Reader NG brought a link to a very insightful article by the brilliant Timothy Snyder, one of the world’s greatest living historians. Snyder is deeply disturbed (as we all are) by the results of the recent European elections that revealed a deep yearning, shared by way too many Europeans, for the return of fascism. Snyder insists that we should all look to Ukraine as an example of a successful resistance to fascism:
Europe has a problem, and Ukraine might be the solution.
In the elections that took place across Europe on Sunday for the European Parliament, turnout was low (43 percent), and the anti-European far right made substantial gains, most notably in France, where the National Front took 25 percent. In the election that took place the same day for the Ukrainian presidency, turnout was high (61 percent), the victorious candidate ran on a pro-EU platform, and the far-right candidates (2 percent) were beaten by everyone, including the Jewish candidate. If Europeans voted the way Ukrainians did, Europe could count on a far more secure and prosperous future.
I agree with Snyder and believe there is another unsung hero of the recent years in Europe: Spain. Spain has a very recent (in historic terms) memory of a home-grown fascist dictatorship. Both Spain and Ukraine are traditionally marginalized in Europe as “not completely European”, but the way things are shaping up is making it clear that these two countries are the ones that actually preserve the truly European values of democracy, civic engagement, Enlightened thinking, and anti-fascism.
Europe needs to help Spain withstand the dangerous fantasies of Catalonians and support Ukraine in its fight for territorial integrity. This shouldn’t be done for the sake of Ukraine and Spain, but for the sake of Europe itself. Snyder is absolutely right in pointing out the gravest danger faced by Europe: parochialism and outdated fantasies:
Meanwhile, the fantasy on offer from the European far right this year has been the nation-state. If only Scotland, or England, or France, or Austria, or Greece, or Bulgaria could finally be free of pushy European bureaucrats, then life would return to normal and all would be well. All would not be well. . . The nation-state is a utopia. There is no way back to it.
It’s true, the nation-state has served its purpose. The world has changed since the XVIIIth century when the myth of a nation was born. Trying to revive this myth and break European countries into ever-smaller bits and pieces will only serve one goal:
The leaders of the European far right, helped by the recent woolly-headedness of much of the European left, are moving their peoples not back toward the nation-state (which is impossible) but toward Russian domination of Europe.
While the Scots and the Catalonians play their infantile “we want our own country, too, even if it’s the size of a handkerchief” games and erode the EU, Putin is laughing all the way to dominating the continent.
Snyder offers the most clear-headed, profound diagnosis of what that Europeans are trying to accomplish by voting for ultra-nationalistic parties. They “are voting for a fantasy of separation from the world”, the historian says.
The world has become too complex, too menacing. The fantasy of a small, isolated country that has checked out of all the difficulties of living in the globalized world of advanced capitalism and postmodern values is just that, a fantasy. But while Europeans are indulging in it, somebody who is less terrified of reality will take charge. We all remember who that was in 1932. There is no reason to hope that, this time around, it will be anybody better.
The EU needs Ukraine more than Ukraine needs the EU, Snyder says. And he’s right. Ukrainians are right now paying an enormous price for resisting fascism and defending democracy. Ukraine still believes that the Europe of high civilization and Enlightened values is there. If Europe sees its reflection in the enamored eyes of Ukrainians, maybe that will help it to live up to the beauty of that – now largely fictional – image.
Clarissa's Blog 
Here’s a link to a rather dispassionate analysis of the recent E.U. Parliamentary elections.
When did it become “Fascist” to seek to have the laws of a nation made by elected representatives of the people of that nation, rather than by unaccountable and unelected bureaucrats? As I understand the situation, the E.U. Parliament cannot propose laws and has only the option of rejecting laws proposed by the Brussels Bureaucrats.
As I tried to point out here, the U.S. appears to be following the E.U. in the wrong direction; the equally unaccountable and unelected U.S. Federal bureaucracy has long produced more “laws” (Federal Regulations) than the Congress has produced laws.
