NationStates Jolt Archive

I hear it all the time, especially from the posters obsessed with ethnic purity and nativism.

"Immigrants don't integrate properly, and that's a problem!"

Has anyone ever heard a definition of integration?

Is he (http://www.pulsetc.com/image/112702/mohawk.jpg) integrated? Are they (http://www.ratemyhat.co.uk/chavs.jpg) integrated? Them (http://www.cybernomads.net/cn/img/kunst_0dukoya_04_478x313.gif)? What about them (http://www.axelsmusik.de/Axel%20Paul%20Bayern.jpg)? Or them (http://www.newizv.ru/images/photos/other/20050606210957_7-hijab.jpg)? Or her (http://www.kinderhoffnung-brasilien.de/images/nonne.jpg)?

Fact of the matter is that every society is diverse. Every society is multicultural...there's skaters, punks, nuns, businesspeople, hillbillies, chavs etc etc.

Indeed, a skater from Iran (and yes, there's skaters there) will probably have more in common with a skater from Denmark than either would have with a conservative old lady in either country.

So what exactly is integration? Which part of the immigrant's personality is magically decided to be bad and has to be given up? Which ideal is to be conformed with?

Integration as they use it is mediocrity and conformity. It suprises me most when Americans use it because the very culture they celebrate as the "original" is built by the clashing of hundreds of others. There is no solid culture in America, If I want to see an entirely different culture, I just drive for half-a-hour. In any direction.

You don't have to give up your cultural heritage to integrate into the larger society. But you can't seal yourself off from that society, either.

To me, integration means participating in the public sphere, and not isolating oneself to one particular ethnic enclave with it's own language, customs, traditions, ideals, etc. Again, it's not wrong to have those things, but to have only those things, and to refuse to adopt new behaviors and ideals to the point that it's impossible to act outside of one's immigrant culture? That is unhealthy, both to the immigrant and to society.

Something along the lines of http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/a/0/9/a093ff645ed481a57508e44795dd8ad0.png

Ugh, Neu Leonstein......:headbang:


You had to, didnt you;)

As long as everyone’s functioning amiably, it’s integration, and it isn’t hard. I have a suspicion that all the resistance in Europe must be due almost entirely to nativist hard-headidness.

Just today I took my car to get a tire replaced. The shop is owned and ran entirely by Mexican immigrants. The employees and the manager spoke to each other in Spanish; I spoke to them in English and they responded in English. While I was waiting for my new tire I had a conversation with the manager about the fancy tile pattern in the customer service room. He got it cheap from Mexico.

Something along the lines of http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/a/0/9/a093ff645ed481a57508e44795dd8ad0.png

dang, someone beat me to it.

I wonder what Skater punk things you could do with an Iranian beard…I wonder if they have there own set style and tricks…

Oh…erm yeah integration is a silly word used by people who like to say “normal”

unfortunately, it seems to often be misused.
to me, the word has a similar meaning to in other contexts: the ability to exist/work together as a coherent and effective whole, while still having the capability to remain separate. unfortunately, there are people who belive the meaning is more like that of assimilate, which would require people to lose their individuality.
(damn pauline hanson and her wanting people to assimilate, if she does actually want that, i'd call her a bitch, though i have a feeling she may not the the difference between assimilate and integrate)

Again, it's not wrong to have those things, but to have only those things, and to refuse to adopt new behaviors and ideals to the point that it's impossible to act outside of one's immigrant culture?
In which case it would be primarily up to society. While I suppose it is possible to live one's life only in an immigrant community, that is only made possible by the exclusion of the immigrant from, for example, normal job opportunities or other social interactions.

I don't believe most immigrants choose to only hang around their own kind. It's just that when they first come to the country, the only place they find acceptance is in these immigrant communities. That's where they can find some sort of job, a place to stay, that's where they make their first new friends and so on. And so their lives centre very much around those communities, with all the problems that brings with it.

As a result you get these close-knit parallel societies, and when kids are born into such close communities, they'll naturally become parts of those before they become part of what's outside.

So I see the solution to any "integration" problem with those first few months in which new immigrants need to be able to make friends and find jobs in the mainstream.

