[andyt]

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2011/feb/21/MEOPINO2-what-are-the-ties-that-bind-us/news-opinion-commentary/

Quote:

A 2010 study on homegrown terrorism by researchers at Duke University and the University of North Carolina bears this out. The researchers found that losing one's familial, traditional cultural identity was a more likely route to radicalization than maintaining those ties. Trying to adopt the values of the new, mainstream culture can sometimes create the kind of alienation that can lead to extremism. To fight the type of terrorism that Cameron fears, the study recommends community-building measures, like multiculturalism, to strengthen ethnic identity.

In reality, neither Cameron nor the multiculturalists have the answer for creating cohesion in modern, diverse, globalized states. Multiculturalists think ethnic cultural continuity will somehow mask the wrenching and sometimes dangerous break with the past that newcomers face. Cameron fantasizes that a reinvigorated, hard-sell approach will make abstract liberal ideals into a tie that binds as tightly as ancient tribal or religious bonds.

Here's the dirty little secret of the Western world: Exalted political ideals notwithstanding, Western democracies have historically fallen back on whatever tribal, racial, ethnic or religious solidarity they can drum up to solidify their identities. France, for instance, had liberte, egalite and fraternite, but what mattered most was the ne plus ultra of ethnic Frenchness.

In Britain and the U.S., national unity has been built as much on whiteness as any other factor.

The truth is, without relying on some form of old-fashioned tribalism — or perhaps the unifying effect of a war — we have no idea exactly how the rapidly diversifying nations of the West will cohere moving forward. The only thing we can know for certain is that both sides of the debate over multiculturalism are fooling themselves.

[Brenda]

Quote:

The researchers found that losing one's familial, traditional cultural identity was a more likely route to radicalization than maintaining those ties. Trying to adopt the values of the new, mainstream culture can sometimes create the kind of alienation that can lead to extremism.

Absolutely. I totally understand that.

[DrCaleb]

Quote:

To fight the type of terrorism that Cameron fears, the study recommends community-building measures, like multiculturalism, to strengthen ethnic identity.

So, Trudeau wasn't a total Asshat? *ulp!*

[martin14]

Quote:

To fight the type of terrorism that Cameron fears, the study recommends community-building measures, like multiculturalism, to strengthen ethnic identity.

hmmm, didnt stop the Toronto 18.

Or the last 3 losers arrested a while back.


Maybe Cameron should try again.

[andyt]

martin14 wrote:

Quote:

To fight the type of terrorism that Cameron fears, the study recommends community-building measures, like multiculturalism, to strengthen ethnic identity.

hmmm, didnt stop the Toronto 18.

Or the last 3 losers arrested a while back.


Maybe Cameron should try again.

Read it again, Martin. Cameron's position is that multiculturalism breeds terrorism. The author is actually saying that neither multiculturalism nor integration have good prospects and we really don't know how our grand experiment in diversity will work out.

[martin14]

miscue.. the researchers at Duke should try again.


If the research was correct, the UK wouldnt have a problem with radicalized Imans
preaching hate and death, or suicide bombers, or UK Taliban fighters on the radio in Afghanistan.

And we all know the truth.

[andyt]

Right. But unfortunately, there is no evidence that having a strong push to integrate doesn't also cause problems. You know where I'm going with this - the answer is to just have less immigration altogether.

[Khar]

The answer is to fix immigration policies and our approach with immigrants, not reduce the amount of immigrants brought in. The evidence in this discussion any which way is very nebulous and there's not a ton of it. In this article, the actual experts disagree with your assertion anyways, but as I said the entire topic is fairly cloudy.

There was a recent thread about Cameron saying the same thing. A lot of people, including myself, agree to various extents, especially since multiculturalism in Canada is being approached in a manner which was not actually listed in the act which defines it.

No one else came to the conclusion that we need to reduce immigration, from what I remember. We came to the conclusion that a greater focus on Canadian values is what was important, and that they should take precedence over the values of other cultures, save for sandorski. Ideals of tolerance, women's suffrage, etc was more important than honour killings, for example.

[andyt]

Read the last paragraph - it's not too hopeful for creating coherent, yet diverse states.

As someone wrote - apparently now the reason given for our massive immigration is for the goal of diversity. Imagine if we showed up en masse at the source countries of our immigrants and said "hi, we're here to help you be more diverse." We'd probably get killed.

[chensi]

First saw such good content!

[martin14]

chensi wrote:

First saw such good content!

too bad you serve spam as a side dish.


Well said andy.

[Khar]

andyt wrote:

Read the last paragraph - it's not too hopeful for creating coherent, yet diverse states.

