"You are a bad Belgian and you have signed your own death warrant."

[Bozo Erectus]

Living in Manhattan, or for that matter NYC, is a cathartic experience. Many years ago when i moved here I viewed quite a few behavior of New Yorkers with suspicion and sometimes with downright disdain. Over time though the disdain and susupicion has worn off, not because I have come to like those behaviors but because I have come to appreciate the utilitarian value of it. One such behavior is aptly described in one word.

Neighbours (or rather the lack of them).

In my apartment building like everybody else's, everyone has neighbours. But how many neighbours do we really know or get to meet or visit? That number would be close to 0. In a way we are almost xenophobic. Anything that is not within my apartment walls is not me and mine and i do not care about the rest. Although keep in mind we are in a building. Technically speaking anything happening to me could affect my neighbour. So logic would dictate that we closely cooperate on everything. Instead we do not follow logic. Apart from a occassional hello we take extra caution ot stay out of each other's way. Why?

Simple, really. When you are putting hundreds of individuals of a very aggressive species within a few cubic decameters, it is wise to clearly demarcate territory and follow strict rules that no one violates those territory rules.

Why can't we apply the same logic to nations?

The building earth is getting overcrowded. So let us demarcate territories (we have already done that) and divide it up and stay within our territories. Any violation of such a territory by an immigrant it so violently reacted against that noone thinks of doing it. Wouldn't that lead to a lot less strife among nations? (with one caveat of course, but i will let you point it out).

However, this does not mean that each nation although xenophobic has to be isolationist. Although I do not invite my neighbours I invite my friends over from time to time. This is because i have a lot of commanalities with my friends. Same way nations can invite people from other nations who have a lot of things common to them (specifically similar looking, i.e. whites inviting whites, blacks blacks, browns oscillating between blackish whites and whitish blacks, yellows... you get the picture) humans being very superficial in nature and beauty truly being skin-deep. That way we can be social and xenophobic at the same time, and everyone can be happy.

So, what's wrong with xenophobia?

Whats wrong with xenophobia? Well, we live in a xenophobic world. Spend ten minutes reading the headlines and you'll know whats wrong with xenophobia. Because of xenophobia millions if not billions of people have died in wars that would never have taken place in a non xenophobic world.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Why?

Without dogmas, how can you even define a culture? Wouldnt a culture without dogmas be like a room with no floor, ceiling, or walls?

abcdfg

Forgot the 'E'

 

[betazed]

Whats wrong with xenophobia? Well, we live in a xenophobic world. Spend ten minutes reading the headlines and you'll know whats wrong with xenophobia. Because of xenophobia millions if not billions of people have died in wars that would never have taken place in a non xenophobic world.

right. I am postulating that the solution to that is not less xenophobia but more. If we had enough xenophobia then not only will we not allow other people to come in our country but even we will find it abhorrent to invade foreign countries.

See it works both ways.

Without dogmas, how can you even define a culture? Wouldnt a culture without dogmas be like a room with no floor, ceiling, or walls?

you mean you are equating cultures ot dogmas? I would rather remain uncultured then.

Forgot the 'E'

You can say it is friday. can't you?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

right. I am postulating that the solution to that is not less xenophobia but more.

In the short term, yes. Europe could easily solve its veil problems by throwing all Muslims out of Europe, and not allowing any more to enter for whatever reason. Problem solved. For now that is. The real xenophobic world we live in isnt as cooperative as the one youre talking about. Eventually, as European birthrates continue to decline and Muslim/Arab birthrates continue to climb,the day will come when there arent enough Europeans left to stop the Muslims from just walking over and making themselves at home. A long term solution requires something much more radical than xenophobia: peaceful coexistence.

you mean you are equating cultures ot dogmas? I would rather remain uncultured then.

One definition of dogma is: A generally held set of formulated beliefs.

You can say it is friday. can't you?

I'll send you the missing 'E' via e-mail

 

[AceChilla]

What are you saying Bozo? That we should just accept people who have an in our eyes backward culture in The Netherlands and shound't bother them with our point of view of the relationship between man and woman or gay rights? Since that is just their culture that is just as good as ours?

With that standpoint all values can be just tossed out of the window, since it's all relative.

 

[betazed]

Eventually, as European birthrates continue to decline and Muslim/Arab birthrates continue to climb,the day will come when there arent enough Europeans left to stop the Muslims from just walking over and making themselves at home.

You see if the muslims really do that, they are not being xenophobic enough. More xenophobia please! That would solve the problem for everybody.

Trust me, we can play this game all day.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

What are you saying Bozo? That we should just accept people who have an in our eyes backward culture in The Netherlands and shound't bother them with our point of view of the relationship between man and woman or gay rights? Since that is just their culture that is just as good as ours?

With that standpoint all values can be just tossed out of the window, since it's all relative.

Its not a question of bothering them with your point of view. Your point of view is everywhere, its The Netherlands. I doubt that its difficult to miss the POV of The Netherlands, when in The Netherlands. In the free market of ideas, your culture has alot to offer immigrants from all over the world. Voluntarily, many Im sure choose to assimilate into your culture, seeing it as a good thing for themselves and their kids. But if you start passing laws that are clearly targeted at certain ethnic immigrant groups, the population already in the country will naturally get defensive and be more likely to hold on to their original cultures than they would have been if you had just left them alone.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

You see if the muslims really do that, they are not being xenophobic enough. More xenophobia please! That would solve the problem for everybody.