LikeLike
Nobody would care this much about the EU elections if they weren’t offering us a taste of whom these countries will elect domestically. Yes, the EU Parliament is not hugely powerful, but I believe the moment when Marine Le Pen comes to power in France is near. This is why everybody is freaking out. What are the chances that Greece will not be ruled by fascists not on the level of the EU, but domestically?
LikeLike
I know relatively little about Marine Le Pen, but understand that she is less antisemitic than her father. As to Greece, the anti-austerity folks did OK and seem to want more free goodies from the other E.U. members.
UKIP — which did best of the “Euroskeptic” parties with just over twenty-nine percent — wants Britain to leave the E.U., become a sovereign nation again and regain control over her own immigration. That seems to me to be a good idea. The PM has indicated that there may be a popular referendum on leaving or remaining in the E.U. next year, should he remain in office.
LikeLike
Europe has undoubtedly messed up beyond belief with its ridiculous multiculturalism and insane immigration laws. But the way out is not through romanticizing the nationalisms of tiny localities. Who will win from Europe breaking up into tiny “countries”? Other than Putin, I see no winners here.
LikeLike
Who will win from Europe breaking up into tiny “countries”?
Tiny “countries” like Britain, perhaps? Shouldn’t British citizens at least have a say?
Imagine, if you will, a tiny non-European “country” like Israel being given a chance to accept or reject membership in the E.U. Israel is doing well economically, despite economic boycotts, a generally hostile foreign press and undue pressure from the Obama Administration to make peace with Palestinians who, including Fatah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, have frequently demonstrated that they want only the “peace” of extinction for the Jews of Israel.
How about the “right of return” by millions of descendants of those who years ago (pre-1948) lived in what is now Israel? Most Palestinians who lived there then are now dead. Should Israel relish unlimited immigration by all of their descendants who may want to come and overwhelm her as a Jewish state? By as many additional Islamists as may wish to come for similar reasons? Israel is the only reasonably free and democratic nation in the region, surrounded by Islamic states where freedom is generally lacking. I don’t think Israel wants Jerusalem or any other of her cities to become “Londonstans,” similar to those which have metastasized in England. Islamist immigration was among the reasons why UKIP got as many votes as it did. My guess is that Israel would reject even an hypothetical membership in the E.U. for that reason if for no other.
LikeLike
In addition to Muslim immigration, I read in comments on Israeli news site that there were problems of free movement among EU members. Free movement has supposedly led to f.e. people from Poland travelling to work in richer Western countries and creating unemployment among host country’s citizens. Somebody even commented that somehow the comers enjoy better conditions / protection than the original citizens. Don’t know if it’s right.
I love the idea of union, but would be 100% against it dictating my country how many (Muslim or other) immigrants to accept. No Israeli Jews would’ve agreed to that.
LikeLike
“Somebody even commented that somehow the comers enjoy better conditions / protection than the original citizens.”
– Yeah, like that students of mine who was convinced that illegal Mexican immigrants in the US get free healthcare. This is what fascism is. This is it, right here. The root of the problem is “the people who are not us.” Then the “us” starts falling apart into ever-smaller “uses”, and then the “uses” start killing each other over who has the greatest right to live where. Europe has done that already. isn’t it finally enough?
LikeLike
But it’s true that EU decides on the subject of immigration to its countries? If yes, why should they agree to EU’s bad policies?
LikeLike
Nobody has forced anybody to pursue segregation as opposed to integration of immigrants. Nobody prevented anybody from introducing a free childcare state for the locals that would have drastically reduced the need to import immigrants from the places where rights of women do not exist.
Laziness, inertia, stupidity – who cares what cased this. The point is that it is high time to start crawling back out if this mess.
LikeLike
Segregation vs. integration of immigrants isn’t the entire problem. What if country X doesn’t want those immigrants (at all or in such quantities), and its people are ready (for now) to pay the economic price of the policy? Why should its people give up their independence over such basic question to EU?
