Halloween appropriation

@UnfortunatelyEvil #9686847
If protecting cultures is a good thing, clearly European countries should deport a significant majority of their middle eastern migrants to protect European cultures. Getting sick of seeing more kebab restaurants than non-kebab restaurants.

Well, depending on european country, not only the middle eastern migrants, but you get the point

@Finn123
An easy method would perhaps have them take a basic test on the culture,history,and language of the nation they reside in,that any native could pass ,and those that don't pass get deported.
Shame there's no way to upvote you multiple times

'@chaosgirl13' plenty of Europeans would fail that test too, unless you set threshold so low that a parrot can pass it. Especially important is that native who finished school a decade ago will struggle with history about as much as any immigrant, and culture notoriously difficult to pin down.

@comrade_Comrade I think that's why @chaosgirl13 said "that any native could pass" exactly because most tests makes even the natives fail that.

'@Zarem' thanks, didn't read it right the first time. I"ve edited reply to expand it.

@comrade_Comrade When you ask people what defines a certain nations culture you often wonder if these people realy live in the same place.

'@Rogers' smaller sub-divisions within countries can be more or less culturally (values, preferences, view of history) homogeneous. With enough mobility, self-selection will happen on geographic or occupational level. One of the more obvious examples of that is military, especially elite units which have to rely on selection, indoctrination and tradition in order to achieve high levels of unit cohesion. On national level some commonality in values is possible, but it is likely to be vague. Having different understanding of term "culture" doesn't help either.

@Rogers
Not what. But who, in plural.
Local culture is defined by the customs (behaviors) of local natives.
It is an emergent phenomenon, swarm intelligence. Thus no single native individual is an expert.

@chaosgirl13

In every country that's tried such tests it's easy to find native citizens who fail the same test - so where should they be deported then?

That's not to say that you shouldn't introduce immigrants to the culture, history and language of the country they come to - of course you should, and that's already done in every western nation.

But setting up a make or break test with specific question you think everyone should know will always be highly subjective and a bad way to differentiate who should and who shouldn't be able to stay in a country.

They're also often in practice used just to exclude people, by making the questions both very difficult and also irrelevant.

In Denmark, who has one of these tests, the questions have been things like:

"In 1933 the government and the old political parties entered into an agreement to secure the economic and social regulations in Denmark. What was that agreement called?"

"What is the story of the Danish ballet La Sylphide?"

"The Olsen Band is a popular Danish series of movies - what year was the first of them released?"

2/3 of applicants taking the test fails - including many native Danes who take the test just for fun.

One of the actors from the movie series "The Olsen Band" has even stated that he himself doesn't even remember what year the first film was released.

Swedish language source on this:
http://www.gp.se/nyheter/v%C3%A4rlden/h%C3%A4r-%C3%A4r-danmarks-sv%C3%A5ra-medborgartest-1.3505814

@chaosgirl13 Shame I can't upvote you multiple times, either. You're half my age and you have more insight into these things than I had ten years later.

@DarkMage7280
Thanks so much!
You're rather astute too ^^

@Finn123 I love how our food culture has been enrichened by mediterranean, middle estern, african and asian influences. American fast food is also sometimes okay. I see no problem with having more choices, as long as the ones you enjoy don't disappear.

@Galfisk I think that @Finn123 is talking more about Finland being influenced by the third world in general. It's probably more about Finnish values vs Middle eastern and African values.

Example:
In Finland, women are treated as equals.

In Somalia, women are suffering from female genital mutilation.


Tell me, is there any Middle eastern or African country that you would rather live in than Finland?

Why change Finland with Middle eastern and African influence, if Finland is a much better place to live?

One more thing, what else do you like about this enrichment?

@ScanianDreng

You shouldn't be listening to racists like Finn123 - he's just spouting stupid propaganda.

Finland - or Sweden for that matter - isn't actually changing "with Middle eastern and African influence" like you claim - that's simply not true at all.

Some small cultural influences do come with immigrants - that's always the case, yes.
But those changes are only ever the ones ACCEPTED by the majority culture - like food or music or some words maybe.
It's never ever a case that a minority culture can FORCE anything on a majority culture.
So obviously anything that the majority culture perceive as negative - like female genital mutilation - will never ever be accepted by the majority culture.

Instead what happens is that immigrants are absorbed into the majority population and culture within one or two generations.
They may retain some small facets from their original culture like names and cultural celebrations - but to a very large extent they'll become very much like everyone else.

For an example of that just look at the refugees from the former Yugoslavia that came to Sweden during the wars there in the 90's.

Back then SD hated against these people and said they'd destroy Sweden and would never be able to assimilate here.
Now SD don't want to talk about them at all, as these people are doing splendidly.
Those who came then and their children (like Zlatan) have the same education level as other swedes and they even have a slightly higher employment rate.
And can you tell me how in any way Swedish culture was negatively influenced by these people?
Did we stop eating meatballs or celebrate Christmas just because those immigrants came? No, of course we didn't.

The only influence I can think of is that you can now find Ćevapčići in both restaurants and in the frozen food section in your local super market. No one forces you to eat it, but it's there if you want it.
And only stupid racists like Finn123 can have a problem with that, frankly.

https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%86evap%C4%8Di%C4%87i

@Nisse_Hult
"You shouldn't be listening to racists like Finn123 - he's just spouting stupid propaganda."
Nice accusations coming from someone whose only purpose here is to argue about politics.

"Finland - or Sweden for that matter - isn't actually changing "with Middle eastern and African influence" like you claim - that's simply not true at all."
"For an example of that just look at the refugees from the former Yugoslavia that came to Sweden during the wars there in the 90's."
The amount of african and arab migrants in Sweden is already multiple times larger than the amount of yugoslavians ever was, and the flow of african and arab migrants to Europe in general isn't stopping as far as we can see it now. Unlike yugoslavians, a major share of the third world migrants to Sweden are driven there by promises of wealth, not war.

"But those changes are only ever the ones ACCEPTED by the majority culture"
This only holds true if the minorities stay minorities. When Swedes aren't a majority anymore in their own areas, there is no "majority" culture or the majority culture will be a collective middle eastern culture. Though of course, that doesn't concern you.

PS: I'm also not saying this will happen in all of Sweden, just the most heavily affected areas.

@Finn123

I basically never bring up politics here on my own - I just comment on it when other people do.
Very often that is you, who spend you time here (as I guess everywhere online) spreading the same racist views no matter the subject.
In this case being Halloween - but you still have to hate against immigrants. Because that's what you do.

Of course you don't provide any sources for your claims about immigrants - it's just all the kind of worthless talking points you pick up on hate sites online.

The facts are instead that the number of asylum seekers to Sweden has been reduced drastically since the major refugee wave that came during the autumn of 2015.
Sweden went from being the most generous recipient nation in Europe, to tightening it's rules to the minimum level in the EU.
This was decided by all political parties in unison - except the racists SD - because Swedish authorities for the first time said they simply couldn't cope with the high inflow of asylum seekers.

Here's a graph of that:

https://www.migrationsverket.se/images/18.5bc6881815e14db675019b2/1506926877419/Graf.gif

Notice the different colors for different years and also the total for each year (or in the case of this year the correct number up until last week).
So contrary to what you claim, the number of asylum seekers have gone down DRASTICALLY.

Also no asylum seekers has ever been allowed to stay in Sweden based on them seeking wealth. You and other racists constantly make that claim - but it's a simple fact that poverty isn't a cause for asylum.
Basically all asylum seekers come from poorer countries then Sweden - but that's not ever why anyone get to stay.
They all have to show more pressing reasons then that to be granted asylum.

The most recent year the Swedish statistical office has published a report on I can find is 2015, in which the most common countries of origin for immigrants to Sweden was:

1. Syria - 30,590 persons
2. Sweden - 14,580 persons
3. Eritrea - 6,838 persons

Now notice the difference between asylum seekers and actual immigrants - far from everyone seeking asylum is of course granted it.
Also notice that the second largest immigrant group to Sweden are returning Swedes. This is because Swedish statistics correctly notes Swedes that have once emigrated as immigrants once they move back to Sweden.

But racist of course have no clue about these facts, and instead regularly uses the number for asylum seekers when they talk about immigrants, and when they do use the correct immigration number, they pretend that every immigrant is from the Middle East or Africa since those are the people they hate.

Also notice the sharp drop-of in numbers from 1st to 3rd in that list. It's really only war-torn Syria that accounts for a very large amount of immigrants.
Eritreas number is the result of a highly repressive regime and it's mistreatment of it's people - poverty isn't as it's never been a reason to be granted asylum in Sweden.

The list then goes on with Poland and several other European and western nations - all people from which not even our racists SD party has a problem (at least officially).

Source:
http://www.scb.se/sv_/Hitta-statistik/Artiklar/Rekordstor-invandring-under-2015/

Regarding the last bit of nonsense:

Swedes will always be the majority population of Sweden - only racists that don't accept second generation immigrants as Swedes believe otherwise.
Like our racists SD party who don't accept the footballer Zlatan Ibrahimovic as Swedish just because his parents came from the Balkans, for example.

And regarding this bit of smearing, trying to portray me as an out-of-tuch elitist not experiencing the effects of immigration myself:

"Though of course, that doesn't concern you. "

You know nothing about me - but I'll happily tell you I spent 15 years living in one of those areas you racists falsely call "no go zones", and I never had any problems there what so ever.

I moved 2 years ago but I still have friends living there, including an old Finnish guy I work with and he and his wife is perfectly happy there. Their apartment is being converted from a rented flat into a condominium later this year and they're buying it and are staying on.

So don't judge others by your own racist beliefs - OK?

@Nisse_Hult
"The facts are instead that the number of asylum seekers to Sweden has been reduced drastically since the major refugee wave that came during the autumn of 2015."

Looks like it's stabling to the level of 20k a year to Sweden, which is quite a lot. Just because something decreased dRaStIcAlLy from a peak year doesn't mean it isn't a lot anymore. And that is only counting the asylum aplicants, the total amount of immigrants to Sweden in 2016 was 148 000, if we exclude those born in Sweden moving back. Wikipedia | Statistiska centralbyrån (link in wiki article but i assume not everyone can view the file, thus screenshot)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Sweden
According to wikipedia there are currently around 400 000 immigrants from "Western Asia", in Sweden. Western Asia is essentially the same as middle east minus Egypt. From Africa there are around 200 000. And this will increase as even your own sources showcase, so thanks for proving my point actually.

There are also 300 000 immigrants to Sweden from Northern Europe, which is also massive, but culturally near insignificant as we share mostly the same culture to begin with.

"Swedes will always be the majority population of Sweden "
Sweden has gone from 95% Swedish to only 77% Swedish within half a century. Such a drastic change in such a small time and you deny the possibility that this might change further? In fact it absolutely will continue on the same path since in younger age groups the amount of immigrants is much higher. That, and there is still no visible end to mass immigration. Good luck living in denial though, as you always have.



PS:
"So don't judge other by your own racist beliefs - OK? "
Coming from someone who keeps judging people here and screeching how racist I am in your opinion. Oh, or is it okay to judge people if the one who is judging has the same beliefs as you?

At least my beliefs are based on fact.

PPS: My original message, which was about food culture, was a relevant reply to another message about culture.

@Finn123

"Looks like it's stabling to the level of 20k a year to Sweden, which is quite a lot. Just because something decreased dRaStIcAlLy from a peak year doesn't mean it isn't a lot anymore."

Of course it's a lot - there are more refugees in the world today then at any time since WWII. Not strange then that some of them end up seeking asylum in Sweden.
But contrary to racist beliefs, the fact that people seek asylum isn't actually anything any constitutional state can do much about as the right to seek asylum is regulated by international law.
What a nation can do something about is deciding which of those that seek are then granted asylum.

"And that is only counting the asylum aplicants, the total amount of immigrants to Sweden in 2016 was 148 000, if we exclude those born in Sweden moving back."

Yes, that's a natural consequence of the fact that the number of asylum seekers in 2015 was many times higher then it has ever been in Swedish history.
Which is why, as I said, Sweden have since restricted it's regulations - leading to a much smaller number of asylum seekers since.
Meaning that the numbers of immigrants coming as asylum seekers will decline over time.

The same thing happened in the 90's during the wars in the Balkans - first the numbers of asylum seekers rose, then the number of immigrants followed at a lower rate as those that where granted asylum had their cases processed.

"According to wikipedia there are currently around 400 000 immigrants from "Western Asia", in Sweden. Western Asia is essentially the same as middle east minus Egypt. From Africa there are around 200 000. And this will increase as even your own sources showcase, so thanks for proving my point actually."

Actually the facts don't prove your point at all and I have no problem with facts.
The problem is your interpretation of the facts, where you as a racist assumes a larger number of immigrants from certain areas of the world is bad.
But that just "proof" in your mind - because you're racist.
Just like the Nazis made lists of Jews, homosexuals and mentally disabled and thought that it proved their point - because they thought those people didn't deserve to be called Germans and insted should be murdered.

"Sweden has gone from 95% Swedish to only 77% Swedish within half a century. Such a drastic change in such a small time and you deny the possibility that this might change further? In fact it absolutely will continue on the same path since in younger age groups the amount of immigrants is much higher. That, and there is still no visible end to mass immigration. Good luck living in denial though, as you always have."

No, it hasn't. What you're doing here is you're taking the figure for all inhabitants being born abroad or having at least one parent born abroad and redefining them as non-Swedish.
This is just straight up racism - nothing else.

The stupidity of this argument is shown by the fact that Sweden's current crown princess and future queen is among those you just defined as non-Swedish, as her mother - our current queen - is an immigrant to Sweden.

But you've also already discounted the 300,000 immigrants from Northern Europe as not really immigrants in your own view, as they "share mostly the same culture to begin with".

If you to those 300,000 added all Swedes with at least one parent from that group you of course get a much larger number - meaning that the actual number of what you as a racist actually sees as non-Swedes are in fact far lower then the 23% number from the statistical office.

And finally, of course, even if the number YOU see as non-Swedes are lower, none of those people actually ARE non-Swedes in reality.
You just judge them to be non-Swedish because you're a racist.

Just like our racist SD-party does when it for instance doesn't view Zlatan Ibrahimovic as a Swede - despite him being born in this country.

"Coming from someone who keeps judging people here and screeching how racist I am in your opinion. Oh, or is it okay to judge people if the one who is judging has the same beliefs as you?
At least my beliefs are based on fact."

It's not my opinion - you've made it abundantly clear you are a racist from the way you interpret the world. No non-racist looks at statistical data like this and decides that a large percentage of the Swedish population isn't actually Swedish at all, simply based on their place of birth or their parents place of birth.
That's the very definition of racism!
So no - your beliefs are clearly NOT based on facts - as you've just shown.

"My original message, which was about food culture, was a relevant reply to another message about culture."

No it wasn't. You wrote:

"If protecting cultures is a good thing, clearly European countries should deport a significant majority of their middle eastern migrants to protect European cultures."

That's not defined only to food culture and you're spreading the complete lie that European cultures is somehow under threat from immigrants from the Middle East.
That was completely irrelevant and only added because that's how YOU, in YOUR racist mind, view the world.

@Nisse_Hult @Finn123
[What you're doing here is you're taking the figure for all inhabitants being born abroad or having at least one parent born abroad and redefining them as non-Swedish.
This is just straight up racism - nothing else.]

Racism against the natives, that is. Based on the Geneva Convention on genocide.

There is a limit to how fast immigrants are able to assimilate themselves in a new country. The threshold of unsustainable immigration is around 0,1% annually against the native population, at every dimension of the society. And the share of non-natives should not exceed 1/10 of the natives. In Sweden that ratio went from 1:20 to 1:3, which has already led to a 6-7x slowdown in assimilation rate, assuming the distribution of immigrants based on sex, age, local residence, education and working follow the distribution of the natives. But since we know that there are massive differences between the distribution of natives and non-natives in almost all dimensions, that 6-7x slowdown of assimilation rate is actually too optimistic. Due to that slowdown, Sweden should take no more than 3000 immigrants annually (that is immigrants + refugees + asylum seekers + granted asylumers).

And no 'racist' labeling helps you, Nisse, against those principles.

@ThorsomeTarmukas

I actually don't think Finn123 want your "help" here as you're just straight up promoting biological racist arguments.
Just as you've done on many occasions before on this site.

"Modern" racists like Finn123 on the other hand don't usually want to talk about actual biological "race", but prefer to claim they're only "concerned" about "culture" or "religion".

But you do the valuable job of showing that what Finn123 says is no different from the biological racism you promote and the ideas about "race" the Nazis built their worldview on.
You're just representing different generations of racists way to sell the same racism in slightly different packaging.

So thanks for that clarification.

@Nisse_Hult
["Modern" racists like Finn123 on the other hand don't usually want to talk about actual biological "race", but prefer to claim they're only "concerned" about "culture" or "religion".]

You haven't the foggiest of how I view the essence of a race, despite me having explained it in this forum multiple times.

Each race is a mix (of other races). That mix changes very slowly over time and space, for example it has stayed stable in Europe for the last 35 000 years.
In mathematical terms, a race is a (temporally and spatially) stable principal component derived from global genetics data. Each principal component can be described as a mix of other principal components.
Each individual is a mix (of races). And yet races very much do exist.

Any fast change (instability) in such a mix of races (principal components) always coincides with military conflicts. Always. Which makes it desirable to avoid fast changes IF you want to avoid military conflicts (which you seem not to).

The same pinciples also apply to nations, peoples and tribes, but on a smaller scale.

@ThorsomeTarmukas

There simply isn't any scientific basis for the concept of biological races:

"Although such groupings lack a firm basis in modern biology, they continue to have a strong influence over contemporary social relations"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification)

It's just another debunked junk "science" like Phrenology or Alchemy.

You could just as well argue for any of those - you're just digging yourself deeper here, OK?

@Nisse_Hult
You are in denial.
You need to learn the basics of PCA (Principal Component Analysis) to understand.
You are a science denier until you learn PCA and how its principles are being applied in genetics research.

@ThorsomeTarmukas

I've already posted the link in my last post, I'm perfectly happy resting on that.

