They don't even have immigrant restaurants? Good grief --- here in Albuquerque, a flyover country city of 500,000 people, we have Persian and Turkish and Middle Eastern and of course Vietnamese and Thai and heavens knows what else - and you can't be invited to anybody's house or party without some things like hummus or falafel being on offer. (Well, all right. I have a friend who prides himself on his solid traditional Midwestern cuisine. I haven't heard any complaints about it. Last night's entree was chicken enchiladas, which in this state *is* traditional American cooking.

I meant that there is less crossover. Here in America, we have foods with origins from around the world; we often like to throw them together in a blender and come up with something new. Take California, for example. In California, you get Dungeness crab, and a lot of California crab recipes are either from a WASP past (boil it in beer and add spices) or from China (mmm, soy and ginger sauce.) In California, you get the little trucks that have fish tacos: 20 years ago, they did not exist. Nowadays, they are beloved not just by the Mexican immigrants but by the locals, too. The recipes are enjoyed by both cultures and are welcomed with open arms. In France, they are perpetually seen as "alien" or "ethnic." America by no means is a total saint on the issue, but unlike France, we'll pretty much eat anything and pick up bits and bobs of cuisine like lint and cobble together something new and extraordinary, often with the faith and goodwill of the immigrants who brought the style of cooking with them. (it is like a giant swap meet.)

Other nations in the past in Europe used to also integrate ingredients into local cuisine, but it often took centuries to get acceptance and also often involved a political shift involving another nation: Naples, for example, was intermittently ruled by France or Spain and some of the hallmarks of Neapolitan cuisine have influence from those nations (the beloved tomato, for example, or bechamel sauces.) Britain had to go through nearly 150 years of the British Raj and then a huge wave of immigrants from India for those curry houses to appear, and they did not start coming until the late 1960s. The influence remains cursory over the cuisine overall in both cases, with the mainstay cuisine remaining intact. I question if this approach is viable in the 21st century framework.

Generations among French Muslims - in a survey about fasting - every day of the month - during Ramadan -

The most diligent group consists of people between the age of 18 and 24 and people over the age of 55 (73% participation in both cases).

http://www.ansamed.info/en/news/ME.XEF68071.html

malgré toutes mes tentatives je ne réussi pas à faire reconnaitre ma carte Western_Europe, toujours le même message" Carte introuvable Si quelquun a une solution à me proposer, je suis preneur... Merci.

Originally Posted by CateTeecy

malgré toutes mes tentatives je ne réussi pas à faire reconnaitre ma carte Western_Europe, toujours le même message" Carte introuvable Si quelquun a une solution à me proposer, je suis preneur... Merci.

Je ne comprend pas. This is an English speaking forum.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Je ne comprend pas. This is an English speaking forum.

Ne derangez point. C'est seulement un spam.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Ne derangez point. C'est seulement un spam.

Merci beaucoup. Je comprend .... un petit peu.

In my observation the Global Financial Crisis was the catalyst for the current Crisis period in Europe (which includes all of it). Not because of the Great Depression like economic conditions in countries such as Spain and Greece. However because the Global Financial Crisis has brought a huge challenge to the Euro currency and whole European Union project. Either this Crisis will have the Euro and European Union collapse or have be radically restructured and become "The United States of Europe". Right now this debt crisis Europe is experiencing is likely the regeneracy stage for the Crisis period there.

I predict a worsening of the economic crisis in Europe. Due to the Euro Central Bank is not willing to bailing out the governments of Greece, Italy and Spain like the Federal Reserve did for troubled banks back in 2008.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1173481.html

Originally Posted by Mary Kate 1982

No. Sorry, no motive to do so and less public will. But if I were you, I would be looking at the underclass of immigrants in Europe (including Sweden) for upcoming violence.

I am.

They are at the bottom of the economic totem pole.

Not only that. They are highest on violent crime, patriarchic and religious oppression and in despising the host population as well.

Every time there is a jolt in the economy, especially in the big three (France, Britain, Germany) there will be repercussions to the lowest social strata because they feel the pain the most.

Correct. And you can see the paths of the European 4T leading from somewhere around here.

That is not totally accurate, dearie. In fact, it is far too simple. After WWII, your government, like most governments of Europe, had a problem in that they lost a lot of people in two world wars, so rebuilding the economy was going to be that much trickier. At the same time, many of the European powers had to go through a period of decolonialization. Ergo, a window opened up: politicians decided to invite former colonials to Europe to pick up the slack and speed up recovery. Europe recovered and prospered. That was the good news.

