Immigration and Racism in Britain and USA

Hey I/M/M/C/B, explain to me again how failed states in Africa are responsible for the refusal by christian NGOs to provide condoms or information about condoms in anti-AIDS campaigns.

Don't tell me you're a Stryker...

Which failed states in Africa? There are so many of them, I would not know where to begin. Do you mean Uganda where the Cannibal Idi Amin ruled, or perhaps you are referring to Ethiopia where 20,000 Cubans plus Ethopian troops were fighting wars on three fronts against Eritrea and Somalia, where refugees at one time passed the million mile mark.

But, you may be surprised to find that I did my bit. I sent contributions to the leaders of all the African states so that they could eject the criminals who were preaching against condom use in Africa. I thought I could help but I found out that before my contribution got to the right place, the massive corruption by the uneducated and primitive police forces of those states had eaten up all of my contributions.

But how would that explain that Muslims in other European countries are clearly less inclined to anti-Western attitudes?

You quoted Pipes, who wrote:


France is discussable, but Germany and Spain dont have particularly harsher policies vis-a-vis Muslims than the Brits do - and yet Muslims there apparently have milder attitudes regarding Western culture, Jews or the place of women than in Britain. How do you explain this if you lay the blame on supposed "appeasement"?

I must admit that I havent read the report yet, but I saw similar characterisations of it as Pipes'. For example, the WaPo wrote:


These are striking results, especially in the face of all the doomsaying about the Islamisation of Europe and the inevitable approach of culture clash cataclysm.

Just dipping into the Pew report, here are some graphs that show the attitudinal differences between British Muslims and Muslims elsewhere in Europe:







Now to be honest, I'm a bit at a loss myself at the difference between Britain on the one hand and other European countries on the other. France in particular, with its recurring wildfires of riots in the suburbs, doesnt have a particularly good name after all, when it comes to race relations.

The example of France might tempt one into suggesting that there is something particularly good (or relatively less-bad) about the French model: accepting everyone who was born in France as true Frenchmen, but expecting assimilation, in particular to the secular state, in return. However, Germany - one of the other countries that apparently turn out to have relatively less hostile Muslims - is traditionally the archetypical example for the opposite model: it was long extremely hard to become a German citizen, the right being based on lineage rather than place of birth, but in return immigrants were until recently left relatively at freedom to live how they wanted.

So what might be a common denominator that sets both and Spain apart from Britain?

I'm speculating, but perhaps it's that it's a mistake in the first place to assume that the kind of government policy automatically determines the outcome. There are other factors at play as well, after all.

For example: countries of origin. In Germany, the largest group of Muslims hails from Turkey. In France, they're most likely to be from Algeria. In Britain, that would be, I guess, Pakistan. That should make a difference. Pakistani culture is very different from Turkish culture. Even if we realise that the labour immigrants that came to Europe were mostly from the most backward (poorest) regions of their respective countries, the most underdeveloped regions in Pakistan are a lot more religiously conservative and insular still than their counterparts in Turkey.

There could be other determinators as well. London, for example, is a hub. A hub of global communication. Exile newspapers are published there, international Muslim organisations have main offices there, it functions as a nerve centre for information, organisation and mobilisation. That should make London's Muslim communities much more vulnerable to outside/global agitators than their relatively more insular counterparts in Germany.

Mind you, German Turks are closely connected to Turkey, reading Turkish newspapers, watching Turkish TV etc; but then, a) Turkish media are mostly secular and b) the Turkish community, in Holland too, seems mostly self-contained at least ethnically, stable in its strong community ties, with relatively little influence from global, pan-Islamic actors. (I'm thinking out loud here, so no links or stats, just my take).

