DrZoidberg
Contributor
Well, why in the world do you think that??? Quote something from it. Show some reasoning. Your link reports an experiment measuring how employers from the host culture respond to immigrants; it doesn't say a bloody word about what immigrants do.Then we're just talking about different things, since I think it proves what I say it proves.
How else would you measure culture? People do whatever they do because it works for them in whatever context they find themselves in. How other people in the same cultural context respond to them is how you measure how well it works for them.
I didn't ask which cultures they're part of. I didn't ask whose fault they were. I didn't ask what causes them. Which culture are they the BEST parts of? This thread isn't about explaining Gypsies. This thread is about the current migration issue. The Gypsies are only relevant to the extent that they shed light on whether your general theory of immigration is correct. You claim immigrants' cultures are formed out of the combination of their old culture with the host country's culture, by merging the BEST parts of each, and discarding the WORST parts of each. So I'm asking you to tell me which culture are stealing, pressuring each other into crime, and extreme punishments some of the BEST parts of? Do you understand the question now? It calls for you to judge whether those cultural traits are problematic, in comparison with cultures' other traits.
Let's change the terminology. I think "best" is too value laden. Let's use evolutionary terminology. The topic is memetic evolution, so I think it fits. Let's instead call it "most adaptive" instead of "best".
If you need to steal to survive you will steal. So if you find yourself in a context where stealing is necessary you will justify it. That then becomes your culture. Extreme punishments are most adaptive in cultures where there is less of an incentive to behave. I think western mild punishments is the result of the low degree of corruption and functioning justice systems. So if you move somebody from a culture with a lot of corruption (and extreme punishments) they will keep those values until they start seeing that people around them are actually behaving really nicely without the need for extreme measures.
What should be painfully obvious is that sometimes immigrant cultures retain bad aspects of the two preexisting cultures, and discard good aspects.
I'm sorry but you're going to have to back this up somehow. It isn't what I'm seeing.
Migration has no magical power to induce people to make wise or moral collective decisions. Like any other immigrants, the current waves of Middle Easterners will inevitably end up with mosaics -- both good parts and bad parts of their traditional cultures, mixed with both good parts and bad parts of the host countries' cultures. Your theory is wrong. Inferring from your theory that the current problems in the immigrant communities will go away is unwarranted, because your theory is wrong.
Yes, the cultural evolution is less quick in some people, while sometimes it's a step back for every step forward. I agree that it's a mosaic, with both good and bad parts. What sets us apart is that overall I see more good than bad change. I don't see things merely being shaken up. I see continuous change toward a more adaptive synthesis.
So does "superior" mean "making you more likely to fit in and succeed in your community" then?
Yes. More adaptive. The problem is that immigrants tend to want high status both in the culture they're coming to as well as having high status in the country that they're coming from. That can make success in the new culture hard. As it gives a bit of a schizophrenic behaviour at times.
This argument came out of whichphilosophy's "The concern is the high volume of people coming in when the country does not have endless jobs to offer." and your response, "I don't think it is a problem. In fact, I think it's awesome. ... There will be a natural evolution to better adapted behaviours. Bottom line, we need to worry less and just let people get on with life. Just get out of people's way as much as possible. Let them do their thing and trust people's ability to figure out what is best for them."
If the thing you're getting out of the way of and letting them do is figure out what's best for them, in the sense of making them more likely to fit in and succeed in their community, then why the bejesus would that be any evidence that its "awesome" and not "a problem"??? As we've seen, sometimes what's best for an immigrant and makes him succeed in his community is stealing, pressuring his fellow immigrants into becoming criminals, and imposing extreme punishments. Does that make those behaviors not a problem? Does that make them awesome? If a Middle Eastern man beats his wife, beats his gay son, forces his daughter to marry his cousin from the old country, and looks the other way when his cousin commits an "honor killing", that may well exhibit strong norms that make him more likely to succeed within his community. Those cultural traits may well be better adapted to getting him what's best for him within his community than evolving into a civilized person would be. But this is not evidence that its awesome and not a problem.
Now you're in the "us" vs "them" mindset. When "they" come here they may have all kinds of horrendous values (honor killings, female genital mutilation and so on) but also a bunch of positive values. It's pretty arrogant to assume that we have nothing to learn from "them". In general I think immigration makes the world a better place for everybody. We're all learning from each other. We get new and better cultural aspects and they take new and better cultural aspects back to their home cultures. Everybody wins.
Oh, fuck me sideways. I was wrong. That is fucked up. Points to you. But what it doesn't say is whether this caused an outrage in Saudi Arabia. I'm guessing it did. I don't think this is kosher anywhere. I don't think it was kosher in Saudi Arabia when this happened and I don't think Saudis were cool with this happening. There's a big difference between shit like this happening and people in the culture being ok with it.
I guess Saudi Arabia is way worse than I thought. I didn't know that was possible. I learned something new.
So the bottom line is, as long as you continue to have cops whose job it is to prevent migrants from getting jobs, your immigrant women will remain unemployed, so they'll go on having nothing better to do than be stay-at-home moms, so your immigrant men will not get one extra krona by evolving into women's libbers.
And as long as your ruling parties know that if they let the wages and employment prospects of the unskilled Swedes who would most directly compete with migrants for low-skill jobs decline, even more of them will vote for the Sweden Democrats, they're going to keep the employment police employed.
I'm not holding Sweden up as some shining example for the world to follow. I think we're doing everything wrong. When it comes to handling immigration (once they've been accepted and let into the country) I think USA is the shining light for us to follow. They impose no restrictions. Once they're in they're free to do whatever.