"Dearie", haha! Sorry, but that's a lot of nonsense. First off, maybe you haven't heard but Sweden never got involved in WWII, so there weren't any population to replace. The economic record breaking period during the first two post war decades was well grounded for since the 19th century in this country, including high literacy, high IQ, low impulsiveness, a series of inventions, a formidable work ethic, benefits from being an industrial latecomer (industrial revolution starting in earnest only in the 1870's) and above all - after WWII - the huge demand for timber, iron ore, manufactured goods and machinery for rebuilding continental Europe, which was pouring out from an intact industrial infrastructure, just like in the US.
One could also argue that the third way policies of the Social Democratic party helped making Sweden an economical success story through an all encompassing social safety net, an egalitarian ideology and wealth distribution, serving homemarket purchasing power. Only then somewhere, pretty far down the list, come the labor contributions by various immigrants during the 50's, 60's and 70's since Sweden suffered from a marginally lacking workforce due to the tremendous economic growth. However, those people were mainly Europeans to start with and they came here to work and contribute to society: Finns, Germans, Italians, Hungarians, Greeks and Turks (who of course are non-Europeans).
The story about the predominantly non-Christian MENA populations who were invited on the pretense of being "refugees" from the late 70's on, only due to decision makers being afraid of being labeled racists and Nazis, is entirely different.

The bad news was the way that Arabs and blacks and South Asians were treated. There were few paths to social advancement: political representation never materialized for these groups. Amongst the powers that be and the host European cultures themselves, there was very poor understanding of what exactly they were inviting to Europe, or rather, who: none of these cultures ever had an Enlightenment or Renaissance. Their native cultures use shame or fear as a regulator of sociopolitical behavior, not guilt or burden of proof, and immigrants from these cultures will often listen to the devil they know over the devil they don't know and won't understand. Democracy doesn't exist in feudal societies or cultures that are nearly totally communally oriented as your rights are defined only in one's relation to others, not in what the powerful owe you. Thus, an imam has a lot more weight over an immigrant community than a district court judge and some immigrants will have no problem taking social protection (the dole) for as long as they want because so long as one is not found out ,one is not guilty, and in one's mind it is the job of others to support him. The current politicians do not understand this at all.

Absolutely correct and very well put. And that's precisely the reason why these people have no purpose being in Europe from the outset. They must either learn to conform or be deported outside the walls of the European Union, end of story. And even then, if they did conform and in fact become valuable to European society, the over riding duty of the nation state is to maintain the prosperity of its own people. The nation must always come first or the politicians will have breached the social contract with the people. There are no guarantees.

Telling a Muslimah to remove her veil at school only creates trouble. Serving halal food in the cafeteria as an alternative for her helps the situation.

The Muslimah is not in Riyadh now. If she won't eat what's on offer because of religious superstition she should bring her own lunch and if she isn't flexible enough to remove a headpiece as a display of respect to a host culture, if these are indeed the rules, well, no schooling and no employment for her. Same for everybody, no exceptions. Only way to be fair.

The state should only intervene when it is absolutely necessary (honor killings, letting the blind get in the cab with a seeing eye dog as ALL cabbies must assist the disabled, female genital mutilation [based on a medical rationale,] and giving an alternative for Muslim women who seek to divorce their husbands or escape brutality.)

You bet we should intervene in these cases. Especially in enforcing an absolute ban on female circumcision and providing a refuge for women and children who seek to get out of Muslim family hellholes.

To me it indicated that the chefs still regarded the blacks and Muslims as "other" when they actually had a huge opportunity to create something incredible. I also noticed that every chef there was white. It would appear to an outsider, Tussilago, that multiculturalism is what a lot of European politicians talk about and what is praised in polite conversation....but the practice stinks. So long as one monolithic fixed culture dominates all others in every aspect of life, so long as one rules above the others, I guess that Europe truly is a paradise.

The practice stinks because we simply want to be left alone, and no, we have no wish to "dominate" any other culture. In their hearts, no European really likes "multiculturalism". We just say so to get out of trouble or some may actually be silly enough to convince themselves into believing the state of mass immigration is somehow enjoyable, but deep down I don't think they do. They're just lying to themselves the weak minded hypocrites; power hungry people or people yearning for politically correct social acceptance - politicians and such trash.
As for the preferences of the Paris chefs, I don't see how it's my business to judge whether two crossed beans is a culinary masterpiece or not. Who has ever understood the intricacies of French cuisine anyway? If you want a slithery kebab though with runny hot sauce or garlic sauce you could just run down to the diner on the corner. Whatever fajitas or sushi has to do with immigration, I don't know.

Originally Posted by Tussilago

In their hearts, no European really likes "multiculturalism". We just say so to get out of trouble or some may actually be silly enough to convince themselves into believing the state of mass immigration is somehow enjoyable, but deep down I don't think they do. They're just lying to themselves the weak minded hypocrites; power hungry people and people yearning for politically correct social acceptance - politicians and such trash.

Absolutely. Anti-immigrant right wing parties are only going to see continued success (i.e. Austria) in the next few years.

I think Europe has been very polite about curbing nationalism since the end of WWII. I think that will change too.

In the USA, the "melting pot" concept is beaten in our heads at a young age. A young, immigrant nation like the USA has room for multiculturalism. In many ways we are a nation of nomads. If we didn't have ancestors who supported slavery or ethnic genocide of the native peoples, then they came over more recently as starving, unwashed, unwanted, non-Protestants "foreigners."

Smash cut to Europe. Not so much a history of immigration. National psyches are unencumbered by knowledge of sins of the father in possessing the land. The roots go deep, thousands of years deep, and Xenophobia is a real thing. The resentment is simmering and is getting ready to boil. When the economy tanks, Europe starts looking for scapegoats. Allah can't stop it from happening.

