Temple of The Roguelike Forums
Websites => Off-topic (Locked) => Topic started by: Krice on November 24, 2013, 10:28:05 PM
-
I've heard it's a primitive place to live, with things like separate hot and cold water, windows with only single window glass etc. Some have said that it can be colder in England than in Finland, because heating is so poorly done.
-
I've heard it's a primitive place to live, with things like separate hot and cold water, windows with only single window glass etc. Some have said that it can be colder in England than in Finland, because heating is so poorly done.
This reminds me a lot of a certain other topic involving Russians...
-
What do you mean separate hot and cold water? In Finland does all water just come out a constant lukewarm temperature?
-
What do you mean separate hot and cold water? In Finland does all water just come out a constant lukewarm temperature?
My guess is he means two separate faucets, instead of a single tap with handles to regulate the temperature. Why on earth anyone would pretend to assume something as stupid as there being no single piece of modern plumbing in the entirety of England … well, it's a subset of Nordic humour, I guess :P
As always,
Minotauros
-
Lol, this is indeed "The Russians" all over again...but there`s at least an element of truth in this one. Minotauros above is correct, some older buildings do have this separate faucet system, also some British traditionalists install them in new homes. It`s a royal pain in the ass if you ask me and anybody used to "normal" system, but it`s just one of the British oddities and not really a big deal (extensions are available in shops). Reasons are unclear - something to do with overall Victorian bizarreness, obsession with saving water (?), some old law about water tank contamination and most of all tradition and force of habit.
And yeah, most of the houses do not have double glazing - but here explanation is very simple: it`s the climate, stoopid. Southern England is only getting harsh ("harsh" meaning laughable minus few degrees Celsius) winters for the last few years, therefore such contraptions were not needed.
As it is with most -phobic observations like the OP`s here, two "examples" are sufficient to construct an entire thesis. Is ol` Engerland really a "primitive nation"? I`ll leave this question unanswered, as it is a good example of a rhetorical one. Also, do not fret, local Little Englanders have similar prejudices about other nations - I`m pretty sure they think you lot in Finland live in igloos and hunt reindeer for supper.
-
What do you mean separate hot and cold water? In Finland does all water just come out a constant lukewarm temperature?
In Finland, the water is always the right temperature.
EDIT: krice, I request that you do a USA topic next.
-
Nah. Americans are just too easy, over done.
I tried an Ethiopian rant once that was kinda funny. Something like...In the 80's you had 30 million people you couldn't feed so we fed them, and now you have 90 million. Should have bought you condoms not bred...I actually heard it on a right wing yell radio station.
-
Nah. Americans are just too easy, over done.
The interesting thing about US is that it's oligarchy. This view is also in wikipedia so it has to be true:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy#United_States
I realized this the other day when I was reading Plato's 'Republic'. It has some funny comments about democracy, too. It seems like Plato himself wasn't too happy about democracy, even we now think that ancient greeks were strictly democratic people. It's also amazing how even then people were able to detect problems that certain political systems had and still have.
-
In the 80's you had 30 million people you couldn't feed so we fed them, and now you have 90 million. Should have bought you condoms not bred...I actually heard it on a right wing yell radio station.
It's quite true actually. The "problem" in Africa is the way people reproduce like rabbits, because it's how their culture is in many countries of Africa. When we give them more money and better chances to survive, they reproduce more!
-
It's a temporary problem that'll correct itself. It's played out in most other places around the world.
Since we're linking wikipedia pages, here's the article on "demographic transition" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition).
When places are poorer and not as industrialized, people have a lot of babies. Because:
1) The infant mortality rate is high, so most of them won't survive til adulthood
2) The general death rate is high, so you need to have lots of babies to replace the people who are dying
3) In pre-industrial societies, you need lots of people, because you get more work done that way
4) There's generally not a lot for people (particularly women) to do besides have kids, which is compounded by the fact that
5) Contraception is not widely available
Advances in healthcare and food production cause the infant mortality rate to fall and life expectancy to increase. But that's generally the first thing that happens, and there hasn't been a cultural shift yet. People are still used to having lots of kids, resulting in an exploding population. As society gets more industrialized, more education is available (especially to women), the birth rate will fall.
