Norwegian Terrorism

[vison]

It doesn't seem to matter how clearly I say things, does it?

I am a Canadian, and the grand-daughter of immigrants. I grew up in a very multi-cultural community, much more so than was common in the 1950s. It isn't a new matter to me, it's what I'm used to and I think it's a fine thing. It's what makes Canada, Canada.

But it is naive and foolish in the extreme to think that "deep rooted and homogenous" populations anywhere in the world are going to openly, willingly, and gladly accept an big influx of strangers. It's just plain contrary to human nature.

The naive and foolish expectation that it would be simple and easy has been the official stance of many European governments - and then everyone is shocked when it doesn't work. It might be okay when times are good, but when times turn bad (and they always do), it is, again, human nature to blame the newcomers. Instead of preaching about how nasty they are, how racist and horrid, why isn't there some, you know, recognition that people are afraid? The world seems to be going to hell in handbasket at a terrific rate, economies falling like bowling pins - people deserve to have their concerns considered and not be treated like nasty children who need to listen to their betters.

Do I mean there should be no immigration? No, I do not. Do I mean that immigrants should be "like us"? No, I do not. What I do mean is that someone somewhere should start thinking about the cold reality that integrating newcomers is a serious matter and requires more than cool posters and citizenship ceremonies that trot out someone's aged granny getting her papers from a red-robed judge.

Almost everyone alive in Canada now is the child of immigrants. There is a small but significant population of First Nations people - from whom WE, the immigrants, "stole" the land. In my neighbourhood there were no wars of conquest, the incomers just arrived and started living their lives, settling on the land, displacing the natives. The First Nations people were expected to be grateful, and to accept us, and to not only accept our "culture" but adopt it for themselves. Was it easy and simple? Only to the extent that we quickly outnumbered them.

So, what we did was "wrong". We weren't sensitive to the First Nations people. We quashed their culture, laughed at their religions, took their land, destroyed the environment, changed everything. And, guess what? They hated it.

That's what human history is. Conquerers. Migrations. And I would be willing to bet that in every single case the conquered peoples hated it. The peoples who were erased by migrations probably hated it.

I have some American friends who are going absolutely bananas over the "illegal aliens". One guy, whose college-graduate son can't find a job, is convinced that those "illegals" are the reason. Up until his son couldn't find work, he didn't think that way. Funny, that.

[SirDennis]

I'm just trying to simplify your arguement, for my own sake more than anything...

You are saying it is natural to be wary of immigrants especially when it appears that they are not interested in assimilation, but instead becoming the dominant group a/o culture. As proof you offer the example of First Nations' attitudes to European settlers as well as the history of conquest in general.

Makes sense to me.

Part of me wants to point out that blaming immigration or immigrants for various social and economic problems (as well as feeding fear of terrorism for instance) is a case of picking the wrong, and perhaps easiest, target. But I do not think that invalidates, in so far that it is a perception as well, your overall point about the challenges multiculturalism faces.

[vison]

Part of me wants to point out that blaming immigration or immigrants for various social and economic problems (as well as feeding fear of terrorism for instance) is a case of picking the wrong, and perhaps easiest, target. But I do not think that invalidates, in so far that it is a perception as well, your overall point about the challenges multiculturalism faces.

Of course it is a case of picking the wrong and easiest target. Isn't that what people do?

It seems to me that when I bring up these perfectly valid points everyone just wants to shoot the messenger and pretend reality isn't reality.

The thread began about a monstrous crime in Norway. I do not in any way defend that criminal, I believe him to be a madman and a just god, if one existed, would give him his deserts. But I also think it is absolutely and utterly wrong to claim that any Norwegian who is leery of immigrants, who might feel overwhelmed by change, is "the same" as he was except for not going out and killing 80 people.

[axordil]

There's xenophobia and there's xenophobia. There is a real difference between an invading army and a boatload of refugees, between an immigrant trying to survive and a colonizer on a mission.

But change isn't easy if it's fast and isn't fast if it's easy.

