Main reason for seeing 'multiculturalism' as a failure

[Singularity]

Hey, I'm not the one who posted the silly thing, just pointing out it doesn't say what I think LT thinks it says.

But hey. Please, define the "inherent flaw of the concept" because every attempt so far has failed. A lot of what's been posted in this thread, as aelf has pointed out, has just been inconsistent complaints about foreigners and attributing individual bad things to entire social groups.

Personally, I'm running with our Immigration Minister's definition (I mean, hey, we and Canada invented the idea of multiculturalism as official policy, in response to mass migration), particularly in his careful delineation from the avowedly non-multicultural approaches of, say, France's assimilationist approach and Germany's "guest worker" approach. I've posted his speech a couple of times already. It's recognition of multicultural reality on the ground, pluralist respect for different cultures, insistence on adherence to the law (including sex equality and individual autonomy), and support for people with different needs and interests due to their cultural background. Really not a difficult concept - the difficulty is in understanding what, exactly, the "opposition" wants or expects to be done.

For example, I don't know where the hell people get this "segregation" crap from. In practice, in reality, in the experience of the countries which actually fully embrace the pluralist and individualist values of multiculturalism, people mix together, new elements are added, hybridisation occurs, new synthesises emerge within different families and individuals. If the core culture and population allows it, of course.

The inherent flaw would be the problem of embracing cultural values that we banished a long time ago. And the likelihood that they will be embraced or discarded by either parties in the foreseeable future.

• Equality between the genders and a freedom of speech being immense barriers that we will never start tearing down for the sake of embracing multiculturalism.
• Further on there is a real resistance against normative laws rooted in religion that dictates everyday life within a cultural minority that has to exist in the larger framework where religion has been thouroughly rooted from public management and law. These laws are apperantly policed internally with an extremely informal but very effective "moral police" in a lot of European countries. Again, conceding to such cultural flavor is all but impossible for us if that's what it means to be multicultural.
• Finally we can speak of the elephant in the room that is Islam. Islam preaches a certain perception that you are first and foremost a muslim before a citizen of any country. Not all muslims adopt such a stance, but it's defintly a visible part of the debate, which again - is very hard for us to accept or adopt. And even though it's a minority within the muslim minority that actively adopt this stance it leads to generalisation that stems from ignorance in the core culture, where Islam is viewed as a future threat to our identity. It's a double negative that exists among parts of the minority and is amplified into the core culture as a threat to their own culture.
• Illiteracy/poor education. Despite public services that are free there are a number of citizens who can't read, write or make themself understood in the language of the core culture even after a prolongued citizenship.

A lot of these points are of course quite specific and related to a few minorities. So, you could argue that multiculturalism is a conditional failure between some minorites and the core culture. The Roma has been mentioned, and you could find other minorities who have a fortified culture that is very hard to blend with other cultures. Now, some of the failings is admittedly down to an extremely homogenic core culture that has a hard time in respecting and accepting new cultures. But I think the systematic failures is mostly down to the rigidity within a cultural framework when it's subjected to other cultures. And within this the basic concept of the rule of the majority giving a lot of liberties and oligations that directly conflicts with core tenets of the minority culture.

 

[Arwon]

So um, is the existence of conservative and patriarchal Catholics and Protestants a failure of multiculturalism, then? Is entrenched and sometimes isolationist Mormonism in Utah a monument to the failure of American multiculturalism?

I'm just not seeing how migrants with conservative values is any special threat or failure or whatever. I mean this:

Further on there is a real resistance against normative laws rooted in religion that dictates everyday life within a cultural minority that has to exist in the larger framework where religion has been thouroughly rooted from public management and law. These laws are apperantly policed internally with an extremely informal but very effective "moral police" in a lot of European countries. Again, conceding to such cultural flavor is all but impossible for us if that's what it means to be multicultural.

...is actually just a fancy re-articulation of the "they stay in their ghettos and don't mix with outsiders" argument. The problem with that is that it's a deeply unsympathetic and ignorant attitude to take to new arrivals (leverything else has just changed, of course people want some connection to what they're familiar with). And in the long term, it doesn't match at all with the actual cross-generational experience of largescale migration in places where we've been doing it for a while, and had the multicultural policies and pluralist attitudes in place to allow such hybridisation to take its natural course.

