How Widespread is this Point of View?

[Occhidiangela]

Europe is what it is because of millennia of invasion and immigration.  It has absorbed, been absorbed by, and integrated with countless other cultures.  If it hadn't been Europeans would still be sacrificing virgins in stone circles; Christianity is itself an import from the middle east.  Spain was under Islamic rule for centuries.

Each time a new wave of migration comes it is faced with the fear and prejudice that Wolfgang Bruno disguises as "nationalism", and often this leads to pogroms, race riots, or other violence.  Ultimately the migrants are accepted and integrated and European culture is the stronger for it.

My part of London has had strong Turkish Cypriot immigration for some years but the only outward sign is the three Turkish restaurants in the high street.  You cannot tell who is Turkish because they look, talk, and act like everyone else (and Turkish women do not wear the burka as Bruno seems to think they do).  Turkey is no threat.

It is also not right to blame the recent tube bombings on a lack of British chauvinism.  The bombers were indoctrinated in Pakistan, not Britain, and their terrorism was motivated by religion, not nationality.
[right][snapback]94194[/snapback][/right]

Thanks for the "on the scene" insight. :)

I won't agree that Europe has ever "assimilated" Islam, though parts of it were conquered by Islamic based invaders. Spain was indelibly marked by the impact of Al Andalus, likewise the Balkans. Euopre fought about 1000 years worth of wars against Islam beginning with Charles Martel in 732, and not really ending until 1699 and Vienna. Heck, one could argue that the coup de grace vis a vis the Islamic Empire was in 1918, when the Caliphate fell, administered by Europe. As a result, Turkey went officially secular, while normatively it is underwritten by Islamic culture, still.

I do take your point on how cultural blends are a continuum, since culture is not necessarily "locked in stone" if we look at how things have changed over the course of Europe's evolution. (That thought does not flatter the problems of cultures heavily influenced by Islam or other reactionary cultural bases.) Bruno's premise of a well defined, European culture is a worthy angle to critique his article from. *tips chapeau*

Occhi

[Flymo]

I won't agree that Europe has ever "assimilated" Islam

It has certainly assimilated muslims. Here in Britain we have around 2 million of them, thanks to once having had an empire, and that of course answers the question why the first European suicide bombers were British. Most of them have integrated and the only way I know which of my children's friends are muslim is that they don't eat lunch in Ramadan. A minority of course have not, and when we have our own occasional race riot (most recently between blacks and muslims) it is usually where there is a ghetto of immigrants who have formed their own self-sufficient and insular community.

[Guest]

I don't know - as I understand it, there exist a lot of parallel cultures in the US as well (although I don't know how many Muslims there are?), and it seems to work - not perfectly, but it works. Why this does not work here I don't know,


[right][snapback]94185[/snapback][/right]

I suspect its partly because Americans are more individualistic in general. Sure we definetly have our race problems, and to a much lesser degree religion problems, but most of us at least think we should see individuals before groups.

And fortunetly most of our social programs conceptualy deal with minorities on an individual basis rather than as groups. It give worse results in the short term but better results in the long term. I think the reason American blacks still feel so disenfranchised is that they see themselves as a group and were treated as such for too long by well meaning people.

[Guest]

whoops

[Occhidiangela]

It has certainly assimilated muslims.  Here in Britain we have around 2 million of them, thanks to once having had an empire, and that of course answers the question why the first European suicide bombers were British.   Most of them have integrated and the only way I know which of my children's friends are muslim is that  they don't eat lunch in Ramadan.  A minority of course have not, and when we have our own occasional race riot (most recently between blacks and muslims) it is usually where there is a ghetto of immigrants who have formed their own self-sufficient and insular community.
[right][snapback]94205[/snapback][/right]

Whoa, I said "assimilated Islam" and you said "assimilated Muslims" That is NOT the same thing. I don't eat meat on Fridays, in deference to my wife's faith, but that doesn't make me Catholic. Plus, you can't assimilate a religion into a secular society, as it does not accept Faith but rather treats it as a behavior (and some secularists treat it as a delusional disorder) nor can you assimilate Islam into a Christian society, due to the fundamental tenets of both Faiths. You have to CHOOSE one or the other.