In fact, sometimes it even falls below the death rate, as has happened in a lot of european countries.
-
there hasn't been a cultural shift yet.
Hasn't been in England either. When they are going to change that? And what if African countries don't want to become civilized?
-
there hasn't been a cultural shift yet.
Hasn't been in England either. When they are going to change that? And what if African countries don't want to become civilized?
I'm beginning to think this topic wasn't made as a joke. And that worries me.
-
I wonder why he put a question mark in the title since apparently he already "knows" the answer.
-
For the newer guys that don't know about Krice, he does this once in awhile.
Whether he's joking or not is the fun part.
The US is a plutocracy, a type of oligarchy.
-
For the newer guys that don't know about Krice, he does this once in awhile.
Whether he's joking or not is the fun part.
The US is a plutocracy, a type of oligarchy.
I realize this is probably a dumb question, but don't a relatively homogenous group of people with money and power consistently maintain political control in all countries?
I do think krice is a cool girl/guy, and I'm not trying to pick on her/him. However, what she/he is saying is just kind of disappointing and depressing to me. I have always wanted to move to her/his area of the world one day, because I thought people there were the most open minded and caring of anyone on the planet. And they still may be, I am just kind of surprised by krice's statements that seem to indicate, well, the opposite of that.
-
I realize this is probably a dumb question, but don't a relatively homogenous group of people with money and power consistently maintain political control in all countries?
Probably yes, but it's also a matter of how criminal they can get before they are removed by the system.
-
I do think krice is a cool girl/guy, and I'm not trying to pick on her/him. However, what she/he is saying is just kind of disappointing and depressing to me. I have always wanted to move to her/his area of the world one day, because I thought people there were the most open minded and caring of anyone on the planet. And they still may be, I am just kind of surprised by krice's statements that seem to indicate, well, the opposite of that.
You can't use the views and opinions of a single person and assume the whole country/region is like that.
-
but don't a relatively homogenous group of people with money and power consistently maintain political control in all countries?
In some countries money is less important and so also other than rich people can become politicians. Money also has lesser role in political decisions as well. I guess people who live in US or England only think it's same everywhere else!
-
Probably yes, but it's also a matter of how criminal they can get before they are removed by the system.
So, what how do they accomplish that in other countries? Removing corrupt officials, I mean. I'm also curious how they prevent people with money from buying power.
-
By the police and other institutions, I guess. I don't know s**t about politics, but once in a while someone gets arrested, so I guess that it works to some extent.
As for legitimately buying power, in Poland the election campaigns are publicly funded for example, which is silly and has other problems, but at least it prevents someone with a lot of money from buying them a seat. If it was up to me, I would forbid media campaigns altogether, because they are just bulls**ting people anyway.
The biggest corruption here is where public organizations do business with private companies, but there is no good solution to this, I think.
-
In Finland as in Poland almost everyone is poor so there isn't rich people in the first place who would want political power. And being a politician in Finland is not that great. It's mainly work in difficult situation and not much fun to have.
-
No, not in Poland, here there are plenty of rich businessmen who would buy some laws if they could. And there are damn lots of people with no qualifications who want to be politicians.
-
So, what how do they accomplish that in other countries? Removing corrupt officials, I mean. I'm also curious how they prevent people with money from buying power.
By pretending it doesn't exist, as Krice so elegantly demonstrated in his latest comments ;) I say this being born and raised in Norway, which is one of the world's "most democratic" countries by any standard. Of course, there are degrees of corruption and powermongering – corruption in the Nordic countries compares to countries like Nigeria or US as a kobold to a giant. Still, money is power, even in these innocent-ish mixed economies. Once every blue moon, whenever a journalist actually does an honest investigation of matters, there are examples of corruption being exposed. And even barring corruption as such, legislators and other officials cater to the rich by default, adamantly assuming that wealth, while perhaps not the key to happiness (and probably, in fact, the root of all evil), is in and of itself the end goal of all and any human endeavors 8) :'(
As always,
Minotauros
-
Wealth as the root of all evil? Are you a communist or something? :P
-
Most def, brutha ;) In all seriousness, though, I'm less "communist" and more "or something"¹. And putting the "root of all evil"-part into my post was (at least partially) in jest. I think money is a brilliant invention, but IMHO, capitalism has gotten way out of hand on our planet.
