1. Hey Guest, welcome back to DLP

    As you can see, we've changed our look. We've migrated from vBulletin to the Xenforo forum system. There may be issues or missing functionality, if you find anything or have feedback, please check out the new Xenforo Migration Feedback forum.

    Our dark ("Dark Lord Potter") theme is under heavy development. We also have a light ("Light Lord Potter") theme for those happier with a light background and darker text.

    Dismiss Notice

Islam is the Way Forward

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Jon, Apr 2, 2017.

  1. Dicra

    Dicra Seventh Year

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2014
    Messages:
    279
    I'd wager a cultural bloc that's uniformly refused to integrate into Europe would be hard to find as well.
     
  2. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    126
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Empire City
    High Score:
    2810
    The claim was that it's not Europe's problem, They don't want to integrate.

    Blanket statement gets a blanket response. My challenge stands.
     
  3. Joe's Nemesis

    Joe's Nemesis High Score: 2,058 Prestige

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2012
    Messages:
    958
    High Score:
    2,058
    The problem is, the challenge isn't legitimate. It is simply foolish to speak of a monolithic culture of people. There are elements of cultures that will refuse to integrate and elements in a culture that will not only look to integrate, but to assimilate.

    My point was simply this: because there are groups within each culture that choose to integrate and others that choose to assimilate, I feel little sympathy for of the same culture who choose neither.

    To put it bluntly, if a person finds American culture too different for integration, then they are free to search for another culture in which it may be easier. There is absolutely no moral or ethical code for a culture to change itself simply because an adherent of another culture is unhappy with it.*


    *It should be obvious this statement does not include elements of culture that deny integration due to bigotry such as the "No Irish Need Apply" signs in the windows of businesses on the East Coast.
     
  4. Immet

    Immet Seventh Year

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2012
    Messages:
    211
    I'm confused. For the most part I get what you're saying, but surely the definition of people from culture A integrating into culture B means the culture B gets changed to be more like culture A and everyone is now part of the changed culture B?

    So doesn't that say that if you think that people are morally and ethically able to integrate rather than assimilate, then the culture is morally and ethically bound to change based on the cultures that get integrated into it?

    Because what I understood from your post is that the public message is that people can integrate into American culture, but they actually they have to assimilate into it. Teddy Roosevelt's message all over, but pretending that immigrants have the option to integrate and blaming them for the fact that they aren't assimilating.

    I mean, I get that there are levels of change and things that people see as more or less intrinsic to the culture, but you've put it pretty black and white.
     
  5. Solfege

    Solfege High Inquisitor DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    507
    Location:
    East Coast & the South
    Not necessarily. Within the bounds of organizational theory, diversity can improve performance, but in order to do so fault lines and potential areas for conflict must be addressed. Such areas arise due to different schemata (basic models, categories, values that we use to make sense of the world). Diversity (heterogeneity) can be leveraged to the benefit of an organization once a schema becomes "shared".

    If we argue there is such a schema existing in the American identity, one based on universal values that allows a diversity of peoples to contribute and strengthen the existence of those universal values, then we have a better basis for integration here than a schema tied more strongly to things like ethnicity, religion, or history, which might promote homogenization through various forms of assimilation (marriage, conversion, simple accumulation of a shared history through time, before which you are a second-class citizen).

    As long as those peoples make the necessary adjustments to communicate a shared understanding of the American schema and participate in the common areas of civic life, then they need not dilute the customs and traditions that make them them in private life. Nor should the people of culture A have to adopt the customs and traditions of culture B (everyone wears green on some retarded corporatized version of St. Patrick's Day as Invictus points out).

    Joe's initial point goes a bit further and reflects my practical experience that it is not "entire cultures" that make black-and-white choices for integration or assimilation (if black-and-white it is), but individuals within those cultures who, based on their personalities, make individual choices every day on how they might better (or not) connect with the American metanarrative and recontextualize their own experiences.

    That being said, Revan could be right on the intergenerational viewpoint. In the long run it's all moot; the American schema stands resilient, and everyone's children eventually integrate no matter what choices are and aren't made in the short run.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2017
  6. Immet

    Immet Seventh Year

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2012
    Messages:
    211
    I'll be honest, I have no fucking clue what you just posted. Can you please explain it to me in a simpler way?

    By which I mean the first paragraph is almost gibberish to me, and so I have no context for the following paragraphs. For example your use of terms like 'fault lines' seems to be overly jargonish for the message board.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2017
  7. Aekiel

    Aekiel Angle of Mispeling Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    844
    Location:
    The Mouth of Ports
    High Score:
    9,373
    Basically, people from different cultures view the world in different ways. When trying to integrate different cultures you have to smooth over the parts that cause conflict while still trying to keep the useful parts of the differing worldviews. That's how it works in business, at least.
     