"Dearie", haha! Sorry, but that's a lot of nonsense. First off, maybe you haven't heard but Sweden never got involved in WWII, so there weren't any population to replace. The economic record breaking period during the first two post war decades was well grounded for since the 19th century in this country, including high literacy, high IQ, low impulsiveness, a series of inventions, a formidable work ethic, benefits from being an industrial latecomer (industrial revolution starting in earnest only in the 1870's) and above all - after WWII - the huge demand for timber, iron ore, manufactured goods and machinery for rebuilding continental Europe, which was pouring out from an intact industrial infrastructure, just like in the US.

Excuse me if my typing is a little crazy, but I am getting used to an iPad, i may have to edit this later so it can be more easily read. That said, not so fast, Tussilago. Heed what I have to say.Sweden had a population of about, oh, 7 million circa 1940. About 80 years prior it had come down from a population high aggravated by its slow cottoning on to industrialization not to mention well over a million emigrants to the US and Canada subtracting from that total (which, for Sweden, is no small number.). Both world wars plus a depression on an international scale would have (and did) retard growth. After WWII, though Sweden would have gained much from the Marshall Plan, there was no way in heaven or hell that it could have done the business of rebuilding the ruined and ash ridden hovels that comprised France, Germany, Poland, Britain, the Netherlands, and so on by itself: the population for that was too low, too few workers. Further, a planner for the rebuilding of Europe would have been a damned fool to just leave Sweden to its own devices: what would happen when the other biggies got back online (France and Britain still held imperial territory) with their infrastructure and eclipsed poor Sweden, where would its economy go with such a low birthrate?-Answer: a flush of cash into the economy, but unless the birthrate suddenly ballooned to about eight kids per childbearing female to support the Swedes into old age and realistically keep up with future industrial need to be competitive, to use a turn of phrase, " that dog ain't gonna hunt." Further aggravating the trend was the fact that Sweden's baby boom lasted only seven years, as opposed to almost fifteen in the UK. This would have become evident farily quickly, at least by 1958.So Sweden, just as many others did, started to dangle its social safety net and its demand for jobs in front of poorer nationals to the south, like Turks and Iranians and other Middle Eastern backwaters. That safety net , I hate to be the one to break it to you, was not just to achieve some lofty ideal of "social protection"-it also had the hidden benefit of keeping the gravy train going by attracting people to wash the cars, shine shoes, pick up the garbage, work in the factories. People from this area of the world would have started to arrive by the late 50s. The prewar generation would have been going into retirement by now (subtracting men from the workforce). Native population growth, the babies born from 1946-53, would not reach adulthood for another 20 years and their needs in schooling and natal care would only mean more money needed to go into the social protection kitty than ever before in addition to the big schemes planned in the backrooms of the Riksdagen. Caught in between this were men and women in their thirties, forties, and late twenties. Not enough of them working to support all that at once and sustain it for the next 50 years. (Plainly put, your premise is horseshit, and frankly you are easily lead by what you have been told by the same Social Democrats

One could also argue that the third way policies of the Social Democratic party helped making Sweden an economical success story through an all encompassing social safety net, an egalitarian ideology and wealth distribution, serving homemarket purchasing power. Only then somewhere, pretty far down the list, come the labor contributions by various immigrants during the 50's, 60's and 70's since Sweden suffered from a marginally lacking workforce due to the tremendous economic growth. However, those people were mainly Europeans to start with and they came here to work and contribute to society: Finns, Germans, Italians, Hungarians, Greeks and Turks (who of course are non-Europeans).The story about the predominantly non-Christian MENA populations who were invited on the pretense of being "refugees" from the late 70's on, only due to decision makers being afraid of being labeled racists and Nazis, is entirely different.

I could also argue that Sweden is entirely ruled by little men with skin colored with polka dots. That does not necessarily make it true. And I should also tell you that for all your education, you forget the fundamental fact that laborers are the legs a nation stands upon-who is down at the shipyards working the cranes? Who makes it possible for you to go to your precious university and have it be clean? Who is the one who has to dive into a water treatment tank to repair the clog so the streets aren't drowning in shit & asks for little in return considering his job is much nastier than anything you'll have to do in your entire life?

Absolutely correct and very well put. And that's precisely the reason why these people have no purpose being in Europe from the outset. They must either learn to conform or be deported outside the walls of the European Union, end of story. And even then, if they did conform and in fact become valuable to European society, the over riding duty of the nation state is to maintain the prosperity of its own people. The nation must always come first or the politicians will have breached the social contract with the people. There are no guarantees.