As always,
Minotauros
¹ Anarchopacifistic queer socialism ftw!
-
I think that rich people are much less than 1% of the population, so blaming them for causing all evil is, well, kind of weird. Isn't it that the 99% lets the 1% to do bad things?
-
I of course agree with you to a certain extent (and I wasn't name-calling the rich as individuals; otoh, don't even get me started). But those with wealth and power do have a responsibility for how they/we shape society. It's not as if force isn't used to uphold the status quo. You think a kid who is ripped apart by a cluster bomb bears as much responsibility as the CEO raking in the profit made in manufacturing and distributing said bomb? Or that a thousand concentration camp inmates put together has as much decisive power as even a single individual reading this post?
Edit: Regarding the 1%, "rich" is of course a pretty vague term. There's some statistics to be found on a certain wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth), of course. For instance:
A study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University reports that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total. The bottom half of the world adult population owned 1% of global wealth. Moreover, another study found that the richest 2% own more than half of global household assets.
With this in mind, I think it'd be reasonable to call the richest 1% or even 10% wealthy, at least in relation to the rest. Then again, the divide between the hyper-rich and the rest of us has really grown in the last decade. That same page claims that today, the richest 0.011% is sitting on 49% of the loot.
As always,
Minotauros
-
But those with wealth and power do have a responsibility for how they/we shape society.
The problem is that they only feel responsible when they are being punished for not doing what the society demands from them. If a corrupted politician is being voted for over and over again, he does not feel the responsibility any more as his position seems to be independent of his actions.
-
Wealth as the root of all evil? Are you a communist or something? :P
Not wealth, greed. And it applies to communists too.
-
I've wondered.. if there is a better country than Finland then what it is and why?
-
By pretending it doesn't exist, as Krice so elegantly demonstrated in his latest comments ;) I say this being born and raised in Norway, which is one of the world's "most democratic" countries by any standard.
So, what country in that area (Sweden, Norway, Finland) is the most welcoming to outsiders and the easiest to integrate into, language and culture wise?
-
It must be Sweden, because they have taken lot of foreigners there, including us! However it has not been as smooth as was planned, because of the clash of cultures. As a warning Finland is not that allowing and has restricted the amount of refugees.
Norway is kind of special case, because it's so ridiculous country even in scandinavian context. If refugees want to go in that country full of nothing - only rocky landscape and fjords then let it be so. Norwegians don't have to do anything, because they have oil. And they haven't accomplished anything.
-
Ha ha, Krice hit the nail on the head with regards to Norway. Add that Norwegians are ridiculously proud of their rock-atop-some-grease and generally whining about having to receive refugees, who are generally considered gold diggers :P Mind you, anyone who is white (sorry, I mean pink) and neither muslim nor roma will mostly feel welcome in the Nordic countries. Failing to meet any of those criteria will inevitably set you up with the whole spectrum of racist encounters, though. It may be less blatant in Sweden, where antiracist sentiments are strong in media and to a certain extent in mainstream politics (even though the police practice racial profiling and monitors Swedish gypsies as a "suspect group"). In Denmark and Norway, however, xonophobia has run rampant for about a decade.
Pretty much like anywhere else, in other words. Social security is still pretty strong overall, and people are people, you know (stupid, smart, good, evil). All in all, I'm grateful for the fact that my own kids have the privilege of Norwegian passports (of course unless that means they'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes ;))
As always,
Minotauros
-
This thread was amusing in its early, surreal stage. Now it made me kinda depressed. Especially the "we give them sooo much $$$ but the stupid savages only breed more" bullshit.
Funny, I`ve been a member of a few niche boards like this over the years and there`s always a Krice. Just one per board - and yet their shock-jockeying tactics manage to suck others in, often revealing angles I`d rather not know about.
I come here partially with the purpose about forgetting about the awful things that go on in the real world, so probably it`d be wise to avoid this section from now on.
-
Especially the "we give them sooo much $$$ but the stupid savages only breed more" bullshit.