Ugh, Neu Leonstein......:headbang:
It's a question worth sorting out, and I haven't heard the semblance of an answer from the xenophobes just yet.

Integration, aka assmiliation, is the dropping of your minority or foreigner "culture" in exchange for adopting the "native" or "resident" culture.

It's assumed that if one immigrates to a place, it's because that place has a superior culture and one wants to be a part of it.

As soon as I read the topic title, I thought to myself, "cue the ludicrously shallow caricatures and accusations of racism." Guess I was right.

So what exactly is integration? Which part of the immigrant's personality is magically decided to be bad and has to be given up? Which ideal is to be conformed with?

Integration has nothing to do with changing one's personality, which is not and never has been a critical part of it.

Among some things implicit in integration:

(1) Learning the language of your new country and using it in the proper situations. This is not part of one's "personality." It also doesn't logically imply that one cannot speak whatever language one likes in private company, but it does ask you minimalize your impact on the society into which you're attempting to integrate.

(2) Respecting the host nation's cultural traditions (i.e., not throwing rocks at American soccer teams or rioting on Columbus Day, as illegal Mexican immigrants in the U.S. do routinely).

(3) Actually exhibiting some of the characteristics of citizenship (i.e., not demonstrating in favor of the host nation's enemies, not threatening academics and scholars of the host nation with death for espousing certain ideals, etc). This includes responding to things the way a citizen of that nation might respond. It may be appropriate in Saudi Arabia to riot and kill people over cartoons, but in Denmark, it isn't.

(4) Contributing to the host nation in some substantial way (i.e., holding a job, investing, etc). It's no secret people are vastly more likely to view immigrants favorably if they're actually doing something.

None of this implies assimilation in the old context of the word; what we expect today is really more like adaptation.

Of course all of this is probably lost on you silly children, who take for granted having a culture and probably cannot even explain what it means to have one, much less why we should have more than one.

As long as everyone’s functioning amiably, it’s integration, and it isn’t hard. I have a suspicion that all the resistance in Europe must be due almost entirely to nativist hard-headidness.


Its more to do with the sort of people who would claim European government is evil because its man made and that Islam should be an alternative. (note, that is only a sort of people, obviously its not all Muslims)

People who come to a country purely for the economic benefits and dont attempt to intigrate to local customs at all and consider them degenerate are the sort of people who are the problem

Integration, aka assmiliation, is the dropping of your minority or foreigner "culture" in exchange for adopting the "native" or "resident" culture.

It's assumed that if one immigrates to a place, it's because that place has a superior culture and one wants to be a part of it.

Um, No and no.

The place being immigrated to isnt assumed to have a superior culture, that may be thought if the immigrants practise things like forcing arranged marriages and the like though (and I know this isnt a very common practise, just an example).

And Integration isnt about completely changing your culture, but adopting the the more important values of you new nation such as equality etc.

Something along the lines of http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/a/0/9/a093ff645ed481a57508e44795dd8ad0.png

I haven't seen one of those in a few weeks.

Skaters may have nothing to do with a 80 year´s old widow, but both buy presents in christmas.

Skaters may have nothing to do with a 80 year´s old widow, but both buy presents in christmas.

What does that have to do with anything?

Its more to do with the sort of people who would claim European government is evil because its man made and that Islam should be an alternative. (note, that is only a sort of people, obviously its not all Muslims)

People who come to a country purely for the economic benefits and dont attempt to intigrate to local customs at all and consider them degenerate are the sort of people who are the problem

Where do you draw the line, though? Usually, the economic benefit is mutual, and so are the roots for conflict.
A German comedian once observed that xenophobia seems to be strongest in the places with the lowest percentage of non-nationals. So the reason for resentment on the Europeans' side is hardly the feeling that their new neighbours isolate themselves... it's the mere idea of new neighbours.

Lets say I immigrate to usa. In my house we talk my native language, celebrate native hollidays and practice some customs that are not normal in USA. But when I go to work, I speak english, I don't drive a snowmobile I drive a car. And I function inside the society as member of it.
But if i refuse to talk ANY langage exept my own. Refuse to comunicate with people that are not of my cultural background. And practice customs of my old country that are completly illigal in new one. (say unsanitary dangerous alcohol production or honor killing of my disobedient daughter) Then I have not integrated and I am not really member of society.