All you do is claim stuff you can't back up and that the scientific community dosen't support.

@Nisse_Hult
You haven't the foggiest.

@Nisse_Hult
Let me try to explain it again.

The Wikipedia article basically says that the definition of a pure race and pure individuals was a strawman - there never was such a scientific definition. Thus the Wikipedia article merely points out the strawman definition, but says that "such groupings lack a firm basis in modern biology" - which is exactly what I was trying to convey to you. Lack of firm basis does not mean lack of a plausible definition of race.

Race is a fuzzy concept and the races of individuals are fuzzy as well. But fuzzy logic would be an extra leap in understanding, at first you need to understand the basics of PCA (Principal Compoent Analysis).

@Nisse_Hult As I'm still very new here compared to you, I can't speak for what Finn has written in the past. But I like him. The way I see it, he's a nice guy who loves his country. I wouldn't consider his comment racist at all. Maybe he didn't say it in the most pleasant way, but I still don't think it qualifies as racist.

And before we continue, may I just say that, it's obvious that you two have argued in the past, and that is probably also why I see more name calling between you in this conversation, than necessary.

My point is, let's not insult each other. That doesn't help the conversation at all.

"Finland - or Sweden for that matter - isn't actually changing with "Middle eastern and African influence" like you claim"
Clearly a misunderstanding. Although I do think that many European countries are changing all the time as more and more immigrants come here, this particular question I made was more about me wondering why anyone would want to change Finland.


"It's never ever a case that a minority culture can FORCE anything on a majority culture"

Actually they can. If they don't get it their way, we can be branded racists, which is a big deal in many parts of this country.

Or in Germany. It's a very big deal for them if they are accused of being nazis. The immigrants can easily take advantage of guilt in order to blackmail their way to victory.
Now, in reality, they haven't gone that far. But people who openly criticize muslims are still at risk of being branded racists. And if the accused person is unfortunate, his property may be vandalized or he'll get personally attacked, if others find out where he lives.

Of course female genital mutilation will never be accepted by us. But I still don't want to bring people with misogynistic and homophobic mindsets over here to the civilized world. Because if we become a minority in our own land, then it will be easy for them to apply any law that they want, to our countries. And Islam is filled with women hating and homophobic views, which is why countries that are ruled by Islamic rules, like Saudi Arabia, have some of the worst rights for homosexuals and women, in the world. Now, this doesn't mean that all muslims in the world are evil in any way, but the ideology of Islam itself is pretty bad. And the majority of muslims are definitely severely influenced by this ideology, which corrupts their view on the world.


I don't know much about the yugoslavians and I don't care much for food, as long as it tastes good and is healthy enough.

And no. From my personal experience, immigrants rarely become like us, unless they're from neighboring countries. They walk around in gangs, they piss on churches (my grandma witnessed that), they don't like our country and are not glad to be a part of it, they often say things like "I'll fuck your mom/sister" to other people, I've heard several times how much they hate gay people (this includes Russians and southeastern Europeans). Whenever I've interrupted their poisonous behavior, they get really pissed off. One time, two of them wouldn't stop throwing things at my pal and I, until we walked up to them and threatened to beat them up. We tried to reason with them numerous times before that. They have no respect for our traditions either. A Muslim immigrant also told my little sister, that she was going to burn in hell because she didn't believe in God.

Several years ago, one immigrant kept bullying me and my friends. And then I arm wrestled him, and I won. But his response was of course to bring his 6 friends, because he's a fucking coward that can't do anything unless he severely outnumbers his foe.


Oh, and the time when my aunt was together with a muslim. This happened before I was born so I can only speak from my grandmothers perspective.

My grandma once saw that my aunt had a black eye. She asked why. My aunt didn't answer. As my grandma saw more and more bruises, each time she met her daughter, she finally decided to get away from my aunts boyfriend. My aunt was being abused by him, as my grandma went over to their house.
He didn't want to confront my grandma, so he ran out of the house before she opened the door. My grandma burned his passport and then they moved out of the place as fast as they could, in order to later travel to a part of Sweden that is far away from where they used to live.

As I said. This is just from my personal experience. Maybe you've been more lucky.


For your information, I don't think that SD is racist. One thing that I don't like about what they've done in recent times though, is that they want to limit the time woman are allowed to abort a baby.
That sounds like taking away a tiny bit of women's rights. Which obviously is wrong.


That food doesn't look bad, but I prefer eating vegetarian though.

@Galfisk
The point was to protect other cultures from influencing and eventually destroying another ones. I don't mind having some kebab shops, but if you've step foot on Europe recently you'd know there's way too many. There isn't even a small town anywhere that doesn't have a kebab shop, and bigger ones can have like 5 on the same street.

Last year there was actually an Italian town that banned new kebab and 'ethnic' food restaurants in order to preserve Italian food culture, that kinda tells how damaging the invasion of kebab is.

And no ofc damaging the food culture isn't the only bad thing about mass migration, but I used that as example so I specified on that further.

@Finn123
It is likely that many of those kebab shops are used to launder dirty money that comes from criminal activities. And to clock some employment record for immigrant relatives to better game the welfare system.

@ThorsomeTarmukas

God you're such a cliché of an ignorant racist. *facepalm*
Absolutely no proof what so ever - it's all just prejudice.

Want to know what our racists say about you Estonians?

That you're all thief's and drunkards who come to Sweden only to steal and ship your loot back to Estonia.
If a car is stolen, a Swedish racists always assumes it's stolen by a Baltic or possibly Polish thief and it'll end up being shipped back to your countries.

Officially our racist SD party doesn't say this, as they want to present themselves as sensible and rational and only "concerned" about "foreign" cultures (which means any person with a darker skin tone) - but unofficially the comment sections of their hate sites online if just as hateful against you Estonians as you are against the people you know noting about and have no proof against.

Because that's what racists do - they hate everyone who's not exactly like them.
And you're not like them enough - because you're not Swedish, and thus you're less worth and shurely just another drunkard and a thief - like they "know" all other Estonians are.

Congratulations - now you know.

@Nisse_Hult
2/3 of "Estonian" criminals are actually the descendants of soviet colonists - the ones that Sweden considered to have too light skin for their taste to be an immigrant, even though those colonists have an OECD average education level based on PISA and TIMSS tests.

Similarly, I assume that 2/3 of criminal "Swedes" do not have Swedish nor Nordic ancestry from 100 years ago. But the difference is that your immigrants score below OECD average, especially the ones from outside of Europe.

PS. You are an ignorant racist.
Absolutely no proof what so ever - it's all just prejudice.
Congratulations - now you know.

@ThorsomeTarmukas

There's no point trying to argue with me about this - I'm just telling your what our racists say about you.

I think you're all just equally f*cked in the head - but as long as I don't say that to the Swedish racists, they will still always agree with me - because you're just another stupid foreigner to them.

I'll always be better and worth more in their eyes then you, just because I happen to have be born on this side of the Baltic.

And you'll always be worth less.

Because that's how racism works.

@Nisse_Hult
Fine by me.
Even if I were to move to live in Sweden, I am not going to expect to be treated as a local native.
And the swedes moving to Estonia should not expect it either.

@ThorsomeTarmukas

Well, that's why I think you're all just equally f*cked in the head.

@Nisse_Hult

My position is based on game theory.
Gamification, baby.
Immigrants are gaming the system.

PS.
game = an animal targeted in a hunt
game = (estonian) saak, saak+loom
(estonian) saagis = yield
(estonian verb) saama = to gain, to get, to catch, to take, to get one's hands on
to get one's hands on = (estonian) kätte saama
Notice the similarity with the english verb 'get' and finnic 'kätte' (finnish 'käteen'). Into one's hands.

@ThorsomeTarmukas

Your position is based on willful ignorance of scientific facts and - as you've stated elsewhere - your willingness to cherry-pick only the examples you like "and generalise from that". #9687896

The way you operate is a perfect example of how NOT to conduct science or intellectual analysis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking

And for some reason or other you seem to have a specially obsession with using the tiny Estonian language as "proof" for any and everything.

It just reminds me of Jon Stewart's parody of Fox News Glenn Beck - the conspiracy nut who with a black board and some random ideas could "prove" just about anything.

You're nothing special - the internet if filled with nutcases like you who think they have uncovered some truth or another.

But Glenn Beck at least became a millionaire spreading that nonsense to gullible people.
You're just a sad racist with delusions of grandeur talking to yourself.

@Nisse_Hult My opinion is nationalistic. My opinion is that my country is more important than some lazy immigrants, my opinion is that my country should think about my country's problems not some problems of other countries, my opinion is that my culture is better than their culture. If you want to call me racist then that's fine because I am racist and you're from Sweden we make jokes about how much of a shithole your country is. I was actually in Sweden a couple of weeks ago, it was horrible.

@ArnorR

I'm sorry - that comment of mine you replied to was mislabeled as directed to you.
I have no idea how that happened, it was meant as a reply to ThorsomeTarmukas, but I must have made a strange mistake and somehow put your name in there.

This site is very hard to follow but that discussion is now located on page 3 if you want to try and search for it.
It's way down in a thread between ThorsomeTarmukas and me - it wasn't intended for you at all.

So I'm honestly sorry for directing the reply to you as it was never meant for you.

But since you replied the way you did - let me say this:

You're entitled to hold any opinion you want, but the opinions you express here is, like nationalism, just stupid prejudice - there isn't a shred of evidence behind anything you say.

Immigrants aren't lazy, just like Icelandic people aren't lazy - immigrants are - like any other people, individuals and you can't properly judge an entire collective of individuals like that.

I'm sure there are some immigrants who are lazy - just like there are Icelandic people who are lazy. That's how people are - they are individuals, with individual traits.

On the other hand anyone who reads what you've written here can know that YOU'RE lazy, because you spout opinions that show that you clearly haven't thought these things though at all - but I'm certainly not going to judge all the people of Iceland based on you.

Just the same way culture isn't better or worse - and that's a good thing for Iceland frankly.
Because seriously - what have Iceland ever given the world?
But that's fine - it's not a contest and I'm not looking down on your culture just because of that, and nor should anyone else.

And personally I'm happy that you didn't like Sweden as that means you won't be coming back then. We certainly don't need more people like you.

@Finn123

I was going to ignore you racist rant this time, but I now see that was a mistake as you're attracting young impressionable people with your hateful filth.

So here goes:

European culture doesn't need any protecting from "middle eastern migrants" - they have a minute influence on any culture here.
If you where in any way objective, you instead would be railing against US influence in that case as Europe is way, way, WAY more influenced by US culture.
But since you're a racist your real problem isn't actually cultural influences - that's only an excuse for hating on certain groups of immigrants.

Also, your "argument" is completely nonsensical as any kebab restaurants in Finland is only there because people want them there.
If they didn't have willing customers they couldn't exist - so apparently most finns enjoy this foreign influence in their cuisine then - if there are really "more kebab restaurants than non-kebab restaurants" in Finland - like you claim.

You're free to eat whatever you like - just as anyone else - but I don't think you'll be winning any arguments with most finns if you want to force them to eat what YOU think they SHOULD eat - just to satisfy your racist beliefs.

@Nisse_Hult
If people agree with me, clearly they are able to see the sense in my words. I don't think a fringe lunatic who's in the past among other questionable things defended cuba and called the norwegian government and their foreign policy "neo-fascist" will change their mind.

I don't have anything against people eating kebab if they so wish, or chinese food or any "ethnic" food for that matter, it's only a problem if it takes over. Maybe if you read my comment again you will understand the point, if you can do that without steaming and mumbling about fascism at the same time.

"Racist rant" and "hateful filth" Such strong words, you're funny

@Finn123

I challenge you to link to the places where I've "defended Cuba" and called the "Norwegian government and their foreign policy "neo-fascist"".
Before you do that we can safely conclude these are just lies.

And I leave it up to others to decide for themselves what you actually said in your comment and what the consequences of that argument leads.

Yes, I know online racists like yourself nowadays believe racism is just a joke.

Then the neo-fascists drive their car into peaceful protestors or kills 77 people because they believe Europe is being overrun by immigrants.

So no - racism and neo-fascism isn't ever a joke - no matter how hard you try to mainstream that hateful rhetoric of yours.

@Nisse_Hult
Ah, I was wondering when you'd become confident enough that those comments are so far in the past you could finally start denying them. Very well, I'll dig them up the next time I have 3 hours to spend on something that tedious. ;)

"Yes, I know online racists like yourself nowadays believe racism is just a joke."
No, I just think you're a joke.

@Finn123

You've never made those accusations before so I've never had any reason to demand a source for them.
If you had I would have done so at the time.

So no, this is more a question of you thinking you can get away with spreading lies since any such discussion took place so far back you think I won't remember what I've said.

But I know my opinions and I know I don't express myself the way you claimed.

There's also a large part of assumption to your claim as "defending Cuba" could mean anything.

In your mind saying the US supported Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba was illegal might count as "defending Cuba" for all we know. But that doesn't make the fact that the invasion was illegal any less of a fact.

But we'll see what you dig up, if you ever get around to doing the work.

My guess is you won't as you're chronically lazy and almost never source any of your claims.

@Nisse_Hult I love how the immagrants haven't brought anything to Iceland except the murder of an Icelandic woman.

@ArnorR

I get that you think you're "funny" by "joking" about a murder, but you know you're just an asshole - right?
I don't think that woman's relatives would be happy to see you use her death as a "joke" to "prove" your racist views.

Racist because you're singling out one murder committed by some immigrant while native Icelander's of course also have murdered people - but that's apparently more OK to you.

Your comment is of course also factually wrong - because obviously Iceland, like every other country, has gotten a lot from immigrants throughout history.

@Nisse_Hult Maybe we got some things from immigrants but we haven't gotten anything from the current ones and I wasn't trying to be funny and of course more white people have murdered Icelandic people here but that's because we're more than 90% white. There have been a couple recent murders in Iceland one of them was my friends uncle killed because of drugs, one was by some guys from Greenland and one was from an immigrant murder of any kind is unacceptable but one of them could have been prevented if we just keep those people out of our country.

@ArnorR

First of all you don't actually know what Iceland's so far got from your "current" immigrants - whatever you now think is current (people who came yesterday, last year, 10 years ago?) as you don't know everything that happens even in tiny Iceland.

Secondly you can't honestly access any immigrant groups contribution to any society until you've given them a number of years to get back on their feet.
Immigrating to a completely new nation and learning a completely new language is a big thing - it takes time to get going.

Thirdly - that's still only talking about the first generation immigrant, by the second generation - the children being born in the new country or grown up there - a lot more happens.
Our Zlatan Ibrahimović is a second generation immigrant - born in Sweden, but his parents came from the Balkans during the wars there in the 90's.
You seem to enjoy you national football teams success lately - maybe your next star player in a few years will be one of the immigrant kids you see on the streets today?
Or one of them may grow up to be the doctor that saves your life 15 years from now when you crash with your car? Who knows?

Fourthly - You write that:
"if we just keep those people out of our country" a murder could have been prevented
And we all of course wished we could keep murderers out of our country - out of this world even.

But we can't know who'll become a murderer and who'll become a hero as that's not up to skin color or religion or sexuality or anything else.
That's a question of individual character and there are good and bad people all over the world and from everywhere.
If we could tell who'd become a murderer - don't you think everyone would agree not to let those individuals in? Of course they would - but we can't tell that!

And among those immigrants you wished to keep out, and their future children, are also people who will stop murders and save people in Iceland in the years to come.
Some of them will become doctors, some police officers, some might become fire fighters or crew ambulances and so on and so forth.
And those persons will be many, many more then the people who ever murder anyone.

Because just like the Icelandic people before they came where mostly good with some bad eggs among them - so are the immigrants.
On a fundamental level people are no different around the world - most of them just want to live in peace and get on with their life.
Most of them are decent enough and only very few of them will ever become criminals or murder anyone.
That's just how humans are - all over the world.

@Nisse_Hult I don't care about what they could do in the future. Here in Iceland we have a saying, ísland fyrir íslendinga which translates to Iceland for Icelandic people. We just went through an election here and as expected the anti-immigrant party won again.

@ArnorR

You started out by claiming immigrants have brought nothing of value to Iceland.

I point out they have and that you're therefore wrong.

You then try to claim Iceland have gotten nothing from "the current ones".

I then point out that they haven't really had a chance to prove themselves yet, as they recently arrived but most of them will prove themselves valuable in the future.

Then you claim you don't care about what they could do in the future.

Well, the same could be said for you - couldn't it?
If you're 15 like your account states you've done absolutely nothing of value to Iceland yet. All you've ever done is to cost money and resources for the Icelandic taxpayers and the jury is still out if you'll ever pay that back or if you'll just become a drain on Iceland for the rest of your life.

Im not saying you will mind you - I'm saying you, just like most immigrants, haven't had an opportunity to prove yourself yet.

So, as you like sayings, you might have heard the one about people in glass houses and how they shouldn't throw stones?

Yes, the saying you mention exists in every country. It's used by racists and xenophobes.

Actually, the Icelandic elections seems to be producing a center-left coalition government.
But I'll be happy to check your claim if you provide an English language source for it.
What party is it that you think "won" the election?

https://www.politico.eu/article/iceland-election-results-2017-ruling-party-dealt-blow/

@Nisse_Hult If you care so much about these people then why don't take them into shitty Sweden. My mother voted left and sister as well but when asked what they wanted to be done with the immigrants they said they didn't want them, most left leaning people I know don't like the immigrants. The biggest left leaning party here in Iceland is communist and communists deserve to die.

@ArnorR

We do. Sweden has taken in more refugees per capita then any other nation in Europe.

You don't seem to know your own country very well.

There isn't even a Communist party elected to the Icelandic parliament so it certainly can't be the biggest left leaning party like you write. Instead I guess that you've been spending too much time on right-wing hatesites filled with ignorant propaganda, labeling every leftist party "communist", that you don't actually know the difference between communism and social democracy.

You should learn that difference - it'll probably come up on a test in school one of these days.