But also. This is important right here: Of course people's communities and social networks exercise influence over them. Of course patriarchy and conservatism can have pernicious influences. But, like, in liberal societies people are entitled to their views, they're entitled to express them to others, and they're entitled to very wide autonomy in ordering their family affairs. That's a pretty basic tenet which I can't see how opponents of multiculturalism aren't simply rejecting when applied to migrants as opposed to locally-born citizens. I can't imagine how you could ever cause people to not be influenced by their cultural and familial surroundings, wherever they are.

But like, in an open society, that influence it's not monopolistic. That's the entire point of multiculturalism - once you have different groups in the same place, stuff mixes and cross-pollinates, kids get exposed to all sorts of influences. All cultures involved change, diversify, re-combine, and so forth.

As an example: I've got friends whose backgrounds are, variously, Greek, Lebanese, Vietnamese or Chinese. Most of their parents are conservative, very protective, with very traditional ideas about gender roles. But, firstly, every individual involved is all still part of society and entitled to their views. And probably more importantly, their kids have grown up in a wide variety of ways despite that conservative and patriarchal cultural influence (from evangelical creationist Christian accountaint, to flamboyantly gay human rights worker). They all negotiate the different elements of their culture and identity in different ways, exercising individual autonomy. Kind of what liberal societies is all about.

Cultural influence is not determinant, and the law is there setting limits to patriarchy and conservatism just as it does with locally-born patriarchs and conservatives. After all, even the daughters of religious parents have to go to school til they're 16 or 18, even the wives of religious men get to vote (are required to vote, here) move around freely, drive, etcetera, and domestic violence is still a crime when done by religious people.

Edit: Oh and just as an example of the way attitudes change, here's at least one poll of British-born Muslims (one of those "problem" communities, apparnetly), with some interesting results which at the very least contradict all the silliness the Daily Mail prints: British Muslim poll

 

[Singularity]

First of all, I do not see how you can read my paragraph as "they stay in their ghettos and don't mix with outsiders". It's meant how it's written, and yes - it was perhaps an attempt to retort to your notion that it's down to the core culture to open up and not the other way. But it is a part of the failure - particular in media when individuals try to break out of the barriers imposed on them by their own culture but is actively opposed in various ways by their own people.

The way you present multiculturalism sounds like a oneway street. Bordering on apologetic towards the new arrivals patrarchy and conservative way of thinking. I refuse to believe that all the latin american and south asian cultures somehow where accepted while we crash with certain eastern european, middle eastern and african cultures. And it's all down to our failure and their misfortune. It's not a healthy way to run a debate on the topic. Yes, some of it is a structural failure - but I think we've really tried to take that as far as we can within a political framework. Which leaves local and individual levels of change that most politicians can't and shouldn't dictate. They can promote an environment of acceptance and understanding, but beyond that they can only try to make sure our new citizens have the same benefits that the natives have.


You can't engineer multiculturalism. You can't make a political manifest that solves it. And there are very few mechanisms beyond voluntary acceptance and submissions that can promote it. Sure, a fancy speech might help - and if there's some systemic failures you can mitigate it with policy. But that's the thing, beyond this you're depending on non systemic factors that makes it impossible to quantify into a recipy for success or failure. I guess it's similar to democracy in terms of success and failure. Why it flowers and wilters in various corners of the world is hard to peg down, and there's a lot of different interpretations to what constitutes a 'democratic state'. And most political scientists will admit that most of our contemporary forms of democracy are basically flawed since it has a very volatile ingredient that keeps messing it up, namely the citizens within it.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

..and what is wrong with being nativist? The opening summary of that wikipedia page was quite reasonable...

Is it ok to insist that only Londoners live in London, and Liverpudlians can git?

