmilano

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

The rhetoric is strong in here. An ex-pat isn't being 'taken away,' he's likely escaping. Which can be a pretty big benefit, even if he can't practice medicine after 15 years of education and has to hang up a shingle as a massage therapist because he no longer has to fear for his life or suffer social injustices.

 

The burden of immigration on a community can be entirely mitigated by actively integrating and including the FOBs in community events. The irony is, those least willing to open their arms to these folks are often those most opposed to culturally segregated neighbourhoods.

 

There's such an entrenched hatred of the 'other' in some cases that actively destroys this 'national unity' that some seem to cherish. It's not the brown folks' fault; it's the guys who won't shove their ass over at the local pub.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

If multiculturalism is so great, why are the Sweden democrats now polling as the most popular Swedish party? Why have UKIP gained so much popularity? Why has Marine Le Pen been polling so highly in France? Why did Merkel state that "multiculturalism has failed"?

Take Geert Wilders as an example. He has the most significant popularity in the south of the Netherlands in areas whith very limited amounts of immigrants. In the multicultural cities his popularity is low. This has to do with the south of the Netherlands being most economically weak. So the main cause of popularity of such parties is resentment towards the political establishment because of economic decline/stagnation. Voting for anti EU/xenophobic parties is a way to show discontent. It is similar to why Donald Trump is popular in polls. Not because people like Trump, but because they hate the other politicians.

 

Why does Merkel say multiculturalism has failed? Because scapegoating lower class of a different ethnicity for your countries issues is standard procedure. If immigrants aren't responsible for economic decline, then who might be? Maybe the white economic elite are, like Merkels party? That's a dangerous idea.

 

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.