If it was BS then "the savages" would already have fixed the problems in their countries. Which really has not happened. Each country has their own responsibility to handle their issues the best they can, but it's obvious that many countries in Africa (just an example) has a lot of problems to solve. And what's more it's been even more obvious that money -only- can't solve those problems. We need to look at these things without any kind of subjective opinions.
And to make it clear I hate both kind of people: those who still blame western countries for what is happening in Africa right now as well as true racists who somehow still exists today even we should know better.
-
It may be less blatant in Sweden, where antiracist sentiments are strong in media and to a certain extent in mainstream politics (even though the police practice racial profiling and monitors Swedish gypsies as a "suspect group"). In Denmark and Norway, however, xonophobia has run rampant for about a decade.
That's really sad, Minotauros. And yes, I do realize that xenophobia is very much a reality in the USA also. However, xenophobia is still tragic, no matter where it is occurring. What do you think is the driving factor behind it in Scandinavian countries?
-
What do you think is the driving factor behind it in Scandinavian countries?
That's no easy question, to say the least. I think a myriad of different perspectives are needed to compose something even close to a complete picture. Since you ask, I'll try to offer some of my own, though. It's gonna be a behemoth post, and probably to be taken with a shipload of salt.
On some level, these things might just take time. Norway, for instance, didn't see much immigration in modern times, until an influx of mainly Pakistani migration in the 70's. At this time, Norway needed the work force, but I guess a lot of native Norwegians still felt uncomfortable around persons with a different skin tone, culture and language than themselves. I'm sure this feeling of strangeness that many experience(d) will fade to a certain extent. Looking at my own kids, who are growing up in a socalled "multicultural" part of Berlin, they don't see anything weird about the fact that some adults has a hijab or a big old patriarch's beard, or that not all their friends at kindergarten are blond and wearing Lederhosen. However, I see a big problem with cultural segregation (here in Germany as well as in the Scandinavian countries). This goes both ways, as many natives are not keen on making the effort to understand the situation and mindsets of immigrants, and many immigrants also tend to the relative security of socializing with other expatriots from the same region/country as themselves. Official policies do little to help people mix, so in cities like Oslo, we've ended up some parts of the city being "ghettoized" (I don't like that term myself, but it's commonly used). A bad circle starts to form, where ethnic Norwegians stay away from areas with a high immigrant population, which leads to further ostracizing the immigrants. This is especially true for people with kids, I think. For instance, it becomes somehow a self fulfilling prophesy that schools with many immigrant children are badly integrated, with more violent/uneasy kids and a lower academic level than schools in whiter, posher areas. To break this pattern, it would obviously be necessary introduce more native kids in immigrant-heavy schools and vice versa, but instead we see the opposite happen (native Norwegian parents send their kids to the whiter schools, serving to solidify the divide even more).
I personally believe that most of the responsibility when it comes to successfully integrating Non-western immigrants does lie with the natives and the government. Of course, coming to a strange country you'll have to adapt, and a lot of people who arrive in the Nordic countries should be better at this. Still, there's the question of who is sitting on the resources here. Since decades back, the only Non-western immigrants allowed into Norway are refugees, in other words people who come from a really bad situation. Very few Scandinavians seem to grasp the significance of this. For instance, in the late 90's we had an influx of Yugoslavian refugees, fleeing one of the most atrocious wars in the history of mankind. To most Norwegians, these people were just considered a problematic group. They've been perceived as prone to acts of crime, their children disbehaving and doing badly at school, etc. An easy analysis is that they're simply bad people with an inferior culture (hey, it's summed up in a single sentence; problem solved). Not much effort is being made to try and understand how being the victim of unthinkable crimes makes it difficult to handle quotidian life afterwards. The comfy view of many Norwegians goes something like: "Well, it's not as if we asked them to come. They just showed up out of the blue, so it's their job to adapt." On the other hand, I think most people wouldn't make a lot of demands before helping someone who was bleeding to death on the street. And they fail to realize that the situation can be just as dire for refugees. Even if you're not arriving directly from the war zone, it shouldn't surprise anyone that it can be a trial to come to Norway from a Somali refugee camp, for instance, especially when you're met with general scepticism and racism on an institutional as well as a general level. However, that perspective is not often brought to the discussion.