  8. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    126
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Empire City
    High Score:
    2810
    Quite. That was partially my point. The statement "They don't want to integrate" is patently absurd.

    This is the other half. The resilience of American culture is that it's based on changing surface characteristics resulting from whoever comes here and influences us, but relies on deep underpinning concepts that are immutable. We welcome people, they change us, but they become us. Europe has this strength in varying degrees, but certain countries have very little of it.

    France, for example, is obsessed with ideal French-ness, and it gets in the way of integrating new people. Hence, ghettos and home-grown terrorism.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2017
  9. Solfege

    Solfege High Inquisitor DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    507
    Location:
    East Coast & the South
    Schema is the structure of fundamental principles that provides a shared societal context. Context changes everything.

    The wearing of the burka/niqab/hijab is an issue because of contextual significance. A woman who wears said items in the West immediately provokes certain reactions: she's Muslim, possibly Islamist; she practices non-Western ways; she prioritizes Sharia law over the rule of civic law.

    The burka's perceived association with Islamist female oppression is a definite fault line. The French have already blown up over it (har har, I meant politically) with their burka ban. Is there a schema for "being French" where wearing a burka could conceivably "be French?" Given how anal the French tend to be about their "Frenchness", doubtful.

    How about in America? Is there a schema in which "the wearing of burkas by Muslim-American women" does not detract from their civic identities as Americans? Yes, as it pertains to our conception of individual liberty. We can recontextualize the burka from "Islamic oppression" to "life choice," no different than choosing to wear a bra or celebrate Seder. The American schema allows for it, so long as it adapts constructively with those principles we hold dear.

    And why not? A head scarf can be a genuine expression of faith or life choice, separate from the Islamist schema. It can be fashionable --- have you seen some of the hijab designs on the markets recently? So a Muslim woman in America chooses to put on a head scarf every day --- or some days, when she feels like it. She makes that individual choice for herself. She also speaks English, values the Constitution, has a job in management, performs slam poetry on weekends. Her children will one day grow up to make choices for themselves as Americans, similar choices out of their cultural heritage, or not.

    Muslim-Americans demonstrate (this is the hard part, the proof of demonstration, the constant need to communicate yes, I share your schema) that they have a stake in American society as Americans. Culture A, in response, comes to tolerate, perhaps even welcome the wearing of head scarves for a set of reasons consistent with the American identity. But the identity itself, as a schema of principles on which society is founded, does not change.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2017
  10. Joe's Nemesis

    Joe's Nemesis High Score: 2,058 Prestige

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2012
    Messages:
    958
    High Score:
    2,058
    If you're talking about my earlier statement then you're going to need to explain how it is absurd, as I was saying those who do not integrate do not do so because they choose to. That is, obviously, in comparison to those who choose to integrate, even those of the same race or religion.

    In short, anyone who goes to a new nation has a choice. Integrate and overcome whatever barriers are there for doing so, or choose not to integrate. The onus is on the person making the choice.

    ---------- Post automerged at 12:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:16 AM ----------


    Solfege is pretty much dead on, but to put in terms I am more familiar with, integration is accepting and supporting the American metanarrative while still holding to your personal mininarrative within your own life. Thus, while you are "An American" you also participate in the Chinese holidays as your ancestors have done for thousands of years. Or, while you learn the English language, you also perpetuate the Arabic tongue among your children and grandchildren. That is integration.

    Assimilation is choosing to take the American metanarrative on as your personal mininarrative as well. As such, you forget the Chinese holidays or your Arabic linguistic roots.

    While the latter makes governance and civil society easier (the more alike the individual mininarratives, the more alike the demands for governance, justice, holidays, etc. will be), I also find it a violation of basic human rights to demand such things. Thus, I place the onus of integration, not assimilation, on the immigrant.
     
  11. someone010101

    someone010101 Groundskeeper

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2012
    Messages:
    326
    What is a 'metanarrative' and a 'mininarrative'?
     
  12. Sauce Bauss

    Sauce Bauss Order Member DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Messages:
    879
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    There is the American story, the common cultural identifiers and experiences that mark you as an American. Then there is your personal story within the grander American story. Americans believe in freedom, justice, and Apple pie. You might speak Spanish at home, or pray toward the east five times a day. Those cultural artifacts from your home culture or family traditions aren't part of the grand American narrative, and aren't shared between most/all Americans. The difference between a history book and an autobiography.
     