The issue that the author raises, perhaps uninetentionally, is why Muslims dont feel they have to assimilate into European culture, whatever that is yet again, and why that attitude is considered valid within the social context. Why are they allowed to import Islam into Europe when for the past 200 years, secular, Enlightenment, post French Revolution Eurpoe has been waging war on Catholicism in particular and Christianity in general. Where is the consistency? (OK, so the Austrian Emperors and the French Emperor Louis Napoleon supported the Pope until Garibaldi kicked enough arse to close out that option while Bismarck put paid to both the Austrian wankers and Louis Napoleon . . .)

Furthermore, there is no quid pro quo in Muslim nations. Try putting up a Christmas tree in Saudi Arabia. The Church Police will bust your arse.

The tolerance does not mirror from culture to culture. How then, is any sense of "fairness" to be concluded from the current state of play?

Oh, and speaking of play, how about that fun and games in Paris?

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,
==Snip==
-Kylearan
[right][snapback]94185[/snapback][/right]

Outstanding post, thanks so much for your reply. :D

1. France has a maritime border that Germany lacks, and the whole Algerian diaspora that the German Turk gastarbeiter is dwarfed by. A Turk is not an Arab, regardless of the Islamic cultural commonality, they are two very different cultural bases.

3. Germany and what is German starts with language, and language is a critical currency in the cultural matters. Ask any so called "Hispanic." Check out the special relationship between the US and UK, and likewise Canada, Australia, NZ and US/UK versus all othe relationships those nations have.

4. Well made point on "if Germany has trouble defining culture, how can Europe on aggregate do so?" If you follow that train of thought, how does the EU expect to suecceed as anything other than a mechanistic economic structure, unless Europe reverts to its old cultural commonality, Christianity?

That is a dangerous question to ask a secular society, and a question that no one wants to reflect upon, it seems. Has Europe rally "out grown" Christianity? I don't know. Given the Catholic church's track record in Europe for 1700 years or so, I don't see a reversion to a Christian cultural standard/commonality any time soon in Europe, do you? The Orthodox folks are yet another remove from that "cultural" commonality.

So, what is European Culture?

Is culture best distilled at the national level, which makes Nationalism a good word, not a bad word, and thus the idea of "European Culture" in aggregate must be left to sit at the railway station to be picked up by another porter? If that is so, the EU becomes far more like the UN: a union that can only take you so far, and is not suited for "a government for the people, of the people, and by the people" of "Europe."

Which brings me to: what is the author really talking about?

1. The ages old problem of not caring for immigrants?

My Grandfather dealt with "No Irish Allowed in this Establishment" issues in New York for example). No matter who you are (see also the second class citizen status of the Philippino, Pakistani, and Sri Lankan guest workers in many Arab Nations) you may not be welcome if you don't or can't assimilate easily.

2. Europe for Caucasians, Arabs go home

I don't think it's that simple, as I get the feeling from his other writing that he'd happily accept any Arab or Turkish or Pakistani or Persian apostate: one who left Islam) and who would thus fit into a secular society rather easily.

Which now begs my other question: is European culture necessarily purely secular?

Occhi

[Flymo]

Whoa, I said "assimilated Islam" and you said "assimilated Muslims"  That is NOT the same thing.  I don't eat meat on Fridays, in deference to my wife's faith, but that doesn't make me Catholic.  Plus, you can't assimilate a religion into a secular society, as it does not accept Faith but rather treats it as a behavior (and some secularists treat it as a delusional disorder) nor can you assimilate Islam into a Christian society, due to the fundamental tenets of both Faiths.  You have to CHOOSE one or the other.