 

[Arwon]

First of all, I do not see how you can read my paragraph as "they stay in their ghettos and don't mix with outsiders". It's meant how it's written, and yes - it was perhaps an attempt to retort to your notion that it's down to the core culture to open up and not the other way. But it is a part of the failure - particular in media when individuals try to break out of the barriers imposed on them by their own culture but is actively opposed in various ways by their own people.

The way you present multiculturalism sounds like a oneway street. Bordering on apologetic towards the new arrivals patrarchy and conservative way of thinking. I refuse to believe that all the latin american and south asian cultures somehow where accepted while we crash with certain eastern european, middle eastern and african cultures. And it's all down to our failure and their misfortune. It's not a healthy way to run a debate on the topic. Yes, some of it is a structural failure - but I think we've really tried to take that as far as we can within a political framework. Which leaves local and individual levels of change that most politicians can't and shouldn't dictate. They can promote an environment of acceptance and understanding, but beyond that they can only try to make sure our new citizens have the same benefits that the natives have.


You can't engineer multiculturalism. You can't make a political manifest that solves it. And there are very few mechanisms beyond voluntary acceptance and submissions that can promote it. Sure, a fancy speech might help - and if there's some systemic failures you can mitigate it with policy. But that's the thing, beyond this you're depending on non systemic factors that makes it impossible to quantify into a recipy for success or failure. I guess it's similar to democracy in terms of success and failure. Why it flowers and wilters in various corners of the world is hard to peg down, and there's a lot of different interpretations to what constitutes a 'democratic state'. And most political scientists will admit that most of our contemporary forms of democracy are basically flawed since it has a very volatile ingredient that keeps messing it up, namely the citizens within it.

Firstly, it's not "apologism" to insist that liberalism and pluralism do not stop being important just because we're talking about migrants, and it's not "apoligism" to temper one's desire that patriarchy and conservatism whither away with the recognition that people have a right to their beliefs and practices, and that plenty of elements of our own cultures also have conservative and patriarchal beliefs and practices. That's not exactly a difficult bit of nuance.

Official attitudes and policy settings do coincide quite substantially with the attidues and beliefs of people. Governments have an important normative role to play.

Telling new arrivals that they're mere guest workers and that their culture is not particularly wanted, never inviting them to become part of the core culture or contribute to it, denying them citizenship paths in the belief that "they'll go home eventually", creates a set of expectations and policies regarding migrants and their culture.

Assuming migrants will give up their cultures, completely assimilate and become the same thing as the host culture with no give and take, creates a different set of expectations and polcies to the guest worker ghetto model.

And both of those approaches are quite different to declaring an official policy of welcoming and respect for other cultures within the bounds of certain essential rights-based expectations. They're different to assuming and insisting that those cultures become part of, and contribute to, the host country's culture on their own terms, and that in exchange they will recieve support and recognition and hey, a multicultural TV station.

The key variables are government policy and social attitudes, yes. Both feed each other, but to pretend this is all an unsolvable mystery is disengenuous. You're right that you can't "engineer" culture. And that's exactly why a modest policy, ie, reality-following multiculturalism which allows for flexibility, hybridisation and individual autonomy, is a superior path to wishing away the cultural impacts of economic migration completely, or pretending new arrivials will just adopt the existing culture as it exists.

I don't get how you can call it a "one-way street", the trade-off is respect and welcoming for insistence on recognising certain bedrock rights-based values. What exactly is the core culture losing? How is it a "one way street" when the insistence is everyone gets to practice their culture within the same bounds? I've never understood what people think multiculturalism takes away from the existing culture and the people who live within that culture.

And actually on that note.

I refuse to believe that all the latin american and south asian cultures somehow where accepted while we crash with certain eastern european, middle eastern and african cultures.

This is also interesting. People used to complain about every migrant group which arrived. Italians, Vietnamese, Chinese, hell even the Irish back in the day. Then most people get over it. Of course now it's Muslim groups. In the future it will probably be Pacific Islander climate refugees.

My personal take is that this "foreigners migrating here" stuff is just newer for most parts of continental Europe, and less omnipresent because the numbers are lower. So you get a lot of people who have never really spent much time around people with various other cultures, and so people just haven't come to the realisation that the presence of other cultures and ethnicities doesn't take anything away from them yet. Y'all will get over it eventually, I reckon.