LikeLike
The EU is the people of Europe. It doesn’t exist in a vacuum outside of “regular folks.” Nobody is preventing these regular folks from helping immigrants adapt. Have they been doing that? No, not really. And now they are blaming the “responsible adult”, the EU.
LikeLike
// Nobody has forced anybody to pursue segregation as opposed to integration of immigrants.
There is also the question of whether and how much *the immigrants* want to intergrate. Many, for instance, are ready to marry only ‘pure’ women from ‘home.’
// Nobody prevented anybody from introducing a free childcare state for the locals
You yourself have previously said that number of children drops when standard of living rises, a free childcare or no. That the only way to raise number of children per family is to lower standard of living.
LikeLike
“There is also the question of whether and how much *the immigrants* want to intergrate.”
– Those who don’t want to integrate don’t get in in the first place. The “melting pot” strategy worked well enough for the US.
“You yourself have previously said that number of children drops when standard of living rises”
– No, I have repeatedly said this is not true. 🙂 The only thing that influences birth rates is the rights of women.
“That the only way to raise number of children per family is to lower standard of living.”
– Only the rights of women, nothing else. When women have any other option, they don’t choose to get pregnant every year.
LikeLike
// – No, I have repeatedly said this is not true. 🙂 The only thing that influences birth rates is the rights of women.
OK, then it logically follows that a free childcare wouldn’t have helped, yes?
LikeLike
Free childcare means the mothers don’t spend years out of the workforce.
LikeLike
\\ Should Israel relish unlimited immigration by all of their descendants who may want to come and overwhelm her as a Jewish state?
The Israeli discourse is of needing to have a Jewish majority. Jewish, not Muslim / Russian / English, etc. Israel would be against any non-Jewish immigrations from anywhere.
Also, importance of having Jewish children and not assimilating is accepted by everybody, imo, thus mixed marriages with anybody may be not well accepted by huge parts of Israeli society, religious or secular. Inviting immigrants from West would increase such marriages supposedly. (The last sentence is my opinion, not part of discourse, since nobody thinks of inviting anybody, unlike in EU)
LikeLike
I love the New World Order! I’m a trendy liberal!
LikeLike
It’s fairly clear to me Clarissa prioritizes Russia NOT “dominating” Europe over any other concern. But Russian “dominance” over Europe would be preferable to American dominance over Europe, and for Traditional European civilization’s own sake–witness the quintessentially decadent tranny winner of the Eurovision contest.
Marine Le Pen has called for the halt of Israeli settlements, equal rights for Palestinians, and if a Eurasian axis comes to fruition, statespeople like her will be free to call for a One State solution. A secular state with no rabbinical law and no shariah law.
Dan Miller, you didn’t hear of Abbas’ complaint that Obama had led him out on a limb and cut off the limb three times? Undue pressure, my foot.
Oh, and if you’re a small government guy, how about since Israel’s economy is doing so well, cutting off the aid to it, since it gets the lion’s share of hurting US taxpayer’s foreing aid dollar. After that we can cut off Egypts’s share too, since we bribe them to betray their Palestinian/Arab brothers in the interests of peace with a state stealing more and more Palestinian land…..
LikeLike
Transphobes are not welcome here. Apologize or leave.
LikeLike
// if a Eurasian axis comes to fruition, statespeople like her will be free to call for a One State solution.
They may call, but it won’t make any difference anyway. Israeli Jews, including me, are against it, except the very Right who dreams about having all the land in a Jewish state with Palestinians as a minority.
Cutting off the aid wouldn’t help either. In extreme case, it could lead to a war or lower level conflict between Egypt and Israel, that’s all. Israel has had numerous wars already (check wiki), but somehow Palestinian conflict is still going on.
