Islamic youth riot in Denmark as well as France

[thumperton]

problem, reaction, solution...

 

[CCGirl]

The root cause is multiculturalism which is really just anti-Western. France has sown to the wind...............

What? Multiculturalism is humanity and decency....not anti western at all

Maybe you meant to say anti-American?

Poverty, hopelessness, are the root causes.

 

[Robby]

What? Multiculturalism is humanity and decency....not anti western at all.

No, multiculturalism is just anti-westernism. The West is criticized for imposing their culture on the world, but immigrants to Western nations aren't expected to assimilate.

France used to insist that immigrants learn the language, history and culture. It welcomed all kinds of people, but turned them into Frenchmen (and women). In the past couple of decades, a new PC policy has been in place where immigrants can be segregated and not expected to learn assimilate. This has created what you see today. Europe bends over backwards to not "offend" even hostile immigrants and the result is conflict. Poverty and hopelessness are the results of this failed policy and ultimately the cause of what we are seeing now.

 

[Multi-Elis]

Probably not. At least not yet, anyway. They may soon come to rethink the wisdom of inviting so many who are downright hostile to the tolerant, secular nature of many of their societies to live among them

I'd like to point out that France did something I think was very just and right: After mediling in Algeria and commiting horrible attrocities there, they recompenced all people born before the Algerian independance with the possibility of becoming French citizens if they so chose. It was worng of France to practice ruthless colonialism in Algeria, and it was right of them, in my oppinion, to offer a certain recompence if people so chose to see it that way. The only thing France reaps is the seeds of colonialism, and that, every colonialist country has reaped. I hope France reaps it's harvest for being just and responsible for their bad actions.

France used to insist that immigrants learn the language, history and culture. It welcomed all kinds of people, but turned them into Frenchmen (and women). In the past couple of decades, a new PC policy has been in place where immigrants can be segregated and not expected to learn assimilate. This has created what you see today. Europe bends over backwards to not "offend" even hostile immigrants and the result is conflict. Poverty and hopelessness are the results of this failed policy and ultimately the cause of what we are seeing now.

From my experience, this is gross simplification, if not tending towards being false. I was a pseodo-imigrent, that is, I was French by my mother but didn't have an ounce of French culture in me. I moved to France being able to understand a certain amount of French, but not being able to speak it, read it or write it. A visit to the local youth help center set things straight: I receaved a year's worth of free French classes.

I have witnessed social worker's efforts to help integrate african, immigrent muslum background youths into university programs. I blame the collective "WE"--the comfortable good students who should have known better and who should have befriended these people. Lonliness in University is a terrible thing to go through. These maladroite young men felt out of place and eventually gave up. No policy can force comfortable white kids to befriend and make feel welcomed the african student who are making a dare to step out of the rut. At the time, I witnessed this and was mad at people who even made fun of these student's naive work. My hope, as I noticed that they gave up, was that their kids would do better.

 

[thumperton]

multi-culturalism is a new world order front, just like communism and feminism.

These movements did not spring up 'organically' on university campuses, they were financed by huge fortune 500 companies.

 

[Robby]

I'd like to point out that France did something I think was very just and right: After mediling in Algeria and commiting horrible attrocities there, they recompenced all people born before the Algerian independance with the possibility of becoming French citizens if they so chose. It was worng of France to practice ruthless colonialism in Algeria, and it was right of them, in my oppinion, to offer a certain recompence if people so chose to see it that way. The only thing France reaps is the seeds of colonialism, and that, every colonialist country has reaped. I hope France reaps it's harvest for being just and responsible for their bad actions.

From my experience, this is gross simplification, if not tending towards being false. I was a pseodo-imigrent, that is, I was French by my mother but didn't have an ounce of French culture in me. I moved to France being able to understand a certain amount of French, but not being able to speak it, read it or write it. A visit to the local youth help center set things straight: I receaved a year's worth of free French classes.

I have witnessed social worker's efforts to help integrate african, immigrent muslum background youths into university programs. I blame the collective "WE"--the comfortable good students who should have known better and who should have befriended these people. Lonliness in University is a terrible thing to go through. These maladroite young men felt out of place and eventually gave up. No policy can force comfortable white kids to befriend and make feel welcomed the african student who are making a dare to step out of the rut. At the time, I witnessed this and was mad at people who even made fun of these student's naive work. My hope, as I noticed that they gave up, was that their kids would do better.

"In these suburban towns, built in the 1950s in imitation of the Soviet social housing of the Stalinist era, people live in crammed conditions, sometimes several generations in a tiny apartment, and see "real French life" only on television.

The French used to flatter themselves for the success of their policy of assimilation, which was supposed to turn immigrants from any background into "proper Frenchmen" within a generation at most.

That policy worked as long as immigrants came to France in drips and drops and thus could merge into a much larger mainstream. Assimilation, however, cannot work when in most schools in the affected areas, fewer than 20 percent of the pupils are native French speakers.

France has also lost another powerful mechanism for assimilation: the obligatory military service abolished in the 1990s.

As the number of immigrants and their descendants increases in a particular locality, more and more of its native French inhabitants leave for "calmer places," thus making assimilation still more difficult.

In some areas, it is possible for an immigrant or his descendants to spend a whole life without ever encountering the need to speak French, let alone familiarize himself with any aspect of the famous French culture.