What does that have to do with anything?

That both have the same culture.

And the skaters and old widows are part of it.

But when you get someone from ANOTHER culture, its not a diferent aspect of the same culture, but a diferent one.

Nor the skater nor the widow will complain if someone drinks alcohol. In islam, alcohol consuption is forbiden.

That both have the same culture.

And the skaters and old widows are part of it.

But when you get someone from ANOTHER culture, its not a diferent aspect of the same culture, but a diferent one.

Nor the skater nor the widow will complain if someone drinks alcohol. In islam, alcohol consuption is forbiden.

And buying christmas presents once a year is more unifying than watching the same TV programs all year round, visiting the same web pages, and having the same major interest, like skating?
And you will find that many predominantly Islamic countries have no problem whatsoever with alcohol consumption.

Integration is the way a monopoly is built. You can do it horizontally or vertically, but most people like to do it horizontally.

If we're talking about immigrants, I'd like to know how the hell you can integrate with a culture that just isn't there. Western culture is so fragmented and so very different depending on class, location, and tastes, that you may as well give up on integration, beyond the point of being capable of interacting.

I speak english

Why is this an important issue when it comes to integration? Suppose we talk about a democratic country that values freedom of speech and all the other nice things that most of us agree on. If you do go to work, say as a cleaner or photographer on a news paper or maybe heart surgeant, and your coworkers speak your native language and you do not have any contact with people that do not speak your language. Why is it a nessecity to learn the new language to be an acceptable citizen in a new country? If you share the cultural beliefs as the law require (as someone mentioned), work (that seams to be very important for fugetives and immigrants to do for some) and so on, the only thing that I can think of that requiers you to learn a new language is to be able for the society to communicate with you (for letting you now of who you should vote for and new laws and so on), cant you get information from spanish newspapers in USA for example? Cant you get information from any goverment department in arabic, baltic, finnish, english, turkish in Sweden?

Multicultural societies should not nessecerily demand you to learn the new language, you have the freedom of speaking how ever you like in a country with freedom of speech unless the country takes damage from it, or what do you all think?

If we're talking about immigrants, I'd like to know how the hell you can integrate with a culture that just isn't there. Western culture is so fragmented and so very different depending on class, location, and tastes, that you may as well give up on integration, beyond the point of being capable of interacting.

I believe that the only thing an immigrant NEEDS to integrate with (adapt to) is the new nations laws.

But if the new country has a democratic system and other, for that country, important things that every citizen needs to be a part of (such as the work force or democratic elections), then there is new demands of the new citizen. Then the citizen needs to get a job (if the country requires you to work) and also participate in the democracy (like learning the new language to be able to sort out the electable candidates through news papers and so on if the goverment or organisations dont provide that in the new citizens native language)...

The right question on what is required for integration with is the things every citizen needs to do / be able to do.

In a socialist multicultural society, all you need is maybe a work place.
In a capitalist multicultural society, all you need is a work place.
In a democratic homogenous society, you need to assimilate with the culture and participate in the democracy.

Something along the lines of http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/a/0/9/a093ff645ed481a57508e44795dd8ad0.png

HOORAY! :D

...A German comedian...

Bullshit! No such thing! I demand proof! :mad:

;)

Bullshit! No such thing! I demand proof! :mad:

;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieter_Nuhr
There ya go, hon. :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieter_Nuhr
There ya go, hon. :D

Well, I'll be damned. It's a brave new world, isn't it? :p

Something along the lines of http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/a/0/9/a093ff645ed481a57508e44795dd8ad0.png


(
|
| (6*x^2)/2*x^3 dx =
|
)




log |2*x^3|


At least, I think it is

Nor the skater nor the widow will complain if someone drinks alcohol. In islam, alcohol consuption is forbiden.

Everyone seems to be complaining about the level of alcoholism in my country. Muslims dont seem too outspoken about it, they just don't drink and as someone said before alcohol isn't illegal in majority muslim countries. I got drunk alot in Turkey and no one seemed to mind

So what exactly is integration? Which part of the immigrant's personality is magically decided to be bad and has to be given up? Which ideal is to be conformed with?Integration means the submission of an individual or a minority, to the standards of a majority.