The issue that the author raises, perhaps uninetentionally, is why Muslims dont feel they have to assimilate into European culture, whatever that is yet again, and why that attitude is considered valid within the social context.  Why are they allowed to import Islam into Europe when for the past 200 years, secular, Enlightenment, post French Revolution Eurpoe has been waging war on Catholicism in particular and Christianity in general.  Where is the consistency?  (OK, so the Austrian Emperors and the French Emperor Louis Napoleon supported the Pope until Garibaldi kicked enough arse to close out that option while Bismarck put paid to both the Austrian wankers and Louis Napoleon . . .)

Furthermore, there is no quid pro quo in Muslim nations.  Try putting up a Christmas tree in Saudi Arabia.  The Church Police will bust your arse. 

The tolerance does not mirror from culture to culture.  How then, is any sense of "fairness" to be concluded from the current state of play?

Oh, and speaking of play, how about that fun and games in Paris? 

Occhi
[right][snapback]94213[/snapback][/right]

Not quite sure what you're saying here. That immigrants should give up their religion and adopt the local one? Should Americans worship totem poles then?

And if you don't think islam has brought anything to Europe, how come you write with Arabic numerals instead of Roman ones?

[Minionman]

I suspect its partly because Americans are more individualistic in general. Sure we definetly have our race problems, and to a much lesser degree religion problems, but most of us at least think we should see individuals before groups.

And fortunetly most of our social programs conceptualy deal with minorities on an individual basis rather than as groups. It give worse results in the short term but better results in the long term. I think the reason American blacks still feel so disenfranchised is that they see themselves as a group and were treated as such for too long by well meaning people.
[right][snapback]94206[/snapback][/right]

I guess this is partially why reading this thread, I con't really understand the "culture" issues. I read this and think "languages may be a problem, but what's wrong with having a few food or small religious differences and such? Unless they tend to blow things up more, doesn't seem like a big deal". Could someone actually explain how the culture differences become important? I've never really been someone who cares much about group identities and such.


About the immigration/assimilation issue, seems from an outside point of view that the problem is more about whether people will be able to mix with the economy, and crime and such than anything else.

[Occhidiangela]

Not quite sure what you're saying here.  That immigrants should give up their religion and adopt the local one?  Should Americans worship totem poles then?

And if you don't think islam has brought anything to Europe, how come you write with Arabic numerals instead of Roman ones?
[right][snapback]94218[/snapback][/right]

Islam didn't bring the numbers, per se, Arabs did. Try not to attribute to Islam what religion did not do. I also didn't say "Islam" didn't bring anything to Europe, and my best example of a beautiful thing Islam brought is the beautiful buildings in Granada at the old palace. Without Islam, the carvings would not be in the shape that they are.

As to assimilation, I want you to consider just what that is. Fitting in. Again, my grandmother did it. She adopted the new language, she made her kids adopt the new language as their own, and her children found new religions (both protestant) while her oldest child remained Orthodox. What she didn't do was stay within an intellectual ghetto.

I may be guilty of some projection here, since there are immigrant communities here in the US, and I thus presume a similar approach in Europe (continental) to the matter of not embracing the social norms of the new homeland. You have read about the attacks on the girls who aren't wearing the right head gear, right? I think it was near Lyon. This is a matter of attempting to import laws, in this case Sharia, into a secular society, France. That is explicitly non-assimilation behavior, just as trying to have multiple wives is not only against the law in the US, but is explicitly non assimilation and a testing of the law in one's new homeland.

Same trouble as stubborn refusal to learn the language of one's new homeland.

I opened this discussion because I am looking for European insights on this matter, and I realize now to help me clear out some possible projection cobwebs from my brain. Similar challenges, different places, and no two situations are cut from the same template.

Occhi

PS: Oh, as to your red herring in re totem poles . . . when you conquer a land, you need not assimilate, eh? It is the immigrant, not the conqueror we are dealing with here. Were the Arabs coming into Lyons and Paris as conquerors, the arguments set forth about "play by the house rules when you come into my house" could not apply since the previous owner is being evicted, and a new owner is taking over the property.