 

[Formaldehyde]

This is also interesting. People used to complain about every migrant group which arrived. Italians, Vietnamese, Chinese, hell even the Irish back in the day. Then most people get over it. Of course now it's Muslim groups. In the future it will probably be Pacific Islander climate refugees.

My personal take is that this "foreigners migrating here" stuff is just newer for most parts of continental Europe, and less omnipresent because the numbers are lower. So you get a lot of people who have never really spent much time around people with various other cultures, and so people just haven't come to the realisation that the presence of other cultures and ethnicities doesn't take anything away from them yet. Y'all will get over it eventually, I reckon.

I agree. That is my take on the situation as well. But I seriously doubt they will ever get over it, because it certainly hasn't happened in the US despite the country literally being built on successive groups of immigrants coming here from all over the world for 350 years now. (Minus the first 100-150 years when they predominantly came from Western Europe.)

All the facts below comes from Wikipedia and the rest is my personal opinion:

There really are no major problems with Muslims in the US other than the handful of extremist terrorists which we are all so familiar. So it is very difficult for me to imagine that Europe is all that much different.

Let's take Norway, for instance. The population is nearly 5M, and in 2000 immigrants comprised 1% of the local population. Half of those are Western. The biggest immigrant group are the Pakistanis at 31,000 which makes them 0.6% of the population. The rest of the minority groups are much smaller.

OTOH the US has 310M people with 11.2M illegal immigrants. That's 0.3% of the population and the reactionaries make it sound like it is the end of the world as we know it, even though the vast majority of them mind their own business because they know they will be deported if there is even a hint of trouble. Most of them are willing to do nearly anything for less than minimum wage and there is no extraordinary crime, at least here in Florida which has a large number of them due to all the agriculture.

The Muslim population in the US is somewhere between 2.4M and 7M, but many of those are black Muslims who are already supposedly "assimilated". The numbers fluctuate so much because the US Census doesn't categorize people by religion and the latest ethnicity data is almost worthless as well due to political correctitude run amok.

There was a telephone survey in 2004 that polled 1846 Muslims which showed they were more affluent and educated than the average Americans. One in three in the survey made over $75K per year.

Wiki claims that unlike Europe, American Muslims don't think they have been marginalized or isolated from society. But they are also subject to a huge amount of discrimination ever since 9/11. Muslims accounted for 1/4th of the discrimination claims filed with the EEOC in 2009.

So it is very difficult for me to see this in terms of the Muslims causing the problems when in the US it is just the opposite, as it has been with every single group of immigrants which have ever hit our shores.

I'd really like to see some hard data how these few thousand immigrants are really causing so much difficulty in Norway, or anyplace else in Europe. How they refuse to conform to the laws. How they can't seem to be able to learn the local language despite the continual efforts of their benevolent hosts to make them feel accepted. How they are the ones responsible for being marginalized and isolated from the local society. How they aren't being discriminated against in large numbers, as they are in US.

 

[wolfigor]

Let's take Norway, for instance. The population is nearly 5M, and in 2000 immigrants comprised 1% of the local population. Half of those are Western. The biggest immigrant group are the Pakistanis at 31,000 which makes them 0.6% of the population. The rest of the minority groups are much smaller.

Lets clarify some details for those who don't read the data first hand.
Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Norway

The number of immigrants in Norway and children of two immigrant parents is currently approximately 552,000 combined, which corresponds to 11.4% of the total population (2010)

Of the total 552,000 with immigrant background, 232,000 have Norwegian citizenship (42.1%).