Dutch Moroccans, on the other hand, for example, are characterised by very fragmented community ties and family ties. While among Turks, fathers and figures of authority appear to still wield enough power to keep the community relatively isolated but also restrained, among Moroccans there's a greater sense of unhingedness, especially re young men. Fathers unable to exert authority over their sons like in the old days, Arabic- or Berber-language, home country-oriented community structures that are unable to 'catch' the young men too, and a Dutch society that, as these kids drop out of school and into crime, doesnt even want them, all conspire to create prime targets for radical Islamist agitators posing as ersatz fathers and figures of authority.

So - there's a lot of differences between Muslim groups, between and within European countries, that have nothing to do with the national policy of the government, is what I want to say. But which the government in turn does have to respond to and deal with.

Britain might simply have a harder boat to row, is my impression, with London a magnet for international and global organisation and agitation, and a Muslim population that is both (even) more diverse and, possibly, from especially problematic regions than that in other countries (on that one I'm mostly thinking Northern Pakistan). So you have to take that into account before immediately assuming the findings discredit British policy.

And thats aside from my previous question how someone who blames British "appeasement" (and that includes Pipes when he writes that "The situation in Britain reflects the "Londonistan" phenomenon, whereby Britons preemptively cringe and Muslims respond to this weakness with aggression") would explain the milder disposition of Muslims in other countries that dont have especially harsher policies. (Now, if they'd included Holland and Denmark, the countries with the arguably harshest policies, that would have been interesting.)

Finally, this part in the WaPo report about the survey is also interesting. It seems to contradict the notion that Islam in itself is the problem or that, for that matter, the problem is worsening:

OK, one more point - again, I havent read the full report, I've only dipped into it, so there might be counterindications in it. But these graphs also seem to put the lie to the notion that the Muslims in Europe are more conservative than those back home - you know, because they've entrenched themselves in the values from when they came here, while their countries in the meantime progressed on. Or because they've "dug in", and taken on a culture of defiance and resistance against the Western culture around them.

That might be true for subsets of European Muslims, but it's apparently not true for European Muslims overall. I mean, compare how European Muslims score, in these two graphs, with the attitudes are in their home countries. One could take these graphs to show that the Muslims in Europe are in fact "Europeanising" according to plan, and developing greater affinity with Western culture the longer they're there.

Hope I'll find the time to dig in deeper later..

I think the US alienated Muslim Americans by treating them as second class citizens after 9-11.

I'm not sure how those feelings have changed during the past couple of years.

It is obvious that Mr.Nimh is resolutely Anti-American and will report any outrageous poll that reflects poorly on the USA. He may be Muslim himself. He has not revealed that but his unreasoning prejudice against all things American must have a source. I wonder what position Mr. Nimh took in the following case--I am sure that he was outraged because it happened in the God forsaken country of Holland,part of the Netherlands from which Mr, Nimh reports.
quote
**********************
'Islamist' held in Van Gogh case


Mourners have been leaving flowers at van Gogh's home
The man suspected of killing Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh is a suspected radical Islamist with alleged terrorist links, the Dutch authorities say.
The man, aged 26, with dual Dutch and Moroccan citizenship, had "radical Islamic fundamentalist convictions," Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner said.

Van Gogh, who had made a controversial film about Islamic culture, was shot and stabbed in Amsterdam on Tuesday
**************************
end of quote

Mr.Nimh was, I am sure, outraged by the case above. Was he one of those who,like Ward Churchill, said that the little Eichmans in the World Trade Center got what they deserved? His defense of Muslims in the previous posts is a defense which oozes sympathy for the fanatics who espouse the primacy of Islam. Is it also a sign of his disdain for the USA!

Could you please point out where I said anything about the USA whatsoever in any of my above posts about this poll?

Thanks.


I was, of course, you guessed right. I thought Van Gogh was a prick, myself - but his brutal murder was outrageous, unforgivable and deeply alarming.

I amhappy to see that Mr. Himh. The "historian" agreed that Mr. Van Gogh should not have been murdered by the Islamo-Fascists.

Despite Mr. Asherman's comment on
Why are you digging up the nonsense about the CIA in World War II at this time

Nimh happily proceeds.

