Quote from flymike91 :

@JJ
I know that Hong Kong is a free capitalist zone within China, created because of a long-lasting treaty with the British Empire which ended in 1997. The people there live considerably better than in the mainland, which is why immigration from the mainland is strictly limited. I would argue that I know a lot more about immigration than you, seeing how Hong Kong is 95% ethnic Chinese. It is nothing like London or New York where there are entire districts where almost no non-immigrants live.

But what you don't know is 80% of people here are only second generation Hong Kongers, most Hong Kong resident's are born from war refugees, people who entered illegally from mainland china to escape the great femine and civil war. And many from south east asia for similiar reasons, my grandparents practically swim from Macau to China.

So you see even if we are ethically all chinese, we are a group of much different local cultures from all the provinces of China, speaking more than a hundred languages inbetween us and from the very early days mixed with people from India, Middle east, UK and so on.

There were a time when the white people live in the mid levels on HK Island, and chinese people can only leave in the slums of Kowloon, which is exactly the geographical segmentation and that you suggest is the trend. At that time chinese people cannot enter bars, higher class restaurants and it was an era of racial divide.

However because culture interacts and evolves, that segmentation today has almost been totally broken down, and it is a prove that minority groups not venturing outside their own territory is just a temporal state, the stigma that we had for each other is something that can be toned down overtime.

From what I see the United States is taking baby steps about a problem that actually existed very long ago, and it is short sighted to nail the current situation as the final state of the matter.

Culture find each other and culture clash.....we use to raise war about it but after that we seek understanding.

Quote from BlueFlame :

When you care more about your own people than others coming in you are branded a bigot, racist and every other one in the book and you are attacked for your opinion.

Are you saying free speech shouldn't apply to people disagreeing with you? Only to bigoted racists?

Quote from wien :

Are you saying free speech shouldn't apply to people disagreeing with you? Only to bigoted racists?

I can see what you're doing there, so I'll just leave this here in Blue Flame's defense.

Quote from xaotik :

I can see what you're doing there, so I'll just leave this here in Blue Flame's defense.

Hmm. In subject to the video, maybe the guy actually is a bit slow? He's out there (appearing to be misinformed) but maybe he can't say what he is trying to. I love the fact because he has an opinion of a certain type, to alot of people that instantly means your stupid. Although this guy only helps cement that, but most of the 'bigots' go against Islam and black people based on stereotypes. So going against people along the lines of nationalist by stereotype of them being ill-educated fools is exactly the same so y'all no better than each other.

It's funny though, on the other hand it's obvious he's talking about Sharia Law and Islamic gang rapings, both of which are in existance, so why can't the people watching just use THEIR brain and initiative to understand his point instead of using him as a notion of stupidity as an extremely simple way to send the argument into demise.

Quote from JJ72 :

There were a time when the white people live in the mid levels on HK Island, and chinese people can only leave in the slums of Kowloon, which is exactly the geographical segmentation and that you suggest is the trend. At that time chinese people cannot enter bars, higher class restaurants and it was an era of racial divide.
However because culture interacts and evolves, that segmentation today has almost been totally broken down, and it is a prove that minority groups not venturing outside their own territory is just a temporal state, the stigma that we had for each other is something that can be toned down overtime.

Of course it toned down, the British left Hong Kong to the point where their descendants only make up a fraction of a percent of the population.
As for the mixing of cultures from different parts of China, I probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference between those cultures as they would seem very similar to me, just like you probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference right away between a person from San Francisco and a person from Los Angeles. Putting together many people from both of those cities would probably not cause considerable strife or segmentation. Do you see where I'm going?

The logical end to your argument for multiculturalism is that peace and equality will only exist when cultures have completely mixed to produce a global homogeneous culture and appearance, something I would be VERY against as I foresee society falling to the level of the lowest common denominator, not as other cultures rising to the standards set by the most advanced societies. Why? Because it is easier to fall than to rise.
Again, the way people decide to live in their own countries is none of my business (I am not my government), but when they immigrate to the West they must be expected to rise. If the West wasn't considered a better place, they wouldn't immigrate here.