@Nisse_Hult
thats complete bullcrap, usa culture is like 90% the same as european culture, this is ofcourse because usa culture is spawned from european culture (europeans went over there and turned it into todays usa) the idea that we would need protection from being influenced by a spin off from our own culture is completely ridiculous.

now i dont know where you live but i live in a pretty crappy town with a very high middle eastern/northern african immigrant population, crime is fairly high here compared to the low immigration area i grew up in. i have friends whove had to pull their kids out of public school and send them to a catholic school because their daughter was one of 3 non muslim kids in a 20+kids class. they arent racist by any stretch but didnt want their kid to grow up in a muslim dominant culture which is what public schools in this area are


as to your kebab thing, this is funnily something i recently talked about with a friend, kebab stores are in this town(and many towns all around here rly) killing food diversity. while it is true that kebabs are pretty popular and when im drunk im sure glad we have them it is getting to a point of insanity, every year about 2-3 new ones pop up in this town alone, but there isnt enough buisness for all these kebab stores so every year 2-3 have to close their doors aswell, we have so many kebab places that they put each other out of buisness, but if that was the only issue it would be fine, its not tho, you see because they have so much competition they all do other stuff aswell, they make cheap pizza's (cheaper then the italian pizzeria's) they make cheap french fries (cheaper then the local french frie places) and so on. now this a fairly poor area where the for example more expensive italian pizzeria can no longer compete with the shitty cheap kebab place that now also serves pizzas and other italian foods. diversity is long gone cause all we have left is kebab places and chinese restaurants (woe the day the arabs get their hands on a ricecooker)

ofcourse you can say (and this is true) that this was the peoples choice, the poor people bought the cheap pizzas over the more expensive authentic italian ones, the market has chosen. but that doesnt change the fact that the kebab places did kill off the diversity of food vendors in this poor area. im totaly happy kebab is a menu option, i just wish it wasnt quickly becomming one of the only options around here.

@burny555

No, it's not.
There is no such thing as a singular "European culture" - as the topic of this comic clearly shows.

Halloween might have originated in Ireland (and as I've written elsewhere on that, possibly also further back from other influences), but it's found it's modern form in the US. When it's now imported back to Europe it's seeds might once have come from A PART OF Europe - but it's not in any way native to the rest of Europe.
That's why you see some people all over Europe arguing against the including of this - to their culture - foreign tradition.

Not even Ireland - where the roots of the tradition came from - get's the exact same tradition back as it's been Americanized.
Some my like that, some don't - but it's clearly a fact that the modern Halloween tradition now being imported into Europe from the US is an American tradition.

You might not object to this foreign cultural import, but it still is a foreign cultural import - especially to everywhere else but Ireland, but also there to a slightly lesser extent.

Now tell me what "middle eastern/northern african" tradition has been taken up as widely over Europe as Halloween has?

So no - it's clearly the case that US cultural influence is much larger then any other cultural influence in Europe today.

And as I said - you might not disapprove of that fact, but it's still a fact.

Your other arguments are about lacking integration and economical inequality - two important questions, but they've got nothing to do with the fear that immigrant culture will swamp out your native one.

Poor people buy cheap food yes, but the solution to that is not to ban or restrict the availability of certain types of food - it's to increase poor peoples wealth, thus giving them more options.

@Nisse_Hult
i agree theres no such thing as a singular european culture, but european countrys do all have very similar cultures because of being so close together and having so much shared history(conquering, trading, etc) theres also no singular middle eastern culture, but since middle eastern culture is a good bit different from western/european culture its easy to group those 2 together

i dont see a problem with a culture modernizing its own traditions, we in the west have done this with most of our christian holidays, we remove the unpleasant parts and keep the pleasant ones.

as to your question:
Now tell me what "middle eastern/northern african" tradition has been taken up as widely over Europe as Halloween has?

i cant speak for europe, but i can speak where i live, and here theres a high % muslim population, in the town where i live alot more people celebrate ramadan than people celebrate halloween. i live in one of the poorer neighberhoods in this town and have never seen trick or treaters in any of the streets around here

so at least for my personal experience ramadan is more celebrated than halloween

@burny555

Obviously cultures closer to each other are more alike - but as the example with Halloween shows, that doesn't mean that introducing that to Europe is greeted with open arms by everyone.

And nothing like the introduction of an entire cultural celebration has ever even happened from the Middle East, so as I said cultural influence from the US is still far stronger in Europe then any cultural influence from the Middle East.

The fact that you live in a neighborhood where many people are Muslim immigrants that continue to celebrate Ramadan isn't actually an example of cultural influence.

Because non-Muslims aren't suddenly celebrating Ramadan, every store all over your country aren't suddenly filled with stuff to celebrate Ramadan - it's just the case that you happen to live in an area where many immigrants live and they celebrate it.

This is not in any way threatening you country's tradition - no one is forcing you to abolish those.
It's just a case of some citizens choosing to celebrate one thing and other another.
That's nothing strange or threatening at all in a democracy - people get to choose what they celebrate, what Gods they pray to (or none), who they vote for and so on and so forth.

@Nisse_Hult so our restaurants beginning to sell "halal" menu options and muslim holidays being recognized by our schools, workplaces, and calendars is "no influence"? huh... interesting. I personally don't take issue with this, but in some areas communities have been asked by some populations not to follow their own cultural traditions because they feel offended by them. That is where I start to take issue.

@GrayFenix

No, it's not. None of that is forcing me to change my behavior in any way - it's just giving others a possibility to do what they want.

Regarding holidays it's not like any nation will ever enforce a complete set of new national holidays - that would be way to expensive for companies with all the days off.

But if someone want to take a day or more off to celebrate something I don't celebrate - I don't have a problem with that.
Just as long as they use their vacation days to do it or work a day I'm off so it's fair - but any employer and the unions would see to that.

"in some areas communities have been asked by some populations not to follow their own cultural traditions because they feel offended by them. That is where I start to take issue."

Of course - that's where anyone would take issue.
Now if you could only show me an actual case where this happened?

Because this is what you generally get from people worried about this - it's not actually concrete cases where something have in fact happened - it's the fear that things will happen, somewhere down the line.

A fear that anti-immigrant groups of course stoke with all the lies and misinformation they can.

@Nisse_Hult like I said before, this was something I personally experienced as a child growing up. I grew up in a region that had certain traditions that we always did every year regarding Christmas. A person from up north - that was not a Christian - threw such a fit over us continuing our traditions, they stopped holding them to avoid further conflict. This was extremely upsetting for me and my friends as children. This single family put an end to our community's traditions.

@GrayFenix I'm very willing to wager that those traditions were being run by your town's government. As we are supposed to be a secular nation, someone who isn't Christian is going to see that as problematic. And they should. The government should not be in the business of sponsoring religious observations.

@Lysana No, they were not run by our government. It was community organized with volunteers in the neighborhood.

@Nisse_Hult

see the thing is, this isnt just my neighberhood. this is most poorer neighberhoods all over my country, where muslims have gone from being a minority to being a majority(or at least closing the gap quickly) mass migration + the large number of kids the average muslim family has compared to non muslims means that in my lifetime ive seen their numbers grow to a point where soon they wont be a minority anymore (this is still a good way away, but if the trend continues in this direction thats where it will end up) i can see it by the schools, public schools that used to have like 4-5 muslim kids per 20 or so students now have 10-15 per 20

you say this isnt threatening my countrys tradition but this it most assuredly is, just look at any muslim majority country in the world and see how often non muslim holidays are oppressed there. i have no reason to believe it will be any different here when they become a majority here (storys of people jailed and stores destroyed for celebrating valentines,christmass,halloween,etc in the middle east are easy enough to find)

halloween was a european holiday to begin with, the americans just commercialized it (like they do with everything they touch) which people here seemed happy to accept because it makes it fun for the kids and we have little ties left to old traditions surrounding most holidays

@Nisse_Hult I think this seems a bit silly... a culture choosing to adopt a tradition that has originally come from a fellow western culture is one thing. Having people actually come to your home, and bring their entire (non-western) culture to your doorstep without your consent is completely different. As an American, I have experienced this first hand. The area I'm from was predominately settled by Germans, they even still speak a form of German in the area, yet when people from outside of our community began flooding our area, they began to demand that WE change OUR culture to suit THEM. That is not ok by any means.

@GrayFenix

The discussion was about cultural influence and which ones the greater - such an influence from the Middle East or such an influence from the US.
And frankly - if you visit any European country it's no contest what so ever - the cultural influence from the US is much, much, MUCH bigger.
And as always with cultural influences - it's ALWAYS the case that the majority culture chooses to accept the influence - it's not forced on anyone.

But still some people are extremely afraid of the big bad Muslim bogey man forcing them to eat Halal meat (which isn't happening, by the way), but completely oblivious to the fact that much of what they perceive as their own culture is in fact imported - not seldom from the US within the last 70 years.

"Having people actually come to your home, and bring their entire (non-western) culture to your doorstep without your consent is completely different."

But they're not doing it without my content.
We're talking about legal immigrants moving to my country and continuing practicing their culture - why should I have a problem with that? They're not forcing me to adopt theirs.

"As an American, I have experienced this first hand. The area I'm from was predominately settled by Germans, they even still speak a form of German in the area, yet when people from outside of our community began flooding our area, they began to demand that WE change OUR culture to suit THEM. That is not OK by any means. "

OK then, I see your point, but that's not what I've ever seen here.
Now would you like to provide some sources for this "flooding" of your area with people demanding that you change your culture? I've never heard of this happening in the US, so it would be interesting to learn more.

@Nisse_Hult
"if you visit any European country it's no contest what so ever - the cultural influence from the US is much, much, MUCH bigger."

I have, and I understand this, but the differences between American culture vs eastern cultures aren't really comparable. And I believe these people are afraid that a culture that is SO DIFFERENT from theirs could EVENTUALLY become as intrusive as American culture as the populations of those people increase. It's the fear of what COULD happen, not necessarily what HAS happened.

"But still some people are extremely afraid of the big bad Muslim bogey man forcing them to eat Halal meat (which isn't happening, by the way), but completely oblivious to the fact that much of what they perceive as their own culture is in fact imported - not seldom from the US within the last 70 years."

I'm not under any illusion that my entire culture isn't imported - my family immigrated here, as did most of the country. And I didn't say anyone is forcing them to eat Halal, I'm saying that when you start seeing the foods/cultural things to become more integrated into everyday life, that is when it's becoming more influential. You claimed these things had zero influence on culture, which is wrong.

"But they're not doing it without my content.
We're talking about legal immigrants moving to my country and continuing practicing their culture - why should I have a problem with that? They're not forcing me to adopt theirs."

Well then you are lucky to be someone who doesn't feel their culture is being threatened in anyway. This isn't the case for many people I know. They see their language disappearing as the majority, their foods being replaced by new ones, traditions being practiced less and less as a community. Those are the things they are afraid of regardless of where the new influence is coming from.

"OK then, I see your point, but that's not what I've ever seen here.
Now would you like to provide some sources for this "flooding" of your area with people demanding that you change your culture? I've never heard of this happening in the US, so it would be interesting to learn more."

I already touched on this in my previous post, that due to all of the movement from other parts of the country into my state, and foreign countries as well, the culture of my state has changed greatly. It makes me sad because this is and always has been my home. If it changes to the point that I hardly recognize my community anymore, where do I have to go to find "home"? Nowhere.

See Figure 1 for the population boom I'm referring to - and this is ONLY foreign immigration (keep in mind I was born in the 80's).
http://demographics.texas.gov/Resources/Publications/2015/2015_05_Origins.pdf

https://cis.org/Report/RecordSetting-Decade-Immigration-20002010

https://supremelendingmcclellanbranch.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/2016-01-20_0814.png (this is the population growth of the city over the years)

From other states that have very different cultures than Texas: https://www.texastribune.org/2016/04/20/texas-top-destination-domestic-migrants/

So as I said, I don't have an issue with WHICH cultures are moving here. It's the sheer amount that have flooded our borders over the last few decades and have had significant effects on the state as I knew it. This is what people fear.

@GrayFenix

"but the differences between American culture vs eastern cultures aren't really comparable"

Yes they are - culture is culture, there is no difference.
US cultural import gave us the hamburger - Middle Eastern cultural import gave us the kebab.
You're letting your prejudices cloud your thinking here - there really isn't a difference.

"And I believe these people are afraid that a culture that is SO DIFFERENT from theirs could EVENTUALLY become as intrusive as American culture as the populations of those people increase. It's the fear of what COULD happen, not necessarily what HAS happened."

People have had the same fears over American culture as well.
As far as I know there's still a rule in French public radio demanding that at least a certain percentage of songs played have to be sung in French. That rule was put in place to stop English from taking over more then the nationalist politicians behind it wanted, and is one of the reasons why Céline Dion is as big as she is in France.

The French are - as far as I know - especially protective, but a more generalized resentment of American cultural influence have existed in Europe all since WWII when it first arose as a phenomenon.
Some people like all American influences, some like some and some like none (rather a small group I think) - but the point is that it's also very much a generational question.

Cultural influences you grow up seeing around you aren't viewed as strange or threatening - they're just part of the fabric of life.
Your family might not celebrate Ramadan or Yom Kippur - but if you have a classmate that does and your parents aren't racist asshole who tell you that family is less worth then yours, you grow up knowing a little more about the rich fabric of the world you live in.
Them celebrating another holiday doesn't hinder you from celebrating what you want.

"The fear of what COULD happen" - yes, that's always it, isn't it?

You live in a country where you're 25 times more likely to be murdered by a gun then a person from any other developed country. Your life could end tomorrow if another mass shooter snaps and you're unlucky enough to be there.

But you're worried about what could possibly one day happen because immigrants move in and bring their culture along?

To me that seems like a very strange way to prioritize the possible threats facing you?

Like when Fox News fearmongers over the "War on Christmas" while Christmas is completely ubiquitous all over the western world.
This very thread is filled with discussion about how ridiculously early the shops fill up with Christmas stuff - earlier for every year.

I have to say I don't see the threat you seem to?

"And I didn't say anyone is forcing them to eat Halal, I'm saying that when you start seeing the foods/cultural things to become more integrated into everyday life, that is when it's becoming more influential. You claimed these things had zero influence on culture, which is wrong."

No, I know - and I never claimed you did. I was just jokingly saying that some people seem to fear being forced to eat Halal.
I've never actually claimed something has zero influence on culture - what I've said is it's always the case that the majority culture chooses what cultural influences it adopts.

Now if immigrant move in they will bring their food culture with them. But no one in the majority culture is ever forced to eat their food. Some will probably like it and if it's successful enough there will be restaurants serving it - but they only survive of people like what they sell.
As always - no one is forced to do anything, it's just a question of individual choices.

If the food is popular enough it might be more or less adopted by the majority culture - albeit often in a new version. Like US style pan pizza which is a monstrosity to any Italian, but a staple food in the US today (and thanks to Pizza Hut all over the world as well). Only then - in that late stage - that immigrant food has actually influenced American culture.

"Well then you are lucky to be someone who doesn't feel their culture is being threatened in anyway. This isn't the case for many people I know. They see their language disappearing as the majority, their foods being replaced by new ones, traditions being practiced less and less as a community. Those are the things they are afraid of regardless of where the new influence is coming from."

There have been those same fears in the US all through it's history.

Wave after wave of immigrants have come and every time there's been resentment and fear against the newcomers.
The Italians, the Irish, the Polish, the Chinese, the Japanese and on and on and on - every single immigrant group after the originally predominantly British settlers have been looked down upon and treated poorly - subjected to all kind of prejudices.

But if it hadn't been for all those immigrant the US wouldn't be what it is today, and each of those groups and individuals from each group have made valuable contributions to the nation you are today.

On one level it's natural that people fear the new and unknown - but if you look at this from a historical point of view it's clear those fears have never ever been born out.

Christ - when JFK ran for president in 1960 as only the second Catholic ever to do so on a major party ticket, he had to hold a speech just to quiet fears he as a Catholic would be controlled by the Pope in Rome! So strong was still the anti-Catholic sentiment in the US at that time.

"See Figure 1 for the population boom I'm referring to - and this is ONLY foreign immigration (keep in mind I was born in the 80's).
http://demographics.texas.gov/Resources/Publications/2015/2015_05_Origins.pdf "

If you look at that chart again, you'll see it's graded in absolute numbers on the left hand side.
The huge spike in 1991 is, as is explained in the notes, "a large number of earlier immigrants who were granted lawful permanent residence" all at once because of a change in the laws. So these people didn't come all at once. Knowing this we can discount that artificial peak and compare the over all curve in the past decades with previous decades.

We then see that these last decades compares, in absolute numbers, to the numbers of immigrant that came in the years about 1905-1914 (the sharp drop-off point is likely the start of WWI and the further little drop is likely the US entry into that war in 1917).

Now these number are, in absolute terms, about as big - but as the US population today is many, many times larger then in 1905-1914 the actual impact of this immigration is actually smaller as about the same amount of new immigrants are distributed in a much larger population pool.

And we know that the people that came back then are now fully integrated into the US and that their culture has blended into the American fabric.

Thus, from a historical and sociological perspective this is nothing new to the US and there is no reason to fear this - it will work out, just as it's always done.
American culture won't be lost - it will be enriched with those things the majority wishes to adopt from the immigrants coming now.
While the immigrant coming now will retain more of their old culture for a while, but this will over time fade even in that group.

How many people of Italian or Chinese decent, who's ancestors came to the US in 1905-1914 do you think view themselves more as Italian or Chinese then American today? How much of their cultural ancestry have survived unchanged? How much danger do you think they pose to American culture?

I'd say they're probably just as American as you.

Moving on this link provides a lot of data on migration to Texas specifically and I've learnt a lot from that.
Apparently the state is among those attracting most immigration in the country.
Mostly from other states, but also from foreign sources.
Those foreign sources seem to shifting.
Less Mexicans are coming, but more Indians and to a smaller extent Chinese. Also the international immigrants are coming from a many more different countries in smaller numbers, creating a more diverse society.

This would seem to indicate that there is less threat of large homogeneous immigrant groups forming, which should speed up the rate of integration of these groups into society.