He did not tell us, however, about the sins of the CIA in helping the Soviets in World War II.

The reason that Mr. Nimh did not tellus that is because he would then have to admit to the fact that everyone who has ever studied History knows--Things may be done for expedient reasons when you are in a war!! AND The enemy of your enemy is your friend.

That is why I mentioned the cowardice shown by the leaders of the Netherlands when the Nazis bombed them in World War II. They capitulated/ Now, some WHO WERE THERE, would not have said that the Leaders in the Netherlands were cowards--No, they would have said that they did the right thing under the circumstances. Perhaps they did.


BUT THE HISTORIAN MR. NIMH SETS HIMSELF UP AS JUDGE AND JURY OF THE CIA EVEN THOUGH HE WAS NOT THERE WHEN THE DECISIONS WERE MADE AND KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT THE RATIONALE BEHIND THOSE DECISIONS.

Another Anti=American diatribe showing "great knowledge" about actions taken by people now dead who are unable to defend themselves.

Europeans regularly ascribe evil motives to the USA which save thier lives in World War I and II. The reason, I believe, is unalloyed ENVY!!!

you didnt save my life. You didnt save my parents life. You made profit out of war. We paid you. We owe you nothing. You owe us re Afghanistan and Iraq. **** off Bernard you are getting on my

Bernard R - Yes, we know that, you've said much the same in the thread in question. This thread however is about Immigration & Racism in the US and UK, and some other countries have been mentioned too. Could we stay on (that) topic?

Bernard wrote-



I don't ascribe evil motives to the people of the USA and I most certainly feel no envy towards them. Who would envy a population of males being slowly roasted on a spit by their dear womenfolk.

I don't think American men have any motives other than those a tom-cat on a hot tin roof would have.

The Historian, Nimh asks:

Bernard R - Yes, we know that, you've said much the same in the thread in question. This thread however is about Immigration & Racism in the US and UK, and some other countries have been mentioned too. Could we stay on (that) topic?

I really don't believe that you have defined your terms, Professor Nimh.

You talk about Immigration and Racism in Britain and the USA.

Why?

Why Britain and the USA/

What is the connection between Immigration and Racism? I have read nothing from you on that?

What is racism? Do you know? I will tell you what racism is.

Racism is "THE DOCTRINE THAT I N H E R E N T DIFFERENCES AMONG THE VARIOUS HUMAN RACES DETERMINE CULTURAL OR INDIVIDUAL ACHIEVEMENT USUALLY INVOLVING THE IDEA THAT ONE'S ONE RACE IS SUPERIOR"

I don't think you know what you are talking about, Professor Nimh.

I challenge you to quote a contemporary American RACIST, especially in the goverment that fits the definition above.

Like most Europeans, you know NOTHING about people in the USA. I can point out and document far more European racism and ethnic hate than you can show coming from the USA.

I am sure you will not give me examples of American Racists who fit the definition above, Nimh, because you will find none who are really important or significant!!!

We are on ... page 74, I think, by now here.

I know that A2K wasn't working well for one week.
But before, it did and now as well. At least for me.

Just in case, you can't get to the first post here, I've copied it for you, BernhardR:

Thank You ,Mr. Walter Hinteler, for showing me that my comments were correct.

THERE IS NOTHING IN THE POST BY MCTAG WHICH PERTAINS TO RACISM IN THE USA

IMMIGRATION--YES

RACISM--NO

So,I challenge Professor Nimh--The thread reads--Immigration and Racism in BRITAIN AND THE USA.

Show Racism in the USA by leaders there, Professor Nimh. You reminded me to stick to the topic--Now you respond or admit you cannot!!!

You read my challenge, Mr.Nimh. Are you unable to respond? Or are you only good to show people the titles of the threads which you refer to but give no evidence for?

Racism in the USA? Prove it, Professor Nimh!!!!

nimh, You're trying to discuss a topic that is universally known to be true with an idiot that only sees one side of every coin - Bushmania. All one needs to do is type "immigration and racism in the US," and get over 14 million hits..

