Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Dagoth Ur wrote:No I don't because we have distinctly different views of racism. Blacks and Native Americans are victims of racism for very specific historical reasons, but even these heavily disaffected groups are considered Americans by our "natives". In the UK and France "multiculturalism" means that you move in new cultures and you segregate them. There is no becoming French or English to the natives no matter how much they assimilate.
America isn't perfect at integration either. Our modern treatment of South Americans and Mexicans proves that.
Dagoth Ur wrote:
@noir: it doesn't matter to the english or the french how much you assimilate. Those that do are still Asains, or Arabs, or whatever slurs the french use. This refusal to take in non-natives who assimilate causes a feedback loop where migrants are increasingly taught to not waste their time ostracising themselves from their native community for an attempt at assimilation that will be automatically refused. Add to this that many minority nationalist groups and white nationalist groups in Europe have complimetary anti-assimilation outlooks and you got Europe's problem with integration.
The political laxity of the European governments was worsened by the permission they granted to Arab countries to export their culture and their customs together with their population, as formulated by the Damascus EAD Declaration. Thus from the 1970s on, these immigration policies, correlated with the economic and political goals of the EAD that had been dictated by the Arab states and their European lobbies, did not envisage scattered immigration by individuals who wanted to integrate into the host country. Nor were they framed for genuine seekers of political asylum, as was the case for those who fled Eastern Europe before 1989. Rather, it planned throughout the European Communities an implantation of homogeneous ethnic communities, which in two decades would number millions.
One cannot suspect the conceivers of EAD policy of gross ignorance. All European participants in the Dialogue were specialists of the Arab/Muslim world. Diplomats, politicians, academics, journalists, Christian theologians engaged in Qur’anic studies—they all had strong affinities with, and often long professional contacts or jobs, in Arab countries. This knowledge of Islam might explain the European governments’ reluctance to insist that the millions of Muslim migrants should be integrated into the host societies. Simply put, Muslims are traditionally forbidden by their religion to adopt the laws of non-Muslims; hence, Arab governments negotiated special arrangements through the EAD for the preservation of the migrants’ separateness, particularisms, and for maintaining them under their own jurisdiction.
The EAD conceptions facilitated the creation of fundamentalist trends among people who came with no intention of integrating into European society and culture. Instead, they arrived with the desire and the legal right, granted by the EC itself, to impose their own culture upon the host country. These immigrants rejected Europe’s secular institutions as inferior to those of the shari’a, which they believe have been revealed by Allah through the Qur’an to the umma, the universal Muslim community. Whereas the EAD claimed for Arab immigrants the rights conferred by European legal secular institutions, many of the immigrants despised these institutions and preferred their own. Thus, from the start of this mass immigration, integration was compromised if not rendered impossible. The European host countries seemed to have heeded, implicitly, the call of the 1974 Islamic conference in Lahore to protect Muslims from “the ways, customs and concepts of non-Muslims.”
There were also other sources of immigration. Since the 1950s, European economic development—as in the U.S.—has been linked to the availability of cheap and unskilled labor. Within Europe, this generally stimulated migration from poorer to richer regions: notably the successive waves of emigrants from Italy, Spain, and Portugal. However, none of these migration flows developed within a framework comparable to the EAD. In the 1980s, opposition to mass immigration became the banner of xenophobic extreme-right parties; thus, any critical discussion immediately provoked accusations of racism, Arabophobia, or Islamophobia. A sober, comprehensive, and regular assessment of the impact of Muslim/Arab immigration into Europe was impossible: it was shrouded with a taboo or identified with Nazi antisemitism. Since all main European parties were associated with the Parliamentary Association of Euro-Arab Cooperation, the future of Europe would develop according to the plans of the EAD’s architects.
The foremost consequence of the EAD has been a rampant transformation of the European continent engineered with EU leaders’ approval. The Mediterranean Partnership has increased the influx of Muslim immigrants into Europe from Arab and Muslim countries, and ensured their status as the preferred source of immigration to Europe. This policy, as we have seen, will continue. The EEC, and then the EU, never planned to integrate so many millions of Muslim immigrants into European society (multiculturalism); instead, the countries from which they came expected the European host countries to adapt themselves to the immigrants’ cultural and religious customs. And indeed, any reluctance or hesitation from Europe about immigration is labeled racism by the EAD’s agents and executives.
At the Hamburg Symposium in 1983, both European and Arab speakers presented reports about the integration of the two civilizations. Participants were divided into three workshops. The participants noted that, since Arab immigration was becoming permanent, the December 1978 Damascus Declaration was inadequate to deal with the situation of 1983.
This workshop made several other proposals for the assimilation of migrant workers—none of which, however, involved the latter adapting to the customs of the host countries. It recommended that the social integration of migrant workers and their families in the host countries should be facilitated by providing equal rights in lodging, work opportunities, schooling, and vocational and professional training. It was recommended to make the general public more aware of the cultural background of migrants, by promoting cultural activities of the immigrant communities or “supplying adequate information on the culture of the migrant communities in the school curricula.” Special training and educational course were required for civil servants, medical staff, members of the police force, teachers, social workers, and others who had functional relations with the immigrants. Access to the mass media had to be facilitated to the migrants in order to ensure “regular information in their own language about their own culture as well as about the conditions of life in the host country.” Another proposal called for broadening cooperation between immigrant groups and the indigenous population. The participation of immigrant groups in trade union activities and their participation in political life were to be encouraged by special measures. Point 6 stated, “It is recommended that the Arab countries of origin strengthen their cultural support to Arab migrants in Europe.”12
Lexington wrote:I agree! What should we call this Nazi - racialism = ?