The cities or municipalities with the highest share of immigrants are Oslo (27%) and Drammen (22%) [Drammen is just west of Oslo with minimal break of continuity between Oslo and Drammen]

This is the split down by provenience (the numbers are small, but consider that Norway has a very small population and that the greatest percentage of immigrants are in the Oslo region):
Poland 52,125
Sweden 31,193
Pakistan 31,061
Iraq 26,374
Somalia 25,496
Germany 22,859
Vietnam 20,100
Denmark 19,298
Iran 16,321
Turkey 15,998
Bosnia-Herzegovina 15,918
Russia 14,873
Sri Lanka 13,772

 

[wolfigor]

Anyway lets continue with hard data.
This study (http://www.ssb.no/emner/03/05/sa_krim/sa110/oversikt.html) is the most recent available and uses data from 2002 when the immigrants population was smaller than it was today. In the meantime the rate of immigration to Norway have increases and crime rate has increased as well (quite proportionally to immigration).

Lets read what the official study says about crime (real crimes, not simple fines) distribution by immigrants and "locals":

http://www.ssb.no/emner/03/05/sa_krim/sa110/sosial_bakgrunn.pdf
text from page 6 translated by google (my bold):

If we look at all sanctioned throughout the country,
the figures show that some groups of immigrants
are overrepresented compared to their
population size. 2.3 per cent of all
settled immigrants and their Norwegian-born
children were punished, while the corresponding
proportion to the rest of the population was
1.4 percent in 2002. If we look only at residents
in Oslo, the differences are even greater, respectively,
3.0 and 1.3 percent (Haslund
2004).
This over-representation is also found
in previous presentations of various kinds
crime statistics. For example, double
so many immigrants and Norwegian-born
to immigrants arrested, compared
with the rest of the population,
when we look at the different population groups
relative to the proportion they represent
population - respectively 9 and 4 per
1 000 inhabitants (Haslund 2000b). 2,5
percent of all immigrants and Norwegian-born
with immigrant parents were considered
offenders in 1998, equivalent to 1.6
percent of the general population (Hustad
2000).
The age distribution among sanctioned immigrants
and their Norwegian-born children is mainly
similar age structure of
sanctioned without immigrant background.
Among immigrants and Norwegian-born
immigrant parents and the general population
is the most sanctioned per 1 000
residents aged 18-20 years.
Figure 12.5 shows the age distribution
is among the punished relativisert
its population. In relation to population composition
all ages
Immigrants and Norwegian-born
of immigrant origin are over-represented
in relation to what the population size
would suggest. The greatest difference between immigrants
and Norwegian-born with immigrant parents
and the rest of the population finds
we are in the age group 15-17 years and age groups
over 30 years.
The gender distribution among immigrants
punished, do not differ significantly from how
distribution is when you look at all that
punishable as a whole. As we have described in
Chapter 11, there are men who punished. By
the 6200 immigrants and Norwegian-born
immigrant parents who were punished in 2002
was 800 women. It was thus a lower
women in this population,
compared with those who had not
some immigration background, respectively
12 and 16 percent (Haslund 2004b).

 

[Arwon]

...and? That's a long way from demonstrating that immigration causes crime, let alone multiculturalism.

 

[Arwon]

And actually, crime is increasing in Norway?

Not according to Eurostat:

319000 to 264000 between 2002 and 2008. Very low rates, and not trending up in raw numbers let alone by population. Burglary's down, motor vehicle theft's down, robbery is steady (at like 1500 a year), violent crime had a break in series but moved from about 20 000 to 23 000...

Maybe the police are becoming less effective at recording crime.

Edit: Statistics Norway actually publish in English, too (bless their souls), here's the relevant data on crime trends from the SSB: http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/03/05/a_krim_tab_en/tab/tab-2010-04-15-01-en.html and some stuff from the 2007 Crime Victims Survey - http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/03/05/vold_en/. Interesting that fear of violence trended down a bit in the 2000's:

 

[wolfigor]

...and? That's a long way from demonstrating that immigration causes crime, let alone multiculturalism.

I was just proving some of my previous statements about higher incidence of criminality in immigrants communities.
You know, facts to support opinions.

And actually, crime is increasing in Norway?

What you posted includes environment crime, traffic (e.g. speed limits) crimes, work, and similar stuff that arguably is perceived differently.

Interesting that fear of violence trended down a bit in the 2000'

The fear of violence trended down, but it also says that more people is exposed to violence and crime.
Maybe people are getting used to crime and violence?


