I appreciate the candid response. It shouldn't be so hard for people to just clearly state the premises that motivate their beliefs.
>the burden should always be on the ones who are stronger to accommodate those who are weaker.
Is this a universal principle? Does this come with any limits at all? A salient example that comes up often: classrooms tend to have a small handful of extremely disruptive students that ruin the experience for everyone else. The current thinking is to not suspend/expel these kids because they are disadvantaged or whatever. But in doing so the other kids suffer greatly, not to mention the teachers.
How do you manage different dimensions of strength/advantage? It is the weakest in society (women, children) that bear a disproportionate burden of allowing large amounts of immigration from third-world countries. Why are the rights of women and children secondary to the rights of immigrants?
clearly state the premises that motivate their beliefs
thank you for recognizing that. i believe this helps us have a reasonable discussion about this topic. let me also add that neither my beliefs nor any premises they are based on are set in stone. they are open to be challenged provided the challenge makes a good argument or presents new evidence that i was not aware of. i have certain goals in mind or rather a vision of how our society should develop that influence my beliefs, and maybe we should talk about those too, but for now let me address your direct comment.
Is this a universal principle? Does this come with any limits at all?
universal, maybe, unlimited, i don't think so. it's more about balancing. on average minorities are weaker, have less strength to protect themselves or to lobby for their needs. etc. maybe accommodate is not the right word, probably support is a better way to express what i have in mind.
but how we accommodate or support depends on the circumstances. allowing kids to disrupt the class because they are disadvantaged is not accommodating or supporting them. what we actually need to look at is why they are disadvantaged, and fix that. not an easy task. but for the classroom example specifically there actually exists a proven solution, namely montessori. without going into details montessori allows teachers to accomodate each child individually without requiring a better teacher student ratio. one montessori teacher can handle 30 children.
but let's get back to integration in society. if you allow me to read that into your comment, your choice of example suggests that you understand accommodating as lowering our standards. (and that's why i now think accommodating was a bad word choice)
i definitely do not believe that we should lower our standards. we should be less rigid maybe, and less punitive and more educational when standards are violated.
but as the majority we also need to learn about these minorities, their background, their culture, why they came here, etc. we need to approach conflicts with an attempt to understand and work with them to find a way to live together.
btw, i moved to a developing country precisely because i wanted to get a first hand experience of the culture there and understand where these people are coming from, what attracts them about europe or other developed places, and what is holding the local development back.
It is the weakest in society (women, children) that bear a disproportionate burden of allowing large amounts of immigration from third-world countries.
i am not comfortable with that statement. first of all what would the burden be that children have to bear here? are you talking about problems in school with classes being dominated by children that do not speak the local language? if that is it then well, the solution is to invest more money in education. train teachers, realize that it doesn't make any sense to teach children in a language that they do not understand, etc. the need for education reform has been discussed elsewhere, and that's a global problem. the challenges caused by immigrant children only make that reform even more pressing.
as for the burden of women, again, please explain what you mean. if you are talking about violence at least in germany the majority of violence against women still comes from germans, and even though immigrants are over-proportionally represented in the statistics, most cases of violence happen at home which means that they are not cases of immigrants against german women. those cases are the absolute minority but they are grossly over-represented because local women are much more likely to report such violence than immigrant women and furthermore are the causes for violence more likely the socioeconomic status of immigrants, and their lack of integration (many young refugees come without their family and are not only not integrated locally, they are not integrated at all, so immigration itself is not the root cause) therefore i do not see that as a fair claim that women bear a disproportionate burden through immigrants. unless you mean something else, but then please share what you mean here.
as i said, i am open to have my beliefs challenged, so feel free to question anything i say. i am here to learn and i am looking forward to an educational discussion.
I think one issue with thinking this way is that who is stronger and who is weaker isn't always so easy to suss out, particularly on the margins.
To give an example from my own life/experience, I'm an American and Canadian woman, but I'm also a disabled lesbian. I feel uncomfortable when I go places (e.g. Ikea) and see Muslim families where the men are dressed in Western clothing and the women are niqabis, because it's an outward signal to me that they follow an interpretation of religion that is sexist and homophobic and are likely to be hostile to my existing.
There can be power overlap between the weakest members of the stronger community and the strongest members of the weaker community.