I think it's odd and maybe you can explain a discrepancy I see in your argument: You mention that ethnic Chinese were dominated by the British in Hong Kong and forced to live in slums. Now the tables have turned and mainland Chinese are not given the right to live in Hong Kong with you, another Chinese person, and are forced to live in arguably the 'worse' area. The segmentation I see is actually much more severe than anything in America. I would liken it to people from the South not being allowed into New York because they're considered lower. Making yourselves separate from your own natural countrymen is something even I don't understand.

Quote :

Culture find each other and culture clash.....we use to raise war about it but after that we seek understanding.

I see that understanding as mostly one-sided: Western society accepting and accommodating to minority cultures and not getting much out of it except more hatred and isolation from the very groups that are supposed to be "celebrating our differences" with us, but instead are building little countries of their own within the US, UK, France, etc. They want all the good things associated with living in a first world country without having to put up with the things they don't like about it, like the people who already live there.

Quote from flymike91 :

I see that understanding as mostly one-sided: Western society accepting and accommodating to minority cultures and not getting much out of it except more hatred and isolation from the very groups that are supposed to be "celebrating our differences" with us, but instead are building little countries of their own within the US, UK, France, etc. They want all the good things associated with living in a first world country without having to put up with the things they don't like about it, like the people who already live there.

That's because you, like most other American right-wingers, have a ridiculous persecution complex. Check out Rick Perlstein's book Nixonland. Overall it says a lot about the origins of modern politics (mostly conservative), and one of the points it highlights is a political tactic of making yourself (or making yourself appear to be) a victim. Take for example "reverse racism", where the privileged class takes the complaints of the oppressed and tries to make them their own. This technique allows you to aggressively rally people to your cause while simultaneously disarming your opponent by making anything he/she says sound aggressive and condescending. The GOP has absolutely mastered this concept over the past 30 years or so.

Quote from flymike91 :

I see that understanding as mostly one-sided: Western society accepting and accommodating

'accepting and accomodating' with bombs and missiles...

omg they bombed dearborn!?

seriously, I choose my words carefully and I meant it when I said I am not my government any more than you are. And you know I meant within our borders so don't split hairs with me.

Quote :

by making anything he/she says sound aggressive and condescending.

It doesn't take a political agenda to make you sound condescending.

Quote from flymike91 :

Again, the way people decide to live in their own countries is none of my business (I am not my government), but when they immigrate to the West they must be expected to rise. If the West wasn't considered a better place, they wouldn't immigrate here.

I'm having some trouble understanding were you are coming from, can you clarify what you mean by expected to rise? As it is written it can be taken many ways.

That was vague, I meant rise to the challenge of integrating with the citizens of a host country. And it is a challenge, no doubt about that.

Quote from flymike91 :

omg they bombed dearborn!?

seriously, I choose my words carefully and I meant it when I said I am not my government any more than you are. And you know I meant within our borders so don't split hairs with me.


It doesn't take a political agenda to make you sound condescending.

well I don't have the slightest idea how you could ever claim that dearborn doesn't give back to the community, it's certainly not a one-sided relationship.

Besides, despite a large muslim population, it's an incredibly multicultural place. And pretty much everyone speaks English at at least a passable level. All the kids who grew up in the USA are as American as you or I, they just celebrate different holidays, look a little different, and eat different food. What's so bad about that? They talk like kids I know, act like kids I know, play the same sports, make the same stupid teenager mistakes, go off to college, get jobs... The blending in starts fast, another generation and the lines will be even more blurred...

no no no you have it backwards. What have the Muslim immigrants contributed to the existing residents of Dearborn that they can ascribe value to and didn't have before? The existing townsfolk already gave them something of great value, a place in their society and a chance to live in the culture they have established, and are comfortable with. Taking over that society and replacing it with their own is not what I consider equal terms, nor should it be considered true multiculturalism.

It worries me that so many have decided to live in one place for reasons I've already stated, but also because it triggered a white flight. Americans should never feel like they're dominated by a foreign minority group in their own towns, because that's disrespectful to the people who are allowing them in their communities at all. It wasn't right when colonists did it to the Native Americans and it's not right today.

