Very good post. You are right.
@bruce - Ik heb me rot gelachen. Goed gezegd!
I did not understand properly that you say, but, thanks equally for the comment. I think you write in Dutch?
Lachen is gezond.
Language is always interesting topic, because its not only as a communication tools but also as an identity for self and nation. Those show how important language is. On the other hand, language can cause conflict also. It happened in several countries, such as India and Algeria. I wrote in my research about conflict between Kabiliy tribe and Algeria government in 2001. The conflict caused by government decision about French as a national language instead of Arabic. Kabiliy tribe is indigenous citizen in Algeria. They are natives arabic. As an indigenous they refused French as national language. They urged government to use Arabic as national language.
I believe that all human beings, regardless of nationality, should be entitled to certain rights, and that these rights should be enforced by all governments. I think we need a âglobalizationâ that works on behalf of all of humanity, and not just the global elite. These human crises in the third world do not occur in a vacuum. They are part of the ongoing and tragic effects of colonialism and neo-colonialism, and as such these are not just âtheir problemsâ. We in the west also bear critical responsibility and should make a substantial effort to intervene on the side of human decency.
Are you sure about that? In general Kabyle people are very proud of their own language (Kabyle) and are against having to speak Arabic. They would be the last to urge the government to use Arabic as a national language. Also, Standard Arabic is the official language since the independence in the 1960sâŠ
Still it would be nice if dealing with the effects of the problems could be distributed in accordance with the respective causal contributions to the problems.
Hi Everyone,
Iâm sure some of you read this article Steve published today on this topic, but if not hereâs the link:
At no time in history has poverty been reduced for so many as in the last 50 years.
Slaves in the early 19th century USA had a higher standards of living than the slaves in the early 18th century. Is this a good argument for slave society?
Soviet had periods of strong economic growth and was considered an example of âthe second worldâ and the modernization of a nation within a generation. At the same time it was a dungeon of terror. Just because two phenomenon occur simultaneously does not mean that they are dependent on each other nor that they are inseparable.
Sure, this is also a matter of pragmatism and peopleâs well being, but for the ones getting the bad end of the stick itâs also a matter of justice. And, in my mind, it does not suit us well to come up with excuses and a rationale of why it is ok for us to have our boots on someone elseâs throat.
I have read the article of Steve and I like it. The causes of the war of Siria or Afghanistan are multiple. I cannot speak about the cause because I am afraid to hurt someone. However, it is interesting to note that American continent had received millions of immigrant in the last 500 years and is not common to find ghettos of minorities in the new continent.
I think that the people that emigrate to American continent are another mental disposition. They, in general, wish to integrate into the new society. They wish to start a new life. I think, maybe the only thing that is possible to make is learning a new language. Naturally the language of the hosts. If you learn a language of your host, no only you have the possibility of to find a good job. If you learn the language of the host you say to him: I wish to be part of your society.
Of corse, this is only a part of the problem.
Die Frage ist, wie viele Millionen und Abermillionen von diesen armen Leuten aus Syrien und Nord Afrika möchten (bzw können) wir haben? Reden wir hier Klartext: wollen wir eine Situation schaffen, wo in Zukunft die eventuelle Mehrheit der Leute in Europe Muslime sind? Ich bin keineswegs sicher ob ich das sehr gerne erleben wĂŒrde - ich sag das jetzt ganz ehrlich. Und ja, sicherlich beruht dies zum Teil auf Vorurteile und Ignoranz meinerseits - Islamophobia und so weiter und so fort. Aber ich schaue auf die muslimischen LĂ€nder der Welt, und es gibt halt Dinge in den meisten von diesen LĂ€ndern, die ich beunruhigend finde (etwa die Art, wie sie mit Frauen, Schwulen, Christen, usw umgehen.) Also möchte ich nicht das geringste Risiko eingehen, dass auch unsere Land irgendwann mal diese Dinge erlebt. AuĂerdem sind eine gewisse Zahl von diesen Leuten wohl keine KriegsflĂŒchtlinge in wahrsten Sinne des Wortes sondern âeconomic migrantsâ.
EDIT English translation added:
(âŠThe question is, how many countless millions of these poor people from Syria and North Africa would we like to (or can we) have? Letâs be clear here: do we want to create a situation where in the future a possible majority of people in Europe are Muslims? I am by no means certain whether I would very much like to experience this - I say that quite honestly. And yes, that is certainly partly based on prejudice and ignorance on my part - Islamophobia, etc, etc. But I look at the Muslim countries of the world and there are just some things in most of these countries that I find uncomfortable (for example the way they treat women, gays, Christians, etc.) So I donât want to take the slightest chance that we experience these things in our country sometime. Besides, a certain number of these people are probably not war refugees in the true sense of the word, rather economic migrantsâŠ)
I know, right?