Immigration & racism in the U.S.
Published Dec 21, 2005 10:06 AM
Following is a speech delivered by Ruth Vela delivered on Dec. 11 to the US/Cuba Labor Exchange conference held in Tijuana, Mexico. Vela represented the International Action Center of San Diego and the youth group FIST?-Fight Imperialism, Stand Together.

Immigration, like racism, has strong roots here along the border between Mexico and the United States. And it seems that each time the United States has an economic problem that they can blame on immigrants, they do.

This past year they have done so yet again in an effort to distract the North American public from the problem of the ongoing war in Iraq and shift the focus instead to the "illegal" immigrant "problem."

For those of us who live in San Diego, this racism was most felt this summer with the arrival of the California Minutemen to our area. There, along the border, they set up their campsites and lights and?-armed with their machetes and rifles?-set about to " the Border Patrol in "protecting" our borders.

I was lucky enough to be part of a group of youth that went up to their camp at night in an effort to alert our people who might be trying to cross that the Minutemen were near and the area was unsafe. Also, our night visits were meant as psychological torture for the Minutemen, whom we woke with our songs and chants. We spoke to them of the maquiladora workers and of the importance of socialism. And they in turn responded by pointing their guns at us, cussing and yelling things that sounded like they came out of the mouth of Hitler himself. They told us that instead of being out there bothering them, we should join the Army and go to Iraq to defend our citizenship and freedom.

Well, I thought to myself, these guys aren't just crazy. They are stupid. But then I remembered that I had heard the same things that they said but with different words in other places, like school or the grocery store or at work, and I realized that the real danger of groups like the Minutemen is that they are the physical manifestation of the beliefs of a government that needs to devalue and degrade a group of workers that is indeed very necessary, but to them, very much disposable.

In reality, then, the Minutemen just add danger to an already deadly border crossing. In 1994 the North American government initiated Operation Gatekeeper. Since then they have spent millions of dollars on the continued militarization of the border. The fence itself is actually a triple fence in most areas and runs from the base of the Otay Mountains all the way into the Pacific Ocean and is lit every night with the brightest of stadium lights. The Border Patrol is armed with the most advanced heat and motion sensors, military-style helicopters and infrared binoculars.

Since the initiation of Operation Gatekeeper, over 4,000 people have died trying to cross the border! And yet people continue to cross and will continue to cross as long as they continue to suffer! The workers of Mexico and South America suffer, female and male maquiladora workers suffer, families with lack of health care and decent housing suffer, hungry children without access to education suffer?-and that is why people will continue to cross in droves so that they might suffer a little bit less on this side.

What remains for us to ask ourselves, however, is why the North Americans protect their border with such fervor. It can't be because it is not convenient to them to have immigrant workers in their country, and we do not believe them when they say it is in the interest of protecting their citizens from terrorists. No. We know that the only thing that they are truly interested in protecting is their profits.

In the end, the border patrol, the INS, the border itself, the Minutemen and Operation Gatekeeper are all one and the same, all the same bunch of trash! They are all merely the tools that this capitalist government uses to assure the free movement of capital while barring the free movement of labor.

Historically, the government of the United States has used racism to protect its profits and not only against immigrants but also against its own citizens.

This year the world saw the devastation caused on the Gulf Coast by Hurricane Katrina. And the world watched as the United States turned its back on its working class, leaving the poor and people of color to suffer the most from this catastrophe. Many who survived the storm later died of hunger and dehydration just as so many immigrants have on the border! The poor working class people of the Gulf Coast were victims of the same racism that allows for one person to die trying to cross the border each day. And it is that same racism that motivates the ongoing occupation and oppression of the people of Haiti, Colombia, Palestine, Afghanistan and many others.

It seems impossible that a person could die of dehydration, hunger or cold in the richest country in the world, the one that steals from the whole world, the one that attacks any country that stands in its way, the one that up to now has spent over $250 billion on an unjustifiable war in Iraq that is seemingly endless.