LikeLike
I believe nation-states work only in ethnically/religiously homogeneous countries. Any attempt to build nation-state of ethnic or religious group X on a territory populated by groups X Y and Z, with group X contribution less than 95% of the population, is in itself provoking conflicts. And this pertains not only to Europe, but to any other part of the world, including America (Quebec) and Middle East (hint-hint). Want to preserve your “traditional values” – do not admit any immigrants. Want someone else do dirty work for small wages – you have to pay for it not only with money. But even forbidding immigration will not help, unless you isolate yourself from information about others, like North Korea. And do not let your own people out to see the world… You can slow the evolution, but you cannot stop it. Nation states are just one step, not the perfect final step of the evolution. And if the history dealt you a territory where there are several groups to begin with – too bad, build a political nation based on non-ethnic or non-religious common values, not a nation-state. Somebody’s freedom to run one’s country as one sees fit should end where others’ right not to experience discrimination begins. Always. No exceptions.
I am no fan of Putin and do not want his influence over anyone to increase (neither do I want the American influence to increase, nor the influence of multinational corporations), but Quebec provides a prefect example that attempts to build a nation-state and shove it down minorities’ throat create conflict regardless of if Putin is involved or not. By the way, here in Quebec Jewish community is one of the major forces opposing building of the Quebecois nation-state…
—How about the “right of return” by millions of descendants of those who years ago (pre-1948) lived in what is now Israel?
For someone who is not biased in favor of Israel (nor against it, just neutral) it is hard to understand why descendants of people who left the territory which is now Israel 60 years ago have less right to be there than the descendants of the people who left the territory which is now Israel several hundred years ago…
It is also hard to understand why Conchita winning Eurovision is such a big deal, and why “traditional values” need defending by anyone, including Putin. I do not encounter mass quantities of people of non-traditional orientation in everyday life, and the few such people I know never attempted to mess with my value system…
LikeLike
// I believe nation-states work only in ethnically/religiously homogeneous countries. Any attempt to build nation-state of ethnic or religious group X on a territory populated by groups X Y and Z, with group X contribution less than 95% of the population, is in itself provoking conflicts.
Very few countries are so homogeneous. For instance,
Germany has only 81% of Germans
Ukraine – 77.8% Ukrainians (only!!!) I guess Ukrainians should forget about their nation state now?
Israel – 75.3% Jewish. Why Ukrainians can have their country with that %, but not Jews?
// Want to preserve your “traditional values” – do not admit any immigrants.
Not only those “values,” but also ethnic character of your state to remain a nation state of people X. That’s why Israel admits only Jews. And it doesn’t have to be connected with Putin’s “values.”
// For someone who is not biased in favor of Israel … it is hard to understand why descendants of people who left the territory which is now Israel 60 years ago have less right to be there than the descendants of the people who left the territory which is now Israel several hundred years ago…
It’s ultimately not a question of rights, but of reality. Israel got UN recognition, as did a Palestinian state. However, they preferred to attack then and everything began … You can’t turn time back or force Jews lose their nation state now by admitting the Palestinians back, that’s all.
LikeLike
El, in essence, I am an equal-opportunity opponent of the whole concept of the nation-state, not someone who has a grudge against some particular nation. So argument a la “why Germans or Ukrainians are allowed and Jews are not” will not work on me. What exactly do you mean when you say “their country”?.. In the context of discussion about nation-states, this usually means that the dominant group treats itself and only itself as the rightful owners of the country, and treats non-members of the dominant group as less than equally rightful owners of the country, i.e. second-class citizens. Or non-citizens. But why should people treated as second-class citizens be loyal to the nation-state of the dominant group?
—but also ethnic character of your state to remain a nation state of people X
This “right” to not be influenced by others and to not take others into account is a very artificial concept in my opinion… And not only artificial, but dangerous and morally wrong. Some faction of Quebec society also believes for some reason that they are entitled not to encounter Jews in kippah or Muslims in headscarves, not to hear coworkers talking in foreign languages, etc… Should that wish be indulged?
—You can’t turn time back or force Jews lose their nation state
Of course I can’t. But Is still can oppose nation-states, all of them, on principle.
