Messages

I haven't dared to crit americans laws and I'll never do.

Why not criticize American laws?  I do all the time!  There's nothing wrong with a little healthy debate.  As for moving to Europe to get my nationality--funny thing about that.  You see, part of my family fled France specifically because the French had this strange habit of burning Protestants at the stake:

http://www.geocities.com/hugenoteblad/hist-hug.htm

I know the French are a whole lot more enlightened these days, but I'll stick with the dumb ol' USA just the same.

I am just happy to see that whereas I can addapt my way of behave and my customs to those to the place where I move (without renegate of my own symbolisms and my culture in private, and in the events who request so) some other can't. That make me feel I am, in that sense, more educated than them.

So if you refuse to hide your culture and assimilate, you're uneducated?  Are you serious?  I guess my ancestors were just fucking dumb!  They should have kept their religion private, and I'm SURE everything would have been all right.  As for the whole murder/ burning at the stake / mass extermination thing, well, I guess if the majority think it's a good idea, then it's O.K.!

Furthermore, from what I've read, the Spanish state provides the Catholic church with preferential treatment, including financing through the tax system.  What ever happened to the whole separation of church and state thing?  Or is that JUST for schools?  Then again, a school isn't much of an "atheist space" if you get off Catholic holidays such as:  Epiphany (January 6), Holy Thursday and Good Friday, Assumption (August 15), All Saints Day (November 1), Immaculate Conception (December 8 ), and Christmas (December 25).  Somehow I doubt that Spain let's the kids have Rosh Hashanah off.

But Farlander, you just made my point.  The French are acting like the vegetarians, demanding that all meat be taken away from the table.

How does displaying your origins effect equality?

But regarding your previous post...I'm not talking about whether or not a group of people should be allowed to break a law, I'm talking about whether or not the law should exist.  Personally I think it's a gross misinterpretation of the idea of separation of church and state.  If the state allows religious clothing in schools, it's not establishing or supporting any one religion, it's allowing citizens to freely expression of their religion.  The separation of church and state means that the state, in this case through public schools, will not support the establishment of any religion.  It doesn't mean that schools are an atheist space, because if they were, that would mean the state supports an atheistic ideology or "religion" .  But that's not what this whole discussion is about.  It's about foreign elements being visible in public places.

We are saying 6% would MONOPOLIZE all religious shows in schools.

What exactly are you saying?  That they would be the most visible religion in school?  How?  I would think that secular, i.e. non-religious dress would be the most visible attire in school.  And again, if muslim dress is visible...WHO CARES?  Why would you care?  They're not teaching religion in school, it's just a matter of clothing.  Do nuns and priests have to take off their religious clothing when they visit schools?

I think we're running into a fundamental difference in opinion here.  I would argue, and even fight, over the right to dress and believe in whatever I want.  How does it effect you at all?  Who cares if 6% of the population dresses differently from you?  Why would you want everyone to look the same? 

On a very primal level, I think people fear that their land has been invaded.  They fear that they have lost control of their own country.  While I support a person's right to keep their own customs, in this increasingly globalized world, where societies, peoples and cultures have also become exports, I do not support the forcing of those customs on others.  Even within the borders of the country they were born in. 

Of course, it's easy to go back to the argument that the veil represents oppression.  That's the safe argument.  But what does that even mean?  It implies the belief that by forbidding women (or men, we were talking about turbans as well) from wearing these items of clothing, you will liberate these people.  From their own culture.  It's presumptuous to think that one customary form of dress is more liberating than another. 

A word about skirts and dresses: they were originally designed and evolved out of a necessity for men to have quicker, easier access to women's genitalia.  Does that mean women would be liberated if they all stopped wearing skirts or if women moved to a place that forbid them from wearing them? Not necessarily, because they have come to represent something else.  Just as how now, in your country, women are not forced to keep their heads covered, it is a choice.  The head covering no longer represents repression to most women, it represents something else. Maybe personal identity.  Maybe cultural identity. And that is probably why so many European folks are expressing a desire to ban people from holding on to these pieces of clothing: they are part of a cultural identity that is foreign, strange, and therefore unwanted by the cultural majority.

One other word of advice: in order to actually liberate a culture, or an entire gender, you may want to ask or work WITH those you are trying to save.  Especially if you've decided to save them from themselves.

I find it all bizarre too. 

what category would that be? 

I don't mean to give the US credit at all...really.  My country has plenty of problems.  Segregation, racism, intolerace.  You name it.  But in a lot of ways, it's different in Europe, because you're just beginning to experience problems we've been dealing with for our entire (however short) history.

I brought up the "non-white" term because when people talk about immigrants and culture, a lot of time it boils down to race.  Don't kid yourself for a second that there isn't a racial element in this debate.  And for all intents and purpose, "non-white" can mean a lot of things.  The Irish weren't considered white in the US for a very very long time.  But I know what you're saying, there's a much larger issue involving people of all kinds of backgrounds and nationalities.