The U.S. government has the audacity to steal tax dollars from its workers, who have more in common with the "terrorists" and "insurgents" that they are supposedly being protected from than they do with the government that claims to be protecting them. What the government should do instead is put its focus on protecting people from dying of cold and hunger. But the U.S. government is not capable of putting people before profits.

The world watched when, after Katrina hit, Cuba graciously offered aid which the U.S. government was too stupid to accept. And now, months later, countless families still have no place to live. Yet the most revolutionary governments continue to offer aid, with the people of the U.S. in mind. Now, thanks to the generosity of Venezuela, poor families in cold areas such as Massachusetts and New York will have the fuel needed to heat their homes this winter.

It might seem difficult for some to understand this type of solidarity. It reminded me of a young man I met while in Venezuela this August for the World Festival of Youth and Students. During one of the gatherings he asked me if it didn't make me feel bad to have so many people have so many bad things to say about the United States. I told him no, that I felt that all of their complaints were justified. Then, I asked him if it didn't make him feel bad to see his country so full of so many people from the U.S., and he said, "No, we understand that in the United States the government is not the same as the people."

It is this revolutionary understanding that is going to give us the strength not to continue to suffer side by side but instead struggle together. Just as and because racist imperialism has managed to contaminate every corner of the world, the working class of every country must unify and begin to see itself as one force!

There is a saying of Che Guevara that says something like "a victory of any country over imperialism is a victory for all of us." Let us celebrate then the victory of Venezuela, because it is all of ours. Let us celebrate the shining example that is Cuba.

And let us also celebrate the revolutionary act manifested yesterday in New Orleans when the streets were taken and people marched through this city with the knowledge that it was theirs and with this act denounced the racist government that has always, always, always treated people of color as if they were inferior. Let us celebrate their rising up, for this too is a victory for all of us!

The month of October saw another victory for our class when Black workers marched on Washington for the Millions More March. At this historic event Minister Farrakhan reminded those in attendance of the importance of not scapegoating immigrants, and he made it a point to name each and every one of the modern-day states of this country that were stolen from Mexico. This is of great significance because it is an example of the same revolutionary understanding that is being demonstrated by Cuba and Venezuela.

And these are the steps that will lead us to the type of solidarity that will allow the working class to recognize its strength on a world level and unite to once and for all shut imperialism down!

Racism in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

An African-American drinks out of a water cooler designated for use by "colored" patrons in 1939 at a streetcar terminal in Oklahoma City.Racism in the United States has been a major issue in the country since before its founding. Historically dominated by a settler society of religiously and ethnically diverse whites, race in the United States as a concept became significant in relation to other groups. Traditionally, racist attitudes in the country have been most onerously applied to Native Americans, African Americans and some "foreign-seeming" immigrant groups and their descendants.

Book review:

College-level collections with strong holdings in racism studies and ethnic issues would do well to make the 3-volume reference edited by Pyong Gap Min, Encyclopedia of Racism in the United States, a mainstay of any collection....Advanced high school holdings will also want to consider including it as a reference: there's plenty of bibliographic material and a solid organization which lends to its being an at-a-glance reference or the source for papers.
?-MBR Bookwatch November 2005

From an article from Time magazine:

Just as important, the debate could address the issue of race head-on: should ethnicity be a factor in granting citizenship? There are a small number of respectable scholars, like Harvard's Samuel P. Huntington, who argue that the large Hispanic influx into America does threaten its character. A large number of other respectable scholars say German, Irish, Italian, Jewish and Asian immigrants faced the same criticism throughout the country's history. But until politicians define the goals of American immigration policy ?- who and how many do we want and for what reason ?- it will be impossible to strip out the influence of anti-immigrant forces who, whether racist or not, draw dubious conclusions and make misleading statements.


Anybody that can't see the racial issue connected to immigration is an idiot/moron.