LikeLike
“the context of discussion about nation-states, this usually means that the dominant group treats itself and only itself as the rightful owners of the country, and treats non-members of the dominant group as less than equally rightful owners of the country, i.e. second-class citizens. Or non-citizens. But why should people treated as second-class citizens be loyal to the nation-state of the dominant group?”
It would help if you could give some examples of nation states and viable non-nation states.
LikeLike
Hopefully interminal internet access problems solved (for the time being at any rate)
Anyway, I’m not at all shocked by the results or particularly dismayed by them. The EU bureacracy has vastly outgrown any conceivable degree of usefulness.
And actually talking to very cosmopolitan forward looking people from a variety of countries (from all corners of Europe) over the last several years has convinced me that they’re all profoundly unhappy with the direction the EU experiment is going and furious that neither national governments nor the EU bureaucracy is paying the slightest bit of attention to them.
As they say about whacking a mule in the heat with a baseball bat – you’ve gotta get their attention first. And this election is meant to do that.
I think Scottish and Catalan independence are frankly stupid ideas (as were the break ups of Chechoslovakia and Jugoslavia). But by this time the heavy handed politics of the EU are the primary driving force of reactionary thought (which the unelected technocrats and their supporters are too stupid or evil to understand).
LikeLike
// The EU is the people of Europe. It doesn’t exist in a vacuum outside of “regular folks.” Nobody is preventing these regular folks from helping immigrants adapt. Have they been doing that? No, not really. And now they are blaming the “responsible adult”, the EU.
You make good points. However, I believe there are some most basic things each country must have a right to decide for itself, as part of its sovereignty. One of those things is the question of immigration – whether to have it in the 1st place, and if yes – to what extent. Suppose most of the people of Europe decide on X immigrants, but f.e. French people would be against it in their country. Why should they let others decide by voting on number of immigrants French’ll have to help to adapt?
We seem to have a basic disagreement. I agree with you on helping immigrants adapt. But, as I understood, you think Europian country X should let others dictate it (via voting) how many immigrants to receive in the 1st place.
LikeLike
—they’re all profoundly unhappy with the direction the EU experiment is going and furious that neither national governments nor the EU bureaucracy is paying the slightest bit of attention to them.
Yes, they are profoundly unhappy, but my impression is that they either do not know what they want instead, or they have some infantile idealized wish a la “we want everything to be better, but we do not want to pay for it”… By “payment” I mean not only material things, but the need to adapt to changing situation.
Any discussion on immigration should start from locals admitting their responsibility in creating the problem. In the beginning national governments had full control over immigration. They have chosen to allow immigration because they wanted immigrants to do the dirty work the locals did not want to do, and to have children the locals did not want to have, so that locals could have nice pensions when they retire, paid by future taxpayers (children of immigrants). To lesser extent – also to get educated people without investing money in their education. Yes, the locals miscalculated. They believed their culture is so superior to those of others’, that others will be eager and able to willingly fully integrate, despite the prejudice of/by the locals. Did not happen. But who is responsible for miscalculation by the locals, based on the sense of entitlement of the locals?
EU came much later. It is a convenient scapegoat.
LikeLike
Okay, how do you help people integrate if they
a) don’t speak your language,
b) bitterly resent any suggestion that they learn it,
c) regard your food and social habits as inherently immoral,
d) want to make sure their children do not grow up socialized in the new environment?
LikeLike
Such people shouldn’t be let into a country in the first place.
LikeLike
“Such people shouldn’t be let into a country in the first place. ”
Too late for that. The question is what to do now about it?
An obvious first step is to drastically limit or stop immigration from countries with a bad track record in integration (not hard to calcuate). No matter where the blame lies, immigration from certain countries to Europe is clearly a failed experiment and does not need to be continued. But that is being portrayed as evil and xenophobic. If questions of rational nationalism are off the table then of course more primal forms will predominate.
LikeLike
This is a situation that is very hard to reverse once it’s been created. It’s quite easy for instance, to prevent ghettoization but once immigrant ghettos are created, breaking them up is very hard.