So many factors come into play here. It's interesting to note that in the US, Somalis are generally considered hardworking good folks. In Norway, they have a bad reputation as khat chewing, wife beating criminals. How this has come to be, is frankly beyond me, but people with more knowledge could provide a better answer.
At the far end of the power spectrum, there is a real tendency for a lot of the political parties (on the left as well as the right) to use people's fears and insecurities to gain voters' support. Populism, of course, is one of the oldest tricks in politics, but it's not easy to fight. People who are against racism have not been good enough at refuting racist rhetorics, instead trying to offer alternative analyses just as simplistic. The xenophobes keep claiming that most muslims are out to impose Sharia law in Norway and that roma/gypsies are "parasites" on the welfare system, while a bunch of the antiracists hold there are no problems with immigration whatsoever. Of course, really understanding the problems demand a lot of thought, so it's much more convenient to buy into one of the black-white versions. The mainstream media mostly makes the problem even worse, as by the same token, thorough analysis doesn't sell papers as well as bombastic headlines. For instance, many Norwegian newspaper have lately been reporting on an alleged "wave of robberies" in Oslo, where the majority of perpetrators are presumed to be immigrants. In reality, statisticians have been refuting this, pointing to how the numbers actually show a generally stable amount of robberies in Oslo over the last years (the "crime wave" shows if you only take into account the numbers for the last few months). But for every page ten scientific article refuting the premises of the crime wave, there are half a dozen first page stories about people who have been robbed by "a man of foreign origin".
This is still just the tip of one of many icebergs, but this post is already long enough. In conclusion, there are of course real problems and challenges presented by immigration, but there's not much willingness to take them on in a proper fashion. The situation feels pretty locked in Scandinavia, and almost hopeless in Europe as a whole, with most people just closing their eyes to the very real fascism on the rise again in countries like Greece and Hungary. In Norway, most people aren't so much racists (not even the populist party scoring most points on xenophobic rhetorics, FRP), but they're pretty conservative – I'd say somehow comparable to hobbits – as in thinking: "Why should I jeopardize my comfort in helping my neighbor?" Still, we want the cheap fruits and electronics produced by exploited people all over the world, but just don't want to see the connection between that and the responsibility to help your fellow human beings (a responsibility I'd have thought self evident, no matter "who is to blame" for this or that). So it goes, the current government wants to accept fewer refugees on the grounds that "we should help them where they are", while still cutting development aids, and continuing to make money off of weapons export. So … go figure, I guess …
As always,
Minotauros
-
Now, if that doesn't kill this thread, I'd be hard pressed to come up with something that does ;)
As always,
Minotauros
-
No, you didn't kill the thread, maybe just pacified it :). I'm curious, are there any efforts by the government in Norway to integrate the immigrants into the society? I think it's pretty obvious that letting the immigrants form ghettos leads to trouble, but yet few countries do anything about it. Just the opposite, they don't even encourage them to learn the local language. Or maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that many countries are becoming multilingual. I know that Switzerland would be a counterexample, but I think that's not the way to go.
-
Thanks for taking the time to explain that, Aging Minotaur.
For instance, it becomes somehow a self fulfilling prophesy that schools with many immigrant children are badly integrated, with more violent/uneasy kids and a lower academic level than schools in whiter, posher areas.
Yes, that makes a lot of sense, actually.
-
Thanks for taking the time to explain that, Aging Minotaur.
You're welcome :) Of course, lots more could be said, and many people would disagree totally with what I said.
I'm curious, are there any efforts by the government in Norway to integrate the immigrants into the society?
There are some programs aimed to ease integration, although I must say I'm not sure about the details. I think refugees who get their applications accepted are offered language courses, for instance. I personally have the feeling we'd need some fresh ideas, though. There isn't much political imagination to go around these days, and many current issues seem to demand thinking out of the box.
As always,
Minotauros
-
The problem is that there is lot of talk about "integration" but I think it's not something that will happen or that it's easily achieved. We already have a great example of ethnic group that really did not integrate well: romanis. They still pretty much live their ancient culture and refuse to integrate. Such strong culture background should be carefully remembered when talking about integration that possibly will never happen. I think this is also the reason why there has been problems with different ethnic/cultural groups. If you put two of those in the same country it's either bad or very bad idea.