I think you totally misunderstood what I meant. My criticism was levied at the APPROACH of politicans. I disagree strongly with what you suggest as an outcome; I don't agree in the slightest with the idea of the European Union nor do I agree that it should have walls to keep the barbarain hordes out. These people are to be shown compassion tempered with reasoning. In doing what you suggest, you are actually no better than what Japan does on a daily basis with its expats: they throw a tantrum whenever a gaijin speaks in fluent and flawless Japanese because they believe that only a native and ethnically Japanese person is capable of it, not to mention that it speaks to visceral beliefs of the superiority of old Nippon. They also strike an attitude with any non-Asian that the entire reason for the existence of gaijin in their country is to work menial jobs like teaching English To their kids, entertain saraiimen after work in bars with their exotic looks; the Japanese way is to take from the gaijin whatever they need from them, chew them up and then spit them out. (And heaven help the gaijin who dares raise his voice in criticism, since he is an other and his job is to bow down and kiss the ass of the native culture and race unitl his lips bleed, even if they will never accept him. )What you are suggesting is not terribly far removed. In spite of what you may otherwise believe, culture is NOT MEANT TO BE STATIC. It is meant to flow like water and be as flexible as a feather in the wind. In the end, a culture is what you make of it.

Telling a Muslimah to remove her veil at school only creates trouble. Serving halal food in the cafeteria as an alternative for her helps the situation.The Muslimah is not in Riyadh now. If she won't eat what's on offer because of religious superstition she should bring her own lunch and if she isn't flexible enough to remove a headpiece as a display of respect to a host culture, if these are indeed the rules, well, no schooling and no employment for her. Same for everybody, no exceptions. Only way to be fair.

But it isn' fair at all. I have to ask you, would you ask a devout Jew to cut off his peyos because they offend you, or ask his wife to take off her wig or her scarf because it is "respectful" to the grand glorious host Swedish culture?! Or how about looking down your nose at the Sikh in his turban, screaming bug eyed at him to take it off because it doesn't match the football uniform? How does forcefeeding a Hindu a McDonalds hamburger sound, or forcing his son to go hungry because he had the sheer nerve to object to eating the sacred animal of Kamadhenu? It would appear to me that you think nothing is wrong with this picture so long as you, the white European of Christian background, is not inconvenienced. It would also appear that you demand she bows down and kisses your ass because she lives and worships at your pleasure. These are matters of civil rights. And take it from another country that has already gone through a bloody tango in that arena: the longer you ignore it the worse it will be. The less you try to understand that it is agame of give and take, the worse off you shall be.

The state should only intervene when it is absolutely necessary (honor killings, letting the blind get in the cab with a seeing eye dog as ALL cabbies must assist the disabled, female genital mutilation [based on a medical rationale,] and giving an alternative for Muslim women who seek to divorce their husbands or escape brutality.)You bet we should intervene in these cases. Especially in enforcing an absolute ban on female circumcision and providing a refuge for women and children who seek to get out of Muslim family hellholes.

To me it indicated that the chefs still regarded the blacks and Muslims as "other" when they actually had a huge opportunity to create something incredible. I also noticed that every chef there was white. It would appear to an outsider, Tussilago, that multiculturalism is what a lot of European politicians talk about and what is praised in polite conversation....but the practice stinks. So long as one monolithic fixed culture dominates all others in every aspect of life, so long as one rules above the others, I guess that Europe truly is a paradise.The practice stinks because we simply want to be left alone, and no, we have no wish to "dominate" any other culture. In their hearts, no European really likes "multiculturalism". We just say so to get out of trouble or some may actually be silly enough to convince themselves into believing the state of mass immigration is somehow enjoyable, but deep down I don't think they do. They're just lying to themselves the weak minded hypocrites; power hungry people or people yearning for politically correct social acceptance - politicians and such trash.As for the preferences of the Paris chefs, I don't see how it's my business to judge whether two crossed beans is a culinary masterpiece or not. Who has ever understood the intricacies of French cuisine anyway? If you want a slithery kebab though with runny hot sauce or garlic sauce you could just run down to the diner on the corner. Whatever fajitas or sushi has to do with immigration, I don't know.Last edited by Tussilago; 01-04-2012 at 10:06 AM.

Ipso facto, you already DO HOLD ONE CULTURE AND ONE WAY ABOVE ALL OTHERS BY TELLING IMMIGRANTS MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY. I wrote in female genital mutilation as a place where e the state intervenes on medical, not moral grounds: cutting and sewing up a young girl like that shall only make it difficult to bear children, may cause death due to infection, and causes unnecessary bleeding during sex, in particular the first time. The opportunity to compromise is wasted here: partial infibulation (clitoridectomy) would be acceptable to these older cultures and making a law allowing the practice to ONLY be allowed in a doctor's office under anesthetic would work out just fine, plus education of why doctors do not want the whole enchilada would be appropriate, using firsthand accounts and a one-to-one approach. This is what they will understand. Leaving the porch light on for abused women is also something they will understand and exposing a corrupt imam on embezzlement charges also might work. But you cannot and should not force it upon them.As for judging Paris chefs, I shall only ask if you have tastebuds. Excellent. Because it doesn't take an epicure to know what tastes goodto him. And likewise, the best food I have ever tasted has origins not from one sole source, but at least five. It is but one example of how culture is best when it swirls together like pools of water. The French can moan and whine and tear their hair out over how the swine at table 4 won't eat pork, but I will be celebrating in the corner with the Vietnamese, Malians, and the Cajuns, who took what France had to offer and a b unch of other places and have surpassed Maman in ability and simple fun (and incidentally, we'll make a nice bean dish so the g uy at table 4 can add his spin later.)