I’d close all immigration to those who don’t speak the language and don’t demonstrate a high degree of enthusiasm for and knowledge of the country where they are emigrating. Of course, that would require individual interviews with every immigrant but it’s worth the price, I believe. I’d also go the way Canada does with its “professional immigration” and make it a condition of emigration that immigrants don’t expect any social assistance at all for the first 10 years in the country. This was the program I used to emigrate to Canada and I think it’s fair.
Unfortunately, Canada has other immigration programs, and those don’t work as well.
LikeLike
// I’d close all immigration to those who don’t speak the language
Already? Before immigrating? Of course, it’s a different situation, but we came to Israel without knowing Hebrew, like practically all immigrants (except former Israelis who return after many years), and are a success story of immigration.
Besides, many countries aren’t interested in “professional immigration” to compete with their local middle class, they want/ed people to do jobs that locals won’t do for various reasons. Think in terms of wanting factory workers, not doctors. Expecting working class people from third world countries to know language before immigrating would lead to 0% immigration.
I don’t think not knowing language before is the cause of the problem. The latter lies in, for instance, Germany’s policy which led to *children* of immigrants not knowing any language well. Neither Turkish, nor German!
Except Israel, USA is also a country of immigrants and I see it as a success. It’s normal for 1st generation arrive w/o knowing language or much about the country (my family didn’t about Israel). The key to long term success lies in integrating the children.
For instance, I view letting special Muslim schools be created as a mistake. Ideally, everybody should study together. But, may be, it’s impossible since it may lead to problems for religious people. Each faith has its own day of rest, and if I am against forcing religious Jews not observe Saturday (which would lead to their mass leaving of the country), why discriminate against Muslims? Four day schools would solve the problem. 🙂
// c) regard your food and social habits as inherently immoral,
Religious Jews don’t eat pork either, and don’t have sex before marriage. Should all religious people be prevented from immigrating? I don’t mean only Orthodox Jews here, but all Jews who observe religion to some degree. Many Israelis observe some degree of Kashrut, while being highly cultural people and immigrants one should pray for.
LikeLike
“Already? Before immigrating? Of course, it’s a different situation, but we came to Israel without knowing Hebrew, like practically all immigrants (except former Israelis who return after many years), and are a success story of immigration.”
– Yes, before. Wouldn’t you have learned the language if you needed to before emigrating? Wouldn’t it have made your life easier if you had?
“Expecting working class people from third world countries to know language before immigrating would lead to 0% immigration.”
– Not true. India speaks English. Africa speaks English and French. In China, everybody is massively learning English now. In Lat. America everybody speaks Spanish.
“Should all religious people be prevented from immigrating?”
– As much as possible, yes. People who can’t accept secular societies have no place in secular societies. I would do everything to prevent religious fanatics of all religions from immigrating. For now, however, it’s the other way round: everybody welcomes religious fanatics in a way that secular people are not even remotely welcomed. And this needs to stop now.
LikeLike
What about immigrants to non-English speaking countries? Not many countries make it possible to learn Danish or Dutch or Finnish ahead of time.
Even Poland is experiencing immigration now (though learning the language before you arrive is not especially feasible).
A real commitment to hit the ground running language-wise and make an effort while there is more important than prior knowledge. Unfortunately many european countries don’t make that easy either.
LikeLike
People who don’t speak the language are forced into ghettoization. Who will employ them if not those who speak the same language? If you don’t speak the language, you don’t even try to seek housing outside the ghetto, you make no friends outside the ghetto, and then you end up stuck forever in the ghetto because there isn’t any motivation to get out. And when children are born, you’ll obviously do anything to keep them in the ghetto and expand the ghetto around them because you feel completely alienated from anything that is outside the ghetto.
