or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › ethan's Musing on the Near East
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ethan's Musing on the Near East - Page 67

post #991 of 2698
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n18/slavoj-zizek/the-non-existence-of-norway
post #992 of 2698
What a load of drivel.
post #993 of 2698
I got halfway through that article but it seems very sensible. One of the best ive seen on the matter so far
post #994 of 2698
Oh classic.
people in Africa and the Middle East will not succeed in solving their own problems and changing their societies. Why not? Because we in Western Europe are preventing them from doing so.

I am happy to see European lefties trot out the same worn "victim/guilt" conceit their North American idiot lefty confreres use too.
post #995 of 2698
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirReveller View Post

Oh classic.
people in Africa and the Middle East will not succeed in solving their own problems and changing their societies. Why not? Because we in Western Europe are preventing them from doing so.

I am happy to see European lefties trot out the same worn "victim/guilt" conceit their North American idiot lefty confreres use too.

I blame western interference for a lot of these problems.

That doesnt mean they would be perfect or even better societies right now on their own.

But the author gave direct examples in libya and iraq and syria where western interference helped directky create those problems.

Leave those countries alone and let them take 100 years to evolve if they must. You can even refuse all the refugees you want
post #996 of 2698
The article is not without merit. That being said the complete absence of any Enlightenment philosophy style move to responsible representative government among most of these sectarian tribal +theocratic people is my first blame vs Western intervention, "adventurism"..w/e
post #997 of 2698
My problem isn't as much the western world being blamed for the problems, but the article is stuff like this.
Quote:
In escaping their war-torn homelands, the refugees are possessed by a dream. Refugees arriving in southern Italy do not want to stay there: many of them are trying to get to Scandinavia. The thousands of migrants in Calais are not satisfied with France: they are ready to risk their lives to enter the UK. Tens of thousands of refugees in Balkan countries are desperate to get to Germany. They assert their dreams as their unconditional right, and demand from the European authorities not only proper food and medical care but also transportation to the destination of their choice. There is something enigmatically utopian in this demand: as if it were the duty of Europe to realise their dreams – dreams which, incidentally, are out of reach of most Europeans (surely a good number of Southern and Eastern Europeans would prefer to live in Norway too?). It is precisely when people find themselves in poverty, distress and danger – when we’d expect them to settle for a minimum of safety and wellbeing – that their utopianism becomes most intransigent. But the hard truth to be faced by the refugees is that ‘there is no Norway,’ even in Norway.

It is not inherently racist or proto-fascist for host populations to talk of protecting their ‘way of life’: this notion must be abandoned. If it is not, the way will be clear for the forward march of anti-immigration sentiment in Europe whose latest manifestation is in Sweden, where according to the latest polling the anti-immigrant Sweden Democrats have overtaken the Social Democrats as the country’s most popular party. The standard left-liberal line on this is an arrogant moralism: the moment we give any credence to the idea of ‘protecting our way of life’, we compromise our position, since we’re merely proposing a more modest version of what anti-immigrant populists openly advocate. And this is indeed the cautious approach that centrist parties have adopted in recent years. They reject the open racism of anti-immigrant populists, but at the same time profess that they ‘understand the concerns’ of ordinary people, and so enact a more ‘rational’ anti-immigration policy.


From the danish news.
https://www.facebook.com/831965223546381/videos/891870747555828/?fref=nf


Europe is reacting based on past experience and the fact that there already are growing groups of Salafist's, who want Sharia and are actively trying to work against the legal system and foundation of which the societies have been build, so they can get it. As well as the fact the current integrations problems, which we haven't solved so adding more people won't solve the problem, but more than likely put more wood on the fire. The european society is build on free speech and the right to do and act like you do as you please, with in reason. We have immigrants who spit and yell at women, whom they believe is not dressing like they believe they should.

Cities like Paris have HUGE problems with immigrant unemployment, crime and radicalism, this goes as far as 3rd generation, which is completely insane, as they are children of children who are born in the country, so they shouldn't need integration.

The swedish population has started to react, as their government represents a smaller and smaller segment of the population and most of the immigration problems are being silenced to death, which really won't solve them. There was a big debacle recently due to the council in Stockholm putting up posters warning people not to give Roma's money, as they were giving money to organized crime.

There are 55 areas / cities in Sweden where the police won't enter unless they are in full force and there has riots because of youth unemployment in the immigrant communities, they even lit cars on fire, as that would magically make jobs appear.

The swedish policies are directly opposite of the danish ones, but they still have same problem, so one can't help to think it's not the policies, but the people.