Regarding the second link you posted,

" https://cis.org/Report/RecordSetting-Decade-Immigration-20002010 "

I'd advise you to not trust that source at all as that's a partisan think-tank pushing their own agenda while masquerading as a non-profit research organization.

They've been describe as an organization "that favors far lower immigration numbers and produces research to further those views" - which is of course not unbiased research at all.

Also:

"Several reports published by the CIS have been disputed by scholars on immigration; a wide range of think tanks; fact-checkers such as PolitiFact, FactCheck.Org, Washington Post, Snopes, CNN and NBC News; and by immigration-research organizations. Critics have accused the CIS of extremist nativist views and for ties to white supremacy groups, which the CIS rejects."

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Immigration_Studies

The third link,

" https://supremelendingmcclellanbranch.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/2016-01-20_0814.png "

Isn't really possible to interpret or evaluate properly as I can't see what the numbers on each side denotes and I don't know the source or full context.
But I'll take your word for it that it shows your city and it's population increase.
Even so this still doesn't say anything about who the people are that increases it's population. How much is immigration and from where and how much is birth rate?

And lastly the fourth link:

" https://www.texastribune.org/2016/04/20/texas-top-destination-domestic-migrants/ "

From that we glean some facts about immigration to Texas. The first link does this far better, so not much to say here.

But you also wrote:

"From other states that have very different cultures than Texas"

And I have to say regarding that firstly that you can't really do much about domestic migration - people are free to move where they find work and can make a living after all - and secondly that I have to question the "very different cultures" in other states?

I mean sure there are slight differences, but you're all citizens of the same nation, all speak the same language, all eat the same food and grew up seeing the same movies and TV-shows and so on an so forth.
I've never heard anyone have a problem with domestic immigration before and from a cultural standpoint I can't really think there are any huge differences between Americans from different states?
It sound like you (and maybe Texans in general then, if you say other feel like you?) are more touchy about the slight differences that exist between the population of different states?

"I already touched on this in my previous post, that due to all of the movement from other parts of the country into my state, and foreign countries as well, the culture of my state has changed greatly. It makes me sad because this is and always has been my home. If it changes to the point that I hardly recognize my community anymore, where do I have to go to find "home"? Nowhere."

"So as I said, I don't have an issue with WHICH cultures are moving here. It's the sheer amount that have flooded our borders over the last few decades and have had significant effects on the state as I knew it. This is what people fear."

How exactly has the culture of your state "changed greatly"?
How exactly has this had a "significant effect on the state" as you knew it?

I get that you see other people around and that they might eat other food or wear other clothes, but you don't have to do that - right?
Have the laws changed? Have anyone stopped you from doing anything you did before and if so what?

Or is this just that you feel it's somehow a negative change that there are other people around you that eat different food or wear different cloths?
I'm not really sure what you mean?

And I'm lifting over this from the other post you made, streamlining two discussions into one:

"like I said before, this was something I personally experienced as a child growing up. I grew up in a region that had certain traditions that we always did every year regarding Christmas. A person from up north - that was not a Christian - threw such a fit over us continuing our traditions, they stopped holding them to avoid further conflict. This was extremely upsetting for me and my friends as children. This single family put an end to our community's traditions."

Can you tell me what happened more specifically?
I get that you got upset, and it sounds weird, but I can't really say for sure until I know.

I mean for all I know this Christmas tradition of yours might have been highly offensive in some way - some old traditions are.

In the Netherlands they have a traditional Christmas character made up in blackface - an old relic from their colonial past. I could understand why such a thing would offend people.

Also, if this persons protest was accepted by a community in Texas (which is not known for being a bleeding-heart-liberal kind of state) I feel the "person from up north" must have had a convincing argument?

Any newspaper articles from this incident you could link too?
It sounds like the kind of thing media would love to cover?

"I mean for all I know this Christmas tradition of yours might have been highly offensive in some way - some old traditions are."

Everything is offensive to somebody, Some people are more sensitive than others. If you go by that standard we could just do away with most of the things we do, you'll always find somebody that objects.

Also, if this persons protest was accepted by a community in Texas (which is not known for being a bleeding-heart-liberal kind of state) I feel the "person from up north" must have had a convincing argument?

That logic makes sence until you realize that the city in question is a Democrat strongholds, People just tend to look at state maps. Also a legal actions can be pretty convising in the States.

I'll just put my bias of the USA political system out here, the USA is 22 years into political purifacation of both parties and both sides seem to mostly revel in spiting the other instead of actually getting things done and the voters more or less speak diffrent languages when it comes to politics.

@Dalamard

"Everything is offensive to somebody"

I'm not actually sure that is true - but I get why you like to pretend so, for your argument.
But even IF someone is offended by something, it doesn't mean that anyone else have to change their ways.
Also I specifically wrote "highly offensive in some way - some old traditions are" and that's completely true. Some old traditions ARE highly offensive - that's just a fact.

"Some people are more sensitive than others"

That's definitely true.
Just look at all the Americans crying over the completely fake "War on Christmas".

"If you go by that standard we could just do away with most of the things we do, you'll always find somebody that objects."

No, that's your straw man-standard. I've never said we should discontinue every single tradition as soon as someone complains. I've simply said that some old traditions are highly offensive - which is again just a fact.

"That logic makes sense until you realize that the city in question is a Democrat strongholds, People just tend to look at state maps."

Excuse me? GrayFenix never once said which city she was talking about, so here you're just making stuff up.

"I'll just put my bias of the USA political system out here, the USA is 22 years into political purifacation of both parties and both sides seem to mostly revel in spiting the other instead of actually getting things done and the voters more or less speak different languages when it comes to politics."

You're entitled to your view of course - but looking at the facts this is clearly more of a Republican problem.

Obama and the Democrats got a lot of flak from democratic voters for not trying to push through more of their own agenda in the first years of Obamas presidency when they had the majority in Congress.
But the Democrats and Obama instead tried to find ways to work with the Republicans and find compromises, in hopes of returning to a better work environment after the highly partisan Bush-years.

Which the Republicans replied to by basically spitting in their faces and do everything the possibly could to bring all work in Congress to a stand still in the hopes that a non-functioning government would hurt the Democrats and Obama more then them.
And then they shamelessly lied their asses of about it, claiming that the Democrats never wanted to work with them.
So no - it's simply not fair to equate both parties like this.

@Nisse_Hult "I'm not actually sure that is true" Then you should try to speak to more than a handful of people and maybe read a book. Offence is in it's nature and by definition always taken. Why? Because it's an offence in taste, taste is subjective and by the mere fact that there are 7.4 billion people on the world someone is bound to be offended by anything. And I know where she was brought up. I was pointing to the stupidity of judging purely on state instead of inquiring about the circumstances. But then again I love listening to people from continental Europe trying to tell me what I know based on where I live. And try to learn how political polarisation works.
Yes it was started by the Republicans and then the two sides grow distant from one another. I see you started with the Obama administration, no the problem started with the Clifton administration when Newt Gingrich Speaker of the House as a Republican decided to change when congress was in session. And now the House of Representatives has separate exits of each political party. The party is still talk to each other this was later made even worse when Obama decided to kick certain conservative outlets from The White House which later Trump has decided to do in return. It's the problem with polarisation and, well, just picking side saying these are the good guys is the exact problem that is causing the polarisation. Also don't assume that the political parties and the news outlets that favour them actually represent the viewpoints of the voters of the partys. I mean look at Trumps approval rating, it is in the gutter but he's still manages some how to be more popular than both the Democratic and the Republican party.
Most people in the USA don't feel that their parties represent them, and when I pointed to "republicans" and "democrats" I was telling you to explain why the assumption that it was a conservative are was way to fast.

I also see that you haven't read up on way the political parties is in the United States stand for. Of course Obama was never going to get the Republicans on his side with obamacare, the platform this time for say that thing should done on a state by state basis at least when it comes to things like Healthcare. So I don't expect that Obama was truly trying to get them on board with it. You might as well try to persuade the Sweden Democrats to join a motion for Sweden to take in all the refugees that came to the migration wave a few years back. Somethings just aren't going to happen.

But then again it's always best to persuade yourself that things are just thought about in the terms of Good and Evil rather than actually try to get a complete comprehension of what the fuck is going on. But at least you read up on one side of this issue, that's more than most. ^^

@Dalamard

"Then you should try to speak to more than a handful of people and maybe read a book. Offence is in it's nature and by definition always taken. Why? Because it's an offence in taste, taste is subjective and by the mere fact that there are 7.4 billion people on the world someone is bound to be offended by anything."

OK, then show me the people offended by air.
And before you decide to go with "bitchy snark" in your next reply - remember other people may actually know a thing or two as well.

"And I know where she was brought up. I was pointing to the stupidity of judging purely on state instead of inquiring about the circumstances."

Well that wasn't what you wrote, but:

"That logic makes sence until you realize that the city in question is a Democrat strongholds, People just tend to look at state maps."

But I or no one else who read that conversation couldn't "realize" where she lived at the time, as she never wrote that.
There is also no proof you actual do - you could just be full of shit, trying to backtrack from you putting your foot in your mouth in the first place.

Personally, I think she deliberately chose not to say exactly where she grew up since she didn't want to disclose the location, and thus I didn't want to press her on it.
But by choosing to say the state was Texas she made it perfectly fair to make the general comment I did:

"Texas (which is not known for being a bleeding-heart-liberal kind of state)"

I didn't claim her story wasn't true or that it couldn't be true. I didn't claim every single person in Texas is a Republican. I simply stated the very well known fact that Texas isn't known as a "bleeding-heart-liberal kind of state".
Which is a fact. It's not.

"But then again I love listening to people from continental Europe trying to tell me what I know based on where I live. And try to learn how political polarisation works."

Aha, so that's why you're acting like a bitch? Someone from ""continental Europe" hurt your feelings? Poor thing.

"Yes it was started by the Republicans and then the two sides grow distant from one another. I see you started with the Obama administration, no the problem started with the Clifton administration when Newt Gingrich Speaker of the House as a Republican decided to change when congress was in session."

Yes, I chose to not go further back then the Bush-years (the partisanship of which I did mention) - but going further back only strengthens the point I made, as you say.

Because the Clinton-years where of course marked by incredibly partisan Republican politics as well.
I mean the entire investigation and ultimate impeachment of Bill Clinton was just one big fishing expedition, desperately trying to find any dirt they could on the Clinton's.
And after years of investigations and millions of dollars in costs - what did they find?
A blowjob - which isn't even illegal of course.

"The party is still talk to each other this was later made even worse when Obama decided to kick certain conservative outlets from The White House which later Trump has decided to do in return."

Not "certain" - one. Fox News.
And to be fair Fox News isn't a serious news channel - it's just Republican propaganda.
And to be ever fairer - the Obama White House couldn't actually put that plan into action as the other news media making up the White House press corps threatened to walk out in support of Fox News if they did.

So Fox News White House press credentials was saved by newspapers like New York Times and The Washington Post, and TV channels like CNN and MSNBC standing up for their democratic right to be a terribly biased propaganda outlet for Republican views - but still have a place in the White House briefing room.

And how does Fox News in turn react now when Trump calls all those media outlets "fake" as soon as they report something true he doesn't like to hear - like his inaugurations crowd size being smaller then Obama's? They say nothing in support of those media outlets of course, but blow Trump every chance they get.

Trump hasn't actually shut any news media out either - he just threatens too and bitch about them on twitter all the time. But instead the Trump White House has given press credentials to "journalists" from actual fake news sites like Inforwars and Breitbart.

"It's the problem with polarisation and, well, just picking side saying these are the good guys is the exact problem that is causing the polarisation. Also don't assume that the political parties and the news outlets that favour them actually represent the viewpoints of the voters of the partys. I mean look at Trumps approval rating, it is in the gutter but he's still manages some how to be more popular than both the Democratic and the Republican party."

The Republicans are the ones causing the polarization - that's perfectly clear if you actually study the issue.
Sure, there are individuals that define themselves as Democrats - both ordinary citizens and elected politicians - who want to see more polarization and are acting like the Republicans.
But the DEMOCRATIC PARTY isn't doing that and it's most prominent leaders (like former presidents Carter, Clinton and Obama) aren't doing that.

And consequently Trump isn't more popular then the Democratic party. Instead they have a higher approval rating then both him and the Republican party:
Democratic party: 41%
Trump: 38%
Republican party: 29%

Sources:
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/24/politics/cnn-poll-republican-party-approval/index.html
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

From the first link you also have this very telling polling result:

"Going forward, 74% of Democrats say the party should mainly work with Republicans to try to get some of the party's ideas into law while 23% say the party should mostly work to stop the GOP agenda."

I.E. the vast majority of Democrats don't actually want their party to just obstruct everything the Republicans do. But then their party isn't actually doing that and telling their voters that's what they should do.
Instead they - like the majority of their voters - are open to working with the Republicans, if they can find bi-partisan solutions.

"I also see that you haven't read up on way the political parties is in the United States stand for. Of course Obama was never going to get the Republicans on his side with obamacare, the platform this time for say that thing should done on a state by state basis at least when it comes to things like Healthcare. So I don't expect that Obama was truly trying to get them on board with it. You might as well try to persuade the Sweden Democrats to join a motion for Sweden to take in all the refugees that came to the migration wave a few years back. Somethings just aren't going to happen."

That's not actually true.
Before Obamacare was labeled as "Obamacare" by the Republicans as they thought it would make the policy more unpopular - it was actually a REPUBLICAN policy.

Obama was never the extreme lefty the Republican tried to paint him as - he was in fact very much a centrist.
And when he decided to try to expand healthcare for more Americans, he didn't go for a complete plan that would cover everybody with a "single payer" system like the rest of the developed world.
Instead he chose to push for the Republican alternative to that - the plan that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney had implemented as governor in his state of Massachusetts.

But of course that made no difference to the Republicans, who just lied and branded Obama as an evil socialist and his healthcare plan as a giant government takeover that would institute "death panels" and all that nonsense.

You might fault Obama for being naive in not understanding that when he chose to push a centrist plan Republicans had in fact themselves endorsed, they would just retreat even further to the right and still blame him and the Democrats for not going far enough - but it's not at all like the example you gave.
If Obama had acted like your example says, he would have pushed a plan for universal healthcare coverage like every other developed nation has. That would actually have been "socialized medicine" like the Republicans label it, and that would have been like "offering" the Sweden Democrats to "join a motion for Sweden to take in all the refugees".
But Obama never ever did anything that extreme.

The Republicans just claimed he did, and lied, lied, lied about that to their base until they believed it.

The same thing happened in the end of his term when he put up Merrick Garland as his pick for Supreme Court justice to succeed Antonin Scalia, when he died.
The Republicans had earlier - when they wanted to stop Obama from appointing Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan - instead pushed for Merrick Garland, saying they would happily support his nomination.
But when Antonin Scalia died in the last year of Obama's term and he did nominate Merrick Garland, the Republicans refused to even hold a hearing in the senate for him.
It was all a technical move to block Obama from appointing anyone, instead hoping a Republican would win the next presidential election so he could instead nominate an even more right-wing judge then Garland.
And it succeeded, when Trump won the election.

So as I said - the Republicans have played that extreme partisan politics for decades now, always lowering the bar by exploiting every possible rule they can and lie, lie, lie about everything all the time to keep their base supporting them.
Sure - once they've lowered the bar the Democrats have sometimes done the same thing they did first, but they haven't always chosen to be completely partisan on every issue.
As Obama's many attempt to work with the Republicans shows.

And sure - there are still a few Republicans who sometimes do buck their party and are open to working with the Democrats on some bi-partisan issue - but that's EXTREMELY rare.

"But then again it's always best to persuade yourself that things are just thought about in the terms of Good and Evil rather than actually try to get a complete comprehension of what the fuck is going on. But at least you read up on one side of this issue, that's more than most. ^^ "

It's not a question of Good vs. Evil - it's a question of actually knowing what's been going on.
I don't know everything by far, but I seem to at least have a better knowledge of the issue then you do.

@Nisse_Hult
Okay, after a quick reading this responce, I'll just throw a few things your way because you seem to have no grasp on ether the baisics of American politics nor what the word "polarisation" means, nor subjectictivity for that matter.

"OK, then show me the people offended by air."
Depends where the air came from. =P
That question is stupid by it's design. Rhetorical tactic, not an actual point.

Also, as bad as fox news has been, throwing them out just increased the distance between the avarage Democrat and Republican. So yes, it added to it.

And the reason I mentioned Newt Gingrich was to point out that, yes the Republicans started this shit, but once you start reading about what he did, you learn that it pushed the parties further away from each other and when partisanship increased so did the population, the parties are moving in seprate direction, that's what polarisation means....
http://www.people-press.org/2017/10/05/1-partisan-divides-over-political-values-widen/


I never claimed the republicans innocent of anything, but you seem to think in very basic black an white terms about politics. It's more or less "The Republicans don't want to do things on the federal level" to which there's only one anwser: "No fucking shit". The platform of the republican party(well at least the liberterian wing of the party) is more or less to cut as much on the federal level as possible and throw it to the state level, and cut the federal debt, that's why the republican party was in flames with Trump by the end of the election, he doesn't follow that mantra. The Neocons seem to have fallen out of favour and now it's mostly liberterians and evengelicals(mostly evengelicals) that hold power in the party. You're well versed on the democratic front, but you don't even seem to know what a republican is. The debate is not as much "left/right" as much as "federal/state"


“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”

That's why I think that you have a bad grasp on the politics over there.

So, from all this it still looks to me like you haven't done proper research on the US political climate, just a few google searches without knowing ether the party platforms within the parties nor how the federal system of the USA works. That's the problem with google debating, you might be overlooking the bare basics of the debate.

And yes, it seems that they democrats have picked up steam from last time I checked, both parties were in the mid 20's when I checked up on it in June.

By the way.
"Personally, I think she deliberately chose not to say exactly where she grew up since she didn't want to disclose the location, and thus I didn't want to press her on it."

That I understand, but I was trying to point out that the divide between the Dems and Reps are not really north/south, it's urban/rural. The bigger population outside of major cities, the more the state leans republican.