  13. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    126
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Empire City
    High Score:
    2810
    And I reject that paradigm. Everyone wants to be a part of their community, no one wants to stand in isolation. No matter who it is who arrives here, within a couple generations, that family has fully integrated, if not assimilated (a notion which I don't entirely agree with your usage of; assimilation is a two-way street ("Your technological and biological distinctiveness will be added to our own.")). The choice belongs to the receiving society to let those new people into the fold.

    Your discussion of narratives has merit, but it's not one about citizenship, it's one about cultural identity. People are quite capable of having complex ideas about their identities while still fully integrating themselves into the functional aspects of community and citizenship. People can have multiple layers of identity while still becoming a part of the society they have immigrated into. On this I think we agree.

    However, European ghettos do not exist because the people there decided they didn't want to be a part of the community around them; they exist because the community decided they didn't like the newcomers and rejected the notion that they could become a part of the community at all. It's irrelevant whether or not those newcomers think of themselves as only French or French Muslims or Algerian-French when the impediment to their belonging there is the rest of France saying "Never mind all that, it's impossible for you to be French because we are French, you are not, and we reject you."
     
  14. joshuafaramir

    joshuafaramir Unspeakable

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    712
    Location:
    Elsewhere
    Yeah... That's why there's plenty of Muslim No-Go Zones in Britain. Pretty soon, it's gonna happen in U.S too if there's a sudden large number influx of Muslim population.

    I think assimilation and integration is all about numbers. The less numbers (population), and the longer the time period, the better chances of it happening.

    The problem with the global atmosphere right now is that when somebody is against a certain issue (e.g Refugees from Syria issue), they are branded as Islamophobe (and thus, all their arguments and reasons are ill considered) but the reality is that if U.S had accepted that many refugees as Germany or Europe in general did in that short span of time, we'd be having the same problems as they have now.

    I mean, we already have Spanish-speaking zones only in U.S. It's undeniable that there are areas in the U.S where the refusal to integrate is so strong, they form their own communities and disregard American culture and language. Look at Miami, it's horrible there because Spanish is becoming the 1st language there, rather than English.


    There needs to be a line somewhere that in order to live in America, you MUST learn the language, not the other way around. You can't be American and refuse to speak English... I'm bilingual by the way so no, I'm not English Fuck!Yeah!
     
  15. Blinker

    Blinker DA Member DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2011
    Messages:
    164
    Location:
    Bristol, UK
    I can only speak personally for London and through friends for Birmingham but I've found media claims of UK Muslim dominated areas being overtly hostile to others (above the general baseline of poor areas being a little sketchy) to be at best overblown and at worst complete horseshit. Perhaps you were referring to other cities (Bradford?) but I'd take these stories with a hefty pile of salt.
     
  16. Aekiel

    Aekiel Angle of Mispeling Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    844
    Location:
    The Mouth of Ports
    High Score:
    9,373
    The only papers to push the 'no-go' areas in Britain are the Daily Mail and the Sun, neither of which have held to any degree of journalistic standards for at least as long as I've been alive. Hell, nobody in Liverpool has sold the Sun since their coverage of the Hillsborough Disaster, and it's been 27 years since that happened.
     
  17. VanRopen

    VanRopen Auror

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Messages:
    681
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    ...where do you live? Because the percent of second-generation that don't speak English is tiny.

    Hell, the percent of Hispanic households that speak only English is growing too.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2017
  18. Nazgus

    Nazgus Death Eater

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2011
    Messages:
    934
    Location:
    USA
    I think the question I'd ask then is what do you consider 'being American'? Personally, I'd wager that the vast majority (tempted to say all, but I'll stay away from absolutes) of those who don't speak English are those who came here later in life and find it difficult to pick up English. They get by with the help of relatives or friends until their children learn enough English to translate for them, and that seems fine to me. I'm honestly not sure why you'd hold it against them and declare them to be 'un-American' for failing to pick up English when they still abide by all the laws of the land.

    As an immigrant myself, I love that I'm able to walk into Mexican restaurants in California and speak my native tongue, but that in no way means that the people there can't also speak English, so what's the problem?
     
  19. Solfege

    Solfege High Inquisitor DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    507
    Location:
    East Coast & the South
    Reminds me that California and the rest of the Mexican Cession started out majority Spanish-speakers. American settlers were the interlopers.
     
  20. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    126
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Empire City
    High Score:
    2810
    There are no such thing as "Muslim No-Go Zones" in Britain.