For some mysterious reason, it's reserved almost exclusively for use against people of different ethnicity than the majority, but what it describes is no different than calling native political & religious minorities 'subversive', 'autonomous' or any other randomly chosen rubbish.

It's a direct consequence of us not being self-governing individuals in a syndicalist society. If we were, diversity wouldn't be viewed as a negative, because there's be no need for a given majority to try to force a given minority to conform.

Skaters may have nothing to do with a 80 year´s old widow, but both buy presents in christmas.

Ohhheerr ohh yeah I know.

When the moon is big and round in the sky, then it all gets, umm a little bit lighter!:eek:

Where do you draw the line, though? Usually, the economic benefit is mutual, and so are the roots for conflict.
A German comedian once observed that xenophobia seems to be strongest in the places with the lowest percentage of non-nationals. So the reason for resentment on the Europeans' side is hardly the feeling that their new neighbours isolate themselves... it's the mere idea of new neighbours.

I dont think thats true at all. How do you quantifiy racisim? You find it in all sorts of places.

I live in Croydon, in south London. Its an increadably diverse place simply because its right next to the immigration offices. We have raceism problems here too, although its got much better in recent years.

I think it is too easy to blame the Europeans, espicially from an American perspective. Don't force the American model onto Europe. Europe isnt America, it wasnt built on immigration. We have a much longer and much deeper history. People are of course welcome to come here but at the same time they cannot simply ignore the culture they find themselves in, as I would not ignore the culture of a country I would visit or imigrate to. You cannot just act as if because you live there it is the same, or should be the same as your home. At the same time the country who houses them should apreicate their diffrences. Its basic manners of a guest and a host.

So what exactly is integration?

I would start with respect for the rule of law of the country you are immigrating to.

As you know, I come from a very diverse multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-everything country. I have been neighbors and room-mate and friends with pretty diverse people - tribals, muslims, christians, a jew, sikhs, people who speak don't speak my language, people who look different, people who dress and eat in completely different ways than me etc. Never had a problem - as long as they don't bother me and I don't bother them and we make the necessary adjustments to get along, we were fine.

And I myself am an immigrant. I have no problems in "integrating" in American society even while retaining the Indian values that I hold dear (my spirituality, dietary habits, my cultural habits of dress, festivals etc). Sure I make adjustments so that I do not violate the rule of law and the values of the majority host society.

For ex, during Diwali celebrations it is a practice to wear traditional dress and light fireworks in the streets in India. I can't do that in the US because the law says you cannot light fireworks in streets. It would be dumb to insist that this is the way I do it back there, so I should be allowed to do it here and cry discrimination when I am not allowed to do it.

Similarly, beef is taboo in most parts of India. But it is the staple food in US. I cannot insist that I have a right not to see beef sold. At best, I can avoid eating it myself and avoid going to such places, which I do.

All the problems of lack of integration in European countries cannot be explained away by xenophobia/racism/"nativism" etc. There are plenty of other immigrant cultures which get along with much less friction with host society. In the UK, the hindus and sikh immigrant communities get along pretty fine. Even Indian muslims get along well. I guess it is because they come from an inclusive and diverse country so they find it easier to adjust to the idea that people are different and you have to accept/tolerate them.

I would start with respect for the rule of law of the country you are immigrating to.

As you know, I come from a very diverse multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-everything country. I have been neighbors and room-mate and friends with pretty diverse people - tribals, muslims, christians, a jew, sikhs, people who speak don't speak my language, people who look different, people who dress and eat in completely different ways than me etc. Never had a problem - as long as they don't bother me and I don't bother them and we make the necessary adjustments to get along, we were fine.

And I myself am an immigrant. I have no problems in "integrating" in American society even while retaining the Indian values that I hold dear (my spirituality, dietary habits, my cultural habits of dress, festivals etc). Sure I make adjustments so that I do not violate the rule of law and the values of the majority host society.