-
The problem is that there is lot of talk about "integration" but I think it's not something that will happen or that it's easily achieved. We already have a great example of ethnic group that really did not integrate well: romanis. They still pretty much live their ancient culture and refuse to integrate. Such strong culture background should be carefully remembered when talking about integration that possibly will never happen. I think this is also the reason why there has been problems with different ethnic/cultural groups. If you put two of those in the same country it's either bad or very bad idea.
Krice, what if you were a member of a cultural group like the ones you described and you wanted to move to Finland to start a better life? Wouldn't you want to be given a chance? I mean, you say that Finland is the greatest country in the world. So, doesn't it make sense to you that people would want to move there?
Just out of curiousity, do you know any Romanis personally? Or have you had some sort of bad experience an individual from that group in the past that colors your views of them?
Again, I know the US has it's share of immigration problems, so I'm certainly not trying to say that we are somehow "better" than Finland. I'm just trying to better understand your personal perspective on these issues.
-
Lol Gr3yling. What are you doing man? I'll help you understand his motives.
Race: Troll.
Class: Dark Paladin.
Status: Hungry.
He's 3 turns from YASD due to the food clock, and you are feeding him. ;)
EDIT: Let it be known I actually like Krice. Releasing a fully featured game, being a good programmer and being actually helpful to the community forgives any bullshit political sins.
-
What do you think is the driving factor behind it in Scandinavian countries?
That's no easy question, to say the least. I think a myriad of different perspectives are needed to compose something even close to a complete picture. Since you ask, I'll try to offer some of my own, though. It's gonna be a behemoth post, and probably to be taken with a shipload of salt.
On some level, these things might just take time. Norway, for instance, didn't see much immigration in modern times, until an influx of mainly Pakistani migration in the 70's. At this time, Norway needed the work force, but I guess a lot of native Norwegians still felt uncomfortable around persons with a different skin tone, culture and language than themselves. I'm sure this feeling of strangeness that many experience(d) will fade to a certain extent. Looking at my own kids, who are growing up in a socalled "multicultural" part of Berlin, they don't see anything weird about the fact that some adults has a hijab or a big old patriarch's beard, or that not all their friends at kindergarten are blond and wearing Lederhosen. However, I see a big problem with cultural segregation (here in Germany as well as in the Scandinavian countries). This goes both ways, as many natives are not keen on making the effort to understand the situation and mindsets of immigrants, and many immigrants also tend to the relative security of socializing with other expatriots from the same region/country as themselves. Official policies do little to help people mix, so in cities like Oslo, we've ended up some parts of the city being "ghettoized" (I don't like that term myself, but it's commonly used). A bad circle starts to form, where ethnic Norwegians stay away from areas with a high immigrant population, which leads to further ostracizing the immigrants. This is especially true for people with kids, I think. For instance, it becomes somehow a self fulfilling prophesy that schools with many immigrant children are badly integrated, with more violent/uneasy kids and a lower academic level than schools in whiter, posher areas. To break this pattern, it would obviously be necessary introduce more native kids in immigrant-heavy schools and vice versa, but instead we see the opposite happen (native Norwegian parents send their kids to the whiter schools, serving to solidify the divide even more).
I personally believe that most of the responsibility when it comes to successfully integrating Non-western immigrants does lie with the natives and the government. Of course, coming to a strange country you'll have to adapt, and a lot of people who arrive in the Nordic countries should be better at this. Still, there's the question of who is sitting on the resources here. Since decades back, the only Non-western immigrants allowed into Norway are refugees, in other words people who come from a really bad situation. Very few Scandinavians seem to grasp the significance of this. For instance, in the late 90's we had an influx of Yugoslavian refugees, fleeing one of the most atrocious wars in the history of mankind. To most Norwegians, these people were just considered a problematic group. They've been perceived as prone to acts of crime, their children disbehaving and doing badly at school, etc. An easy analysis is that they're simply bad people with an inferior culture (hey, it's summed up in a single sentence; problem solved). Not much effort is being made to try and understand how being the victim of unthinkable crimes makes it difficult to handle quotidian life afterwards. The comfy view of many Norwegians goes something like: "Well, it's not as if we asked them to come. They just showed up out of the blue, so it's their job to adapt." On the other hand, I think most people wouldn't make a lot of demands before helping someone who was bleeding to death on the street. And they fail to realize that the situation can be just as dire for refugees. Even if you're not arriving directly from the war zone, it shouldn't surprise anyone that it can be a trial to come to Norway from a Somali refugee camp, for instance, especially when you're met with general scepticism and racism on an institutional as well as a general level. However, that perspective is not often brought to the discussion.