For the record, I don't have those feelings around all people of Middle Eastern descent or people who are visibly Muslim but not displaying an adherence to a particularly conservative interpretation of their religion (e.g. a hijabi in Western clothes or a group where some of the women are hijabis/niqabis and others aren't). I do have those feelings around white people who similarly display such conservative religious leanings (Amish, Haridem, etc.). It's purely ideological, not ethnic or racial.
The thing is, as a native, I don't have a choice to be here, whereas immigrants do. So why am I assumed to be the 'stronger' one, and why should ethnicity and religion override any other power dynamic?
I feel uncomfortable when I [...] see Muslim families where the men are dressed in Western clothing and the women are niqabis, because it's an outward signal to me that they follow an interpretation of religion that is sexist and homophobic
but that is very subjective and projects a fear that in my opinion has no basis in reality. i have felt the discomfort myself, even as a man, and i have asked myself where does this discomfort come from. my conclusion is a bit difference than yours.
first of all it helps to look into the history of this culture. as you notice that this is not specific to muslims, but is in fact historic to our own culture as well, what the amish are doing today was the norm in the western world just a few centuries ago. we all did it, and therefore it is not an immigrant problem.
the headscarf in particular was commonly worn by women even less than a century ago. there is nothing sexist or homophobic about it. it's culture. correlation is not causation. i'd argue that most women in the western who still wear these do it by choice, not because they are forced by their husband. for many it's a fashion statement. an outward representation of their personal belief (as an islamic or amish woman).
if you look closer you will also find that many muslim women in the west do not cover their hair, but normally you can't see them because without the headcover you would not even know they are muslim.
it is also worth considering that in part the intention of covering up was for the protection of women. the scary part for me is who they needed protection from. but our western society is plenty misogynistic still, we have just become better at hiding it.
and are likely to be hostile to my existing.
this i find completely baffling. why would they be hostile to you? i believe if you talk to these women and get to know them and learn their motivations that will help you get a better perspective, and alleviate your fears.
The thing is, as a native, I don't have a choice to be here, whereas immigrants do
which choice are you referring to here? the choice to not cover their head? the choice to go against their own beliefs? the choice to disagree with their husband/family? those that have the choice and and to do it, are doing it. those that don't either don't have the choice or choose not to. it's up to us to get to know them to understand the difference.
why am I assumed to be the 'stronger' one?
stronger in numbers. we are the majority still.
why should ethnicity and religion override any other power dynamic?
which other power dynamic? religion still is the strongest power dynamic in every society. even in the west. atheism is effectively a religion too. it's just another belief. trying to suppress religious expression means to remove religious freedom. do we really want that? what if it is your beliefs that are being suppressed? you would not want that. we have to allow for others to follow their beliefs even if they contradict ours. but we have to learn to get along because rejecting people for their beliefs only pushes them into extremism.
"and it's not that there is no burden on the immigrants. they still have to learn to understand the local language, culture, rule of law, etc..."
And there is the problem. You see, in modern Sweden (and many other European countries) it's entirely possible for migrants to live for decades without learning the language, understanding the culture, or even respecting the rule of law.
The majority needs to welcome and support the minority AND the minority needs to do their best to integrate. Right now the latter part is badly failing in Sweden, which is the reason for extreme amount of gang violence and social inequality plaguing Sweden. It's not even fault of the Swedes or the migrants, it's a systemic problem. The migration and integration policy is broken.
The truth is, assimilation is usually a process that takes a generation or two. First generation immigrants don't assimilate very well. Many never manage to even learn the host country's language.
Assimilation really happens at the level of their descendants, who grow up entirely within the host country, going to their schools, consuming their pop culture, etc, and think of themselves as Swedes or Americans or whatever.
It takes a lot longer if the immigrant groups are (locally) large. They are a lot more than just locally large in Sweden. It also takes a lot longer if the state bends over backwards to accommodate the immigrants, which Sweden does.
There are > 190 countries in the world and many of them require immigrants to meet at least the same criteria for employment and assistance as born citizens.
Do you let anyone come into your home ? If you did, you'd no longer have a home, and therefore would not be able to offer hospitality anymore. Don't you expect people who come to your home to abide by at least a few rules ?
It's the same for a country. It's because it has borders, rules, and a strong culture that it has something to offer that immigrants might be interested in.
the burden should always be on the ones who are stronger to accommodate those who are weaker.
the majority needs to welcome and support the minority.
and it's not that there is no burden on the immigrants. they still have to learn to understand the local language, culture, rule of law, etc...
we should learn from each other and take the good from each. the burden for that is on both sides.