The result is often alienation. And that, in turn, gives radical Islamists an opportunity to propagate their message of religious and cultural apartheid."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nypost/2005...xIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--

France got a little too crazy with its immigration and now is reaping the results. Failed immigration policies, folks. Maybe we should stop blaming the average citizen of France for this disaster.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Surely the time is long past when we should question whether the western idea of taking in large amounts of refugees to resettle in the first world is the best policy.

Perhaps what is needed instead is a more active UN which could intervene in third world conflicts before large amounts of refugees need to flee.

And if people need to be resettled, wouldn’t a more appropriate place be a similar country in the region ( with appropriate aid from the west ), rather than throwing them into the middle of a western society and then looking amazed when they don’t adapt.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

multi-culturalism is a new world order front, just like communism and feminism.

These movements did not spring up 'organically' on university campuses, they were financed by huge fortune 500 companies.

This seems too ridiculous to be a serious statement....

 

[thumperton]

This seems too ridiculous to be a serious statement....

Can anyone really explain why Western Europe is importing millions of hostile muslims (even to this day), that are enabling a police state? Post colonial-guilt syndrome? They are suddenly champions of humanity? United Colors of Bennetton of Europe?

 

[Machjo]

no, europe will pass laws that will limit the pervalence of religion and its impact on secular society as they rightly should. that will more than likely include ALL religions.

Actually, religion is already very much controlled in France. Muslimat cannot wear hijab, and the same applies in all other public or government institutions. So if controlling religion is the goal, then France is already well ahead of most countries. And yet t happenned anyway. So perhaps giving more, not less, religious freedom might be solution there.

 

[Machjo]

From my reading, I understand that France used to require immigrants assimilate into the French society. Learn the language, the history and culture. For the last few decades, however, this policy was abandoned in the name of multiculturalism. Well now the chickens have come home to roost. Hopefully the U.S. will learn from this fiasco.

Actually the French policy, officially at least, is still integration, and some might even argue assimilation to some extent with the headscarf laws). The problem though is that society itself had segregated them.

Interestingly enough I had read a few days ago that just a few weeks or months before the riots, a university professor doing research on France's ethnic issues had sent false resumes to various employers all over various cities in France, with the 'applicants' all having the same credentials. He'd found that, if the name was Arab, or the person came from a reputedly bad part of town, he had an over 75% less chance of being hired than if he'd come from a more reputed part of town. Now don't forget, the qualifications on the resume was the same in all cases, just the name and district was different!

So in this case the French government is not entirely to blame (though the headscarf law certainly makes it culpable at least to some extent), but rather the racism prevalent among the French populace it would seem according to this research.

 

[Multi-Elis]

There is an idea expressed that keeps comming up: "France shouldn't be welcoming so many immigrants they got what they asked for". It is said pejoratively. This implies the following premis: that people from other countries are bad and being kind to them is inerrently a bad thing. (As if the US doesn't welcome immigrents all the time, and was populated this way).

Secondly, there is a hostility towards Multi-Culturalism. There may be cases where you do not like the effects of too much oppeness. But what is wrong in considering other people's background as legitimate? Who's to say our culture is always best? We have some things that are beeter than other cultures, and other cultures have things we can learn from. Mixing with people from other countries is a good thing. For the missionnaries amoungst you, think of it as potential converts coming to your own country. Where is the love for people from different backgrounds than ourselves?

Somebody considered the immigrents to be hostile muslums. There is a small problem with a few muslum leaders immigrating and never learning French and being Hostile. But this is not the type of people who is causing trouble. The islamists are at home sleeping when the rioters are out at night. The guys causing this trouble are usually from moderate backgrounds, parents happy to find a good job and have education and services for the kids.

There was somebody who refered to an article (as if it were an authority) which says that France didn't accept immigrents in drips and drops. In a sense, they did.

Others like the idea that "these guys would be better off in their country of origin, being helped financially." Firstly, I wonder how many who think this way would really support your government doing such a thing. Secondly, these guys are either children of immigrents,--good hard working immigrents who were so happy to change countries, or illigal immigrents, desprate to start a new life away from the dead end in their own country. They were not (yet) accepted and welcomed. There not supposed to be here in the first place. It's difficult to get integrated as a child when you grow up in inner city gettos. You end up feeling comfortable at home but nobody outside is interested in you. Part of the reason these places became gettos is because of "White flee". Whites, not wanting to be a minority, flee to nicer neighbourhoods. And here is the other reason: these subherbs were always gettos of sorts. Let me explain:

In these suburban towns, built in the 1950s in imitation of the Soviet social housing of the Stalinist era, people live in crammed conditions, sometimes several generations in a tiny apartment

I live in one of those cheep housing. We do cram into our appartement--I sleep in the livingroom. That was the best solution giving our financial state. I just happen to live in a neighbourhood where the different cutures get along pretty well. In fact I love it. There is another way to look at these buildings: they were a response to slum cities living in worse conditions. The effort was to provide, quickly, innexpensive housing, that could take as many as possible people, and that would provide for each family a bathroom and a kitchen and space to live in. These buildings are the symbol of modern life. There may be a cultural difference here that makes you not understand: why did they build sky high buildings and not many cute little houses? There is no room. These people wanted to live close to their factory jobs, not spead out in their subherbs. And then let me tell you--these houses are often better quality than the appartments that some of my less rich friends in Israel lived in!

So, I don't know if what I am saying interests you. Perhaps it doesn't. But at any rate, I'd like to call you all, christians and moral non-christians to take a loving attitude towards other countries and to examine the premises and consequences of some of the things you say.