"Excuse me? GrayFenix never once said which city she was talking about, so here you're just making stuff up."

@GrayFenix How are you, honey.

@Dalamard I doing well, sweetheart, thank you. Yourself?

@Dalamard

"That question is stupid by it's design. Rhetorical tactic, not an actual point. "

No, the actual point is very clear - what you originally wrote was simply wrong:

"Everything is offensive to somebody"

And now I've shown that with a simple example.
The only "rhetorical tactic" here was you over-simplifying the question like you did, as I said from the beginning.

"Also, as bad as fox news has been, throwing them out just increased the distance between the average Democrat and Republican. So yes, it added to it."

Except as I wrote - they where never actually thrown out.

"And the reason I mentioned Newt Gingrich was to point out that, yes the Republicans started this shit, but once you start reading about what he did, you learn that it pushed the parties further away from each other and when partisanship increased so did the population, the parties are moving in seprate direction, that's what polarisation means...."

What you seem to miss or ignore is that political polarization in a two-party system can be achieved in different ways.
Either BOTH parties can move away from each other at the same speed, or BOTH can move away from each other but at different speeds, or just ONE of them can more away from the other while that stands still, or ONE can move away faster then the other moves towards the first - thus still resulting in a growing polarization.

Also, while this is only talking about POLITICAL PARTIES, popular opinion will also be shifting over time. And that shift can both be the cause or the effect of the shift in political parties stance.

Looking at the link you posted from the Pew Research Center for instance (excellent source by the way - highly credible), we can see that public opinion in the US have become markedly more positive towards both homosexuality and immigrants over time.
This is true for people defining themselves both as liberal and conservatives, and shows that the American public over all is becoming more liberal - at least on these issues.

At the same time this public shift is not expressed by the Republican party itself, so we can clearly see that in those questions that party isn't only on the wrong side of public opinion - it's even on the wrong side of their own voters shifting opinion.
In fact, the Republican party is now headed towards war within itself as Steve Bannon is openly supporting even more extreme primary challengers to incumbent Republican senators - most recently shown by Ray Moore's win in Alabama the other week.

Moore is openly anti-gay and so extreme that his nomination is now putting the Alabama senate seat in play for the general election. Deep read Alabama might actually elect a Democrat, because the extreme fringe of the Republican party nominated a candidate so extreme he can't actually win even there.
We'll have to wait and see, but right now the race is break even - better then the Democrats have polled in Alabama in decades:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/17/politics/alabama-poll-roy-moore-doug-jones-tied/index.html

Moving back to talking about the political parties shifting stance it's a well known fact that the Republican party since the civil rights movement of the 1960's have been moving to the right on social issues.
Nixon started the outreach to southern racist voters, disillusioned by the Democrats embrace of civil right's for African-Americans, with dog whistle policies described as "the southern strategy" and Ronald Reagan later built on that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

With that also came the shift towards a states-rights perspective that's - coupled with white supremacy views - been the prominent political perspective of the American south since the civil war.
The southern states have for over a hundred years viewed themselves as under siege from the federal government as has tried to defend their "right" to racial segregation on the basis of these claimed states rights.

In fact the rights afforded to ALL citizens of the US of course trumps any states ideas about racial segregation - or abortion right or any other personal issue - and the conservatives claiming "states rights" have never ever been intellectually consistent on the issue.

The argument is just an excuse to claim that their states policies should trump all other states and all federal legislation they disagree with.
This has been apparent since before the civil war as the southern states - while arguing "states rights" - claimed the right to continue slavery in their states, while also claiming that the northern states, where slavery was illegal, should be forced to return run-away slaves who had fled from the south to their southern "owners".

So having their cake and eating it too - that has ALWAYS been the position of the people arguing for "states rights".

As we see yet again today with the current US Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who's always been a staunch supporter of "states rights".
(It's his old senate seat in Alabama that might be going to a Democrat in December if Moore looses the special election, by the way)
But now, as Attorney General, Sessions is arguing that in the question of the so called "sanctuary cities" or "sanctuary states" - areas where the local government don't wish to harshly enforce US immigration law - the states have NO rights and should be forced to obey all orders from the federal government.

So as always - the "states rights" advocates as just full of shit and using that argument to further their own personal policy objectives when it suits them - and then conveniently forgetting about those rights when it doesn't suit them.

There are any numbers or examples for this double standard on the right - and interestingly you can also see this expressed in the public polling you linked to.

If you look at the first two graphs, relating to opinions on government regulation on business and whether government spending is wasteful, you see two almost identical curves among republican sympathizers.

Now correlate these curves to what party held the presidency and you see that republican voters views on these issues depends in large part on if their party hold the presidency or not.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are the high point in the curve, G W Bush between them is the low point - and now both curves seem to be dropping again as republican voters trust in government increases as Trump takes office.

Note that the curve of liberal voters don't show the same clear pattern. Their opinion of government doesn't seem to be as closely tied to which political party holds the presidency.

Which could indicate two different explanations:

Either that Democratically leaning voters are more generally trusting of the national institutions and expects the government to do it's best for the nation and it's people regardless of who holds the office.
Or they're not subjected to the same level of propaganda from their political party telling them the sky is falling and the nation deciding into utter chaos and ruin as soon as they loose the presidency.
Or a combination of both.

Personally I'd say it's pretty clear that the level of propaganda and misinformation directed at the voters from the Republican party is not in any was comparable to anything the Democrats does - and consequently I believe that's a major part of the explanation for why the curves look like they do.

Republican voters don't just prefer their party, like Democratic voters prefer theirs - they're active fearful about what the other party will do in office and this fear is stoked by pure lies from the Republican party - like with the "death panels" stuff in the Obamacare debate.

Much more could be said about this issue, but I'm perfectly confident in saying that the major reason for the polarization in US politics are the Republican party actively moving further and further to the right over the decades - and filling their voters with outright lies about the Democrats to keep them voting Republican out of fear.

You might disagree, but that's my reading of the situation.

"I never claimed the republicans innocent of anything, but you seem to think in very basic black an white terms about politics. It's more or less "The Republicans don't want to do things on the federal level" to which there's only one anwser: "No fucking shit". The platform of the republican party(well at least the libertarian wing of the party) is more or less to cut as much on the federal level as possible and throw it to the state level, and cut the federal debt, that's why the republican party was in flames with Trump by the end of the election, he doesn't follow that mantra. The Neocons seem to have fallen out of favor and now it's mostly libertarians and evangelicals(mostly evengelicals) that hold power in the party. You're well versed on the democratic front, but you don't even seem to know what a republican is. The debate is not as much "left/right" as much as "federal/state""

The Republican party's platform has almost nothing to do with how they actually govern when in office. They're completely exploded the deficit by giant tax cuts for the rich while in office, and spent trillions on unfunded wars. So they're clearly not fiscally conservative in practice at all.

The so called "states right" argument I've already dealt with - that's just another bullshit talking point from them.
They use it to try to block anything they dislike while not in power on the federal level, and then when they're in office federally they conveniently forget all about it and uses the federal government power to push through as much of their policy agenda as they possibly can - completely ignoring what ever the states think about it.

The libertarian wing of the Republican party is absolutely not as strong as you think.
A lot of people are calling themselves libertarians online these days, since the conservative, neoconservative, evangelical and Tea Party brands have lost much of their appeal to younger voters - who are the ones you'll most often find online.

Nationally though, the Republican party's voting base is much older then the Democratic one and they don't tend to keep up as much with these new labels - and thus calling yourself a libertarian isn't a vote-winning strategy for Republican politicians in most of America.
It just confuses Republican voters - the majority of whom does not view themselves as libertarian, but conservative, anyway.

In the general US population, libertarians are in fact far stronger then in positions of power within the Republican party. Especially on a national level in Congress.
Which might mean the Republican party will eventually BECOME more controlled by libertarians views - but that's actually not the case today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#American_libertarianism

My favorite part of that text is that while somewhere between 17 and 23 percent of the US electorate for the past 13 years have viewed themselves as libertarian, 23% of those doesn't actually know what the word means.

"Yeah sure I'm a libertarian!
What it means?
Uhm, sorry - I have no idea...
But I know I am one!"

"So, from all this it still looks to me like you haven't done proper research on the US political climate, just a few google searches without knowing ether the party platforms within the parties nor how the federal system of the USA works. That's the problem with google debating, you might be overlooking the bare basics of the debate."

And for me it looks like you read some online posts from people calling themselves libertarian (while possibly not actually knowing what the word means) and draw your conclusions from that.

"That I understand, but I was trying to point out that the divide between the Dems and Reps are not really north/south, it's urban/rural. The bigger population outside of major cities, the more the state leans republican."

That's generally true of course and I have no problem with that.
But I still don't think it's unfair to say that Texas is generally considered a conservative state - which is what I did, and what you initially complained about.

@Nisse_Hult

Okay, I'm starting to see that you don't really understand those two words.

Polarisation. The policy of the two parties are moving further away from each other the Republicans and the Democrats are moving left.

That's called polarisation.

And I anwsered the previous question on the one on air. But offence is taken to behaviour.

While I enjoy rereading the history of the this shit, you seem to be avoiding the issue of your English.

Though if you're on the spectrum I'll apologize in advance. I know issues of things like offence can be difficult for them.

@Dalamard

I see you've given up trying to claim I don't understand American politics.

As I said a few posts ago - remember that the next time you feel the urge to go for an arrogant reply. Other people might actually know more then you think you do.

Instead you're now trying to claim I have an issue with my English.

Because you claim I don't understand the concept of "polarisation".

OK then.

I wrote this in my last post - clearly showing I understand the concept of polarization in politics - which is what we're talking about here:

"What you seem to miss or ignore is that political polarization in a two-party system can be achieved in different ways.
Either BOTH parties can move away from each other at the same speed, or BOTH can move away from each other but at different speeds, or just ONE of them can more away from the other while that stands still, or ONE can move away faster then the other moves towards the first - thus still resulting in a growing polarization."

So I don't really have more to add on that point - you're just completely wrong and I can only assume you either didn't read that or didn't understand what you read.
Maybe you're having problems with your English - I don't know?

Regarding your nonsense on offence your original comment didn't specify anything. You still just wrote:

"Everything is offensive to somebody"

And once again - you were clearly wrong. No matter how many times you try to rephrase your original words they still won't change.
You wrote what you wrote - suck it up.
And once again - remember this, and you might not do the same mistake the next time.

"Though if you're on the spectrum I'll apologize in advance. I know issues of things like offence can be difficult for them. "

I've seen this smear become popular online in recent times.
You muffle it more then most and it might not even be intended as a smear by you- but I'll let you answer that.
But either way, you should know it's a really stupid thing to say.

Because many people on the spectrum are far more intelligent then either you or me - so you're actually just complimenting the person you post this comment to.

Especially as the only time I get this comment is when I've posted long, fact-filled comments those I've written to are too lazy or too unintelligent to give a coherent reply to.

So I'll just take it as the complimant it actually is that you think I might be smarter then you.

@Nisse_Hult Jesus Christ, did you spend all day responding to me? lol I don't have enough time to spend going back and forth with you as you obviously have zero grasp of the cultures within my country as well as what I'm even talking about. This isn't about just "clothes and food" - this is about what is considered socially acceptable, general social behaviors, laws being changed by a new majority that has moved in and voted our laws be changed leaving us with no say, and our way of life - which just so you know, culture actually varies greatly across the US depending on which region you're in. This is due to the countries that settled the regions, their resources, economies, religions, etc. We use different dialects in speaking, consider certain things rude one place that is typical in another. I just really don't believe you fully understand the diversity that exists even within our borders. Sure we share some common traits... but our differences still aren't always so small.

"I mean sure there are slight differences, but you're all citizens of the same nation, all speak the same language, all eat the same food and grew up seeing the same movies and TV-shows and so on an so forth."

- We don't all eat the same foods by the way. This is extremely ignorant. We also don't have an official language, so you can hardly state that either. I'm required to speak Spanish basically in order to get a job because so much of the population in my area doesn't speak English.

"Yes they are - culture is culture, there is no difference.
US cultural import gave us the hamburger - Middle Eastern cultural import gave us the kebab.
You're letting your prejudices cloud your thinking here - there really isn't a difference. "

- You seriously believe this? So you believe that the division of Western and Eastern cultures has to do strictly with geography? Oh boy... this is some post modernist thought process if I've ever seen one...

"You live in a country where you're 25 times more likely to be murdered by a gun then a person from any other developed country. Your life could end tomorrow if another mass shooter snaps and you're unlucky enough to be there. But you're worried about what could possibly one day happen because immigrants move in and bring their culture along?"

- This is a ridiculous argument. I never said I feared other cultures, I said it bothered me to see mine disappearing. And whether you believe it or not, yes, it is. And it's not the "American culture" I'm worried about, it's my local culture. And I don't believe that I'm 25 times more likely to be MURDERED by a gun - perhaps killed by one. There is a major difference (suicide, accidents, etc). The truth of the matter on this is that more people die from guns via suicide in my country than those who are murdered. And as we all know, if a suicidal person doesn't have a gun, they'll find the next most convenient method.

"How many people of Italian or Chinese decent, who's ancestors came to the US in 1905-1914 do you think view themselves more as Italian or Chinese then American today? How much of their cultural ancestry have survived unchanged? How much danger do you think they pose to American culture?"

- Actually, many of these people DO consider themselves these things, just along with being American as well. I never claimed they were a threat to the American culture. But when you have a town of 100,000 and over the years 250,000 people from different parts of the world/country move there, there is a good chance the entire culture of that town has become a massive melting pot rather than maintaining it's original culture.

"I'd advise you to not trust that source at all as that's a partisan think-tank pushing their own agenda while masquerading as a non-profit research organization. They've been describe as an organization "that favors far lower immigration numbers and produces research to further those views" - which is of course not unbiased research at all."

- And I'd advise you not to believe that 'PolitiFact, FactCheck.Org, Washington Post, Snopes, CNN and NBC News' are unbiased sources. I literally just looked up some information because you repeatedly insisted on seeing sources.

"How exactly has the culture of your state "changed greatly"?
How exactly has this had a "significant effect on the state" as you knew it? I get that you see other people around and that they might eat other food or wear other clothes, but you don't have to do that - right? Have the laws changed? Have anyone stopped you from doing anything you did before and if so what? Or is this just that you feel it's somehow a negative change that there are other people around you that eat different food or wear different cloths?
I'm not really sure what you mean?"

- Like I said, this isn't about just "clothes and food". Yes, laws have changed due to the shift in population. People in California, New England, and even Mexico often have very different stances politically than many Texans do.

"I mean for all I know this Christmas tradition of yours might have been highly offensive in some way - some old traditions are."

- If having a few Christmas trees around, having Christmas music (not even 'religious' in theme) playing, and simple childish things such as that is "offensive", then idk what to tell you.

"Also, if this persons protest was accepted by a community in Texas (which is not known for being a bleeding-heart-liberal kind of state) I feel the "person from up north" must have had a convincing argument?"

- She threatened to sue people if the parent's organization that threw these events didn't comply. The organization didn't want the trouble or expense she was threatening to put them through, so they just opted to stop so she'd leave them alone. She wasn't angry about having our celebrations, she just wanted us to either celebrate her holidays too or not celebrate at all.

"Your family might not celebrate Ramadan or Yom Kippur - but if you have a classmate that does and your parents aren't racist asshole who tell you that family is less worth then yours, you grow up knowing a little more about the rich fabric of the world you live in.
Them celebrating another holiday doesn't hinder you from celebrating what you want."

- Please see above. People sometimes DO try to demand you accommodate them.

"Any newspaper articles from this incident you could link too?
It sounds like the kind of thing media would love to cover?"

- People didn't tend to publicize everything like crazy in the early 90's like they do now. There was no social media, etc, for things to spread. So, no, there wouldn't be any kind of news coverage on this.

You're general attitude to this situation very much shows your personal biases. Also, in response to the commentary you had on our immigration (both domestic and international), I don't need charts and graphs to see my home changing drastically. Becoming over crowded. 1 in 4 people in my city weren't born in my country, and even more weren't born in my state. If people want to come here and truly integrate with our culture, I have no problem with that whatsoever. But that often is not the case, they move here and want to make things like their home that they left. Mock our cultural 'quirks', the way we talk, etc. When you go to your Human Resources department as a grown woman starting a new job (in a company with thousands of employees), and the person collecting all of your information looks at your birth certificate and says "Wow! You're a Native Texan? I've worked here 6 months, and you're the first one I've seen come through here!" There is a big problem. Or when the 'big city' you grew up in once had less than 400,000 people in it total now has over 2 million causing the natural spring you grew up riding your bike to to go swimming with your friends to now has a daily visitor maximum that is filled for over a month and requires reservations. There is a problem. This isn't just from Texan's having lots of babies. It's a known fact that our economy attracts hundreds of thousands of people. Me being upset about this having a huge effect on my surroundings isn't something you have the right to how I should or shouldn't feel about it. And it definitely shouldn't be mixed in with insinuations that if I am upset about it, I'm somehow a racist or something of that nature, because that couldn't be further from the truth. I honestly just believe you don't have the ability to grasp my perspective as you've not been in my shoes.

And tbh, if you respond with another massive wall of text, I most likely won't respond due to not wishing to argue with a wall (figuratively and literally). No offense to you, but it's fairly obvious that your mind is made up and nothing will sway you otherwise. Have a good evening.

@GrayFenix

"you obviously have zero grasp of the cultures within my country as well as what I'm even talking about. This isn't about just "clothes and food" - this is about what is considered socially acceptable, general social behaviors, laws being changed by a new majority that has moved in and voted our laws be changed leaving us with no say, and our way of life"

Yes - it is hard to know what you're talking about when you refuse to give concrete examples.
You keep repeating all these fears about things changing - but you haven't been able to show how anything has changed. Except for one anecdote about a single person forcing a Texas community to stop celebrating Christmas - which frankly doesn't sound even remotely plausible.
That couldn't even happen here and Sweden is a far more liberal society then Texas.
I'm certain there's got to be more to that story then you're telling.