Danish police is also being chastised in the international media, for not just looking away and letting the refugees do as they please and for being the ONLY country in the EU actually holding up the Geneva convention and Dublin Treaty, which is completely ridiculous.
post #998 of 2698
It seems like the article mostly agrees with you. The author says that a condition of immigration ought to be acceptance of Western values.
Quote:
Refugees should be assured of their safety, but it should also be made clear to them that they must accept the destination allocated to them by European authorities, and that they will have to respect the laws and social norms of European states: no tolerance of religious, sexist or ethnic violence; no right to impose on others one’s own religion or way of life; respect for every individual’s freedom to abandon his or her communal customs, etc. If a woman chooses to cover her face, her choice must be respected; if she chooses not to cover her face, her freedom not to do so must be guaranteed. Such rules privilege the Western European way of life, but that is the price to be paid for European hospitality. These rules should be clearly stated and enforced, by repressive measures – against foreign fundamentalists as well as against our own racists – where necessary.
post #999 of 2698
So when people like Zizek (rightly) criticize the various Sykes-Picot borders as unnatural and the result of post-colonialism, what borders do they think are better? Do they want the Ottoman Empire restored? The Persian Empire? Roman Empire? Sulemain? Or is the idea that we should just let the remnant ethnicities fight it out amongst themselves and with the new rising Caliphate?
post #1000 of 2698
Find Finn, the article may not be very clear but i thinkt he author raises many of ur own points even in the part you quoted.

He talks about the entitlement that refugees feel (that pisses even me off) and that its normal for host populations to feel protective of their way of life.
post #1001 of 2698
Quote:
Originally Posted by dopey View Post

So when people like Zizek (rightly) criticize the various Sykes-Picot borders as unnatural and the result of post-colonialism, what borders do they think are better? Do they want the Ottoman Empire restored? The Persian Empire? Roman Empire? Sulemain? Or is the idea that we should just let the remnant ethnicities fight it out amongst themselves and with the new rising Caliphate?

redraw the lines along ethnic groups, then enforce for a while with a tough hand. sort of worked in the Balkans, but ethan isn't a fan of this course..
post #1002 of 2698
Quote:
Originally Posted by dopey View Post

So when people like Zizek (rightly) criticize the various Sykes-Picot borders as unnatural and the result of post-colonialism, what borders do they think are better? Do they want the Ottoman Empire restored? The Persian Empire? Roman Empire? Sulemain? Or is the idea that we should just let the remnant ethnicities fight it out amongst themselves and with the new rising Caliphate?

Well its quite known that arab kings were promised an arab entity after world war one and helping the allies but the french and british mandate then carved it up otherwise in a bid to ensure future ethnic strife. And of course had the arabs been a bit less tribal/easily manipulated they couldve done it themselves after.

The ideal would be some sort of secular arab entity which seems far fetched now.

The second ideal solution could be divisions on ethnic grounds. But every entity will be manipulated and theyll kill eachother for hundred years.

Or we could magically all grow a brain tomorrow
post #1003 of 2698
Quote:
Originally Posted by alan View Post

Well its quite known that arab kings were promised an arab entity after world war one and helping the allies but the french and british mandate then carved it up otherwise in a bid to ensure future ethnic strife. And of course had the arabs been a bit less tribal/easily manipulated they couldve done it themselves after.

The ideal would be some sort of secular arab entity which seems far fetched now.

The second ideal solution could be divisions on ethnic grounds. But every entity will be manipulated and theyll kill eachother for hundred years.

Or we could magically all grow a brain tomorrow

That would be cool. Kind of like a united Arab republic. Someone should try that. It is too late now, but maybe it would have worked with Syria and, perhaps, Egypt.
post #1004 of 2698
Quote:
Originally Posted by dopey View Post

That would be cool. Kind of like a united Arab republic. Someone should try that. It is too late now, but maybe it would have worked with Syria and, perhaps, Egypt.

Just because it failed with Nasser doesnt mean that it isnt the logical future step and makes the most sense.

Personnaly i think a bunch of different entities that are larger than the ones now would be the first step.

Remember europe was massacring itself just 50 years ago and now has a european union.



As far as ideology and philosophy, the nahda movement at the turn of the century was unfortunately way more advanced than what we have now. A huge problem is saudi arabia and qatar. They have the money and the media and the religious influence and have created or supported salafi and MB ideologies. Radical islam of today would not exist without those two. Unfortunateky their support for it has made it so that the only alternative in every arab country is an islamist one.
post #1005 of 2698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

It seems like the article mostly agrees with you. The author says that a condition of immigration ought to be acceptance of Western values.
Inorite I just assumed either I was misreading the article or Finn . If so at least I'm not the only one
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › ethan's Musing on the Near East