I appreciate the candid response. It shouldn't be so hard for people to just clearly state the premises that motivate their beliefs.
>the burden should always be on the ones who are stronger to accommodate those who are weaker.
Is this a universal principle? Does this come with any limits at all? A salient example that comes up often: classrooms tend to have a small handful of extremely disruptive students that ruin the experience for everyone else. The current thinking is to not suspend/expel these kids because they are disadvantaged or whatever. But in doing so the other kids suffer greatly, not to mention the teachers.
How do you manage different dimensions of strength/advantage? It is the weakest in society (women, children) that bear a disproportionate burden of allowing large amounts of immigration from third-world countries. Why are the rights of women and children secondary to the rights of immigrants?
clearly state the premises that motivate their beliefs
thank you for recognizing that. i believe this helps us have a reasonable discussion about this topic. let me also add that neither my beliefs nor any premises they are based on are set in stone. they are open to be challenged provided the challenge makes a good argument or presents new evidence that i was not aware of. i have certain goals in mind or rather a vision of how our society should develop that influence my beliefs, and maybe we should talk about those too, but for now let me address your direct comment.
Is this a universal principle? Does this come with any limits at all?
universal, maybe, unlimited, i don't think so. it's more about balancing. on average minorities are weaker, have less strength to protect themselves or to lobby for their needs. etc. maybe accommodate is not the right word, probably support is a better way to express what i have in mind.
but how we accommodate or support depends on the circumstances. allowing kids to disrupt the class because they are disadvantaged is not accommodating or supporting them. what we actually need to look at is why they are disadvantaged, and fix that. not an easy task. but for the classroom example specifically there actually exists a proven solution, namely montessori. without going into details montessori allows teachers to accomodate each child individually without requiring a better teacher student ratio. one montessori teacher can handle 30 children.
but let's get back to integration in society. if you allow me to read that into your comment, your choice of example suggests that you understand accommodating as lowering our standards. (and that's why i now think accommodating was a bad word choice)
i definitely do not believe that we should lower our standards. we should be less rigid maybe, and less punitive and more educational when standards are violated.
but as the majority we also need to learn about these minorities, their background, their culture, why they came here, etc. we need to approach conflicts with an attempt to understand and work with them to find a way to live together.
btw, i moved to a developing country precisely because i wanted to get a first hand experience of the culture there and understand where these people are coming from, what attracts them about europe or other developed places, and what is holding the local development back.
It is the weakest in society (women, children) that bear a disproportionate burden of allowing large amounts of immigration from third-world countries.
i am not comfortable with that statement. first of all what would the burden be that children have to bear here? are you talking about problems in school with classes being dominated by children that do not speak the local language? if that is it then well, the solution is to invest more money in education. train teachers, realize that it doesn't make any sense to teach children in a language that they do not understand, etc. the need for education reform has been discussed elsewhere, and that's a global problem. the challenges caused by immigrant children only make that reform even more pressing.
as for the burden of women, again, please explain what you mean. if you are talking about violence at least in germany the majority of violence against women still comes from germans, and even though immigrants are over-proportionally represented in the statistics, most cases of violence happen at home which means that they are not cases of immigrants against german women. those cases are the absolute minority but they are grossly over-represented because local women are much more likely to report such violence than immigrant women and furthermore are the causes for violence more likely the socioeconomic status of immigrants, and their lack of integration (many young refugees come without their family and are not only not integrated locally, they are not integrated at all, so immigration itself is not the root cause) therefore i do not see that as a fair claim that women bear a disproportionate burden through immigrants. unless you mean something else, but then please share what you mean here.
as i said, i am open to have my beliefs challenged, so feel free to question anything i say. i am here to learn and i am looking forward to an educational discussion.
2 replies →
I think one issue with thinking this way is that who is stronger and who is weaker isn't always so easy to suss out, particularly on the margins.
To give an example from my own life/experience, I'm an American and Canadian woman, but I'm also a disabled lesbian. I feel uncomfortable when I go places (e.g. Ikea) and see Muslim families where the men are dressed in Western clothing and the women are niqabis, because it's an outward signal to me that they follow an interpretation of religion that is sexist and homophobic and are likely to be hostile to my existing.
There can be power overlap between the weakest members of the stronger community and the strongest members of the weaker community.