[Griffon64]

Xenophobia isn't split just along racial lines - segments of South Africa's black population have been reacting violently to black refugee immigrants over the past few years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia_in_South_Africa

The immigrants, of course, fall into the same social strata that those reacting to them fall into, and it is competition for resources that is the primary driver, with a secondary side of culture. South Africa is still a relatively prosperous country on the continent, and that attracts immigrants in search of a better life, and stirs fear in the existing population that they will find their lives downgraded in order for resources to spread among more people.

[River]

Xenophobia isn't split just along racial lines - segments of South Africa's black population have been reacting violently to black refugee immigrants over the past few years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia_in_South_Africa

The immigrants, of course, fall into the same social strata that those reacting to them fall into, and it is competition for resources that is the primary driver, with a secondary side of culture. South Africa is still a relatively prosperous country on the continent, and that attracts immigrants in search of a better life, and stirs fear in the existing population that they will find their lives downgraded in order for resources to spread among more people.

On a similar note, Americans greeted the influx of Irish immigrants in the 19th century with hostility and a few years ago I read some articles that implied that not all Brits were happy with the influx of Eastern Europeans that started after the EU began to expand eastward. The Other always makes the current residents nervous. Even when their skin is the same color, their faces are different, their language is different, their culture is different, and their food and religion may very well be different as well. Couple that with the human tendency to fear change and the trouble begins.

[Holbytla]

Other than maybe some some small section in Africa, there is no one that can claim they are native to any land, and aside from our societal and governmental gobbledygook, no one owns any land.

People don't like change, and they have a fear of the unknown and things that are different from themselves. I don't see that ever changing and I don't ever expect there will be a time when we accept everything with open arms and live in a homogeneous world.

There will always be struggles and difficulty with assimilation.


nerdanel wrote:

The truth is that many of the loudest and most powerful people who have railed against "cultural pluralism" in recent years have been white westerners. Moreover, since most of us (posting at HoF) live in countries with white western majorities, it is the prejudice of the white westerners who dislike "cultural pluralism" (i.e., the rest of us being present and in any way different from the white majority) with which we must contend.

That is true because the country you live in is where your experience comes from. Countries like China and North Korea have different ways of dealing with multiculturalism. They don't allow it to exist. And there are plenty of other societies where the majority treats other people trying to assimilate the same as white westerners do. I don't think we have a monopoly on racism, not by a long shot. As poor as our behavior has been and still is, take some comfort knowing that during my lifetime things have progressed for the better.

[Hachimitsu]

Umm.... I was not responding specifically to you Vison. I just wanted to elaborate on Nel's point.

[vison]

Umm.... I was not responding specifically to you Vison. I just wanted to elaborate on Nel's point.

I know you weren't, Wilma.

There is one population of humans who have some claim to be "native" and that is the Australians. They have been there for 50,000 years, I have read. I'll give them a pass.

Human beings are short-lived and have only myths for much of their "history". We forget, if we ever knew, that we once walked out of Africa and into the rest of the world. Some of us have lived long enough in one place to "evolve" to suit our surroundings. Most of us have a passionate attachment to our home turf, especially if our ancestors have lived there for a long time.

I don't see anything unusual about being wary of strangers. It might make less sense nowadays than it used to, but at one time it was cold necessity.

[Holbytla]

As silly as it sounds because it is so far away, Australia was inhabited by the wanderers from Africa long before many other places were.

[SirDennis]

Doesn't sound silly when you factor in plate tectonics.

Anyway Ax brought in a fine distinction a little further up.

Looking at the First Nations question, a big part of the problem was though they recognized territorial sovereignty, they did not recognize the concept of land ownership. And though they were in NA first, they agreed to abide by the immigrants' system of real estate, agreeing to treatise and proclamations dividing the land. Trouble was the Europeans did not honour their own laws or treatise. They pushed First Nations onto smaller and smaller tracts of land through various means from biological threat to making new laws and proclamations.

So in a way, when looking at First Nations' relationship to immigrants they did the opposite of what we see now. Rather than expecting the immigrants to assimilate and respect their traditions, they adopted the immigrants' rules, and those were turned against them. At least that's how it happened in Canada (which incidentally became the model for Apartheid in South Africa).

Looking now at the Muslim question, given the growth projections that before long they will be the majority across the globe, could the same thing happen again? I believe it to be extremely unlikely. The concept of "the failure of multiculturalism" seems to me like an attempt to lay the ground work against it ever happening.