Laws change all the time - it's called democracy.
What would the alternative be? Deny some citizens their democratic rights?
Deny American citizens the right to live where they want in the their nation?
I mean none of those things are even possible, unless you make serious changes to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Are you actually proposing that?

"which just so you know, culture actually varies greatly across the US depending on which region you're in. This is due to the countries that settled the regions, their resources, economies, religions, etc. We use different dialects in speaking, consider certain things rude one place that is typical in another. I just really don't believe you fully understand the diversity that exists even within our borders. Sure we share some common traits... but our differences still aren't always so small."

Once again - how would you want to change anything here?
Every US citizen has the right to live where they want in the nation and they have the democratic right to vote and effect political change wherever they live.
So short of making drastic changes to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, none of that will ever change.
I mean not allowing people to move within their own nation - that's the kind of thing they did in Soviet Russia and the system they have in North Korea today. Are you actually advocating for that?

"- We don't all eat the same foods by the way. This is extremely ignorant. We also don't have an official language, so you can hardly state that either. I'm required to speak Spanish basically in order to get a job because so much of the population in my area doesn't speak English."

Yes you do - within the same variations as in any other country. It's not like hamburgers or pizza (for example) is a regional dish. There are regional variations yes - but it's not like the US armed forces are forced to have completely different mess halls for radically different food for the troops (something the British during their empire actually where forced to have for their Indian troops as they couldn't eat the British food at all).

A lot of countries doesn't have an designated official language - but that doesn't mean there isn't one that's the overwhelmingly dominant.

Sweden had 4 designated official minority languages before we designated Swedish as the official language "in international situations" as the law states in 2009.
That official designation didn't make any difference of course as Swedish had always been the overwhelmingly dominant language in Sweden.
It was codified just because it was felt it was a bit strange that out law designated minority languages, but not an official one.

Regarding you being expected to speak Spanish in Texas - well you did steal that part of your country from Mexico, so Texas spoke Spanish before it spoke English.
So maybe the Spanish speakers should be annoyed by having to speak English - not the other way around?

""Culture is culture, there is no difference.
You're letting your prejudices cloud your thinking here - there really isn't a difference. "

- You seriously believe this? So you believe that the division of Western and Eastern cultures has to do strictly with geography? Oh boy... this is some post modernist thought process if I've ever seen one..."

No, it's not a question about geography at all. We're talking about cultural influences and my point is that culture is culture - whatever prefix you put in front of it.
Indian culture is Indian, American culture is American - but they're both cultures and one isn't automatically better or more compatible with any other culture - you have to look at each specific cultural import individually.

You and others here suffer from the prejudice that American culture automatically should be more compatible with European - but that's simply not the case.
Europeans happily adopted both hamburgers and kebab as I said - while we're equally opposed to other cultural influences like child marriage or gun culture.
As I've said repeatedly - this is how cultural influences work - it's up to the majority culture to accept the influence - if it doesn't the import of a certain cultural expression won't happen.

Nothing post modern about it - that's just how it works and how it's always worked throughout history.

"- This is a ridiculous argument. I never said I feared other cultures, I said it bothered me to see mine disappearing. And whether you believe it or not, yes, it is. And it's not the "American culture" I'm worried about, it's my local culture. And I don't believe that I'm 25 times more likely to be MURDERED by a gun - perhaps killed by one. There is a major difference (suicide, accidents, etc). The truth of the matter on this is that more people die from guns via suicide in my country than those who are murdered. And as we all know, if a suicidal person doesn't have a gun, they'll find the next most convenient method."

You've repeatedly written about the "fear" felt over the "threat" from other cultures and so no, you've clearly expressed that you're more the "bothered" about this.
And regarding you being worried about your local and not the American culture - we're once again back to what you propose to do about that?
Any American has the right to move wherever they want - that's always been the case. Would you want restrictions put on where people are able to move within the country - like they have in North Korea now?

Sadly, the number I gave you is true - you and ever other American is 25 times more likely to be MURDERED by a gun then any citizen in any other developed nation.
You're 8 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun as an American then citizens in any other developed nation and you're 6 times more likely to lose your life in an accident with guns then citizens in any other developed nation.

This based on a study of the US and 22 other developed countries death rates for the year 2010 in the American Journal of Medicine.
Of all gun related deaths in those 23 countries during that one years, 82% occurred in the US.

Yes - American levels of gun violence is utterly extreme compared to any other developed nation. Looking at those numbers you might understand why the rest of the world really don't get your obsession with guns.

Source: http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(15)01030-X/fulltext

"- Actually, many of these people DO consider themselves these things, just along with being American as well. I never claimed they were a threat to the American culture. But when you have a town of 100,000 and over the years 250,000 people from different parts of the world/country move there, there is a good chance the entire culture of that town has become a massive melting pot rather than maintaining it's original culture."

My question was how many with Italian or Chinese ancestry consider themselves Italian or Chinese more then American and the answer is of course none. Your try to answer "both" is ridiculous - the vast majority of these people don't even speak the language of their ancestors, they're certainly American in every way and only to a very minor degree influenced by their ancestry.
As I've said before they may have cultural traces left in their names or food, but the vast majority of all discernible cultural difference has long since melted away.

You certainly expressed a great deal of fear over cultural changes - but you seem to be less worried about any American cultural change as you seem to not believe the US to have a unified culture at all?
Listening to you one get's the impression that the US is in fact made up of a many widely different cultural groups that are so different from one another that they could just as well form their own country.
And you seem more afraid that these domestic immigrant will descend on your state of Texas and obliterate your own local culture that you seem most interested in protecting.

Which is interesting as I've yet to speak to anyone in Europe who is so fiercely regional that they have a problem with fellow countrymen moving into their neighborhood.

"- And I'd advise you not to believe that 'PolitiFact, FactCheck.Org, Washington Post, Snopes, CNN and NBC News' are unbiased sources. I literally just looked up some information because you repeatedly insisted on seeing sources."

No need to get testy - I only gave you a friendly advice.
Regarding the sources you listed I know for a fact there's no problem with the reputable news media like Washington Post, CNN or NBC. The others I haven't checked though.
And I sent you a source on why the source you linked to shouldn't be trusted - I didn't just base that on my opinion.

"- Like I said, this isn't about just "clothes and food". Yes, laws have changed due to the shift in population. People in California, New England, and even Mexico often have very different stances politically than many Texans do."

As I said before - nothing you can do about that, unless you make major changes to the Constitution and adopt policies from North Korea.

""I mean for all I know this Christmas tradition of yours might have been highly offensive in some way - some old traditions are."

- If having a few Christmas trees around, having Christmas music (not even 'religious' in theme) playing, and simple childish things such as that is "offensive", then idk what to tell you."

That's obviously not what I meant with "highly offensive" and you know it.
Your continued inability to provide any convincing evidence for how a single immigrant was able to force a Texan community to abandon their Christians celebration makes this story unlikely as I've already said.

"You're general attitude to this situation very much shows your personal biases. Also, in response to the commentary you had on our immigration (both domestic and international), I don't need charts and graphs to see my home changing drastically. Becoming over crowded. 1 in 4 people in my city weren't born in my country, and even more weren't born in my state. If people want to come here and truly integrate with our culture, I have no problem with that whatsoever. But that often is not the case, they move here and want to make things like their home that they left. Mock our cultural 'quirks', the way we talk, etc."

You're mixing your arguments. First it's "over crowded" - which implies there are just too many people.
Then you're suddenly fine with people coming - as long as they integrate to your culture.
I have the feeling it's this later question that's your real concern, as that's what you've been talking about mostly.

"Me being upset about this having a huge effect on my surroundings isn't something you have the right to how I should or shouldn't feel about it. And it definitely shouldn't be mixed in with insinuations that if I am upset about it, I'm somehow a racist or something of that nature, because that couldn't be further from the truth. I honestly just believe you don't have the ability to grasp my perspective as you've not been in my shoes."

No, you're of course entitled to your feelings about this and I can't understand them fully as I'm not you.
I've just been trying to understand your perspective and I think I have up to a point.

I've also tried to add the historical perspective that these changes aren't in any way unique to your time and place - they've happened time and time again in the US and all over the world.

That might not make you feel better about the changes you feel are encroaching on your community - but it should at least allay any fears about any more catastrophic scenario.

The US and Texas won't cease to exist or become completely different over night - that's never happened before, even if they've both been through demographical changes like these before.

And change is inevitable. A Texan from the 1800's that came back today would find much has changed. He might not think your Texas is his Texas. Does that mean that the Texas you grew up in and want to protect isn't actually Texas at all, but just a bad copy of the original?
Or is the original even older then that old Texans version of it?
The answer always has to be that every place is evolving over time - and none of us can change that fact or deny it.
We don't own places - we borrow them for a while.

So instead of feeling lousy over something you can't change anyway - isn't it better to enjoy what you have now and try to see the positive that comes with change?
Because there's of curse always positive things that do come with change as well.

@Nisse_Hult
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Martin%27s_Day

19 independent european countries are listed celebrating St. Martin's Day, which is basically the same as Halloween. All of those have pre-christian roots, and not just indo-european ones either.

@ThorsomeTarmukas

Basically all of that is just straight up incorrect - and the link you provided clearly says so.

If anything it seems most like Thanksgiving - while there's actually no connect to that genuinely American celebration:

"Because of this, St. Martin's Feast is much like the American Thanksgiving - a celebration of the earth's bounty."

Apparently someone have at some point also called this celebration "Old Halloween" or "Old Hallowmas Eve" - but I can't think why.

In Sweden it's definitely not associated with anything resembling Halloween at all - and the only mention of it besides the name I gave above is in reference to Holland.

Not even in the US this holiday is the same as Halloween - it's a separate celebration held mainly in parts of the German community.

Also there is nothing to support your assertions about any "pre-christian roots" at all - the entire celebration comes from the Catholic Saint Martin of Tours, so it's clearly Christian in origin.

Which leads to the question if you read up on this at all or just dreamt it? Truly bizarre claims to make...

Just go back and read your own source.

@Nisse_Hult
St. Martin's Day and St. Catherine's day have different customs in different countries. You need to be able to pick out pre-christian traits and generalise from that.

"In Sweden it's definitely not associated with anything resembling Halloween at all"
In Estonia, St. Martin's Day is very much like Halloween.

[Also there is nothing to support your assertions about any "pre-christian roots" at all - the entire celebration comes from the Catholic Saint Martin of Tours, so it's clearly Christian in origin.]

You are clearly wrong.
The origin is from Mardus or Marras (mori / mors / mortalis / mortal / mort / muerte). It is the day of the deceased, among other things.

Look up my reply currently on page 2, #9687892

@ThorsomeTarmukas

"You need to be able to pick out pre-christian traits and generalise from that."

Christ you're stupid...
The only thing you're doing then is cherry picking something you believe is "proof" for your opinion and then generalize it, ignoring anything that contradicts your opinion.
And you actually say that openly - as if that would strengthen your argument!

"You are clearly wrong.
The origin is from Mardus or Marras (mori / mors / mortalis / mortal / mort / muerte). It is the day of the deceased, among other things."

No.
What you did was take your knowledge of local Estonian customs and extrapolate that WAY out of proportion - claiming that:

"19 independent european countries are listed celebrating St. Martin's Day, which is basically the same as Halloween. All of those have pre-christian roots, and not just indo-european ones either."

I read the Wikipedia link for references to Halloween - but I didn't read every single word on the page.

Now, when I look closer I see that the entry for ESTONIA describe what you originally claimed was true for 18 other countries in Europe as well.

So now it's clear you fucked yourself by using exactly the broken "process" you described in your latest post - you took one bit of knowledge and just ASSUMED (or "generalised" as you wrote) that it would be applicable for all the other nations that Wikipedia lists as having the same celebration.

And now when I called you out on it, you retreat back into talking about Estonia - which is not what you originally claimed at all.

This is what happens when you're to lazy to do the actual work and just "generalise" about stuff.

@Nisse_Hult
[What you did was take your knowledge of local Estonian customs and extrapolate that WAY out of proportion]

Martin's Day is related to mourning of the dead relatives not just in Estonia, but also in Finland and elsewhere. Not only that, the whole month of November is Marraskuu in finnish - the month of the dead, the month of break (at agricultural fieldworks and getting cattle inside, among other things).

[So now it's clear you fucked yourself by using exactly the broken "process" you described in your latest post - you took one bit of knowledge and just ASSUMED (or "generalised" as you wrote) that it would be applicable for all the other nations that Wikipedia lists as having the same celebration.]

If you had any capability of generalisation, then you would have realised that Martin's Day is related to the end of the agricultural year, while Catherine's Day is related to the end of the Cattle year. The feasts are tied to those year ends. The agricultural workers got paid their yearly wages. So the month of endings (Marraskuu) is related to multiple endings, or "breaks".

This is what happens when you're too lazy to do the actual work and just refuse to generalise about stuff.

@ThorsomeTarmukas

Your original comment was:

"19 independent european countries are listed celebrating St. Martin's Day, which is basically the same as Halloween. All of those have pre-christian roots, and not just indo-european ones either."

That proved to be bullshit, but instead of admitting that you now think talking about some Estonian words (as you did in the last post) and now the Finnish name for the month of November will impress anyone?
How does some words in Estonia and Finland ever prove that original claim of yours?!

The answer of course is that It doesn't - it never will!
Anyone can see that, but you're still hoping I and others who read this are stupid enough to be fooled by you switching subjects like this?

And once again with your ignorant defense of "generalization" - the very thing that got you into this mess in the first place.
Since you're not adding anything new to the discussion, I might just as well just repost this part of a previous reply as it's still a relevant reply to what you wrote now:

"The only thing you're doing then is cherry picking something you believe is "proof" for your opinion and then generalize it, ignoring anything that contradicts your opinion.
And you actually say that openly - as if that would strengthen your argument!"

Because what you wrote now:

"This is what happens when you're too lazy to do the actual work and just refuse to generalize about stuff. "

is so f*cking stupid it wouldn't be accepted at any reputable University in the world.

"Generalize about stuff" is the very antithesis to actual academic work!
That's what you DON'T do if you want to produce credible results!

Or to prove this with a simple example (since you're to ignorant to understand this yourself);

The same celebration you just generalized into being exactly the same thing in 18 other European countries as you believe it is in Estonia, is actually not about any of that in Sweden.
Which means that if I employed you nonsense approach I could claim that no - I can tell you that celebration you know from your country is actually about something completely different.
Because I just generalized my country's celebration into being the same one in those 18 other European countries - including yours.

And my only "proof" of this is that I generalized - just like you told me to.

Happy now, dumbass?

@Nisse_Hult
"That proved to be bullshit"
Quite the contrary, in fact.
The feasts are tied to the agricultural and cattle end of year. Which in turn are tied to annual wage payments. Which in turn are tied to young men and women being able to court a prospective future spouse because they now have either a harvest or money for a dowry.

And the end of vegetation period and the lowering of sun is tied to death and to the deceased relatives in general.

["Generalize about stuff" is the very antithesis to actual academic work!
That's what you DON'T do if you want to produce credible results!]

You are wrong, as usual.
The whole object-oriented programming approach is based on generalisation.
All of legislation is based on generalisation.
All societal rules are based on generalisation.
And the stems and morphemes and language vocabulary and rules are based on generalisation.

[The same celebration you just generalized into being exactly the same thing in 18 other European countries as you believe it is in Estonia, is actually not about any of that in Sweden.]

So swedes do not mourn the dead relatives in November?
The swedes do not put on costumes and go from door to door, perform acts and expect to get items in return?
The swedes do not have feasts during November?
That begs the question - which kind of Swedes are you talking about? The old ones or the new ones?

@ThorsomeTarmukas

"The feasts are tied to the agricultural and cattle end of year. Which in turn are tied to annual wage payments. Which in turn are tied to young men and women being able to court a prospective future spouse because they now have either a harvest or money for a dowry.

And the end of vegetation period and the lowering of sun is tied to death and to the deceased relatives in general."

This is just pointless babble.
Your claim was:

"19 independent european countries are listed celebrating St. Martin's Day, which is basically the same as Halloween. All of those have pre-christian roots, and not just indo-european ones either."

And your babble proves nothing of this.

"The whole object-oriented programming approach is based on generalisation.
All of legislation is based on generalisation.
All societal rules are based on generalisation.
And the stems and morphemes and language vocabulary and rules are based on generalisation."

More babble.
Detailed analysis, not lazy f*king generalizations is the basis for all academic work. You couldn't even be bothered to read the link you yourself posted as proof for your babble. That's really f*cking lazy.

"So swedes do not mourn the dead relatives in November?
The swedes do not put on costumes and go from door to door, perform acts and expect to get items in return?
The swedes do not have feasts during November?
That begs the question - which kind of Swedes are you talking about? The old ones or the new ones?"

Most babble of all.
Yes, we mourn the dead in November - but that's a completely different celebration then St. Martin's Day!
No we f*cking don't do any of those things in November - we do however do some of those things at easter, in the spring!
Yes but so f*cking what?! We have any number of cultural celebrations in all the months of the year but that dosen't mean you can just switch them around and force them together to "prove" your own looney ideas!
I'm talking about Swedes, today - which is what we're talking about as you original claim was about that - Europeans today:

"19 independent european countries are listed celebrating St. Martin's Day, which is basically the same as Halloween. All of those have pre-christian roots, and not just indo-european ones either."

And since you've obviously still not read the f*cking Wiki-link YOU posted in your original comment, let me help you understand the difference between facts and your "generalized" fantasy version:

"St. Martin was known as friend of the children and patron of the poor. This holiday originated in France, then spread to the Low Countries, the British Isles, Germany, Scandinavia, and Eastern Europe. It celebrates the end of the agrarian year and the end of the harvest. Bishop Perpetuus of Tours, who died in 490, ordered fasting three days a week from the day after Saint Martin's Day (11 November). In the 6th century, local councils required fasting on all days except Saturdays and Sundays from Saint Martin's Day to Epiphany (the Feast of the Three Wise Men and the star, c.f. Matthew 2: 1-12) on January 6, a period of 56 days, but of 40 days fasting, like the fast of Lent. It was therefore called Quadragesima Sancti Martini (Saint Martin's Lent). This period of fasting was later shortened and called "Advent" by the Church.