Maar goed, als je erop staat zal ik je vertellen wat ik erover denk:
[copy paste]
die Art, wie sie mit Frauen, Schwulen, Christen ⊠und andere Muslime ⊠umgehen
I understand your fear, but it doesnât help solve the problem. And I wouldnât fall into the trap of accusing war refugees of âprobablyâ being economic migrants. Or to generalize about any group of migrants.
The religious part of the equation is fundamentalism, not the particular religion itself. The overwhelming majority of victims of Muslim fundamentalism are other Muslims. This often seems to be completely overlooked or ignored by many Westerners.
I would like to see all of humanity give up belief in mythological sky daddies and focus on reality. Our species is long overdue. But it doesnât look like thatâs going to happen any time soon.
So in the meantime, I stand beside Muslims who are as like-minded as Mala Yousafzai (who thankfully lives in your host country), even though I completely disagree with her assertions about who is and who isnât a âtrue Muslim.â I only wish the best for her â and for all people who have ever had to flee their cherished countries because of fundamentalism and/or war â and I would like to cling to the hope, however remote, that one day she could use that gifted brain of hers to reject altogether the mythology that she came to believe in primarily because of the part of the world she happened to be born and raised in.
With the greatest of respect, please donât put words in my mouth. I donât accept that I was generalising about anything. It is unfortunately a matter of fact that gay people - to give just one example - are not terribly well treated in most countries where there is a Muslim majority. And I most certainly did not âaccuseâ war refugees of anything! What I actually said was: âAuĂerdem sind eine gewisse Zahl von diesen Leuten wohl keine KriegsflĂŒchtlinge in wahrsten Sinne des Wortes sondern âeconomic migrantsâ.â (= besides, a certain number of these people are probably not war refugees in the true sense of the word, rather economic migrants") According to most commentators, saying that a certain number of the people in question are economic migrants is actually stating a fact. However that doesnât say anything at all about those who actually ARE war refugees. Neither is there any implication that many/most of the people are not true refugees.
I donât think I put words in your mouth at all.
If youâre asserting that âsaying that a certain number of the people in question are economic migrants is actually stating a fact,â then why use the word âprobablyâ? Why not just say, âa certain number of these people are not war refugees in the true sense of the word, rather economic migrantsâ?
It doesnât change the fact that certain people in the public eye like to emphasize this vague truism that a âcertain numberâ (which of course is not a certain number at all) of the refugees could be so-called economic migrants. As if that is necessarily a bad thing. And itâs a pitfall.
And if not that, thereâs always something else we can accuse a âcertain numberâ of them of being. As I touched on in my Dutch entry, we have people who like to say, âwe donât know if a certain number of these refugees are criminals or terrorists; we donât know if they really need help; we donât know whether they are coming to our country to abuse the welfare system; refugees cost a lot of money; we have a shortage of jobs and affordable places to live,â and so on and so forth.
If you read closely what I said, accusing a certain number of them of âprobablyâ being economic migrants, or anything else for that matter, is not an argument, not a pitfall, not a trap, that I â myself â would fall into. Nor would I â myself â generalize about any group of migrants, as certain people in my country like to do when it comes to Mexicans, for example. And itâs very easy to fall into that trap.
A âcertain numberâ simply means that an unspecified number of the people currently coming to Europe from the Middle East and North Africa are economic migrants. I said originally that this is âwohlâ (probably, likely) the case. But actually I donât think any serious commentator is disputing that SOME of the people claiming to be war refugees are in fact economic migrants. But there is no suggestion (not from me anyway) that this applies to all or most of the people. Seeing that resources are not unlimited, the fact that some of the people coming are not in genuine need is obviously significant.
(And let it be noted that I didnât mention âcriminalsâ or âterroristsâ.)
And?
Letâs just stick to the people fleeing from Syria for a moment. You are pointing out that some of the people who are fleeing are most definitely not true refugees but rather economic migrants. You acknowledge that this does not apply to all or most of the people. So if itâs a fact, then surely there must be a reliable source somewhere that you can draw from that puts a percentage on that. What percentage of the people fleeing Syria are not true refugees but rather economic migrants?
This isnât only about Syria - and neither was my original post. It is a much wider problem. I donât presume to have a detailed statistical knowledge of what is going on, of course. (I doubt if anyone even could amid all the chaos.) I do know there have been credible reported cases of people with fake Syrian passports who are not from there at all.