I don't know any more about Dearborn than what I've read, but it seems to me like it would be difficult for a white person to get a job in the service or food industry when more and more businesses are owned by and cater to predominantly Muslims, making it more difficult for non-immigrants to make a living. Obviously the previous residents of the town, who were descendants of Italian and Polish immigrants, hired Muslims and made it possible for those new residents to form businesses, but because Muslims seem to provide for only their own I can't see them being so welcome towards, say, Mormons if it so happened that they started moving into town by the thousands. If I'm way off base and it actually is common for a young white guy to get a job at a falafel shop, please correct me. Otherwise I don't see moving into a town, displacing the white population and creating a microcosm of the Middle East in Michigan an example of integration.

I read in Newsweek that some Americanized Muslims in Dearborn feel that the arrival of more conservative Yemeni and Palestinian immigrants has started to divert their goal of creating an Islamic community that was at once truly Islamic and American. From how you describe it, it seems like the Americanized Muslims actively try to Americanize newcomers so maybe that is a temporary and reversible trend. Also if dearborn really is as american as you describe it, where radical and anti-Semitic views are discouraged, then I guess I can't have a huge problem with it. Having never been there, I'm just making some assumptions from my personal opinions and I'm relying on you with first hand experience to tell me if there is any truth in my perceptions.

"If I'm way off base and it actually is common for a young white guy to get a job at a falafel shop..."

Mmmm... Falafel.


"rise to the challenge of integrating with the citizens of a host country. And it is a challenge, no doubt about that."

There's a difference between integration and being invisible. Multiculturalism is what it says on the tin... multiple cultures. How much that ends up being just a homogenised soup or how much of the differences are retained between cultures I think is a very local thing, dependent on numerous factors. I see you arguing two things here Mike. One is the fact that you're against a single homogenised culture, whilst simultaneously crying out against a lack of integration. It's already been pointed out that America was never truly a purely European culture, but the sum of all previous cultures that had gathered there. So you're already arguing for a kind of multiculture, just a particular manifestation of it. Those parts have bumped up against each other, fought and forged new relationships over time. Together they have created 'America'. It's a bumpy history and it's still happening. It's inevitable really as I see it, because a serviceable definition of culture is that it's just the product of the ideas rattling around in peoples heads at any given time. It's super chaotic. People move around. They influence each other and they differentiate themselves from each other. They bring new things to the table. I mean, how are you going to stop that? Arguing against it is flight from reality as far as I'm concerned.

Quote from BlueFlame :

It's funny though, on the other hand it's obvious he's talking about Sharia Law and Islamic gang rapings, both of which are in existance, so why can't the people watching just use THEIR brain and initiative to understand his point instead of using him as a notion of stupidity as an extremely simple way to send the argument into demise.

Point proven. Thanks for your co-operation, have a nice day.

Quote from flymike91 :

Of course it toned down, the British left Hong Kong to the point where their descendants only make up a fraction of a percent of the population.

And your point is? There WERE only a fraction of the population at the first place, but it doesn't affect their cultural impact on us.

Quote from flymike91 :

As for the mixing of cultures from different parts of China, I probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference between those cultures as they would seem very similar to me, just like you probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference right away between a person from San Francisco and a person from Los Angeles. Putting together many people from both of those cities would probably not cause considerable strife or segmentation. Do you see where I'm going?

What you don't realize is China's long history meant these local cultures had their own religion, own tradition, own language, own bloodline and had faught each other in many wars, do LA and San francisco speak different languages and faught wars under the banner of different nations? no. The situation in China is more like Europe as a whole.

Quote from flymike91 :

The logical end to your argument for multiculturalism is that peace and equality will only exist when cultures have completely mixed to produce a global homogeneous culture and appearance, something I would be VERY against as I foresee society falling to the level of the lowest common denominator, not as other cultures rising to the standards set by the most advanced societies. Why? Because it is easier to fall than to rise.

The logical end to my argument is a culture that accepts there are different subcultures co-existing because of how history is developed, even though their moral might not fit your own.