Anyway, your stats are even less relevant than mine to the topic, isn't it?

 

[Arwon]

I was just proving some of my previous statements about higher incidence of criminality in immigrants communities.
You know, facts to support opinions.


What you posted includes environment crime, traffic (e.g. speed limits) crimes, work, and similar stuff that arguably is perceived differently.


The fear of violence trended down, but it also says that more people is exposed to violence and crime.
Maybe people are getting used to crime and violence?


Anyway, your stats are even less relevant than mine to the topic, isn't it?

No man, look at the SSB link, it's broken down by category: http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/03/05/a_krim_tab_en/tab/tab-2010-04-15-01-en.html.

There's just no support for a blanket statement like "crime has risen and it's because of immigration". 2002 vs 2009, per 1000 people, the only two things which have gone up are sexual offences and property damage, and even then, only barely. This despite the influx of these dangerous, poor, maladjusted multicultural immigrants which you've just claimed cause crime.

Even that "exposure to violence" measure has just returned to 1997 levels (assuming the differences are that significant when you're talking about 5 or 6% of a 5000 person sample - the standard deviation is 0.4% or so, so that's a confidence interval of + or - nearly 1%).

Finally: Of course there's generally higher observed crime rates among many migrant populations. This is a pretty universal observation which proves precisely nothing about migration, much less multiculturalism. The Vietnamese when they first arrived in Australia gained a notoriously bad reputation for criminal behaviour, as did the Lebanese, and now newer groups have. Migrant groups are generally younger, poorer, disproportionately male, more urbanised, more subject to police attention, and in many cases more vulnerable to alienation (funny, a genuinely multicultural society would mitigate that last problem) that the sum total of the local-born population. After all, those old retirees bring down the overall proportions for total population.

 

[civ_king]

Don't you get it? The obvious solution is to send the Roma back to India and then Europe gets less crime!

 

[wolfigor]

There's just no support for a blanket statement like "crime has risen and it's because of immigration".

That's not exactly what I wrote.

Finally: Of course there's generally higher observed crime rates among many migrant populations. This is a pretty universal observation which proves precisely nothing about migration, much less multiculturalism.

The stats reveal that there is higher incidence of crime not only in first generation immigrants but also 2nd generation.

This is one of the symptoms of some failure to integrate very diverse cultures.
It's also what most of European voters complain about, and what politicians prey upon.

People in Europe have got weary of buzzwords like "multicultural society" that in the past have been used as blanket statement for ignoring problems.

The topic of integration have been ignored for many years, and the voters have felt themselves ignored by mainstream politicians.
Now, to recover the lost ground, mainstream politicians are taking over topics previously relegated to the extreme right.
Especially leftist parties have found a huge gap between their public statement and the feelings of their traditional voters: Immigration and integration are some of the topics where this gap was wider.

Now European voters wants to see politicians addressing those issues, blanket statement about "multicultural society" are seen suspiciously.

This is, right or wrong, what a lot of people feel, and politicians are now trying to reconnect the base of their voters.

 

[civ_king]

It would be interesting if some did a study that showed crime by immigration and had copies of data with Roma and without in addition to just Roma, but no that would be racist...

 

[Formaldehyde]

...and? That's a long way from demonstrating that immigration causes crime, let alone multiculturalism.

Especially since so few of them come from so-called "problem countries" with so-called "tribal socieities":

Pakistan 31,061
Iraq 26,374
Somalia 25,496

Total: 82, 931

That represents 1.6% of the population. How many of them are criminals? How many of them refuse to learn Norwegian? How many of them are treated like criminals?

This is, right or wrong, what a lot of people feel, and politicians are now trying to reconnect the base of their voters.

As I stated before, there will always be nativism and xenophobia. And politicians being politicians will almost always try to include them into their own political group by uttering such code phrases as "multiculturalism has failed".

 

[Yeekim]

Using the same absurd tactics to attack the poster by deliberately strawmanning his opinions, instead of even trying to address the real issues? What a surprise.