For ex, during Diwali celebrations it is a practice to wear traditional dress and light fireworks in the streets in India. I can't do that in the US because the law says you cannot light fireworks in streets. It would be dumb to insist that this is the way I do it back there, so I should be allowed to do it here and cry discrimination when I am not allowed to do it.

Similarly, beef is taboo in most parts of India. But it is the staple food in US. I cannot insist that I have a right not to see beef sold. At best, I can avoid eating it myself and avoid going to such places, which I do.

All the problems of lack of integration in European countries cannot be explained away by xenophobia/racism/"nativism" etc. There are plenty of other immigrant cultures which get along with much less friction with host society. In the UK, the hindus and sikh immigrant communities get along pretty fine. Even Indian muslims get along well. I guess it is because they come from an inclusive and diverse country so they find it easier to adjust to the idea that people are different and you have to accept/tolerate them.
Common sense, really.

snip

pretty much this.

So what exactly is integration? Which part of the immigrant's personality is magically decided to be bad and has to be given up? Which ideal is to be conformed with?

i guess the parts that overtly conflict with the new culture they find themselves in. i guess.

area under the curve lol

As soon as I read the topic title, I thought to myself, "cue the ludicrously shallow caricatures and accusations of racism." Guess I was right.
:rolleyes:

Integration has nothing to do with changing one's personality, which is not and never has been a critical part of it.
My personality is not just my character. It's also the way I like to behave, the beliefs I hold, the language I speak, the hobbies I have...all things that are largely determined by where I grew up.

It also doesn't logically imply that one cannot speak whatever language one likes in private company, but it does ask you minimalize your impact on the society into which you're attempting to integrate.
So, if I were to meet a German person here in Brisbane, would you graciously allow me to speak German to them?

Respecting the host nation's cultural traditions.
That's not integration, that's common courtesy. Would I have to go beyond that, and suddenly enjoy watching Aussie Rules Football, or care when it's Anzac Day?

This includes responding to things the way a citizen of that nation might respond.
Since you seem to be from the US...which way? Bushevik way, or liberal whiny way?
Conneticut suburbanite way, or Texas Ranger way?

Unless you're going to create an ideal image of a citizen, and then ask everyone to conform to it, what you're saying is not the least bit of help to anyone trying to integrate.

It may be appropriate in Saudi Arabia to riot and kill people over cartoons, but in Denmark, it isn't.
Which is why Denmark (and no one was killed there, but someone was over other things in Holland) has punishments for murder.

It's no secret people are vastly more likely to view immigrants favorably if they're actually doing something.
The vast majority of immigrants everywhere are either working or trying to find work. So that can't be enough.

Of course all of this is probably lost on you silly children, who take for granted having a culture and probably cannot even explain what it means to have one, much less why we should have more than one.
*points to location*

I dont think thats true at all. How do you quantifiy racisim? You find it in all sorts of places.

I live in Croydon, in south London. Its an increadably diverse place simply because its right next to the immigration offices. We have raceism problems here too, although its got much better in recent years.

I think it is too easy to blame the Europeans, espicially from an American perspective. Don't force the American model onto Europe. Europe isnt America, it wasnt built on immigration. We have a much longer and much deeper history. People are of course welcome to come here but at the same time they cannot simply ignore the culture they find themselves in, as I would not ignore the culture of a country I would visit or imigrate to. You cannot just act as if because you live there it is the same, or should be the same as your home. At the same time the country who houses them should apreicate their diffrences. Its basic manners of a guest and a host.


Quantifying racsim in Germany is pretty easy... there are right wing groups and organisations, so the easiest thing to do is simply count their members n each area of the country.
There's an amazing amount of xenophobia in the eastern Bundeslaender, the areas with the least percentage of non-German inhabitants. Especially in the rural regions there are virtually no immigrants at all, as there is no work for them. But surprisingly enough, those are the areas with the most neo-Nazi groups and members.

Quantifying racsim in Germany is pretty easy... there are right wing groups and organisations, so the easiest thing to do is simply count their members n each area of the country.
There's an amazing amount of xenophobia in the eastern Bundeslaender, the areas with the least percentage of non-German inhabitants. Especially in the rural regions there are virtually no immigrants at all, as there is no work for them. But surprisingly enough, those are the areas with the most neo-Nazi groups and members.

