So, yes? You adapted to the culture that surrounded you by adopting some of their customs. This just seems to be in sharp contrast to your original answer.
But I suspect we might be coming at the OP from two different directions. I’m not really coming at it from a legal perspective but I know that others are. Within the context of a legal question I think your first answer makes great sense. Within the context of fitting in I think your second answer makes more sense.
No it’s not. The original answer was:
[QUOTE=even sven]
They should do whatever they hell they want within the bounds of the law.
[/QUOTE]
In a free country this is absolutely the correct answer.
Now, what a person will end up choosing to do will probably be the results of a number of compromises. That’s not at all contradictory. Heck, I do whatever I want NOW within the bounds of the law. As it happens, that I choose to do is determined by practical considerations, which includes economic necessity, social convention, relationships and on and on. That’s true in my home country just as it would be anywhere else.
If an immigrant wants to limit themselves and not fit in, that’s their call; they may be severely limiting their enjoyment of all my country has to offer but, then, the same could be said of many lifestyle choices chosen by people who were born here.
From the OP:
So, I agree that from a personal point of view, refusing to shake hands (unless you have a compromised immune system or something like that) is a bit churlish (and being OK with shaking hands with other men but refusing to shake hands with women definitely seems chauvinistic); head scarves don’t bother me all that much, but full face-coverings do seem kind of creepy.
From a national point of view–i.e., laws–I stick by my original answer. (And I agree with doreen concerning laws or regulations such as those concerning covering one’s face or not covering one’s face that are generally applicable and have some secular purpose like preventing bank robberies or making sure the person driving the car is really the person who passed the driver’s test.)
That raises another point. I see no reason why the rules should be different for immigrants as opposed to home-grown minority sub-cultures (including ones whose ancestors immigrated here generations ago). The lifestyles of the Amish, ultra-Orthodox Jews, certain strict Pentecostal or Fundamentalist Christian sects, or for that matter couples who are really into BDSM, may be as odd from the POV of the rest of society as those of recent Muslim immigrants. The personal and philosophical choices of any of those people will certainly affect how they get along with other members of society on a personal level, but as long as they aren’t breaking the law, our “national” policy should be liberty and justice for all.
Even from the angle of “what should you do,” I think my reasoning still stands.
The world is a tough place. We are all just doing what we can to get through it. Adjusting to life in a country outside of your culture is rough. Even if it is something you asked for and worked hard for, in practice you may find it more difficult than you ever imagine. For comparison, 1/3rd of Peace Corps volunteers go home early- and it reaches 80% in tough countries- and Peace Corps is about a billion times easier than actually moving to a foreign country for reals and trying to make a go of it. Everyone going down this road will figure out there own path. They may be bold trailblazers who take to their new culture like ducks to water and fully integrate. But they may also be the shy Filipina mail-order-bride housewife who never quite gets the hang of living in Detroit and so she builds her life out of caring for her family and her community without reaching out too much more than that, and is still just grateful for a full refrigerator and chance to send her kids to school.
What do you imagine Americans do abroad? Do you really think the embassy wives in Delhi are wearing saris. swapping dosa recipes and searching for suitable matches for their daughters on the matrimonial websites? If your husband got appointed to some random place, would you jump in with both feet? Maybe. But if you are like most people, you’d enroll the kids in the American school, grab a foreign-style flat in an expat focused housing development, pack your current wardrobe, shop at the big-chain international supermarket, send maids to pick up produce at the crowded and dangerous local outdoor market, fly back home four times a year, and enjoy the best bits of the local culture without really integrating many of their values into your family life.
And there is not a single thing wrong with that. I’m pretty adventurous so I’d probably explore the local culture a bit more (but I have my limits as well), but I certainly don’t look down on Betsy whose husband was appointed VP of the Shanghai plant for living what is a pretty normal expat lifestyle. What works for her works for her, what works for me works for me.
And I don’t think it should be that different for Aisha or Jose in the US, either. Wealth and status is not what gives you the right to chose what cultural values you subscribe to. If I’m fine with the ambassador wearing a headscarf and skipping the pork chops in wine sauce, then I’m fine with the guy that runs the mini-mart down the street doing the same thing.
The immigrants mores should be respected to the extent that they don’t pus significantly against the adopted country’s traditions. They can push gently to see where the boundaries are, but the newcomers should respect those boundaries. If they can’t do that, they should find someone else that’s a better fit.
As much as the people of the new homeland find appropriate. If the immigrants won’t change on an issue that the new homeland finds important the immigrants are free not to immigrate to that country.