As someone wrote - apparently now the reason given for our massive immigration is for the goal of diversity. Imagine if we showed up en masse at the source countries of our immigrants and said "hi, we're here to help you be more diverse." We'd probably get killed.

Read the author line. The guy who wrote that last paragraph is no more an expert than you or I am, and as a person who's field has been bastardized by useless reporting for decades, I hold little faith in the media to report anything outside of current events effectively, and even then I find the general media sketchy. I'm not too hopeful that a man who's qualifications include years of schooling to be able to write professionally at an eighth grade level would be an expert on this topic.

Fact of the matter is that neither Martin nor you, nor I can deny that the experts disagree with the journalist in this case. A few topics ago you were trying to pass the reason for immigration as economic benefits (which you believed didn't exist), benefits that not only my sources but in the end, some of yours demonstrated existed and were supported by the mainstream economic experts.

Imagine that we are not Saudi Arabia, or Libya, or China for a second. Because we aren't. We aren't a cruel dictatorship, a theocracy, an oligarchy or a failed communist state. We have a secular government and are considered one of the most progressive nations in the free world. There's a reason people want to come to Canada, because we aren't a nation which commits atrocities in the name of an ideology. That line of thinking you have brought into this thread only promotes keeping other people down, rather than trying to improve not only their lot but ours. That line of thinking says one thing to me; we should act like the theocratic, dictator run states and reject people on the basis of who they are and their background. I think Canada has moved past that, thankfully.

Besides which, last I checked, not all immigrants come from a country like you are talking about. Considering the sources of our immigrants, I'd like you to kindly stop hinting that they all come from poorly developed nations. The US, Phillipines, France, England, South Korea, and other nations which are our primary sources of immigrants would not kill someone for different ideologies. Indeed, while our ideals may not be welcome in some of the countries which are our top immigration centers, I would not be killed in most nations which immigrate to Canada because of my values -- in fact, most of the worst nations I can think of would be more apt to either never allow a Canadian into their borders or deport me. This information has been posted in several threads you have been involved with now.

To be honest, I find it a little chilling that you would say something when so many people are dying, so many nations are in turmoil, and so many people are running right now in countries like Libya, China, Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Morroco and so forth because people are tired of living under the regimes of people who would kill us for doing that. People have been coming to Canada for years because we are an ideal not found in those places in the world, where a leader would order his own people killed for not following them. And the people there are fighting it back. This is not only ironic timing for that argument, I think it's a bad time for it as well.

[martin14]

Khar wrote:

Indeed, while our ideals may not be welcome in some of the countries which are our top immigration centers, I would not be killed in most nations which immigrate to Canada because of my values -- in fact, most of the worst nations I can think of would be more apt to either never allow a Canadian into their borders or deport me.

You, as an individual, probably not.

You, as a group, demanding that the fabric of the society be changed,
while you as a group refuse to integrate.. thats a different story.


Go ahead and be chilled, some of us aren't happy with the way things are going.

[Khar]

Andyt just suggested that we should take the same line Iran and Pakistan should. I should be chilled because their reaction to other people are exactly why people don't like Iran and Pakistan. Either accept what I said there and support the demonstrators in those nations in other threads, or don't support those demonstrators and ignore what I said, but don't selectively avoid what was said in this thread.

Especially considering that andyt just stated that places like France and England would probably see us all killed, and he never once said the word "demand." In fact, he said quite cordially saying "hi, we're here to help you get more diverse" like why it is supposedly supported in Canada. Context, man. That thing which also demonstrates why you'd never see a ton of people go "down there" from Canada, for the reasons I've said in the rest of my post -- Canada is not a theocracy, a dictatorship, or a failed state.

Martin, I agree that there is a problem when it comes to integration. As I said at the very beginning of the thread, I agreed in another thread exactly on the same topic that there should be a good deal more acceptance to the ideal of integration. I said something very similar to you in that thread. Hell, I even got called xenophobic for supporting it, which is why I find your response now kind of funny. In one thread I get called a xenophobe, in the next thread it's implied I'm the exact opposite.

Unfortunately, andyt goes a good deal further in both changing why he's against immigration and trying to use it as a sole reason to stop it as much as possible. The problem here is that we have the wrong focus and the wrong infrastructure for current immigration in these cases, and we should work to fix those. The benefits of immigration are still there. We should improve immigration, not stop it.

I agree with you. I don't agree with andyt because he promotes a more extreme viewpoint and extreme measures to handle what is happening according to that viewpoint, one a few days ago he was arguing about for a different reason. A guy who lives in Italy should not be agreeing with what andyt has said so far in this thread. Last I checked, you did not die, and this is partially because not all immigrants refuse to integrate partially or wholly into Canadian society, just like you no doubt integrated partially into life in Italy even as a Canadian.