[Occhidiangela]

I guess this is partially why reading this thread, I con't really understand the "culture" issues.  I read this and think "languages may be a problem, but what's wrong with having a few food or small religious differences and such?  Unless they tend to blow things up more, doesn't seem like a big deal".  Could someone actually explain how the culture differences become important?   I've never really been someone who cares much about group identities and such.
About the immigration/assimilation issue, seems from an outside point of view that the problem is more about whether people will be able to mix with the economy, and crime and such than anything else.
[right][snapback]94220[/snapback][/right]

Culture is inextricably tied to language, though not wholly dependent on it, norms and beliefs, and shared experiences, to include shared legends and myths. Another powerful facet of culture is its symbology. Ass I understand it icons (as the term seems to be used nowadays, are a subset of symbols, while religion is a subset of the greater heading of belief.)

Which brings us back to language and stories. Tolkein understood this at a visceral level. A powerful cultural binding force is the stories that we share, that we have in common.

I will stop there, recommending Balkan Ghosts as a short read that well illustrates how the stories and legends of a culture impact day to day life. Culture is a bit too complex for me to fully explain, I am not that smart and I dno't think I understand it fully, and certainly not in one post. :D

Which links back to the rather loose term the original author used "European Culture" a piece of imprecise terminology that Kyleran answered so beautifully.

Occhi

[Minionman]

Culture is inextricably tied to language, ....

Occhi
[right][snapback]94224[/snapback][/right]

I'm not asking what culture is, just how it got important. I've heard a lot of people try to describe culture already, so don't need more tries at explaining.

[Guest]

Blame liberals.

Assimilating into a new land/culture has always been a balance. You change your new home modestly and your new home changes you a lot.

Look at America(ignore the Amer-Indian issue, as there was no assimlation even considered there).
I know in my ancestory of Germans (PA Dutch) and Poles. They came in to America and lived in seperate communities but with in a few generations they are quite assimilated(the Germans took a bit longer, but basically the world moved slower before cars. trains and radio.)
I see the same thing today with many Hispanics in the US. We dont realize it always but over all Hispanics have assimilated very well into US culture.

I think in many ways the influx of Hispanics to the US is the most similar to the influx of Turks. North Africans and Middles Easterners to Europe. The the difference is both sides in the US are more open to assimilation.

And back to my bashing Liberals. Liberals arcoss the world have been very big on maintaining your old culture when you move. Frankly thats not the way humanity works. The notion puts an added stress on on the already difficult process of assimilation.

[Occhidiangela]

I'm not asking what culture is, just how it got important.  I've heard a lot of people try to describe culture already, so don't need more tries at explaining.
[right][snapback]94229[/snapback][/right]

How did culture get important? It always has been, as it provides the background cnavas on which we paint our lives if we live amongh other people in a form of organized society.

I am not sure where one would begin to answer that question, other than maybe in sociology 101, theology 101, anthropology 101, or political science 101 . . . all mixed together. :D

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Blame liberals.

No, don't. First of all, that's too broad a group of people, and too poorly defined (hmm, sorta like "European culture" to be useful.

Secondly, the Liberal influence in the modern world, it can be argued, has helped shape the acceptance of the blending of cultures without major conflict, though the post Kennedy liberals and their obsession with equivalency of cultures are a force toward social balkanization, rather than assimilation.

Liberals arcoss the world have been very big on maintaining your old culture when you move. Frankly thats not the way humanity works. The notion puts an added stress on on the already difficult process of assimilation.
[right][snapback]94237[/snapback][/right]

Well, it is sorta the way the world works. Religion is a key piece of culture, or historically it has been. Greek and Other Orthodox churches carryied over from "old country" to America. America, as founded, was predominantly Protestant, be it Calvinist or Anglican or Presbyterian. How many generations does it take to adopt the new land's religion? For some, it never happens. Depending on the culture arriving into, that could matter a great deal. Note that under this model, the various Jewish diaspora did not successfully assimilate into much of any culture over the years. So in at least one case, assimilation is NOT a natural progression. Is the modern strain of Liberal thought you decry heavily influenced by the successful Jewish example of non-assimilation? Or, are the tenets of Jewish culture inherently better, and tend to displace weaker cultures it encounters? I don't know. Thee doesn't seem to be any question that Jewish culture is extremely successful, at the very least in maintaining reasonable coherence for a few millenia.