LikeLike
“People who can’t accept secular societies have no place in secular societies …everybody welcomes religious fanatics”
My current position is that it is not the government’s responsibility to help people follow a religion (in diet or anything else). They shouldn’t actively prevent people on their own time but there’s no responsibility to enable weird religious based behavior either. If people move to a country where pork is a staple then either learn to eat it or don’t eat it on your own dime don’t demand non-pork meals from government institutions.
LikeLike
“My current position is that it is not the government’s responsibility to help people follow a religion (in diet or anything else). They shouldn’t actively prevent people on their own time but there’s no responsibility to enable weird religious based behavior either.”
– I agree completely. Religion has to be kept in the private space and not spill over into the public. People should eat or not eat or rest or not rest whatever and whenever but without making it an issue for anybody else.
LikeLike
// Wouldn’t you have learned the language if you needed to before emigrating?
Learning Hebrew at a truly acceptable level – no. We had some beginner’s book and went to (horrible attempts at) Hebrew lessons in our very small town, but that’s it. To know the language, my mother studied it 5 days a week for 1/2 a year in Israel, while living in Hebrew-speaking environment. We did our best with that book in Ukraine, but the results still were …
Since English is an international language, you may be right to demand its knowledge. However, it’s not the must ingredient for success. Look at America with waves of immigration or at Israel.
There is a difference between a religious fanatic and, for instance, national religious Jew who observes Shabat and kashrut.
// India speaks English. Africa speaks English and French. In China, everybody is massively learning English now. In Lat. America everybody speaks Spanish.
Working classes?
LikeLike
“However, it’s not the must ingredient for success.”
– Yes, it absolutely is. There is nothing but the most dire poverty for anybody who doesn’t speak English in the US.
“There is a difference between a religious fanatic and, for instance, national religious Jew who observes Shabat and kashrut.”
– As long as he doesn’t make it anybody else’s problem, I don’t care what he observes.
LikeLike
// They shouldn’t actively prevent people on their own time but there’s no responsibility to enable weird religious based behavior either.
I see a hypocritical element in this seemingly equal position. Sunday is a free day because of Christianity, thus a religious Chrisrtian may attend usual school while observing his religion, but not a Muslim or a Jew. Religious based behavior is defined as weird, when somebody non-Christian does it. Otherwise, it’s the norm (to rest and go to Church on Sunday, for example).
// If people move to a country where pork is a staple then either learn to eat it or don’t eat it on your own dime don’t demand non-pork meals from government institutions.
Which government institutions? If religious non-Christians are a significant minority, why not accomodate them? After all, if *your country* needs immigrants, locals should do some adjustments too. Cliff, imo you demonstrate a bit the same attitude of Europians which contributed to current problems: “we will invite numerous immigrants, but not do the slightest bit to accomodate them. Not even feed them with something they can eat.” The latter btw is a relatively small, easy to do thing, which would make people feel more welcome in a new country and able to eat *together* with locals rather than in a segregated place.
And Muslims can eat kosher Jewish food, so the two groups could be accomodated together.
LikeLike
“Sunday is a free day because of Christianity, thus a religious Chrisrtian may attend usual school while observing his religion”
– Saturday and Sunday in developed countries and not because of Christianity but because of the struggle of labor movements.
“Religious based behavior is defined as weird, when somebody non-Christian does it.”
– I personally am against accommodating all religious fanatics from all religions.
“Cliff, imo you demonstrate a bit the same attitude of Europians which contributed to current problems: “we will invite numerous immigrants, but not do the slightest bit to accomodate them. Not even feed them with something they can eat.” ”
– I’m an immigrant. And I don’t expect anybody to accommodate me on any level. I chose to come here. It’s up to me to integrate and not make myself a nuisance to everybody. The approach of “you needed me, so now put up with endless aggravation because of that” is very alien to me.
LikeLike
I don’t define kosher food as endless aggravation. In reality, most people, especially from non-Western countries, are religious, and many aren’t “religious fanatics.” It is up to immigrants to integrate, but it won’t happen w/o some effort on part of the host society too. People from other cultures aren’t machines or lego pieces to be moved and used w/o any effect on the host country.