Zamuel wrote:Well, given that you call them "Slovakians" I'm not surprised you don't know much ...
My wife's family has a rich heritage, they're Roman Catholics, which is an Aryan Tradition, from the old country,
and were somewhat disappointed when my wife married outside the faith. -SO- I learned quite a bit about Slovak differentiation. Her Grandmother (1st generation American) would run down the family tree, and distinguish all the old Marriages HER mother had disapproved of because they were to Slavs or Rom ... And she would get teary about her cousins who died fighting the Nazis ... and proud about the ones who lived. I met some of their Slav friends visiting the US ... who talked a lot about their local Slavic Festivals ... I gather there are some fraternal organizations for the different heritages. Hunt clubs ? Though I don't think they actually HUNT much.
I'd compare it to the differences between my Grandmother's family ... Danish Andersons and Norwegian Loretsons ... Not really a lot of difference, but a definite attitude about it.
Heinie wrote:National Socialism without its Aryan master race doctrine is not National Socialism at all.Maybe but then Jeffersonian democracy without Negro slavery is is not Jeffersonian democracy at all.
Rich wrote:Maybe but then Jeffersonian democracy without Negro slavery is is not Jeffersonian democracy at all.
In fact I'd say that Nazism is not Nazism without Adolph Hitler. This Nazis made very clear that there programme was Adolph Hitler. Nazism was what ever Hitler wanted it to be.
Zamuel wrote:Well, given that you call them "Slovakians" I'm not surprised you don't know much ...
Orestes wrote:I am not a native speaker of English - it has never occured to me to ask if they consider themselves "Aryans" instead of Slavs, but I think I would know about it if they did.
Zamuel wrote:My wife's family has a rich heritage, they're Roman Catholics, which is an Aryan Tradition, from the old country,
Orestes wrote:What do you mean by Catholicism being an Aryan Tradition?
Orestes wrote:It looks like your wife's great-grandmother had some obsession with purity.
Orestes wrote:They belong to Western Slavs, it's just not controversial. You'd be hard-pressed to find an anthropologist with a different opinion (unless maybe if we're talking about old Nazi anthropologists trying desperately to justify the German alliance with Joseph Tiso, just like they tried to make Aryans of many other groups when it was ideologically necessary).
Heinie wrote:In fact I'd say that Nazism is not Nazism without Adolph Hitler. This Nazis made very clear that there programme was Adolph Hitler. Nazism was what ever Hitler wanted it to be.
I learned quite a bit about Slovak differentiation. Her Grandmother (1st generation American) would run down the family tree, and distinguish all the old Marriages HER mother had disapproved of because they were to Slavs or Rom ... And she would get teary about her cousins who died fighting the Nazis ... and proud about the ones who lived.
It illustrates that they were quite correct that Slavs are a heavily diluted (they would say polluted) bloodline whose immigration into Europe failed when they encountered Aryans. And that, to a certain extent. Aryans PUSHED BACK and came to dominate the interface between the genotypes.
Orestes wrote: If there are like three people in a thread telling you you're wrong
Orestes wrote: Slovaks and Poles (among others) are Slavs (a smaller subset)
Orestes wrote: Slavs (among others) are Indo-Europeans (a larger subset which doesn't negate the smaller).
Orestes wrote: Indo-Europeans used to be called "Aryans" in old scientific discourse
Orestes wrote:Third Term's link goes to show that Nazis were wrong to think Slavs were generally not a genuine part of the "Aryan race"
Orestes wrote:With this I will leave.
noemon wrote:Nazi's formed their narratives according to their militaristic & political needs.
noemon wrote:There was not even a leaf of scientific, historical or linguistic basis to their claims.
noemon wrote:The Nazis were not accidentally wrong about the Slavic peoples, they were intentionally trashing them and dehumanizing them
noemon wrote:The only real Aryans in this earth are the Iranians and nobody else.
noemon wrote:Ethnic/racial/religious-identity is not based on genetics or phenotypes but on historical memory
noemon wrote:"Indo-European/Aryan" and other crap names invented throughout the course of the 20th century depending on who you ask, refer to the study of comparative linguisticsGenetic science disagrees ... and proves (or disproves) associative linguistic patterns.
noemon wrote:It is disheartening that people would adopt a ridiculous ideology such as German national socialism.
I can tell you with total honesty and without having any reason whatsoever to be biased that you are completely wrong in everything and that you will need to devote many hours of study to dislodge this symphony of cliches and stereotypes that inform your reasoning.
Potemkin wrote:It seems that no matter what topic to which Zamuel directs his intellect, he manages to be wrong about almost everything concerning that topic. He's the most astonishingly ignorant and opinionated person I have ever come across in my life.Now that's quite a claim, particularly on PoFo. There's surely some dedicated competition for most ignorant and opinionated person. Kman I remember as being somewhat opinionated and had a certain flexibility of mind when it came to facts.
noemon wrote:Genetic science is irrelevant to ethnic or national identity.
noemon wrote:The Iranians are the only people who remember themselves being Aryan, that is all that matters in so far as this word goes on an ethnic-sense.
No reparations. One note though. We are not ta[…]
I think it should remain an independent nation. I[…]
I think this is one of the best examples yet of ho[…]
But why would a capitalist society value gold ove[…]