That’s a really great point.
Those folks aren’t really immigrants, are they? They’re there for a job, not forever.
The basic thing for me is, there are things I don’t want my (native-born) homeland telling me to do or not to do. I don’t want my country telling me what religion to practice; I don’t want my country telling me what kinds of headgear to wear or not to wear; I don’t want my country telling me what kind of foods to eat. Therefore, I don’t want my country telling immigrants what religion they can practice; or what kind of headgear they can wear or can’t wear; or what kinds of food they can’t eat (or must eat).
I don’t have any problem with my country telling me I can’t burn down other people’s houses of worship (even if I think their religions are completely silly) or that I can’t throw acid in the faces of women whose clothing choices or lifestyles I disapprove of. I’m totally OK with those kinds of restrictions on my freedom of action, and am therefore totally OK with demanding that new immigrants, old immigrants, or people whose ancestors came over on the Mayflower be subjected to those kinds of restrictions as well.
My raabi neighbor refused to shake my hand when I first met him. He explained that he doesn’t touch women he isn’t married to including handshakes but he shook my infant daughters leg. A few cultures would not shake your hands depending on the gender but I didn’t get upset about it. It is not only confined to Muslims.
My Nazi neighbor refuse to touch Jews. In that way we’re all different. The thing about such is that they work better in more libertarian USA than more socialized Europe. Not wanting to shake somebody’s hand, insisting on wearing burka, demand gender segregated work areas, or other such silliness will severely affect your ability to land and/or perform at a job. That may be fine in the USA where the welfare state will not be required to fund your lifestyle choices, but around here the state is still expected to pay a large sum for your upkeep. That is going to create some understandable resentment.
I don’t understand why such a big deal is made about handshaking,
Local custom here, when men and woman meet, is kissing each other on the cheek( 2 kisses in the North and 3 kisses in the South, in Belgium the men kiss each other on the lips) But if someone is uncomfortable with this nobody makes a big deal about it,
Why can’t we give Muslims uncomfortable with touching members of the opposite sex the same leeway?
Because a covered face is obviously a legitimate security and law enforcement issue.
At some point, immigrant populations must make major concessions to their host countries; if they refuse to do so, they cease to be immigrants and become intruders. Generally speaking, when their culture conflicts with that of the host country, it is the immigrants who should make the concessions.
If an uncovered face and uncovered hands or allowing seeing eye dogs in a taxi are major problems for some Muslims, those Muslims should not emigrate to Western countries.
?
First time I hear of this.
willthekittensurvive?:
“Why can’t we give Muslims uncomfortable with touching members of the opposite sex the same leeway?”
I personally just can’t, because it is an offense to me. I am a woman, and I cannot accept that somebody would be uncomfortable touching me for that reason. If you shake hands with men you should shake hands with me. Imagine someone coming in to a room, shaking everyone’s hand but mine, of course I would be offended! How do we feel when people refuse to shake hands with black people? We consider it unacceptable, we try to enter into discussion with them, we would certainly not employ them.
Of course, if that person chooses not to engage with anyone at all in order to avoid this situation, then there isn’t really a problem.
I’m not saying there should be any specific law against this, but I would hope that it does not become common and accepted practice that some people don’t shake hands with women.
Similarly, I don’t want the government telling me that I must accommodate their culture and customs when I’m not inclined to do so, and/or when it imposes some unreasonable burden on me, as when immigrants demand the installation of foot baths in university bathrooms on religious grounds or demand that schools allow them to use school time for two or three prayer sessions a day. I particularly object when some immigrants, as has happened in Britain, refuse to allow the Holocaust be taught in school.
I guess so, but I should be allowed to refuse to shake the hand of Muslim men in protest of their refusal to shake hands with women.
Why is their discomfort more important than ours?
The fact that so many people make such a big deal about has always lead me to believe the gesture means considerably more than a greeting to them. I personally think it’s at least subconsciously an act of domination on the part of the person who first sticks out his (because it’s usually a man) hand. We have a lot of choices in how we verbally greet someone from Good Day to Hey How’s it hanging? Why is trying to get someone to touch your body considered an only choice for greeting.
Because I am a woman, I cannot accept a man assuming he has the right to touch my body or request that I touch his without my formal permission which means he requests, not through trying to intimidate or embarass me. And when a man tries to force me to touch him, I am offended (hell, I am extremely, extremely angry in some cases). I feel that if he will try that in front of witnesses in public, he will try far worse if we are ever inadvertently alone.