Homogeneity was never the logical result, remember what I said about Punk having different expression in Tokyo, Beijing and Berlin? the cross of culture create more cultures, not less.

If you want more prove, look at how Japan incorporate western influences and create a genre of their own.

Quote from flymike91 :

Again, the way people decide to live in their own countries is none of my business (I am not my government), but when they immigrate to the West they must be expected to rise. If the West wasn't considered a better place, they wouldn't immigrate here.

The west being better overall, say for political stability and economic strength does not mean the culture is superior. People come to live a better live but wants to keep their tradition isn't a hard idea to shallow.

Quote from flymike91 :

I think it's odd and maybe you can explain a discrepancy I see in your argument: You mention that ethnic Chinese were dominated by the British in Hong Kong and forced to live in slums. Now the tables have turned and mainland Chinese are not given the right to live in Hong Kong with you, another Chinese person, and are forced to live in arguably the 'worse' area. The segmentation I see is actually much more severe than anything in America. I would liken it to people from the South not being allowed into New York because they're considered lower. Making yourselves separate from your own natural countrymen is something even I don't understand.

Mainland Chinese are given rights to live in Hong Kong, just that there are so many chinese people we have a selection procedure, namely we accept the elite first and the thers second. (If there is problem of class inequality, it is entirely a different topic)

There are funding and social service provided to immigrants and if we can't accept them all, it is just because we are a very small place with already a lot of people, something your country doesn't have to worry about. if one percent of Chinese population enters Hong Kong at the same time our population will be tripled...what would happen if one percent of UK's population enters your country?

Quote from flymike91 :

I see that understanding as mostly one-sided: Western society accepting and accommodating to minority cultures and not getting much out of it except more hatred and isolation from the very groups that are supposed to be "celebrating our differences" with us, but instead are building little countries of their own within the US, UK, France, etc. They want all the good things associated with living in a first world country without having to put up with the things they don't like about it, like the people who already live there.

That's is because your kind see their culture as inferior and can't actually learn from them when you can't see yourself on level terms. There is much the west can learn from the Chinese/Indian/Muslim world view. And so far the west is still far too self consumed to consider that an actual alternative.

The Americanization of the world is pretty much over and from now on it is a parallel development, the flaw in your ideology and system exposed and your country is living off debts to us.....maybe after your ego is shattered you will start to learn what the rest of the world has to offer.

Quote from Electrik Kar :

There's a difference between integration and being invisible. Multiculturalism is what it says on the tin... multiple cultures. How much that ends up being just a homogenised soup or how much of the differences are retained between cultures I think is a very local thing, dependent on numerous factors.

You have a good point, that is something I've been finding hard to reconcile. Really that argument for integration comes more from trying to keep a moderate stance on this forum rather than my personal views. Hang me if you like, but in practice I would probably put a stop to most immigration to the US, legal or otherwise. We do not have any responsibility to allow more immigrants that cannot match the highest levels of contribution of a natural citizen. For instance the US is in need of engineers, so we allow certified engineers to come and help us make more advances in science and medicine. The first problem I see is that recent immigrants are different from those before in that many more hold casual to extreme anti-American sentiments, especially immigrants and refugees from Mexico and the Middle East. Obviously not all hold these ideas, but a percentage do, and they can cause great harm. Would you allow someone to live in your home who you know hated you? Just today another Muslim American army member was caught preparing for a bomb and shooting attack against fellow soldiers at Ft. Hood, where Major Nadal Hassan killed 13 soldiers and wounded 30 others two years ago. That is what happens when Western culture and Muslim culture 'bump against each other', again not every day but enough for me. Immigrants should try as hard as possible to not make any ripples, as you say it, be invisible. The people who are letting them into the community should not have to make unwanted concessions to the people they allow to live amongst them. They shouldn't have to pass laws banning Hijabs, the height of minarets, the volume of loudspeakers issuing the Islamic call to prayer, etc because the immigrants coming in should know that the community doesn't want those things and be sensitive to them.
The second argument is more pragmatic. Any population growth in the US is unsustainable. We literally cannot afford to have any more people come in and draw on social welfare programs, or get any money from the government, including public education. Our government is broke and getting more broken every day because the number of people who take from the gov. is surpassing the number of people who contribute to the GDP. Also runaway spending in both parties but that's for another thread.

