That’s because I was thinking of the word more broadly than maybe most people do: to include other countries, not just immigrants.
Either way, though, it’s a matter of degrees.
Assimilation is not a bad thing, it’s a desirable thing. But I’ve always subscribed to the Salad Bowl view rather than the Melting Pot. The Melting Pot implies cultural distinctions disappear, and we become 'Murricans. A nice salad, however, works together nicely while retaining individual flavors and characteristics.
But assimilation is a good long-term strategy. Something needs to be done about ISIS today, not tomorrow.
Cultural superiority? Cultural incompatibility. You need to stop assuming.
What to do about it? Have to convince the adherents of the religion that a rigorous interpretation of the parts incompatible with Western culture that in order to co-exist the parts that don’t allow coexisting without submission need to be excised. It’s no different than making the Japanese get rid of the idea of a divine emperor. Can it be done? Probably not. So we will have continuing skirmishes with Islamic radicals up until the point they get their hands on a decent weapon. In which case hardliners in the West will use that event to further their own not so nice goals.
Other religions aren’t advocating or carrying out systemic terror campaigns. If other religions did so they wouldn’t get a “pass.” You think people are picking on Islam for no reason? I’m sure some do. But rational people can realize that certain sky fairies are more violent than others.
The problem (at least in the US) is that, for too many Americans, assimilation has traditionally meant “Conform all your practices to those that we consider acceptable, that don’t make us uncomfortable, and that fit in with a narrow conception of what American culture means.”
Randolph Bourne noticed this almost one hundred years ago, when he made a plea for Americans to reject the old notion of the United States as a narrowly Anglo-Saxon civilization. He argued that if you maintain a rigid sense of what Americanism is, and require that immigrants conform to that definition, you are depriving them of a key freedom, which is the freedom to help determine “the ideals and purposes and industrial and social institutions of a country.”
Basically, he was arguing that what it meant to be American needed to be reshaped in order to accommodate the diversity that immigrants brought with them. For Bourne, there was no really distinctive American culture; what made America distinctive was precisely its diversity, and Americans needed to embrace this rather than push back against it constantly in an effort to hold onto a narrow and unrealistic vision of Americanism.
- Bahaism is not ‘ancient’, it’s a very modern religion.
- Jews and Christians are explicitly supposed to be protected (and there are a lot fewer of each than there used to be 100-150 years ago).
- Sufis are a variant of Islam
- You forgot the Mandaeans, who have mostly left since 2003, but sure, Zoroastrianism is ancient. Unfortunately most of them have left or converted too.
- I’d like a citation that there are any animists left in northern Africa (unless you mean west Africa, which doesn’t meet any definition of ‘northern Africa’ I’ve ever heard).
I’d say the elimination of ancient religions has been pretty successful in the Middle East. (Not as successful as it was in Christian Europe, although there is apparently a bit of a neopagan revival in Scandinavia).
So we just ask them at the border:
• Will you be building a secret lair?
• Are you planning on raising a mutant zombie clone army?
• Do you wish you had an Imperial Guard?
And will you be playing an Imperial March when making an enterance?
• Do you have access to Kryptonite?
• Are you entering this country with a cadre of horrific henchmen?
Will you be outfitting them in black?
If my understanding of recent events is correct, it appears a chap named Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has effectively appointed himself Caliph of the first Islamic State since Ataturk disbanded the last one in 1924. Apparently, after the fall of Mosul recently, all the necessary conditions were met to make such a pronouncement, including the seizure of territory by barbaric force.
For want of a better description, we have a nutcase zealout who has appointed himself Pope of the Islamic World - if the analogy can be used in that way. But the very existence of the 2014 Caliphate is based on a premise it came into being on a war footing, and further, scripture stipulates it (The Caliphate) must engage in war like acts against infidels and/or Muslim apostates, at least once a year, lest it’s leaders will fall into sin.
But it gets crazier. Whilesoever the Islamic State can claim to hold territory it will continue to exist, regardless of borders. Indeed, the very definition of The Caliphate stipulates that borders are man made concepts, not “laws which are made by God”. And there’s this concept that all “truly holy Muslims must move to the Caliphate” after it is established. It’s bizarre. It seems the locals are fleeing in their millions to be replaced by zealous outsiders who willingly desire to live under ultra extreme Sharia law.
Quite ironically, getting rid of Saddam Hussein and backing the wrong players in the Syrian civil war has unwittingly invited this mess. That’s my take on it. I could well be wrong about my attempts to understand all this, of course.
Even if you sent in a million foreign soldiers to take back the territory now controlled by ISIS, it so happens that scripture has already predicted the Syrian city of Dabiq, near Aleppo has already been foretold to be of unbelievable importance - like some messed up interpretatio of Nostradamus. It is at Dabiq, the Prophet reportedly said, that the armies of Rome will set up their camp. The armies of Islam will meet them, and Dabiq will be Rome’s Waterloo or its Antietam. They actually WANT the Western World to play into their trap.