So many factors come into play here. It's interesting to note that in the US, Somalis are generally considered hardworking good folks. In Norway, they have a bad reputation as khat chewing, wife beating criminals. How this has come to be, is frankly beyond me, but people with more knowledge could provide a better answer.
At the far end of the power spectrum, there is a real tendency for a lot of the political parties (on the left as well as the right) to use people's fears and insecurities to gain voters' support. Populism, of course, is one of the oldest tricks in politics, but it's not easy to fight. People who are against racism have not been good enough at refuting racist rhetorics, instead trying to offer alternative analyses just as simplistic. The xenophobes keep claiming that most muslims are out to impose Sharia law in Norway and that roma/gypsies are "parasites" on the welfare system, while a bunch of the antiracists hold there are no problems with immigration whatsoever. Of course, really understanding the problems demand a lot of thought, so it's much more convenient to buy into one of the black-white versions. The mainstream media mostly makes the problem even worse, as by the same token, thorough analysis doesn't sell papers as well as bombastic headlines. For instance, many Norwegian newspaper have lately been reporting on an alleged "wave of robberies" in Oslo, where the majority of perpetrators are presumed to be immigrants. In reality, statisticians have been refuting this, pointing to how the numbers actually show a generally stable amount of robberies in Oslo over the last years (the "crime wave" shows if you only take into account the numbers for the last few months). But for every page ten scientific article refuting the premises of the crime wave, there are half a dozen first page stories about people who have been robbed by "a man of foreign origin".
This is still just the tip of one of many icebergs, but this post is already long enough. In conclusion, there are of course real problems and challenges presented by immigration, but there's not much willingness to take them on in a proper fashion. The situation feels pretty locked in Scandinavia, and almost hopeless in Europe as a whole, with most people just closing their eyes to the very real fascism on the rise again in countries like Greece and Hungary. In Norway, most people aren't so much racists (not even the populist party scoring most points on xenophobic rhetorics, FRP), but they're pretty conservative – I'd say somehow comparable to hobbits – as in thinking: "Why should I jeopardize my comfort in helping my neighbor?" Still, we want the cheap fruits and electronics produced by exploited people all over the world, but just don't want to see the connection between that and the responsibility to help your fellow human beings (a responsibility I'd have thought self evident, no matter "who is to blame" for this or that). So it goes, the current government wants to accept fewer refugees on the grounds that "we should help them where they are", while still cutting development aids, and continuing to make money off of weapons export. So … go figure, I guess …
As always,
Minotauros
This.
-
The problem is that there is lot of talk about "integration" but I think it's not something that will happen or that it's easily achieved. We already have a great example of ethnic group that really did not integrate well: romanis. They still pretty much live their ancient culture and refuse to integrate. Such strong culture background should be carefully remembered when talking about integration that possibly will never happen. I think this is also the reason why there has been problems with different ethnic/cultural groups.