Let's look at Europe as it stands today: an increasingly non religious/secular land. How then, for the assimilation of immigrants to move forward, does a Muslim, or a second/third/fourth/ generation Muslim, adopt the religion of his new land when there basically isn't one?

To assimilate, one could argue that the requirement to assimilate into Europe is to become apostate. I'd offer that the author of the piece that started this thread would endorse that approach, but to reject one's religion, the Faith one was raised to believe in and a key element of one's native culture, is no small matter. It takes time and probably some sort of epiphany.

Now, I agree with you that successful assimilation takes a few generations. Maybe the problem in Paris is the same old "process underway" or "work in progress" matter, but the 24/7 coverage of local events as national and international items of interest draw attention that it does not merit, and extrapolations from specific to general that are unfounded.

Occhi

[Minionman]

I'm not asking what culture is, just how it got important.  I've heard a lot of people try to describe culture already, so don't need more tries at explaining.
[right][snapback]94229[/snapback][/right]

Let's try this again, since apparently some people have no idea what they're talking about and need to spin their wheels just to make a post.

How did the "culture" issue get important in the Europian Union?

[Occhidiangela]

Let's try this again, since apparently some people have no idea what they're talking about and need to spin their wheels just to make a post.

How did the "culture" issue get important in the Europian Union?
[right][snapback]94247[/snapback][/right]

Same answer as above. Many Europeans I met when I worked over there were not keen on Globalization, the invasion of American cultural icons into their countries: such things as the ubiquitous McDonalds and Disney tripe. These insertions of Americana represented an imposition on or replacement of their own cultural icnos and frames of reference, for one thing, and the food at McD's stinks, for another. Asterix and Obelix are uniquely European (French, originally) and have at least one theme park (probably more, I'd have to check) so why does anyone need Euro Disney and the big stinking rat?

Funnily enough, I was asking in this thread the same question you just asked: given what the author had written about what he sees as an unhealthy denigration of "European Culture," I was curious how various European Lurkers felt about the topic.

Culture informs how you believe the world should work. In a different thread, Chaerophon offered a point of view that he feels a universal access to health care should be considered a right. I suggest that feeling was influenced by the culture he was raised in. I have an aversion to excess taxes, an American cultural standard, whereas Germans pay considerably higher tax bill per capita, and seem to get along without a revolution. Cultural setting contributes to that, or what I often refer to as "common cultural assumptions." (Not sure where I first heard that term, it was some years ago.)

Why culture matters, in the macro sense, is due to the human habit of conflict resolution, of which a subset is war. Cultures have clashed over the years, sometimes bloodily. The so called "War on Terror" is in part a struggle about "how the world should work." The Cold War was very much a struggle about "how the world should work and be organized." I foresee a significant struggle with China shaping up in the next decade or so, based on "how should the world work." It will probably take on a different form than the Cold War, but the clash of culture will happen. While I hope it won't cause a war, human nature has shown itself to include war as a habit.

Why does culture matter? It can get people killed.

Occhi

PS: Asterix (French: Astérix) is a fictional character, created in 1959 as the hero of a series of French comic books by René Goscinny (stories) and Albert Uderzo (illustrations). Uderzo has continued the series since the death of Goscinny in 1977.

I grew up reading these books about a couple of wiseacre Gauls in Caesars' time, and heartily recommend them to anyone desring a laugh. :D http://www.asterix-obelix.nl/

[Guest]

The Jews are not a reasonable example.