The goose became a symbol of St. Martin of Tours because of a legend that when trying to avoid being ordained bishop he had hidden in a goose pen, where he was betrayed by the cackling of the geese. St. Martin's feast day falls in November, when geese are ready for killing. St. Martin’s Day was an important medieval autumn feast, and the custom of eating goose spread to Sweden from France. It was primarily observed by the craftsmen and noblemen of the towns. In the peasant community, not everyone could afford to eat goose, so many ate duck or hen instead."

Nothing about "pre-christian roots" and nothing to do with honoring the dead (which has a completely DIFFERENT holiday).
So while there may be some local version of this celebration in ESTONIA where those things are true - this is not the case in all those 18 other countries you claim they where, just because you lazily "generalized" by thinking:
"Oh, I know something about this celebration in my country - it has to be the same everywhere else if it has the same name! Let's not read up on this - that's real work and hard. I'll just shoot my mouth of and claim I know stuff, because who would ever look it up and prove me an ass?!"

Got it now, dumbass?

@Nisse_Hult
You seem to be quite hopeless.

@ThorsomeTarmukas

Well I'm simply right on this and you're simply wrong.
But you always refuse to admit when you're wrong, so of course you're not going to like me saying you're wrong.

But you still are and the best you could have done (after studying this issue before you posted your original comment in the first place, that is) was to immediately accept you were wrong from the beginning.
Everyone can make a mistake and if you just admit it and move on most people don't make a big deal out of it.

Instead you've dragged this out way longer then necessary, doubling down when you should have just let it go.
Or "The Trump option" as it'll probably be known by future historians.

@Nisse_Hult
You are not even close to being right.
You are a science denier.

@Finn123 Culture clashing is a often underestimated problem.

@Finn123

Just curious about the topic. It kind of feels strange to talk about protecting our culture... What is our culture now but a result of influence by other cultures (swedish, russian... some german etc).

I assume most finns think christianity for example belongs to our culture, and one could say it does these days. It has been here for what... some 800 eyars or so? We all know (or at least should know) where it originates from and that it was introduced to us by swedes, if they wouldnt have done so we would probably be mostly orthodox christians and thanking our eastern neighbour for that. And in present day a lot of people would like to see christianity as our familiar own thing while looking at islam like an intruding force.

So in case you would be FOR protecting our culture, would you include christianity and christian values in it?

@Loniac
Obviously I can not and shan't force other Finns, but we should all go to ancient Finnish mythology and pray to the thundergod Ukko and believe in the fiery bird of thunder Kokko.



Also this Tursaansydän shall be painted or carved on all buildings to protect us from the curses of the spirits of foreign religions. Colours may vary.


When it comes to churches the ugly ones shall go down in the name of a e s t h e t i c s.

@Finn123
Old mythologies are always interesting, and in my opinion they belong to history lessons amongst other things which would educate people of their past (or at least past of the country they live in). They are also important pieces of information when studying/researching cultural history in general.

However, my point originally was that the culture whatever it is now is only a moment in its timeline and it always comes from somewhere and it is constantly going to somewhere. For example Perkele origins from baltics and one could make a connection between Ukko and Ygg (which is another name of Odin). One can always point at a certain point in time, but it is just a matter of opinion which one is considered more important than others.

@Loniac
Kalevala and Kalevipoeg verse topics span at least the last 14 000 years, since Younger-Dryas (edit. I meant Allerod) , possibly over at least one precession period. From that you can calculate the annual change in culture.

@ThorsomeTarmukas

14 000 years? Thats new for me. What topics do you exactly mean for example?

@Loniac
I seem to recall that I have read that hazel trees were cultivated in Europe during mesolithic and likely even before epipaleolithic, meaning before Younger Dryas.

@ThorsomeTarmukas
I am not sure if I get your point here. However Im no expert on kalevala and therefore I do not know the connection between hazel and kalevala. I think there is a big Oak tree though.

@Loniac
Sorry, I was replying blind, without actually looking up what the discussion was about.

The finnic epic stories and folklore include creation myths how land arises from the ice lake (Väinamaine, the birds and eggs and such). There has been only two regions that has seen land rise in the last 15 000 years: Baltoscandia and Canada. Everywhere else coastal areas were sunk by the rising sea levels due to glacial melt. And the southern coasts of the Baltic Sea (Poland, Prussia, Denmark, Lithuania, Latvia) stopped rising early on. The birds do colonise new islets and holms first and lay eggs and shit. That shit is the manure for a more flourishing future. The two highest hills of the two highest Estonian uplands are named Egghills. The peak of the third highest upland is Ebavere, which got its name from the Kaali meteorite impact event - the Viru witch bragged that she brought the Sun down to Saaremaa, while in reality the meteorite descended from that direction (from Karelia to Saaremaa, over Ebavere mountain). The Tsõõrikmäe meteorite crater is about 9500 years old and the Paganamaa near the border of Latvia is a subglacial meltwater runoff valley, which makes it at least 14500 years old.

The Kalevipoeg stories about hellgates are about: meteorite craters, karst caves and glacial moulin sinkholes. At the later stages of the ice age, there were a lot of moulins which drain the meltwater lakes on the glacier and after that those moulin holes are empty and theoretically traversable, if one uses ropes and stone nails. The glacial rim is not very thick and one (a team of many) could have descended the moulin to the bottom and under the glacier and discover those large runoff caves and valleys with lakes. A whole cave system hundreds of kilometers long with subglacial rivers running at the bottom of the subglacial valleys ('ürgorg', subglasiaalinen uoma). At least two such subglacial valleys in Finland also carry the name of Pagan. The etymology of those names goes back to the subglacial times.

Edit. And that is likely the source for the myths of the river Tuonela.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuonela
"At times living people visited Tuonela to gather information and spells. The trip there required weeks of trekking in a desert, and finally the crossing of the river with the help of a ferryman (similar to Charon in Greek mythology)."

That desert was the tundra landscape and as to the river, there was a river sinkhole (moulin), the river itself was subglacial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eridanos_(geology)

@ThorsomeTarmukas
That was interesting. Never really came across such things.

@Finn123
European core culture is multiculturalism. European cultures and languages have mixed for centuries and it has only brought us diversity so why not add in some other cultural influences? People usually only take over habits they find useful and good so that can only mean that we will benefit from more cultural diversity.
And btw, usually when people go out to eat they want to eat something different from the "traditional food".
Apart from that, the "immigrants" that open up kebab restaurants are mainly families that have lived in Europe for generations now so no, I don't get your point. I only get that your view is tinted a fair bit nationalistic if not racistic if I may say so.

@Amber_Ly Europe itself already has a lot of different cultures because it consists of almost 50 countries. I think we're good as we are.

It's perfectly fine if you want to bring more multiculturalism to your home. Just don't tell @Finn123 what to do with his land.

I'm not saying that you're currently forcing your opinion on anyone, because you aren't. You're just debating this subject. But again, it's pointless and wrong to try to convince Finland to give up what they stand for, just because you want "enrichment" (if I understood you correctly), like many people like to call it. I don't have any source of people calling it enrichment, except Galfisk up there, so I'm judging that from my personal experiences.


And don't get me wrong, I think we're perfectly capable of having a civilized discussion without being too rude to each other. So may I just ask, what country are you from?

@ScanianDreng
I'm not trying to "force my opinion on anyone" I simply don't like @Finn123's statement that "clearly European countries should deport a significant majority of their middle eastern migrants to protect European cultures" because it is clearly inappropriate and reminds me a lot of the what right wing parties say. [I hope that was a civilized enough phrasing for you :P]
Everyone has the right to decide where they want to live and how they want to live as long as they respect the law. You can't just deport people because you don't like the way they live.
To me everyone just should live their lives and let other's live theirs. And I do wish for people to be a bit more open minded and for some more acceptance.

I get it you're from Sweden? I don't know why it matters what country I'm from but I'm from Germany if you want to know.

@Amber_Ly
That's a rather silly statement to make.

Keyword: European culture
Influences from other European cultures aren't that world-changing anyway because we're already similar people with similar cultures.

Not to mention that despite all this, Europeans have never really gotten along even with other Europeans.

Nothing wrong with that, you may say whatever you like.

@Finn123 I agree with you. Those middle eastern men should move away from Europe. They are no good here. Only doing crimes.

@Finn123 "Getting sick of seeing more kebab restaurants than non-kebab restaurants." And yet people like you use them, pizzerias and so on. There aren't all that many restaurants that serve Finnish food.

And yes, we get the point, you are a racist whether you accept the label or not. Cultures merge and change all the time. Time won't stop.

so if the usa takes something from another culture because they think its fun thats cultural appropriation and thats wrong, but if another country takes smthn from usa thats usa forcing their culture on those poor other countrys, can usa ever win?

why cant we just take fun stuff from other cultures and enjoy it without it having to be some sjw issue?

@burny555 Oh wow, a voice of reason. A rarity in the Internet these days.

@burny555 Personally I don't give a damn about cultural appropriation, I for one don't want to go back to a hut made of stone, turf and driftwood.

@burny555 It doesn't matter what you say or do, some SJW or anti SJW will make a issue of it. Everything you do offends someone somewhere, especialy if you are having fun doing it.

@Rogers that is sadly all too true

@burny555 Title of the comic notwithstanding, that is not what cultural appropriation refers to when used in common vernacular. It refers to a disrespectful corruption of aspects of another culture by subsuming them into one's own for selfish reasons, with no regard to the integrity of the associated traditions. For example, the fashion industry adopting native american head dresses as a fashion statement, when in fact these head dresses have sacred context in native american culture. Celebrating foreign holidays, from any perspective, should never be considered cultural appropriation as long as they are being celebrated authentically. Hope that helps!

'@Finn123'

Spooky, scary racist men
Send shivers down your spine
Shrieking skulls will shock your soul
Seal your doom tonight

Spooky, scary racist men
Speak with such a screech
You'll shake and shudder in surprise
When you hear these racist shriek

We're so sorry, racist man
You're so misunderstood
You only want to socialize
But I don't think we should

'Cause spooky, scary racist men
Shout startling shrilly screams
They'll sneak in from their radio shows
And just won't leave you be

Spirits super-racified
Are shy, what's all the fuss?
But bags of slurs seem so unsafe
It's semi-serious

Spooky, scary racist men
Are silly all the same
They'll smile and scrabble slowly by
And drive you so insane

Sticks and stones will break your bones
They seldom let you snooze
Spooky, scary racist men
Will wake you with a white supremacist rally.

@dino-soar94
Thanks man I love ya can you sing this to me tonight?

'@Finn123' Of course! I'll even wear my spooky pointy headed ghost sheet ;)

@dino-soar94 lmao that was shit

'@Artacus' My parody or your mother's *****?

@dino-soar94 lmao that was even worse

I'm just glad we all have Halloween Aka: One of the few days where you can Cosplay in public and not get strange looks! What? I like to cosplay!

@Bluesamurai It's also the day that I can dress up as a ww2 German soldier and not get weird looks.

@ArnorR Indeed!

'@Finn123'

I am offensive and I find your comment middle eastern.

@dino-soar94 Your offensiveness middle easterns me.

@dino-soar94

Besides I think in Europe we have a different attitude towards culture. When someone adopts my culture and does something new, creative and brilliant with it, I am not jealous that I didn't figure it out and they did, to me it is a sign of appreciation to show someone genuinely likes your culture so much they wish they could be part of your culture. In turn I like all the different kind of festivals, events and cultures this world has, they are so unique and brilliant and valuable in their own ways. This world would be awfully dull without them.

@BETAOPTICS Cultural appropriation is bullshit anyway,an idea that came from bored teens who wanted to get yet another reason to complain on social media(I'm ashamed to be part of this generation.)In history influences and adaptation have always been a thing,its nothing new really,the fact that they think they are the first to discover it(and try to put it to shame) goes to show they never really bother to learn much about history or cultures in general.
Cultures/celebrations are indeed wonderful,I can't imagine a life with out them,they bring so many ideas and good memories!

@Lostdaydreams The trouble with appropriation is not two cultures able to keep their identity, sharing ideas. The trouble is when one culture overrides another, and changes the other's identity fundamentally to the point that the other culture is all but lost. We see this with the First People of Northern America, and the Ainu of Japan, and Aboriginals of Australia. If you can even picture what they or their culture looks like, you are picturing what the conquering culture stereotyped them as. Growing up, their identity is largely shaped by someone else's view of their culture, and not actually by their culture.

Cultural sharing is great, as long as the culture taken from remains (like India spinning Bollywood off of America's Hollywood, that is just fantastic!)

'@UnfortunatelyEvil' "The trouble is when one culture overrides another, and changes the other's identity fundamentally to the point that the other culture is all but lost."
You make it sound like "culture" is a monolithic class, not a collection of individuals who have personal preferences.

@UnfortunatelyEvil Ah no,I think you have mistaken a bit what I said.You seem to be thinking about a similar yet very different thing,you are describing "Cultural uniformity/standardization".(Not sure if it was the academic term in english,my english is a bit limited when it comes to advanced terms ^^;)
Cultural uniformity is the act of imposing your culture on others even if they don't wish to change their culture.In the past cultural standardization was done by force,destroying the elements of other cultures,and acting violent towards people who didn't want to be part of the imposed culture.Today its far more...Cleverly done,more "diplomatic" were they fool you with the help of the media to think your own cultural is inferior and you should adopt this other culture instead.
Cultural appropriation on the other hand is the act were people are willing taking elements from other cultures and introduce them in their own,and even adding a their own spin on it.
Personally I hate cultural standardization even if its no longer done in a violent fashion,it takes away from the beauty of the world and mocks creativity and individual thinking.

@BETAOPTICS Please excuse my ignorance, but exactly what Finnish cultural traditions have been appropriated by other countries? I can't think of any, off-hand. (An antagonistic relationship with Russia doesn't count.)

@Tarmaque Nothing or nothing of significance as far as I know. Just little adaptations by individuals here and there and some inventions. But nothing worth of mentioning. However even hypothetically I wouldn't really mind personally either way.

@BETAOPTICS I didn't mean to imply it was wrong or something to be worried about. It's just that of all the Northern European/Scandinavian cultures, Finns are probably the least well known to the world at large.

That said, there's a fairly large Finnish immigrant population in my area of North America. Astoria Oregon counts around 6% of its population having Finnish origins. Most of the immigrants came between the late 1800s and early 1900s to work in the fishing industry, and they brought their culture with them. Suomi Hall is a prominent fixture in town to this day, and several public bath and sauna establishments still exist.

@BETAOPTICS - "When someone adopts my culture and does something new, creative and brilliant with it, I am not jealous that I didn't figure it out and they did, to me it is a sign of appreciation to show someone genuinely likes your culture so much they wish they could be part of your culture." And that is a reasonable and excellent example of a cultural appreciation *rather* than a cultural appropriation. Appropriation is when Person A (usually someone from a majority culture in a particular area) takes a piece of Person B's culture (usually a minority culture in the same geographic region) and proceeds to dilute the piece so that it's mass marketable, re-sell it with Person A's name, duplicate it without adding anything, make an inferior quality version and call it the same, make an inferior quality version and use it to mock Person B's culture, or turn it into a costume. It's not a matter of not realizing when appreciation takes place- Person B is likely able to recognize an earnest interest leading to cultural appreciation, but that's not what the debate is about these days. The issue that keeps popping up, especially in places where you do have distinct, but still vibrantly sustained cultures, one with more power than the other, is when the majority culture seizes upon some facet of the minority's culture with the result leading to cultural dilution and erosion of the minority culture.

*That* is appropriation.

@Mosaea

Good point in pointing out the important difference between appreciation and appropriation - I'll use that difference explaining this issue in the future! :-)

But if I might give you a tip - please edit your post to break up the text more so it's not just all one solid block.
It'll make it easier for more readers to enjoy your valuable contribution. :-)

@Nisse_Hult - thank you and for the suggestion as well! I'll definitely make sure to use more line breaks in the future.

@Mosaea

You're welcome. :-)

And if you want you should know you can also edit already posted comments.
You "just" have to find the comment and then click "edit" at the top.

'@Mosaea' "takes a piece of Person B's culture"
Culture is not a physical object. Copying information does not remove or affect other existing pieces of it. Naming issue is particularly weak, since it is either a trademark dispute or "appropriated" element is so generic there is nothing lost in it's "appropriation".

"majority culture seizes upon some facet of the minority's culture with the result leading to cultural dilution and erosion"
And real life example of that would be?..

@comrade_Comrade The Disney Song "What Makes the Red Man Red" from Peter Pan.

When people profit from stereotypes proven to harm and dehumanize a culture - that is what I would call appropriation.
Things like this trivialize the violence and genocide the Native Indigenous Americans have had to face. The creators did not get credit for the fashion headdresses that are making the hipster scenes at music festivals. That hurts them. And this prioritized the feelings and profit of the white-owned Disney company over any of the native americans that they stole the look from.

That is one example. I can think of others.

\When Ms. Natalie Winter made a Wikitongues video on how to speak gypsy, several Romani complained. She was neither Romani, nor was speaking the language well. She took to public media to say that the ones complaining against her didn't 'look' Romani, and therefore their complaints weren't valid. Fortunately, Wikitongues did take her video down as appropriation, but that damage is done.

If we take a piece of culture not our own, and then use that sliver to define a whole people, that causes harm.

'@Morning'-USA dehumanization is something that you do to an individual. "Culture" is either a set of stories, language, beliefs and preferences or a class to which you arbitrary assign some number of individuals.
Entertainment in general and specific pieces aimed at children trivialize a lot of things, it has to do so to remain entertaining. If someone uses children's story as a source of accurate information on some culture, problem lies within reader's attitude and not the story. Creators being "hurt" by headdress is a weird claim, unless one of them was, say, dismembered to make one. You could mean economic damage, in which case it's not very likely that original product would be in demand by those who purchased "counterfeit".