LikeLike
“I see a hypocritical element in this seemingly equal position. Sunday is a free day because of Christianity, thus a religious Chrisrtian may attend usual school while observing his religion, but not a Muslim or a Jew”
Mainstream muslims and jews in the US have switched their main religious observance to sunday. When I was in Turkey recently Friday seemed like a regular working day and more stores were closed on sunday. Who cares who started it? Having the same rough schedule makes things work more smoothly.
“Cliff, imo you demonstrate a bit the same attitude of Europians which contributed to current problems: “we will invite numerous immigrants, but not do the slightest bit to accomodate them. Not even feed them with something they can eat”
The majority of the population was no consulted about beginning immigration. Why is it the government’s duty to provide people with food that observes religious purposes?
If they don’t like pork in western europe where the majority has eaten it for centuries they can just eat vegetables at school (or bring their own meals) and have their non-pork meat at home.
“Muslims can eat kosher Jewish food, so the two groups could be accomodated together”
Muslims don’t care about not mixing meat and milk and many muslims don’t accept kosher meat as halal.
Once you start down the road of governments actively enabling religious dietary restrictions then you’ll end up with vegan food (and everyone suffers).
LikeLike
// – Yes, it absolutely is. There is nothing but the most dire poverty for anybody who doesn’t speak English in the US.
I meant not knowing language before arriving. Immigrants can be helped to learn it afterwards, like in Israel. Cliff also brought the point that it’s not only about USA and English.
LikeLike
The problem is that the immigrants who arrive without speaking the language become ghettoized and never find any motivation to learn, as I explained earlier in the thread. I want to remind you that my own mother doesn’t speak any English or French 16 years after emigration. As long as there is the ghetto, there is no motivation.
LikeLike
Compulsary language courses and passing exams before X time in the country to be able to stay.
LikeLike
Also, your mother is old and doesn’t work. In Israel some old people don’t really know Hebrew either. What is important is that it’s mother tongue of their (grand)children, without connection to the (grand)parents knowledge. In compulsury kindergarten and at school everything is in Hebrew, their friends speak only Hebrew or know it better than Russian, etc.
LikeLike
My mother was only 42 when she emigrated. That’s hardly old.
LikeLike
But how can immigrants to countries with smaller less-studied languages learn the language before arrival?
Deadlines for demonstrating competencies is one thing, but knowing Swedish (well) before arriving in Sweden seems like a tall order.
LikeLike
For now, developed countries use citizenship or legal residency as a way of rewarding suffering. Prove that you suffered – religiously, politically, economically, in any way – and you are in. So my idea is: since this has to be positioned as a reward, why not make it a reward for achievement? There are crowds of people who’d learn Swedish if residency were a reward for that. I know people who’ve spent years collecting articles (that they pay for themselves) proving they are victims of non-existent religious persecution because this is the only way they can emigrate. I wish this changed and they were learning the new country’s language instead.
LikeLike
The UK government hold the purse strings for Scotland. Politically the UK government is not what the Scots people have voted for, and Scotland is targeted as a region and suffers punitive polices because of this. The regional Scottish parliament has now proven its abilities to the satisfaction of enough Scots, who have voted for the Scottish Nationalist Party to ensure that they have the opportunity to vote in a referendum. The Scots are largely proEU membership and recognise the advantages that immigration brings to Scotland. The UK government wants to leave the EU and frequently attempts to whip up racist anti immigrant feelings. Scotland is now suffering a directed barrage of lies from the UK establishment and media and doubtless will do until the referendum vote in September. There was a low turnout for the EU election in Scotland and the UK, the 3 main UK parties (urging a Scottish No vote) don’t want to know just how unpopular they are, and this did allow one rightwing protest vote MEP to be elected, after the UKIP party was heavily promoted by the UK media, just ahead of the Green party. This wasn’t an important election for Scotland, we’re all waiting for September.
LikeLike