I reckon it’s amazing, totally amazing how all this is unfolding based on ancient scripture. Or rather, how predictable the decisions the 2014 Caliphate are, once you understand how ancient scripture in the Koran is mapping it out for them. That right there, is their weak point I rather think.
BigT, this might interest you. One, possibly two, of the attackers, were refugees:
http://news.yahoo.com/two-men-linked-paris-attacks-registered-migrants-greece-195255102.html
Sometimes discrimination is rational and sensible.
I have to comment on that, I know it is a complex issue but IIRC ISIS was reported to try to poison the well indeed. While it is still early to confirm that it was a real passport one should also realize that there was an economical reason for the failure to control the refugees better, I will have to say that a lot of the reason for that failure was that Europe and other places did not help Greece properly to deal with the issue because many nations demanded austerity from them for other reasons.
Regardless if that was a good idea on economical terms, it was IMHO penny wise, pound foolish. I would not be surprised to find that many people in Greece got much needed revenue by smuggling people.
Anyhow one should not forget that most of the people that are leaving Syria are denying ISIS of manpower, you bet ISIS are doing this so people like you will demand discrimination so they will get more followers, either in Europe or in Syria.
It establishes that terrorists are among the refugees, something which was vehemently disputed in the liberal circles of the Twitterverse.
But okay, let’s take in refugees knowing we’ll get Americans killed.
That just simple logic, virtually all refugees are voting with their feet about who they are supporting. Don’t know who those liberal circles were but I did not think it was going to be 100% safe.
Again, the terrorists have indeed won over you.
The reality is that it has been a scandal that a lot of the people in Iraq or Afghanistan that risked their lives to support the USA occupation have lots of barriers to come to the USA, and it is precisely thanks to opinions like the one you have.
Roughly 200 Americans have (or tried to) traveled to Syria to join ISIS.
That’s a ratio of 1:1,600,000, half as many as the ratio of terrorists to refugees.
Since we aren’t getting all 800,000, you have a far high chance of being killed by one of your own countryman.
And consider you don’t know who sympathizes and hasn’t tried to travel but is waiting a chance here.
I’m not worried about immigrants, we have systems in place to vet immigrants. Our government has already admitted they can’t vet the refugees.
But I’ll defer to Europe’s wisdom here, since they are at greater risk. Let’s see what they do.
Only a week ago I was musing that since outcomes are binary — either [ say ] 500,000 refugees are going to end up in Europe for a varying period of time or they are not — The EU should rationalise the transfer and set up sufficient camps, then move them up by train instead of having them stuffed in buses and other transport through windows, or having them drown by the cold rocky shores of Lesbos.
I am rather more sceptical of taking in these people than most, because
a/ there really is getting less and less space in the western reaches as one hits the Atlantic *
and
b/ Islam is a miserable, dreary religion suited to moralistic snivellers — still more even than christianity or judaism which are both utterly dire — and I don’t want any influence on current secular states from this wretched source, ever. Still one doesn’t want these people to die, and if it’s going to happen it’s better to do it right.
- I think further than that Montana and Wyoming might take in a million each without looking too crowded.
But we can keep an eye on them, really what I think is needed in this case is to let them know that they indeed will be under constant surveillance until they become officially residents and then keep some pressure on their local leaders to keep an eye on them, it has been a successful thing on many occasions; there have been some failures, but as even Bush the lesser would tell you, Muslims have rights too.
Here is what Spain did already:
In 2004 in the Madrid train bombings, blamed on Al-queda, 191 people died.
BTW in the previous terror attack in Paris one of the victims was a Muslim policeman. I will not be surprised that other Muslims were victims also in the recent incident.
I have to ask, does France have the military capability to project a strong military force to a location far outside its borders? I mean could they put an army into say Syria to fight?
They can definitely deploy troops, they’ve done it in many places, I’m just not sure if they have the capability to deploy powerful offensive forces that can drive enemy armies from their territory. Then again, I’m not sure that ISIS forces can stand up against even a small, lightly armed French force of 5000 or so, especially given that they are under attack on multiple fronts from local forces and getting bombed.
France never left NATO. She left the integrated comand (in clear, she was still art of the alliance with the same obligations, but her military wouldn’t have been under NATO command in case of conflict).
By who? Who is saying it’s impossible for there to be terrorists among refugees?
You do realize that refugee requirements for people resetting in the US are vastly different from people crossing in to Europe? If the US is going to fly someone in, they conduct the mother of all security screenings. It takes years and most people can’t make it through.