Originally Posted by TeddyR

Smash cut to Europe. Not so much a history of immigration. National psyches are unencumbered by knowledge of sins of the father in possessing the land. The roots go deep, thousands of years deep, and Xenophobia is a real thing. The resentment is simmering and is getting ready to boil. When the economy tanks, Europe starts looking for scapegoats. Allah can't stop it from happening.

France has been a nation of immigrants similar to the USA since the 19th century, a lot of people from Flanders, Italy, Spain, Poland and other European nations immigrated to France and assimilated into French society. President Sarkozy for example is the son of an Hungarian immigrant and his mother, the first lady was born in Italy.

Although in France there has been a ideology that anybody can become French by assimilating into French society.

Originally Posted by Tristan

France has been a nation of immigrants similar to the USA since the 19th century, a lot of people from Flanders, Italy, Spain, Poland and other European nations immigrated to France and assimilated into French society. President Sarkozy for example is the son of an Hungarian immigrant and his mother, the first lady was born in Italy.

Although in France there has been a ideology that anybody can become French by assimilating into French society.

The culture of the Upper Midwest and New England (Stereotypical "Yankee" culture) is very similar to that, the key point being that one must assimilate totally and thoroughly into Yankee culture, no "patchwork quilt" thing that goes on in other parts of the US. I'm an example, My ancestors came here from Norway and East Prussia around 1900, yet culturally I am as much a Yankee as someone who is descended from New England Puritans is.

Originally Posted by Odin

The culture of the Upper Midwest and New England (Stereotypical "Yankee" culture) is very similar to that, the key point being that one must assimilate totally and thoroughly into Yankee culture, no "patchwork quilt" thing that goes on in other parts of the US. I'm an example, My ancestors came here from Norway and East Prussia around 1900, yet culturally I am as much a Yankee as someone who is descended from New England Puritans is.

Australia has more of a "patchwork quilt" culture (at least in the last few decades), although there is a lot of assimilation. That is because before the second world war over 90% of Australians were of British descent and that our first settlers came from all over the British Isles, although there was a dominance culturally of Home Counties (South-Eastern) English and Irish Catholics. So Anglo-Celtic culture in Australia is closely interesting enough to the "Irish American" culture.

Originally Posted by Tristan

Australia has more of a "patchwork quilt" culture (at least in the last few decades), although there is a lot of assimilation. That is because before the second world war over 90% of Australians were of British descent and that our first settlers came from all over the British Isles, although there was a dominance culturally of Home Counties (South-Eastern) English and Irish Catholics. So Anglo-Celtic culture in Australia is closely interesting enough to the "Irish American" culture.

I have noticed a cultural similarity between some Australians and the Greater Appalachian culture in the US. I suspect it is a Scottish thing.

Originally Posted by Odin

I have noticed a cultural similarity between some Australians and the Greater Appalachian culture in the US. I suspect it is a Scottish thing.

In what ways may I ask?

About the Appalachian subculture, it is descended from the Scots-Irish culture of Ulster, which I would argue is more Celtic than scholars argue it is.

Along with the cultural influence from their Irish Catholic neighbors, a lot of the Scottish settlers to Ulster came from regions which were still Gaelic speaking or spoke Gaelic in comparably recent times (from a 17th century viewpoint).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_...Irish_language

Originally Posted by Tristan

Australia has more of a "patchwork quilt" culture (at least in the last few decades), although there is a lot of assimilation. That is because before the second world war over 90% of Australians were of British descent and that our first settlers came from all over the British Isles, although there was a dominance culturally of Home Counties (South-Eastern) English and Irish Catholics. So Anglo-Celtic culture in Australia is closely interesting enough to the "Irish American" culture.

I have Irish ancestors who were, how shall we say, escorted to Australia by the crown.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

I have Irish ancestors who were, how shall we say, escorted to Australia by the crown.

I was born in the state of Tasmania (formerly known as Van Diemen's land) and apart from a couple of great grand parents who came from Ireland in the 1920's. My ancestors emigrated from Britain during the 19th century, including some convicts (an Army deserter and professional thief).

Originally Posted by Odin

The culture of the Upper Midwest and New England (Stereotypical "Yankee" culture) is very similar to that, the key point being that one must assimilate totally and thoroughly into Yankee culture, no "patchwork quilt" thing that goes on in other parts of the US. I'm an example, My ancestors came here from Norway and East Prussia around 1900, yet culturally I am as much a Yankee as someone who is descended from New England Puritans is.

JFK's ancestors were Irish, and he was as culturally Yankee as any president we've ever had.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

JFK's ancestors were Irish, and he was as culturally Yankee as any president we've ever had.

The Kennedys were lace-curtain Irish.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

The Kennedys were lace-curtain Irish.

Unlike us Irish commoners with the burlap curtains?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busi...-1226244653719

Damn this is some scary stuff

"Dearie", haha! Sorry, but that's a lot of nonsense. First off, maybe you haven't heard but Sweden never got involved in WWII, so there weren't any population to replace. The economic record breaking period during the first two post war decades was well grounded for since the 19th century in this country, including high literacy, high IQ, low impulsiveness, a series of inventions, a formidable work ethic, benefits from being an industrial latecomer (industrial revolution starting in earnest only in the 1870's) and above all - after WWII - the huge demand for timber, iron ore, manufactured goods and machinery for rebuilding continental Europe, which was pouring out from an intact industrial infrastructure, just like in the US.