I think my analogy, while extreme, is correct.  And I'm saying that when everybody says that people who come into their country should adopt the customs of the country, that's rejecting multiculturalism.  It's advocating assimilation.  And that seemed to be what people are advocating. 

One other thing:

In Spain inmigrants are 6 %, but the prison population is 66 % inmigrant

So what does that statistic mean?  Does it mean that more immigrants commit crimes?  Or does it mean that more immigrants are sent to prison?  Look at my country, the US...visit any university campus in the country, and you'll find more drugs and drug dealing than on any city corner in Detroit.  But do college kids go to prison for drugs?  Rarely.  If ever.  But go down the street to the black neighborhoods, or the hispanic neighborhoods, and look at how many young kids are sent to prison for doing the same exact thing.  The enforcement of laws is biased almost everywhere.  Do you think the police cars patrol the rich neighborhoods?  If a rich kid gets busted for breaking a law, how likely is it that they cops will say, "ah, he's a good kid, we'll let him off with a warning."  It's extremely likely.

I'm not trying to excuse anybody of anything, but it's important to look beyond the numbers sometimes.

Right, but if you make people hide their religion, then you don't have freedom of religion.  If they're not allowed to be proud of who they are, or what they belief in, then you don't have a very free society.  I respect secularism, I'm an athiest.  But if someone wants to wear a Yarmulke, I'm not going to tell them they can't.  It doesn't effect me at all.  How does they're wearing something religious effect you?  What about nuns?  Are nuns and priests allowed to wear religious dress?  How would that be different?

So now we're not allowed to say that this is OUR country, without being against multiculturalism? 

Basically, yeah.  That's like saying, "So now I can't burn a cross in front of a black man's house without being called racist?"  Here's a definition of multiculturalism:

"the doctrine that several different cultures (rather than one national culture) can co-exist peacefully and equitably in a single country."  So basically, it would seem that most of the people who have responded do not like the idea of multiculturalism.  Most people seem to advocate assimilation.  Ok.  Let's just get that out of the way.

But let's get to the little girl that is born in Ireland but is not "ethnically" irish, whatever that means.  And there are DEFINITELY children born in Ireland who are not ethnically irish.  What are they?  Are they eternally foreigners?  For how many generations do they have to live in Ireland before it's their country too?  Do you have a rulebook for this?  It's bullshit and doesn't make sense.  I mean, I've never been in Ireland, but do you have someone that walks around with some kind of "Irish-o-meter" that measures how Irish you are?  Like, if you're wearing enough green?  Maybe it's just reserved for the dark-skinned Irish-born children, to determine if they're Irish enough to be considered Irish?

Look, you can be patriotic, celebrate Irish culture, wear your "trousers", have a ball.  No one is saying you can't.  But your country, as well as other countries in the EU, are going to have to come to grips with the idea that non-white people will be living in your country...and working in your country...and voting in your country.  And your culture, and country, is going to change.  It may change in slight ways, but it's going to change.   AGAIN: YOU DO NOT HAVE TO LIKE EVERYTHING ABOUT EVERY CULTURE THAT YOU COME IN CONTACT WITH NOR MUST YOU ACCEPT IT, but telling them to move somewhere else doesn't help anybody. 

Well, the refusal to assimilate has definitely led to severe oppression throughout history.  Jews are the greatest example of a people who have historically refused to assimilate, and as a result, have been lynched, murdered, harrassed, isolated, etc.  But I really disagree with the sentiment that anyone should have to give up who they are or what they believe in just because they move to another country.  Learn the language?  Sure, but that's also a pretty tough thing to do, speaking as someone who has tried. 

Plus, why do people end up in ethnic communitiies?  Because when they decide to immigrate, they move to a place where they know someone.  They have a cousin, or have a friend, or someone they know might know someone etc.  And then this continues to happen until you have a community.  I live in a neighborhood in Washington, DC called Adam's Morgan, and it was historically (recent history anyway) a hispanic community.  It grew into a "hispanic community" through the very process I mentioned above.  I don't think people wanted to stay isolated, it's just the easiest way to get through a really difficult process.  And you know what?  I'm not pissed that there are people who look different from me on the streets, and I'm not angry that the restaurants don't serve hamburgers or sport American flags, I find the diversity interesting.  And more importantly, I like the food.  Anyway...

Sorry to keep responding here, but...

Farlander, upon further investigation, a Chaddor is what Muslim women wear, and for modern practitioners, they are optional.  Sikhs are not Muslim.  And they wear turbans.