What´s wrong, you don't like your own medicine?
EDIT: I've seen you post that exact complaint in like 90% of threads you post in. Have you considered just adding that to your signature?

Take trying to classify Muslims as a "tribal society", for instance.

Who has tried to do that?

 

[Formaldehyde]

What´s wrong, you don't like your own medicine?

Is that what you call deliberately distorting my remarks and personally attacking me instead of even trying to address the issues? "My own medicine"?

Who has tried to do that?

You mean like this?

The fact that many tribal societies are still Islamic can be regarded as an unfortunate coincidence.

Once again, where is there a credible source which considers any Muslim group to be a "tribal society"? I certainly can't seem to find any.

 

[Yeekim]

Once again, where is there a credible source which considers any Muslim group to be a "tribal society"? I certainly can't seem to find any.

You are really calling me out on this?
Really?
REALLY?
EDIT: Is that credible enough for you?
http://countrystudies.us/
As I have said twice, the whole thing was about Pushtuns originally:

The Pushtun represent the largest tribal entities in Afghanistan; among them tribal institutions are strongest within the Ghilzai. Common characteristics of Pushtun tribal organization ideally feature egalitarianism, democratic decision-making through councils called jirgah at which individual members have the right to express themselves freely, and certain corporate responsibilities such as revenge. Revenge, for instance, may be taken on any member of an offending tribe, although liability is usually greater for those most closely related to the accused. The essentially decentralized independent communities within tribal subsections conduct both internal and external affairs according to the tribal code of conduct called Pushtunwali (see Pushtun, this ch.).

The aristocratic elites who lead subdivisions, rise to their positions primarily through personal charisma, patronage, and leadership abilities rather than by primogeniture, which is not recognized in Muslim law, or any type of prescribed hereditary rights. Tribal organization is therefore acephalous or without a paramount chief. And the measure of their power differs. Heads of nomadic tribal groups, for instance, act principally as spokesmen, but have no right to make decisions binding on others.

The absence of recognized principles governing the assumption of leadership allows for intense competition. Rivalries within and between tribal segments and between tribes and subtribes consequently have always existed. It is these internecine feuds that have earned the Pushtun their reputation as an unruly and warlike people. Nonetheless, when outside forces threaten, the Pushtun are equally reputed for their ability to forge formidable alliances, among themselves and with other ethnic groups.

Both internal as well as intergroup conflicts are most often rooted in matters of personal and group honour, personal enmities, family dissensions concerning brides and property, struggles for material possession, access to resources, territorial integrity and extensions of power, rather than in intrinsic attitudes of ethnic discrimination.

 

[Arwon]

Forma: I dunno why you're objecting to the tribal thing. Tribal loyalties are a huge deal in Pashto society which is still organised about 400 tribal lines into the world's largest tribal society. They're slightly less big of a deal in the Arab world, but in some places they still matter quite a bit, and complicate politics from Iraq to Libya. It's less of an issue in cities than smaller population centres, though.

Now the question is how much those tribal identities translate to a migrant situations. My suspicion is given the urban-rural trend in Arab countries, tribal loyaltyies are something which disappears fairly quickly in a migration context (except for a general elevated concern for extended family versus what most western cultures show), but some hard data would be nice.

The stats reveal that there is higher incidence of crime not only in first generation immigrants but also 2nd generation.

This is one of the symptoms of some failure to integrate very diverse cultures.
It's also what most of European voters complain about, and what politicians prey upon.

Again, that population is going to be younger, poorer and more urbanised than the entire Norwegian population. Figure 12.5 shows that age skew clearly and I assume there's a higher migrant population in Oslo than East Bumcrack. Given that the numbers you posted are, what, 2.3% vs 1.6% (I think that's conviction rates, the translation is a bit bodgy), that's really not a huge difference. The difference between 2.3% and 1.6% of your 500 000 figure is the difference between 11500 and 8000. You're telling me that extra 3500 people vs is the hallmark of a failed society? Even when there's expected demographic skews in that subset versus the total population? And especially when crime is trending down in overall per-1000 people terms, even as migrants come to make up a larger share of that overall population?