Excuse me if my typing is a little crazy, but I am getting used to an iPad, i may have to edit this later so it can be more easily read. That said, not so fast, Tussilago. Heed what I have to say.

Sweden had a population of about, oh, 7 million circa 1940. About 80 years prior it had come down from a population high aggravated by its slow cottoning on to industrialization not to mention well over a million emigrants to the US and Canada subtracting from that total (which, for Sweden, is no small number.). Both world wars plus a depression on an international scale would have (and did) retard growth. After WWII, though Sweden would have gained much from the Marshall Plan, there was no way in heaven or hell that it could have done the business of rebuilding the ruined and ash ridden hovels that comprised France, Germany, Poland, Britain, the Netherlands, and so on by itself: the population for that was too low, too few workers. Further, a planner for the rebuilding of Europe would have been a damned fool to just leave Sweden to its own devices: what would happen when the other biggies got back online (France and Britain still held imperial territory) with their infrastructure and eclipsed poor Sweden, where would its economy go with such a low birthrate?-Answer: a flush of cash into the economy, but unless the birthrate suddenly ballooned to about eight kids per childbearing female to support the Swedes into old age and realistically keep up with future industrial need to be competitive, to use a turn of phrase, " that dog ain't gonna hunt." Further aggravating the trend was the fact that Sweden's baby boom lasted only seven years, as opposed to almost fifteen in the UK. This would have become evident farily quickly, at least by 1958.  So Sweden, just as many others did, started to dangle its social safety net and its demand for jobs in front of poorer nationals to the south, like Turks and Iranians and other Middle Eastern backwaters. That safety net , I hate to be the one to break it to you, was not just to achieve some lofty ideal of "social protection"-it also had the hidden benefit of keeping the gravy train going by attracting people to wash the cars, shine shoes, pick up the garbage, work in the factories. People from this area of the world would have started to arrive by the late 50s. The prewar generation would have been going into retirement by now (subtracting men from the workforce). Native population growth, the babies born from 1946-53, would not reach adulthood for another 20 years and their needs in schooling and natal care would only mean more money needed to go into the social protection kitty than ever before in addition to the big schemes planned in the backrooms of the Riksdagen. Caught in between this were men and women in their thirties, forties, and late twenties. Not enough of them working to support all that at once and sustain it for the next 50 years. (Plainly put, your premise is horseshit, and frankly you are easily lead by what you have been told by the same Social Democrats.)

One could also argue that the third way policies of the Social Democratic party helped making Sweden an economical success story through an all encompassing social safety net, an egalitarian ideology and wealth distribution, serving homemarket purchasing power. Only then somewhere, pretty far down the list, come the labor contributions by various immigrants during the 50's, 60's and 70's since Sweden suffered from a marginally lacking workforce due to the tremendous economic growth. However, those people were mainly Europeans to start with and they came here to work and contribute to society: Finns, Germans, Italians, Hungarians, Greeks and Turks (who of course are non-Europeans).The story about the predominantly non-Christian MENA populations who were invited on the pretense of being "refugees" from the late 70's on, only due to decision makers being afraid of being labeled racists and Nazis, is entirely different.

I could also argue that Sweden is entirely ruled by little men with skin colored with purple polka dots. That does not necessarily make it true. And I should also tell you that for all your education, you forget the fundamental fact that laborers are the legs a nation stands upon-who is down at the shipyards working the cranes? Who makes it possible for you to go to your precious university and have it be clean? Who is the one who has to dive into a water treatment tank to repair the clog so the streets aren't drowning in shit &amp; asks for little in return considering his job is much nastier than anything you'll have to do in your entire life?<br>Who is doing the&nbsp;maintenance work on the train tracks you prize, does the physical building of the skyscrapers, who drives the trucks?

<div>Absolutely correct and very well put. And that's precisely the reason why these people have no purpose being in Europe from the outset. They must either learn to conform or be deported outside the walls of the European Union, end of story. And even then, if they did conform and in fact become valuable to European society, the over riding duty of the nation state is to maintain the prosperity of its own people. The nation must always come first or the politicians will have breached the social contract with the people. There are no guarantees.