They are the worlds most notable exception to assimilation. America and Europe(this would be Europe when it had a fair amount of poplation movement probaly 1000 years ago) are full of far more examples of assimilation.

But America has the easy examples.
Historically -
Purtitans
German Protestants
Catholics(Irish and Italian)
Hugenots
Poles
Liths
Russians

Currently-
Hispanics
Viet Namies
Indians etc

Sure everyone keeps elements of thier old culture, but we go to school, work together and etc and were all do it pretty much the same with the same attitudes.
We even watch the same sports.

It takes a few generations, but its happening.



And for the "liberal" comments. Dont act like you didnt know what I meant :) In the early 20th century sense, were almost all Liberals now. But thats not what I meant. I mean the modern Liberal - the post Kennedy liberal. And remember Kendedy died 42 years ago - this isnt isnt something new and confusing.

[Flymo]

The Jews are not a reasonable example.

They are the worlds most notable exception to assimilation. America and Europe(this would be Europe when it had a fair amount of poplation movement probaly 1000 years ago) are full of far more examples of assimilation.

They are a good example and that's one of the things that makes the article so distasteful. Consider the similarities - some Muslims wear Burkas; some Jews wear skullcaps. British-born Muslim suicide bombers killed commuters in London. British-born Zionist terrorists killed British troops in Palestine.

Is the suggestion that immigrants should shed their religion any different from the mentality that led the Inquisition to forced conversion of Jews and burning recusants at the stake?

Assimilation does not mean you abandon your religion, just that you adopt the host country's culture. Most Jews are assimilated. Most Muslim immigrants are too, at least here. But they keep their own religion just as other immigrants mostly do.

[Edit: corrected 2 typos]

[Occhidiangela]

They are a good example and that's one of the things that makes the article so distasteful.  Consider the similarities - some Muslims wear Burkas; some Jews wear skullcaps.  British-born Muslim suicide bombers killed commuters in London.  British-born Zionist terrorists killed British troops in Palestine.

Is the suggestion that immigrants should shed their religion any different from the mentality that led the Inquisition to forced conversion of Jews and burning recusants at the stake?

Assimilation does not mean you abandon your religion, just that you adopt the host country's culture.  Most Jews are assimilated.  Most Muslim immigrants are too, at least here.  But they keep their own religion just as other immigrants mostly do.
[Edit: corrected 2 typos]
[right][snapback]94255[/snapback][/right]

I think you underestimate the importance religion makes culturally. I have done that myself, and probably still do without realizing it sometimes. :blush:

Well made point on two sorts of Semites (taking the Arab Muslim rather than the Turk Muslim, Indian or Pakistani Muslim, Indonesian or Malaysian Muslim . . .) showing variable adherence to religious norms that spill into society at large. I don't think your extrapolation to the Inquisition stands up, however, in Europe, since the Church has lost the majority of its secular influence.

What is the variable potential to assimilate into another cultural base? In most cases, as Ghostiger suggested, the thesis-antithesis-synthesis interaction between cultural norms leads to a blend, which means a change to the base "culture." The blend is not always inert, it is sometimes explosive. The rate of change is what gets people's emotions in an uproar, and the direction of change likewise spawns an "antithesis" to the change as "thesis." (OK, enough Hegel for one morning!) The cultural pendulum swing in the US in re abortion from 1965 to the present is a modest example. (Maybe Newton's Laws rather than Hegel? Action <-> Reaction?)

I'll assert (though I can't prove it at the moment) that religion is a foundational element to more cultures than it is not. (Thought: Maybe the European culture the author wants to preserve is one where it is not.) It is inextricably woven into the fabric of culture, as is the more secular approach when it is adopted as a norm or belief. Deification of the state as the extreme, the preeminence of the State as a practical approach. As cultures run into one another more frequently in this ever shrinking globe, the problem becomes degree of compatibility.