JJ
For the most part you missed my point. You're talking about multiculturalism on a global scale, I'm talking about specific countries and communities within those countries.

Quote :

The logical end to my argument is a culture that accepts there are different subcultures co-existing because of how history is developed, even though their moral might not fit your own.

The co-existing is not going so well, is it? Any strife caused by immigration and multiculturalism cannot be said to be the fault of the people who were there first, because they don't have a responsibility to let anyone from other countries live in their communities. That means the immigrant group has to adjust their morals to the existing community or not immigrate.

Quote :

Mainland Chinese are given rights to live in Hong Kong, just that there are so many chinese people we have a selection procedure, namely we accept the elite first and the thers second.

There are funding and social service provided to immigrants and if we can't accept them all, it is just because we are a very small place with already a lot of people, something your country doesn't have to worry about.

That's just not true! America can no more accept hundreds of thousands of penniless immigrants than Hong Kong can. You know very well how broke we are. Our system for immigration should be more like yours: based on college-level aptitude tests or net worth, proving a skill or investment they can bring to the country. Illegal immigration should be stopped entirely and by force if necessary.

Quote :

That's is because your kind see their culture as inferior and can't actually learn from them when you can't see yourself on level terms. There is much the west can learn from the Chinese/Indian/Muslim world view. And so far the west is still far too self consumed to consider that an actual alternative.

the flaw in your ideology and system exposed and your country is living off debts to us.....maybe after your ego is shattered you will start to learn what the rest of the world has to offer.

Yes, countries that have many human rights abuses are not equal to countries that allow relatively few. I don't consider the Western first world with its system of law and order on level terms with countries like Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Sudan, Mexico, Columbia the list goes on. Do you consider the society of Hong Kong to be equal to these? And as I already said, the immigrants from those countries have already chosen their alternative: they didn't consider their societies to be equal either. What policies can we adopt from these countries to better Western society? Sudan encourages slavery of non-Muslims, and it is from these kinds of countries that the US, UK, France and especially Scandinavia accept many immigrants and refugees. What the rest of the developing world has to offer is a lower standard of living and a political and cultural environment that created it , that's why they come to the West and not the other way around.

We completely forgot about this...
Here's the verdict:

Quote :

He was given the maximum sentence of 21 years, but with a "preventive detention" clause that means his time in jail can be extended as long as he is deemed a threat to society. It is unlikely he will ever be released.

Quote :

In a final parting shot, clearly designed to offend, Breivik used his chance to address the court by apologising to "militant nationalists" across Europe, apparently for not killing more people during his two attacks.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl ... ivik-verdict-norway-utoya

The good thing in all of this is that the attacks have shown the complete lack of preparedness for an event such as this, and the police and homeland security, and government all the way up to the prime minister is under extreme pressure to clean up their act. A report is made that outline the blatant lack of competence by most levels of government and personell. This will have wide repercussions, most of them for the good.

The bad thing however is that now is the time for every "smart-ass" to come with a sollution and a better way of how 22/07 could have been handled. But meh, I just turn of the news the next months and I should be ok
(But I agree that much is needed to be learnt from this, but the whitchhunt is not something I am bottered to read day in and out).

For the ones confused about the maximum jail time thingy:
21 years + 10 is the most that can be given. However, after that time there will be a evalution every 5 year, to see if the prisoner is fit for getting back in society. If he's not - he will be there for 5 more years and so on. Most likely it Breivik's case it's life time prison.

Much more lenient than in America. He would be sentenced to death.

Well, Europe has moved on from the middle ages...

Yet Oslo bombing wasn't an inside job...

Quote from bbman :

Well, Europe has moved on from the middle ages...

Yeah it's great, in my country you can't even defend yourself if a burgler walks in your house, you have to be like 'oh hello sir take whatever you want', if i stab him or shoot him I go to jail, i can't even defend myself in my own home.
I'll take the US "shoot anyone in your front yard in the face" law any day over that..