First of all, I don't want you to get offended by anything I say here, but I'm going to be honest.  I find it hard to believe you when you say “I'm all for multiculturalism” but later resort to “This is OUR country.”  Look, I agree with your assessment of the stricter Muslim/or cultural traditions that, among other things, oppress women (though I think it's safe to say that Islam does not necessarily condone the oppression of women, the culture does).  And when it comes to a person breaking local laws, i.e. domestic violence, then all citizens should be held accountable.  It shouldn't matter where you're from.  But things like veils, clothing, turbans, these things have a deeper context for a lot of people that can't be easily dismissed.  A lot of people at my former college were Muslim, and wore headdresses.  I remember one person remarking that if she took it off, it would feel like she was naked.  So why is it any of your business to tell her to take it off?  Why do you wear pants?  Or ties?  Or anything else for that matter?

Even if you disagree with some of the things “religious” clothing may or may not stand for, the whole idea of multiculturalism is that you should tolerate it. 

Furthermore, this whole “my country” or “OUR country” thing…it's a little misleading.  Culture isn't a static thing.  It's constantly changing.  I mean, what's Irish culture?  It's not like God created an Irishman, plopped him down on the island, and let him go nuts.  No, it's a culture that evolved through time following migrations, invasions, cultural turmoil, oppression and immigration.  Sure, you were presumably born in your country, and feel entitled to call it your own, but what about the little girls you speak of who were born to Muslim parents.  If they were born in Ireland, is it not their own country too?

Woh, what happened to your whole post?  i was writing a response and then half of it is gone!

Hobbes,

That's really interesting.  I guess you've had the same experience.  When I would talk about it with the sports agent I mentioned above, he would get really really defensive, and when I tried to breakdown his argument, he basically would just refuse to talk about it further.  Wierd.

But that leads me to another question.  Farlander, are you against  "religious" headwear in school because you disagree with what it stands for?  I don't want to put words in your mouth, but is that how you feel?  That's pretty different from the separation of church and state.

Farlander,

Sorry I linked to the login page, I thought it would link to the article.  You don't need to be sarcastic.  I was hoping we could have a mature discussion here. 

The nytimes can be reached here: www.nytimes.com and the article is entitled, "A Continent Watching Anxiously Over the Melting Pot".  Evidently, you'll need to login if you want to read it.

As for the word Turban...it's kinda funny, because I've read about half a dozen articles or so and Sikh headwear is refered to as Turbans, and believe it or not, in the Sikh encyclopedia they talk at length about Turbans:

http://allaboutsikhs.com/encyclopedia/index.php?article=105itle=TURBANgt=T&brief=no&lastArt=113

Hopefully that link will work, and you won't have to login.  From what I read, I don't see anything about  the submission of muslim women to God.  Maybe some people interpret it that way, and perhaps some people use the term "chaddor".   I haven't come across the interpretation or the term over here. 

There's an interesting article in today's New York Times about multiculturalism, or lack thereof, in Europe:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/15/international/15letter.html?hp

Since so many Europeans are on this board, and it's a topic I've struggled with myself, I thought perhaps we could have a discussion about it.

I've spent about a year and a half in Germany, and traveled a fair bit in Europe as well, and it always struck me as interesting how on a whole, people could be extremely progressive or culturally liberal on a whole range of topics, but when it came to immigrants rights or issues of diversity, people would regress to the stone age.  For example, the whole issue of "religious" headwear and clothing in French schools.  I would talk about it with my crunchy, neo-hippy Berliner friends, who would passionately argue on the side of the French government that "religious" clothing should not be in schools.  I tutored a middle-aged Ukrainian sports agent for a while, and he was about as liberal as a middle-aged Ukrainian sports agent can get, and we seriously almost got in a fight over this topic. 

What's the deal?  It always seemed to be not about religion in schools, as those students are obviously not "teaching" religion, but about assimilating foreigners.  I mean, didn't they make Sikh's take off their turbans in school?  If I'm not mistaken, aren't turbans of cultural significance, not religious? 

This is just one example of course, but the article above discusses how Europeans, unlike Americans, have failed to embrace cultural diversity.  I don't think you can make that a blanket statement of course, but as a whole, it's definitely true.  Maybe it's just easier for us Americans to except that culture is an ever-changing thing, because that's the way it's always been in our country.  It's obviously different in Europe, as the odd bookstore or petrol station is often older than my country.  Old habits die hard. 

So, thoughts?  Opinions?  Am I making any sense here?

The tv room screen? The only problem I kinda see is the TV could be farther back...but I'm not gonna change it.  I've got a lot to do to finish the game, and I've spent so much time on the graphics, that if I get any more nit-picky I'll never finish.

That's not to say I'm rushing it out, but it's already been more than a year and I want to work on something else...

Well, a lot of US tax/property assessors let you search by owner name, and they'll give you a document that basically says how much a person owes in property taxes as well as an address and other poperty info.

Another question: Is there a website that provides disclosure of political donations in the UK?  We have the www.fec.gov in the US, and if you make donations to elected officials, you have to disclose it with them.

Oh, i see.  Sorry to get defensive!  But I see your point.  If I'm not mistaken, wasn't the old film set in the US?  I know the book wasn't, but wasn't there a B&W movie made that was set in New Jersey or something?  Maybe i'm thinking of something else...