This gets back to "what are your common cultural assumptions?" Are they compatible, and in a secular society, can you balance varied sets of common cultural assumptions into a harmonious whole?

I offer you the idiotic protest a Muslim woman made in Florida last year that she get her driver's license picture taken while wearing a mask/veil. That is an imcompatible behavior compared to the cultural/legal standard. Everyone else accepts the rubric that persons not conceal their identity for official ID. That case was a test of how far the idiots at HSC would take political directions not to "profile."

If you get too many "cultures" in one bag, (and how many is too many?) must that society perforce devolve into more manageable sub sets? The Austrian, Russian/USSR/TUrkish/Roman empires all devolved thanks to healthy doses of multiculturalism, among other factions, that provided underlying tension outward versus inward. India was split once on cultural grounds (to make India, Pakistan and East Pakistan/Bangladesh) and India may see yet another devolution thanks to Muslim/Hindu demographic shifts over the next generation or two. Or can they reconcile?

There was once distinction made between the terms "nation" and "nation state." Do people still make that distinction? The modern "multicultural" nation state (pre-1992 Yugoslavia, US, England, France(?), China, USSR) has the continual challenge of blending a variety of sub-groups/subcultures into a harmonious whole, while the nation as nation state, of which UAE, Korea, or Japan would be excellent examples, has a greater element of cultural cohesion as a foundation.

If one considers the nation, rather than a nation state, language leaps out as a critical binding element, and religion or philosophy (the Tao for example) a source of a common sense of "how the world should work." This idea of cultural sovereignty was central to Wilson's 14 Points, though his focus was Eurocentric rather than global. (Ho Chi Minh, among others, Wilson blew off). As it stands right now, the EU is not a nation, and its attempt to weld together a nation state out of differing nations seems to have a practical limit.

Thought: would Charlamagne recognize the secular "Holy Roman Empire" that the EU's architects are trying to form? :lol:

What is European, in that case, other than a geographic descriptive? What are the common cultural assumptions of a European?

Outside entities attempting to influence events within a given nation state, or extranational players, add to the challenge. How, for example, does the King of Suadi Arabia or the leadership of China deal with the 24/7 impact of the Information age spreading foreign "common cultural messages" via TV, Radio, and the Internet?

Flymo, I don't think the core problem is one of race, as in genetic race, but rather of "race" as some 19th century commentators used it in describing "the Spanish race" or "The French race" or "The Russian race." That connotation seems to have passed from general usage, but it captures the combination of general genetic mixing (or not) at a point in time, culture, religion, and language all rolled into one. I don't think that meets a modern definition of "culture" unless one confines the culture to some small or moderate sized nations or nation states.

My head hurts. And the violence in Paris continues.

EDIT: From the New Zealand Herald

The clashes in the Paris down-at-heel suburb of Clichy-sous-Bois spread into nearby towns with high immigrant populations, an indication of growing unrest among immigrant communities.

The trigger was the accidental death of two teenage immigrants, electrocuted after scaling a wall of an electricity relay station to flee a police identity check.

A man of Turkish origin was also badly injured. Police have denied chasing them into the station.

The last time violence erupted on such a scale in French cities was in 1990 in the Lyons suburb of Vaulx-en-Velin, also touched off by a controversial death involving the police.

This time, though, the rioting carries an edgy post-September 11 fear that Islamists may be radicalising jobless young Arabs.

Occhi

[Jester]

"I've lived in Turkey for a few months and in all of the Baltic states for close to a year combined. Where have you lived..... outside of your ivory tower?"

I asked if you had an *argument*. One of those rationalistic notions that appeals to ivory tower types.

Instead, I got an argument-from-authority fallacy, along with an ad-hominem fallacy thrown in for good measure.

I don't doubt you have more experience on the topic than I do. That's why I'm not here trying to convince people of my particular view of things. I don't know enough to put together a credible big picture of what's going on. But I do know enough about history to be skeptical. If you haven't got any arguments to support your assertions, then I will don't feel much need to believe them.

-Jester