I think you totally misunderstood what I meant. My criticism was levied at the APPROACH of politicans. I disagree strongly with what you suggest as an outcome; I don't agree in the slightest with the idea of the European Union nor do I agree that it should have walls to keep the barbarain hordes out. These people are to be shown compassion tempered with reasoning. In doing what you suggest, you are actually no better than what Japan does on a daily basis with its expats: they throw a tantrum whenever a gaijin speaks in fluent and flawless Japanese because they believe that only a native and ethnically Japanese person is capable of it, not to mention that it speaks to visceral beliefs of the superiority of old Nippon. They also strike an attitude with any non-Asian that the entire reason for the existence of gaijin in their country is to work menial jobs like teaching English to their kids, entertain saraiimen after work in bars with their exotic looks and red hair, and for lack of a better term be the guy behind the elephant at the circus, shoveling his shit as he exits the stage. &nbsp;The Japanese way is to take from the gaijin whatever is needed from them, chew them up and then spit them out. (And heaven help the gaijin who dares raise his voice in criticism, since he is an "other" and his job is to bow down and kiss the ass of the native culture and race unitl his lips bleed, even if they will never accept him as an equal: there are plenty of businesses with signs on the door that say no foreigners allowed, and this is even if the person in question has Japanese citizenship.) <br><br>&nbsp;What you are suggesting is not terribly far removed. In spite of what you may otherwise believe, culture is NOT MEANT TO BE STATIC. It is meant to flow like water and be as flexible as a feather in the wind. In the end, a culture is what you make of it.

Telling a Muslimah to remove her veil at school only creates trouble. Serving halal food in the cafeteria as an alternative for her helps the situation.The Muslimah is not in Riyadh now. If she won't eat what's on offer because of religious superstition she should bring her own lunch and if she isn't flexible enough to remove a headpiece as a display of respect to a host culture, if these are indeed the rules, well, no schooling and no employment for her. Same for everybody, no exceptions. Only way to be fair.

</div><div><br>But it isn't fair at all. I have to ask you, would you ask a devout Jew to cut off his peyos because they offend you, or ask his wife to take off her wig or her scarf because it is "respectful" to the grand glorious host Swedish culture?! Or how about looking down your nose at the Sikh in his turban, screaming bug eyed at him to take it off because it doesn't match the football uniform? How does forcefeeding a Hindu a McDonalds hamburger sound, or forcing his son to go hungry because he had the sheer nerve to object to eating the sacred animal of Kamadhenu? It would appear to me that you think nothing is wrong with this picture so long as you, the white European of Christian background, is not inconvenienced. It would also appear that you demand she bows down and kisses your ass because she lives and worships at your pleasure. These are matters of civil rights, not mere superstitions as they excessively entangle with religious practice, which doesn't always end after Sunday school is over.

And take it from another country that has already gone through a bloody tango in the arena of civil rights: the longer you ignore it as a problem, the worse it will be. The less you try to understand that it is a game of give and take, the worse off you shall be.

The state should only intervene when it is absolutely necessary (honor killings, letting the blind get in the cab with a seeing eye dog as ALL cabbies must assist the disabled, female genital mutilation [based on a medical rationale,] and giving an alternative for Muslim women who seek to divorce their husbands or escape brutality.)You bet we should intervene in these cases. Especially in enforcing an absolute ban on female circumcision and providing a refuge for women and children who seek to get out of Muslim family hellholes.

To me it indicated that the chefs still regarded the blacks and Muslims as "other" when they actually had a huge opportunity to create something incredible. I also noticed that every chef there was white. It would appear to an outsider, Tussilago, that multiculturalism is what a lot of European politicians talk about and what is praised in polite conversation....but the practice stinks. So long as one monolithic fixed culture dominates all others in every aspect of life, so long as one rules above the others, I guess that Europe truly is a paradise.The practice stinks because we simply want to be left alone, and no, we have no wish to "dominate" any other culture. In their hearts, no European really likes "multiculturalism". We just say so to get out of trouble or some may actually be silly enough to convince themselves into believing the state of mass immigration is somehow enjoyable, but deep down I don't think they do. They're just lying to themselves the weak minded hypocrites; power hungry people or people yearning for politically correct social acceptance - politicians and such trash.As for the preferences of the Paris chefs, I don't see how it's my business to judge whether two crossed beans is a culinary masterpiece or not. Who has ever understood the intricacies of French cuisine anyway? If you want a slithery kebab though with runny hot sauce or garlic sauce you could just run down to the diner on the corner. Whatever fajitas or sushi has to do with immigration, I don't know<br>

Ipso facto, you already DO HOLD ONE CULTURE AND ONE WAY ABOVE ALL OTHERS BY TELLING IMMIGRANTS MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY. I wrote in female genital mutilation as a place where &nbsp;the state intervenes on medical, not moral grounds: &nbsp; cutting up a young girl like that shall only make it difficult to bear children, may cause death due to infection, and causes unnecessary bleeding during sex, in particular the first time. The opportunity to compromise is wasted here: partial clitoridectomy would be acceptable to these older cultures and making a law allowing the practice to ONLY be allowed in a doctor's office under anesthetic would work out just fine. The procedure could be supplemented &nbsp;with &nbsp;education as to why doctors do not want the practice conducted outside doctor's offices (this must be explained by women who have gone through it to their communities) and also mention that if the woman wishes to restore her functions, that also can be done (there is a procedure that can restore the clitoris by taking cells from the internal structure and placing them in the removed one.)


You could also give them a break by allowing them to black out the windows and schedule a time in which the girls can go down to the local swimming pool &nbsp;and learn how to swim, taught by a female instructor as you have to understand that it their minds, a lady is no lady if she is alone with a man and she is half naked in a swimsuit (burqinis are easy to buy online-Mohammed made no rule saying a girl cannot learn to swim in a nation so full of fjords and water, for her own safety.) For the boys, it is no great hardship to let them rent the football pitch after sunset so they can practice for the big games that come during Ramadan: they can keep up with their Christian brethren and not drop like flies from lack of eating.