"And this prioritized the feelings and profit of the white-owned Disney company over any of the native americans that they stole the look from."
How use of Native American "look" in a cartoon prevents Native Americans from utilizing the same look? If it doesn't, how do you justify the use of word "stole"?

But here's a better example - "The Merchant of Venice". Original material had a strong antisemitic tone to it and served to dehumanize Shylock, trivialize his moral suffering and economic loss. Shakespeare is unlikely to have been Jewish or even citizen of Venice. Apparently, this play is supposed to be a cultural appropriation.
However, modern reading and adaptations tend to present Shylock as a sympathetic character, whose religious and cultural background determine reaction and actions towards Antonio and Bassanio. That, however, distorts author's original intent without his express permission or compensation. One could argue that antisemites of various nationalities are hurt by humanization of character, who is driven by his cultural and religious background to demand unreasonable death of Christian and served to show harmful aspects of cultural separatism and predatory lending by Jews. Does that mean that in order to avoid cultural appropriation all copies of "The Merchant of Venice" and derivative works should be destroyed? Should they be accessible only to either Venetians, Venetian Jews or British people (provided that they are sufficiently antisemitic to view the work as originally intended)?

"When Ms. Natalie Winter made a Wikitongues video on how to speak gypsy, several Romani complained. She was neither Romani, nor was speaking the language well. She took to public media to say that the ones complaining against her didn't 'look' Romani, and therefore their complaints weren't valid. Fortunately, Wikitongues did take her video down as appropriation, but that damage is done. "
Oh, languages are fun.
Damage to Romani amounts to what? If there is any meaningful damage, do some Romani engage in harmful cultural appropriation when they speak in dialect which does not correspond to some ideal vocabulary and pronunciation? If someone who is not Romani speaks the same dialect, does that count as cultural appropriation of some "mainstream" form of language? If not - why?

If purpose of the video is to demonstrate the perfect pronunciation, then taking it down makes sense on grounds of insufficient quality, not "cultural appropriation".

@comrade_Comrade

How about that people believe that if someone isn't "Indian" enough, or "Black" enough or "Gypsy" enough, that they get cast out of multiple societies. Hatred is a hard thing to look at. There is a *lot* of proof that this hurts many, not just a single individual.

Now, I do have an American view of this. A privileged, white middle-class girl's view. I can't have any other - it's what I am. But in the US there is a thing about stealing. And an idea of intellectual property.

If culture is defined as "the beliefs, ideas, traditions, speech, and material objects associated with a particular group of people" per Webster. Appropriation is taking something for one's own use, usually without permission.

The damage to the Romani is a spread of the idea that there is a specific look about them that is not telling the whole story, and that it is spreading an idea that Romani cannot be educated, well-dressed, or worthwhile of knowing except as something extinct in fairy tales about magic and witches, not as current living breathing human beings.

The hurt to the Native Americans is seeing a religious artifact used for trivialized entertainment and the further push that their entire being is uncultured, uneducated, and non-people. How many wars were started just between the Protestants and the Catholics over which way to pray? To take an important religious symbol and say it's OK to make it as something that's not religious - and worse, to do it unknowingly and then once you do know just shrug your shoulders - that's hurtful to the people who believe in that religion.

The more these stereotypes are spread, the more that the people in power have an easier time to believe them, and that these people then don't matter. It is part of why the Native American reservations have shrunk to a quarter of the size than they were promised. It is why blackface entertainment has mostly died out in the US - people realized that African Americans were people and not just something to make fun of.

Having people believe that another person is not on-par, is not worthy of respect, and is not worthy of listening to - that is always dangerous.

'@Morning'-USA "How about that people believe that if someone isn't "Indian" enough, or "Black" enough or "Gypsy" enough, that they get cast out of multiple societies."
I'm pretty sure that Native American tribes do not use "Peter Pan" as a guide to determine who is "Indian" enough. Also, rules are set within the community, so opinion of white people is irrelevant anyway. If this community uses media produced by white people to judge who is culturally "black" or "gypsy", then they don't have that much culture to start with.

"There is a *lot* of proof that this hurts many, not just a single individual."
Many *individuals*. Also many individuals were not affected in any way.

"Now, I do have an American view of this. A privileged, white middle-class girl's view."
Doesn't that disqualify you from speaking about whether or not Native Americans or Romani were hurt or not by something?

" But in the US there is a thing about stealing. And an idea of intellectual property. "
Or rather an idea that protection is established for purpose of incentivizing innovation and economic growth, while limited by expiration date, fair use, prior art and public domain.

"If culture is defined as "the beliefs, ideas, traditions, speech, and material objects associated with a particular group of people" per Webster. Appropriation is taking something for one's own use, usually without permission."
Taking implies removing an object from possession by someone. Copying information (i.e. writing down a story or creating likeness of something) implies that object is not removed and remains in possession of owner, so property rights are not infringed. On top of that, establishing criteria for collective ownership of idea is going to be fascinating. Let's say that one day I'll claim that I'm an Apache, because I feel that way, therefore I should be afforded the right to use their language and "tribal look". Who decides whether I get that right or not?

"The damage to the Romani is a spread of the idea that there is a specific look about them that is not telling the whole story, and that it is spreading an idea that Romani cannot be educated, well-dressed, or worthwhile of knowing except as something extinct in fairy tales about magic and witches, not as current living breathing human beings. "
"Natalie Winter made a Wikitongues video on how to speak gypsy, several Romani complained ... Wikitongues did take her video down as appropriation"
So the video which was taken down is the one with wrong pronunciation or it's an additional video with claim that critics don't look "Gypsy" enough? Question about dialects still stands.

"The hurt to the Native Americans is seeing a religious artifact used for trivialized entertainment and the further push that their entire being is uncultured, uneducated, and non-people."
"Hurt" is what you feel when your leg is broken, not when someone says or draws something you don't like.
I could claim to be "hurt" along with millions of Russians by display of Red Banner and various Marxist symbols that trivialize collectivist oppression and support Red Terror. Would that get campus commies and anyone using theory of class struggle banned for cultural appropriation?

" How many wars were started just between the Protestants and the Catholics over which way to pray?"
My guess is fewer than number of wars started by political implications of Papal authority.

"To take an important religious symbol and say it's OK to make it as something that's not religious - and worse, to do it unknowingly and then once you do know just shrug your shoulders - that's hurtful to the people who believe in that religion. "
And not doing that is hurtful to some Atheists. So what?

"The more these stereotypes are spread, the more that the people in power have an easier time to believe them, and that these people then don't matter. It is part of why the Native American reservations have shrunk to a quarter of the size than they were promised."
Link between shrinking reservations and "Peter Pan" is something to be seen.

" It is why blackface entertainment has mostly died out in the US - people realized that African Americans were people and not just something to make fun of. "
Or maybe because it was a fad and it mostly passed. Use of blackface in USSR and Russia survived much longer than in US, despite official ideology being strongly opposed to racism.

"Having people believe that another person is not on-par, is not worthy of respect, and is not worthy of listening to - that is always dangerous. "
And that's why collectivist ideologies are poison. However, since collectivists will always be around, next best thing would be having some protection against control of speech, thought and association. Too bad First Amendment isn't too popular among people who tend to talk about cultural appropriation.

@Mosaea i'm dutch and if you think cultural appropriation is a real problem then i suggest you stop celebrating christmass emediatly as it is a bastardized and commercialized version of our holiday called sinterklaas (thats where santa claus comes from) he goes around the world to bring children gifts,he rides his horse across the rooftops and sends his black petes down the chimneys to open the door for him.

ofcourse we dutchies dont bitch about cultural appropriation at you americans and your santa claus who you blatantly ripped off from us because people should just be allowed to have fun with their holidays, you aint hurting nobody (not even us whos holiday you ripped off)

it doesnt end there tho, i gues you better stop celebrating the bastardized version of easter where the easter bunny comes and hides eggs, thats just the protestant bastardization of the catholic holiday where the easter bells fly from rome and drop eggs (seriously stop stealing my culture, you are such an oppressor... what a joke, it would just be me looking for things that can give me oppression/victim points)

ofcourse both these holidays were originaly stolen from by the christians from the pagans anyway so i gues anyone who would bitch would be a hypocrite anyways

@burny555 And jet they, both, are by Christianity "raped" versions of Germanic folk tradisions (Sinterklaas = Het Wilde Heer / Wodans wilde jacht and Easter = the feast of Ostara (Germanic Godes of spring and fertility).

@Tuveanthermark kinda makes me wonder, how far back does this go? maybe theres 100s of diff storys all based on each other if you keep going back(prob long before written records, so impossible for us to track sadly)

@BETAOPTICS

What you describe is not a problem, but cultural appropriation is more then that.

It occurs when a majority culture appropriates singular parts out off a minority culture and use them out of context as an exotic accent.
As minority cultures are usually defined as "the other" and afforded lower status in the eyes of the majority, when these cultural expressions or customs are expressed within the minority culture, they're seen as having lower value - but when they are appropriated by the majority culture they're suddenly valued more. This does not however raise the value of the cultural expression within the minority culture.

Or to give an example:
The African-American community in the US has historically suffered terrible oppression and racist views against people of African decent is still rife within large parts of US society.
Thus cultural expression emanating from within this community is afforded less status and value - just as the people creating the culture themselves.

But when white Americans then choose to appropriate parts of black culture like music or hairstyles, these privileged whites don't suffer the negative connotations of the cultural expressions to the same extent.

A white kid with cornrows rapping is more likely to be seen as expressing him/herself stylistically and artistically - a black kid doing the same is more likely to be seen as a probable gang member.

Meaning the minority culture doesn't gain anything from the appropriation of the majority culture. The process isn't a fair trade or an expression of respect for or interest in the minority culture - it's just the majority culture stealing what it likes from the minority culture and giving nothing in return.
And this can of course lead to justifiable resentment in the minority culture.

"OK, so when you steal stuff from us and do the exact same things - then it's cool - but when we do it, it's looked down upon? How is that fair?!"

@Nisse_Hult @Mosaea I understand that. You look at something like Japan and how their culture changed since the Vietnam war and cultural influence from the West. Japan today is very different than Japan 200-years ago. In Psychology we have a term for the unique = value phenomena and it is known as the ' Scarcity Principle '. Things that are rare stand-out and are valued easier. Nobody celebrates breathing, we all celebrate scientists. Same way a white kid rapping is expressive, African American kid is just what you'd expect. It is a trope of sorts.

However I wonder if this is a function of how the times change. When you think of it, we've been exchanging inventions, ideas, cultural traditions and what have you trough trade for a good 10 000-years ever since technologies like organized civilization, the wheel, travel, compass and cartography were invented. Traders traveled long distances to do trade and exchange products and resources, at the same time bringing in part of their culture and taking in some cultural influences where they went to trade off goods. One good example is the Chinese invention of gun powder and how it spread to the rest of the world trough trade. If you look at our modern world, many of our cultures are byproducts of this age and these practices.

Your cars are German, your algebra is what used to be Persian, your T-shit Indian, your tea is Chinese and so on so forth. Those are inventions, however I see culture in the same way; as not something that is fixed in time but as ever changing and evolving phenomena. Look at today with our ever increasingly connected world due to more effective traveling technologies like train and airplanes, and our information technology like cell-phones and the internet, it influences how we experiences cultures and their traditions. We all speak in English because it became the global lingua franca. In some ways we might have to learn to accept that our conceptions of what makes a Self change and so does the culture, some hopefully remain as they are with other traditions might be a dying breed or they'll adapt in some new way. You look at some isolated tribes today and they are still very aligned with their old traditions with barely any influence or threat of their culture disappearing from existence for now. Well not due to outside influence, environmental disasters might be another thing.

How many of us practice our ancestors cultures? Not many. Yet who would argue they were not unique in some ways? But their remnants still exist in our modern world, even if they no longer are actively present. So I wonder how much of this is due to how our world is changing. Of course I do not wish cultures to die out entirely, it'd be dull like I said, but I also think that to some degree our cultures will change over time in this way. On a personal level I don't mind, perhaps I am not as attached to what makes Finland Finland, because ultimately we all came from the same ancestor and honestly it should be about time we started acting like it.

@BETAOPTICS

I don't really see how this is connected to the specific question of cultural appropriation?

As Mosaea eloquently put it - there's a difference between appreciation and appropriation.

Cultures appreciating others and borrowing from them is not a problem - that's just fine.
Cultures appropriating from others and stealing without giving appreciation and respect back is not.

@Nisse_Hult Wait people still do cornrows? I don't think I've seen anyone in cornrows in years.

Also I think I have only ever seen two white people in cornrows, Weird Al and on a chubby white Texan woman on a tv show as a joke.

Also pretty sure that if a white person went around in cornrows they would not really be getting any positive reactions...........

Not to mention the only white rapper in America that is taken seriously is Eminem who I've seen referred to as an albino sometimes

Furthermore racial issues in the United States are often overblown by the SJW, sensationalists media, or when political agenda comes into play. Your average American does not care about the color of their fellow American, do they notice it? Of course they do just as one would notice the color of hair, height, or number of limbs. At my work people might joke about race such as when I was referred to as "The Dark Lord" or other black people referring to the bosses as "master."

If you want to see actual racism in the US then you could talk to older people or reactionaries fed up by the SJW.

@Carolus_Rex

It's what's know as an "example". You might have heard about those before?

"Furthermore racial issues in the United States are often overblown by the SJW, sensationalists media, or when political agenda comes into play."

There is very solid evidence that's not even remotely true - and your use of the term "SJW" and the rest of your comment shows your political bias.

You can start reading here, but there are any number of sources on this other where as well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_United_States

Now if you personally don't experience this and is in fact a person of color like you claim (which I highly doubt) - then good for you.
But that doesn't mean there isn't major, MAJOR problems with racism in the US.
Just the election of Trump and his actions since then shows that.

Public polling also show that Americans by a large majority rate race relations as bad:

http://time.com/4952612/race-relations-poll-charlottesville-donald-trump/

@Nisse_Hult Let's see, I could either attack you personally as you attempted to do, or I could counter your arguments?

Eh I choose the latter.

In my experience as an American in Richmond, Virginia (the former capital of the Confederate States of America) I find that there are not a lot of people that are racist and almost all of them are either old people that are from a time when racism was accepted or reactionaries who don't like SJW telling them that they only get where they do as they are privileged. The latter of the two usually only commit the crime when they think they can get away with it where as the former I honestly pity for their inability to adapt to a better time.

Not to offend you, but I don't quite think you understand how large the United States is compared to Sweden, and anytime something happens in the entire country that can possibly grab attention, such as a shooting, bombing, or a celebirty saying something stupid it is told across the entire country. And it is their job to get peoples attention with stuff that outrages people such as a black kid getting shot by a white cop, or funnily enough that one time I remember a black kid got shot by a black cop and it was considered racist.

As for Tronald Dump, you do realize how few people in the United States actually vote and that he still didn't win the popular vote. Or how many protests across the country there were and are against him showing that most American's do not like him or his policies. The only thing I remember him actually getting away with doing was done through an executive order and got shot down almost immediately (there was a comic on this site about it)

Also since you seem to doubt me being of color, I am mixed, my dad was black and my mom was white so I guess it was wrong for me to say that I was black as some people might think that to mean fully African. Also I'm not sure why you wouldn't think I am of color, is it because this site focuses upon European countries? Or are all colored people supposed to be left leaning even though I find myself and many other people of color in the middle taking flak from both sides and laughing at their foolishness.

@Carolus_Rex

Your personal experience isn't really important when 70% of the entire US population rate race relations as bad and there are countless studies and sources on how bad racism actually is in the US.

Your opinion expressed here sound far more like the wishful thinking of the predominantly white political right, who's never ever been interested in seeing the problem of racism in America.

Which is why I have my doubts about who you actually are frankly.

You might be one of the few exceptions - that's true - but you might also be giving a false portrayal of yourself in the mistaken belief that that strengthens your argument.
But either way - that's really besides the point as the fact that there are systemic racial bias in America is a well established scientific fact.

People have spent their whole life's studying these issues and countless studies and court cases show this is not some "liberal" idea.

Whether you accept that fact or not is up to you, but it remains a fact.

@Galfisk food is fine. Sadly culture is way more diverse then that. Moslim parents demand that their children get a day of with the sugar festival, which native children wont get free. (adding more holidays just to please everyone would make way to many days off). Giving the sugar fest a official status for everyone means that a existing holiday must be removed. In the netherlands we cant enjoy sinterklaas (dutch christmas for children) anymore because people start protesting that its is rascist. Freedom of speech is also under fire because someone might find something offensive to their culture.

Cultures clash and that means that one will overcome the other destroying culture instead of "enriching" it.

"I feel so bad about my culture being forced on you" --- said no American ever...

Your culture, Sister America? Halloween is a re-purposed Celtic harvest festival. The name is a shortening of All Hallows Eve, the day before All Saints Day, a holy day of obligation for Catholics. It's no more 'American' than Christmas or Easter.

@Brigid The way it's celebrated in America in the present day is very typically American, though. Regardless of its origins.

@Aprillen The way its celebrated in America is not massively different to how Samhain was celebrated centuries ago. I always find it ridiculous when people in the UK complain about "americanised" things like trick or treating or carving vegetables coming in when they were being done in parts of the UK before the USA even existed!

@Aprillen Well, yeah. The way it would be celebrated anywhere would reflect the culture and history of that country. Like pretty much any other holiday.

@Brigid That is rather similar to saying that the Gatling gun is not an American gun because the Chinese invented guns a few hundred years before Gatling made an automatic one

@Carolus_Rex Um, what? I'm sorry, but I can't seem to locate my original post. (Sure would be nice if there was a way to see the comment thread these mentions originate from.) Not sure if your analogy would make sense if I could. Halloween isn't an American holiday, but the way it's celebrated here is distinctly American. Just like Christmas isn't an American holiday but the way we celebrate it is American. Every country has its own way of celebrating these international holidays. Some of them have influenced the way America celebrates and America has influenced the way they celebrate. When cultures meet, they exchange materials, ideas, and customs. It's how the world works.

Want your house to have the scariest Halloween decorations on your block?

Put your Christmas decorations up in October.