Yeah, cuz' it's not like multiculturalism has been a part of human history since, like, forever. I mean, eras like the Hellenistic and the Migration Periods were certainly not marked by different cultures mixing, nosiree. In all seriousness, though, if certain early hominids had just refrained from migrating down from the trees, they would probably have saved us all a whole lot of trouble :P
To be clear, I don't think "integration" (in the sense that everyone living in a certain region must be assimilated into a common culture) is as important as being able to cope with your neighbors thinking and living differently than you. There are of course very real problems with things like forced marriages, but these are not solved by stereotyping, and most of the perceived "cultural clashes" just comes from not accepting that others choose a different lifestyle than oneself. So what if some Romani want to travel around, set up camp in the woods, play the accordion a whole lot, or whatever? (Krice's retort is probably that their culture is thievish or something, but the stereotype of Romani being child snatching thieves is just an untrue stereotype, it evolved in the Middle Ages along with similar prejudices against jews, and it's frankly shameful that European media is still persecuting them, as if we learned nothing in the aftermath of the Holocaust) Sure, I've had curses thrown after me in Romanian after not giving money to a beggar in the street – what a surprise to encounter unkind weirdos every now and then – but the (admittedly very few) Romani I've had any real contact with are just normal people, their brains wired exactly like my own, even if our cultures don't perfectly match.
If you put two [ethinc/cultural groups] in the same country it's either bad or very bad idea.
Well, that's one way of seeing it. Another would be to identify greed and powermongering as the real problem, and recognize how ethnicity has always been used as an excuse to divide, conquer and steal from the weak. But hey, whatever floats your boat, man ;)
As always,
Minotauros
-
Krice, what if you were a member of a cultural group like the ones you described and you wanted to move to Finland to start a better life?
I know myself how it is, because I've spend some years in Sweden. I know that I would never have turned into a swedish person, but remain as finnish. What has happened is that children of finnish people learned swedish and they "kind of" have integrated in Sweden. Yet they are not swedish for I think many generations until they forget everything about Finland.
So, it's extremely difficult to integrate even you come from almost same kind of culture: Sweden and Finland. Yet there are differences. But if you come from totally different culture with different religion I can just vaguely imagine how difficult it must be. In fact it's impossible if you want to keep your own culture.
People who have always lived in one country just don't get it. They don't know anything about how it is like to live in a foreign country.
-
identify greed and powermongering as the real problem, and recognize how ethnicity has always been used as an excuse to divide, conquer and steal from the weak.
When we provide homes for refugees how actually we are stealing from them? The real problem is that people want to keep their own culture. These "integration" guys just refuse to understand it.
-
Just making sure we're not confusing Romanians and Gypsies. The people living in carriages that often have trouble with the law are Gypsies. A lot of them come from Romania, but they don't speak Romanian.
-
identify greed and powermongering as the real problem, and recognize how ethnicity has always been used as an excuse to divide, conquer and steal from the weak.
When we provide homes for refugees how actually we are stealing from them? The real problem is that people want to keep their own culture. These "integration" guys just refuse to understand it.
If you reread my post carefully, I wasn't so much claiming that "we" are stealing from "them", but rather that greed and hatred may be a bigger problem in the world today than cultural distinctiveness.
But, well, since you ask, I guess one could say "we" are stealing from "them" by waging wars on their land to gain control over the natural resources, by destroying nature in the name of profit (I guess the joke's on all of us in that instance), by outsourcing our industrial production to sweat shops as well as doing business with slavers and warlords, by upholding ridiculously one-sided trade agreements and imposing market regulations that strongly favor western corporations, using as carrot and stick development aid/loans and foreign debts (often accumulated by previous dictatorial regimes, such that many populations today in fact continue to make down payments on the instruments used to oppress them a generation ago). You do know that this was a core principle of Reagonomics and continues to be the order of the day down at the World Bank and in similar institutions, right? Or do you really think it's a coincidence that "we" continue to be the rich and "they" the poor?
Now, I don't think it's worth dwelling too much on post-colonial "shame of the privileged", and I guess we agree on that point. But that shame can and should be used as a springboard to act, to try to make the world at least slightly better for the vast majority of humankind. Put frankly, a self-proclaimed adult in a western country who hasn't at the very least felt an occasional pang of shame at how much we continue to benefit from other people's sufferings, as we speak, is sorely lacking in either brains/education or common decency.
As always,
Minotauros
-
Just making sure we're not confusing Romanians and Gypsies. The people living in carriages that often have trouble with the law are Gypsies. A lot of them come from Romania, but they don't speak Romanian.
Yes, that's an important distinction, and sometimes muddled. I'm actually 1/8th Romanian myself, but not with any Romani (Gypsy) blood, AFAIK.
As always,
Minotauros