You should leave the porch light on for abused women, giving them the option to take their rightful legal rights, and tweak the law where appropriate. Sweden's current law of having 16 as the age of consent might actually be too low when societal rights are mostly granted later at age 18 (when most graduate and go on to college.) This would save a lot of teenaged Muslimahs grief if Mama and Papa are trying to ship her off to be married to some toad in Riyadh as it stops the toad from trying to access a visa into Sweden as her husband. It gives a 17 year old the resources to get out of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Qatar, Yemen, or any of those places. Most of these cultures don't have anywhere for a child bride to go if she is married off by her father. Give them a way out. Let girls who are old enough to find the embassy in any of these places enter the building a free woman where she can have her passport re-issued on the spot and she won't have to be sent back out on the street-she can be transported out of the country, to another country if needed (Israel, Turkey, and Lebanon might be willing to lend a hand so long as the agreement is not public.) and then sent home to a place that shall be far from her parents' grasp. Let her parents be shamed into letting someone so young go to a country she has never seen, and let them be shamed again by having their child taken from them: exposure to them is worse than death. Let them have all their other children taken from them if even one gets married off like that, and charged with child endangerment.

Another good idea would be a change in the law so that Sweden does not recognize marriages to women who were wed below age 18. It stops families that encourage that kind of behavior from becoming Swedish citizens and breaks the cycle. Allow imams to issue marriage licenses, not a state office, so that a Muslim may marry according to his custom, but also makes it so undocumented marriages won't take place. It is very likely that what is currently in practice in Sweden is that the Muslim population is ignoring the law and not registering the marriage at all, only going to the imam and thumbing their nose at the government, saying it is God's business, not the law. However, a simple change in the law could make things easier for child brides if the marriage is brokered in Sweden: a whole host of crimes would need to be committed just to get it off the ground. Child endangerment, falsifying a government record, statutory rape (if applicable) and conspiracy. That's a lot of years in prison.

You should also make it easier for battered women and those simply seeking divorce to go to shelters and be guarded by armed guards until their court date, and possibly furnishing them with new identities so that they can move far, far away from the lunatics that might try to kill them for leaving. Above all, you must bear in mind that the state can only intervene if its aim is purely secular, it does not promote nor inhibit a religious agenda, and does not excessively entangle itself with the religion. Further, government action cannot impose a substantial burden upon belief. Child marriage is cultural, not religious, as is spousal abuse. Wearing the veil is not cultural, but religious.

OTT, you mentioned not understanding how greasy kebabs play into culture. The point is, allowing them to eat at the same Swedish family table enriches Sweden, not bankrupts it. Sitting down in a cafeteria and snarling at the family who can't eat a roast pork sandwich is just plain mean spirited when all you had to do was get up, tap someone on the shoulder, and ask for bean soup. Everybody can eat the damned bean soup. It is also foolish from an economic standpoint as a profit margin would increase by allowing the halal family to eat, along with the millions of others as they go shopping at the grocery store like everyone else. And people who are invited to break bread at the table as equals are far less likely to despise, loathe and fear you as they come to understand you and you them by sharing a meal. Sweden gains a new appreciation for roast lamb and the new citizens understand what herring is for (and yes, it is halal.) That is TRUE egalitarianism. And that would work as well for France as for Sweden.

Originally Posted by Mary Kate 1982

You should leave the porch light on for abused women, giving them the option to take their rightful legal rights, and tweak the law where appropriate. Sweden's current law of having 16 as the age of consent might actually be too low when societal rights are mostly granted later at age 18 (when most graduate and go on to college.) This would save a lot of teenaged Muslimahs grief if Mama and Papa are trying to ship her off to be married to some toad in Riyadh as it stops the toad from trying to access a visa into Sweden as her husband. It gives a 17 year old the resources to get out of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Qatar, Yemen, or any of those places. Most of these cultures don't have anywhere for a child bride to go if she is married off by her father. Give them a way out. Let girls who are old enough to find the embassy in any of these places enter the building a free woman where she can have her passport re-issued on the spot and she won't have to be sent back out on the street-she can be transported out of the country, to another country if needed (Israel, Turkey, and Lebanon might be willing to lend a hand so long as the agreement is not public.) and then sent home to a place that shall be far from her parents' grasp. Let her parents be shamed into letting someone so young go to a country she has never seen, and let them be shamed again by having their child taken from them: exposure to them is worse than death. Let them have all their other children taken from them if even one gets married off like that, and charged with child endangerment.

Not to be a jackass, but you do realize you're coming off here Mary Kate as:

"Tussilago, don't offend their religion, find ways to for them to preserve their own cultural identity in Sweden--except for when it conflicts with my American beliefs about marrying young...then feel free to throw out their cultural identity."

I'm just saying... it doesn't help your argument any.

~Chas'88

EDIT: I'm just saying this so you can revise your argument, and I can delete my post.