[vison]

Plate tectonics? Over 50,000 or 60,000 or even 250,000 years? Nope.

But changes in water levels due to ice ages, etc., would enable some land walkers to go to places they can't walk to now.

OTOH, it is now generally accepted that not all persons got to North America from Asia via "the land bridge". Some came by boat.

[Primula Baggins]

There was never a land bridge to Australia. There are some extremely deep waters between there and every other body of land. Humans in Australia came by boat.

The difficulty of traveling by boat—if (a) it's summer or (b) you're starving and bad guys are chasing you off your land—is overrated, IMO.

[Lalaith]

Okay, if you can wade through the bias of this blog (which the author freely admits), I am actually curious if someone can point me to another source or two that supports this author's statements about Breivik's (and McVeigh's) views--specifically that they are not claiming to be Christians.

http://blog.cloudtenpictures.com/2011/0 ... terrorist/

In Breivik’s 1500 page manifesto he uses the word “Christian” as a way of saying: “non-Muslim” and raises issues with Christians for their soft-heartedness and says of himself that he is “not an excessively religious man,” and brags that he is “first and foremost a man of logic,” and calls himself “economically liberal” and reveres Darwinism.

The same thing occurred with the Oklahoma city bomber, Timothy McVeigh. He too was painted as a right-wing Christian fundamentalist. Instead it turned out that he was a a pot-smoking atheist who said, “Science is my religion.”

[Primula Baggins]

I'm not arguing, really, Lali, but I do want to point out that I know plenty of undoubted Christians who value logic, understand and respect science, accept evolution as fact (while not revering any human person), and are economically liberal. None of these traits are disqualifying for Christianity.

[Lalaith]

Well, yes, obviously. However, for the media to claim these two were Christian fundamentalists, I'd like to see that corroborated somehow. And, in truth, Christian fundamentalists tend to be creationists, if nothing else.

[Primula Baggins]

Yes, exactly—as I said, I wasn't arguing, really, with anything more than a couple of passing assumptions. And you're right that the views I listed would not be those of many fundamentalists.

[Lalaith]

In any case, I was just wondering if what this author claimed was true.

[Infidel]

Okay, if you can wade through the bias of this blog (which the author freely admits), I am actually curious if someone can point me to another source or two that supports this author's statements about Breivik's (and McVeigh's) views--specifically that they are not claiming to be Christians.

http://blog.cloudtenpictures.com/2011/0 ... terrorist/

In Breivik’s 1500 page manifesto he uses the word “Christian” as a way of saying: “non-Muslim” and raises issues with Christians for their soft-heartedness and says of himself that he is “not an excessively religious man,” and brags that he is “first and foremost a man of logic,” and calls himself “economically liberal” and reveres Darwinism.

The same thing occurred with the Oklahoma city bomber, Timothy McVeigh. He too was painted as a right-wing Christian fundamentalist. Instead it turned out that he was a a pot-smoking atheist who said, “Science is my religion.”

McVeigh was raised a Catholic, but was fairly agnostic. See here in this Gaurdian article citing one of his letters:

In his letter, McVeigh said he was an agnostic but that he would "improvise, adapt and overcome", if it turned out there was an afterlife. "If I'm going to hell," he wrote, "I'm gonna have a lot of company." His body is to be cremated and his ashes scattered in a secret location.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/ju ... veigh.usa4

For the Norwegian guy, I read an article quoting his Manifesto which showed him drawing a distinction between being a cultural Christian and a religious Christian. I no longer recall where it was.

[SirDennis]

An important distinction: Even if they called themselves Christians (which it appears they did not), by their actions they were anything but. (I think this is along the lines of the difference between cultural and religious Christians.)

Last statistic I heard was that 80% of Americans call themselves Christian. Obviously there are more nominal (cultural) Christians than practicing Christians. And among those that are practicing many put politics (ie call themselves conservatives or liberals) before their faith. For me this is the acid test as there are things on both the left and the right which are fundamentally incompatible with being a follower of Christ (in contrast to the religion known as Christianity). A Christian is a Christian first and imho would reject much that the political right stands for, just as they would the political left on some points (but not all).