For the record, I don't have those feelings around all people of Middle Eastern descent or people who are visibly Muslim but not displaying an adherence to a particularly conservative interpretation of their religion (e.g. a hijabi in Western clothes or a group where some of the women are hijabis/niqabis and others aren't). I do have those feelings around white people who similarly display such conservative religious leanings (Amish, Haridem, etc.). It's purely ideological, not ethnic or racial.
The thing is, as a native, I don't have a choice to be here, whereas immigrants do. So why am I assumed to be the 'stronger' one, and why should ethnicity and religion override any other power dynamic?
I feel uncomfortable when I [...] see Muslim families where the men are dressed in Western clothing and the women are niqabis, because it's an outward signal to me that they follow an interpretation of religion that is sexist and homophobic
but that is very subjective and projects a fear that in my opinion has no basis in reality. i have felt the discomfort myself, even as a man, and i have asked myself where does this discomfort come from. my conclusion is a bit difference than yours.
first of all it helps to look into the history of this culture. as you notice that this is not specific to muslims, but is in fact historic to our own culture as well, what the amish are doing today was the norm in the western world just a few centuries ago. we all did it, and therefore it is not an immigrant problem.
the headscarf in particular was commonly worn by women even less than a century ago. there is nothing sexist or homophobic about it. it's culture. correlation is not causation. i'd argue that most women in the western who still wear these do it by choice, not because they are forced by their husband. for many it's a fashion statement. an outward representation of their personal belief (as an islamic or amish woman).
if you look closer you will also find that many muslim women in the west do not cover their hair, but normally you can't see them because without the headcover you would not even know they are muslim.
it is also worth considering that in part the intention of covering up was for the protection of women. the scary part for me is who they needed protection from. but our western society is plenty misogynistic still, we have just become better at hiding it.
and are likely to be hostile to my existing.
this i find completely baffling. why would they be hostile to you? i believe if you talk to these women and get to know them and learn their motivations that will help you get a better perspective, and alleviate your fears.
The thing is, as a native, I don't have a choice to be here, whereas immigrants do
which choice are you referring to here? the choice to not cover their head? the choice to go against their own beliefs? the choice to disagree with their husband/family? those that have the choice and and to do it, are doing it. those that don't either don't have the choice or choose not to. it's up to us to get to know them to understand the difference.
why am I assumed to be the 'stronger' one?
stronger in numbers. we are the majority still.
why should ethnicity and religion override any other power dynamic?
which other power dynamic? religion still is the strongest power dynamic in every society. even in the west. atheism is effectively a religion too. it's just another belief. trying to suppress religious expression means to remove religious freedom. do we really want that? what if it is your beliefs that are being suppressed? you would not want that. we have to allow for others to follow their beliefs even if they contradict ours. but we have to learn to get along because rejecting people for their beliefs only pushes them into extremism.
5 replies →
"and it's not that there is no burden on the immigrants. they still have to learn to understand the local language, culture, rule of law, etc..."
And there is the problem. You see, in modern Sweden (and many other European countries) it's entirely possible for migrants to live for decades without learning the language, understanding the culture, or even respecting the rule of law.
The majority needs to welcome and support the minority AND the minority needs to do their best to integrate. Right now the latter part is badly failing in Sweden, which is the reason for extreme amount of gang violence and social inequality plaguing Sweden. It's not even fault of the Swedes or the migrants, it's a systemic problem. The migration and integration policy is broken.
The truth is, assimilation is usually a process that takes a generation or two. First generation immigrants don't assimilate very well. Many never manage to even learn the host country's language.
Assimilation really happens at the level of their descendants, who grow up entirely within the host country, going to their schools, consuming their pop culture, etc, and think of themselves as Swedes or Americans or whatever.
It takes a lot longer if the immigrant groups are (locally) large. They are a lot more than just locally large in Sweden. It also takes a lot longer if the state bends over backwards to accommodate the immigrants, which Sweden does.
Always? Never?
There are > 190 countries in the world and many of them require immigrants to meet at least the same criteria for employment and assistance as born citizens.
Why do people pretend they don't understand context? What do you get out of posting this irrelevant pedantic response?
Do you let anyone come into your home ? If you did, you'd no longer have a home, and therefore would not be able to offer hospitality anymore. Don't you expect people who come to your home to abide by at least a few rules ?
It's the same for a country. It's because it has borders, rules, and a strong culture that it has something to offer that immigrants might be interested in.