If you believe that racisim is just quantified by the number of people in Neo-Nazi style groups, then you have seriously simplisitic views about racisim

But to completely counter you, where is the BNP strongest? Bradford to name one and Oldham to name another.

In Britain and in France being just two examples the highest areas of Neo-Naziesque membership are in the urban areas with high ethnic minority numbers. So you little oversimplification can be blown out of the water.

If you believe that racisim is just quantified by the number of people in Neo-Nazi style groups, then you have seriously simplisitic views about racisim

But to completely counter you, where is the BNP strongest? Bradford to name one and Oldham to name another.

In Britain and in France being just two examples the highest areas of Neo-Naziesque membership are in the urban areas with high ethnic minority numbers. So you little oversimplification can be blown out of the water.

I was talking about Germany, not the UK :rolleyes:
And not regarding high numbers of membership of Neo-Nazi and right-wing organisations and parties as an indicator for xenophobia is a bit like putting your head in the sand, isn't it?

If true, then this is most definitely NOT integration.

http://www.thisisbradford.co.uk/news/tibnews/display.var.1103389.0.wives_discouraged_from_learning_english.php
Wives discouraged from learning English
By Miran Rahman

Many young Asian women who are being brought to Keighley as wives are being deliberately discouraged from learning English, according to the town's MP.

Ann Cryer, speaking in the House of Commons, also said the expansion of satellite television meant local Asian children were starting school with no awareness of English.

She said she spoke up about these issues following a report into the Bradford riots in 2001, but felt the situation had not improved over the past five years.

However, a Keighley district councillor has rejected her claims.

Cllr Shamim Akhtar, who represents Keighley Central ward, said she knew of no cases where in-laws prevented young wives from learning English.

She added staff at nurseries in Lawkholme and Highfield always spoke English to the toddlers in their care.

Mrs Cryer said: "Many young Asian girls who have come to Keighley as wives are actively discouraged from learning English.

"This is because once they know English they know their rights and have the wherewithal to look after themselves.

"So many Asian in-laws in Keighley do not want their girls to learn English."

Highlighting the extent of the language problem among Asian Muslim toddlers, she said: "I visited a school in my constituency that is 95 per cent Muslim.

I was told that 95 per cent of its children enter school at three of four not with just no English, but with no knowledge of the language.

"In many cases they have never even heard it being spoken.

"When I commented on this five years ago, most Muslim children were at least watching various BBC children's programmes, so they had an idea of what English sounded like.

"Now most members of my Muslim community have satellite dishes and get the majority of their television programmes from Pakistan."

Cllr Akhtar questioned whether Mrs Cryer's views were based on close contact with members of the community.

"Is this just her opinion, or has she actually spoke to local Muslims about this?" she asked.

"Contrary to what Ann has said, many women with limited knowledge of English are attending English language classes.

"They know perfectly well it's in their interest to know the language so they can take part in day-to-day life. Their own families realise that as well and they do support them."

She said at most there might be a tiny number of cases of women being discouraged from learning English, but she had never encountered this problem herself.

Referring to the language skills of Muslim toddlers, she said it was wrong to state that they had no exposure to English before starting primary school.

"If you go to the local nurseries the staff there don't speak Urdu, Punjabi or Sylheti - they speak to the children in English," she said.

"As you'd expect it does take a while to learn English, but I totally disagree with the idea that there's no awareness of the language."

Oh and Asian means Indian subcontinent in UK.

Something along the lines of http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/a/0/9/a093ff645ed481a57508e44795dd8ad0.png

Yes, the opposite of differentiation.

I was talking about Germany, not the UK :rolleyes:

You responded to my original post talking about EUROPE. Which includes Germany, Britian and France amoungst others


And not regarding high numbers of membership of Neo-Nazi and right-wing organisations and parties as an indicator for xenophobia is a bit like putting your head in the sand, isn't it?

Kindly refrain from twisiting my words. What I said was this.

If you believe that racisim is just quantified by the number of people in Neo-Nazi style groups, then you have seriously simplisitic views about racisim

I did not say that Neo-Nazi's are NOT an indicator of racism. What I said was its a very simplistic indicator of racism.