But what would stop a super xenophobe from pressing a few buttons and wiping these horrible alien nations off the face of the Earth? I dont see the connection between xenophobia and pacifism.

Trust me, we can play this game all day.

No doubt, but I for one am going to be extremely non xenophobic and get myself some Chinese food right now I'll be black later... I mean back

 

[AceChilla]

Its not a question of bothering them with your point of view. Your point of view is everywhere, its The Netherlands. I doubt that its difficult to miss the POV of The Netherlands, when in The Netherlands. In the free market of ideas, your culture has alot to offer immigrants from all over the world. Voluntarily, many Im sure choose to assimilate into your culture, seeing it as a good thing for themselves and their kids. But if you start passing laws that are clearly targeted at certain ethnic immigrant groups, the population already in the country will naturally get defensive and be more likely to hold on to their original cultures than they would have been if you had just left them alone.

Maybe standing up for the values you believe in like the current Dutch governement does indeed makes people retreat into their own tradition communities. The question is if that is worth it.

We can see all around us over here muslim woman being oppresed, there are over a 100 woman here who being protected from their family's because they want to kill them because they have "dishonered" their family.

Well we can of course sit back and watch these woman being oppresed or we can say: "these are our values, if you can't accept those we suggest you don't come to live here". Muslim people here are absolutey free to follow their religion, headscarfs included. But what we do ask is a basic respect for our fundamental values we have have developed over hunderds of years.

Of course the fundi's aren't happy with that and start shout discrimination. But we believe this needs to be done to make sure The Netherlands keeps the values we hold dear and people have fought for. For everybody's sake including theirs.

 

[The Last Conformist]

You won't hear me claim my culture is superiour.

That, certainly, is an odd statement for a self-professed liberal.

Let's put it in another, maybe a bit extreme window:
Is our culture better than a culture where children are sacrified to 'the gods'?
If I consider thougts about children's sacrifice as backward, does that bring me only a small step away from hate letters or bullet-mail?

Yes.

I very strongly believe in equality of people. And I consider people who don't, as backwards, totally regardless of their cultural heritage.

Unless you're going to claim that there's nothing wrong with being backwards - and if you do I'm afraid I shall have to assume you're simply backtracking - this isn't compatible with the belief that there aren't superior and inferior cultures.

 

[Double Barrel]

Up until fairly recently, it was quite common for only a woman to wear a wedding ring in the US. Now, both sexes commonly do, but still, only women wear engagement rings. Is that a symbol of female oppression? I think it is, technically -- the woman has to show the sign that she's taken, but the man does not. The symbolism of circles and binding makes it even worse.

I found this funny in a thread of serious nature. I would venture to say that ALL men that have been subjected to the tedious (and quite expensive) matrimony ritual of "being engaged" would give anything to get out of the engagement ring. Far from being any kind of "oppressive" symbol (or even a symbol that she is property already taken), EVERY woman that I've seen with this ring-set have been quite proud of it, flashing it about and going on and on about their "fee-'an-say". Women EMBRACE the symbology, while I have yet to meet a man that gladly wears his wedding ring. Rather, each man has been browbeat (and brainwashed) into wearing his symbol of female "ownership"! (think of it - women absolutely LOVE jewelry, while most men wear none! I hate wearing any jewelry, but, of course, I wear my "ball & chain" symbol to make my mate "happy"...or at least, content )

It seems that shoe is definitely on the other foot in this case!

With regards to the veil and this specific story; Honestly, everyone else's "oppression" is not my problem, especially if they CHOOSE to live within those confines out of FREEWILL. Who am I to tell them that they are being "oppressed", regardless if I believe they are or not?

Being "offended" is a choice, too. So while I might harbor thoughts against laws and customs in certain societies (ie. Taliban) that specifically promote oppression against women and FORCE them into burkas by law and threat of imprisonment, I simply cannot find myself getting riled up about a woman that CHOOSES to wear a headscarf in a FREE country out of her OWN FREEWILL. (so what, her family/religion/culture "told" her to do it, but she could always say NO in this specific country.)

And I wholeheartedly condemn the intolerant nitwit that sent the threatening letters that caused this whole beef. But it does not surprise me that it happened, because it is typical of human behavior.

It is a shame that she relented and lost her job, too.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Re: wedding rings, I might point out that the tradition here is the opposite; men and women alike wear engagement rings, but only women wear marriage rings.

 

[a space oddity]

Never mind, I should have read all the intermediate posts first.

 

[Renata]

@ Double Barrel --

You didn't read my whole post, did you? I agree with you on the headscarf issue. Freedom is about choice; if you take away a woman's right to choose to wear a headscarf, no matter how well-intentioned, no matter how bad of a symbol it might be in your eyes, you take away her freedom. I don't believe that freedom should be infringed upon without sufficient case, and I don't believe that anything mentioned so far in the thread is sufficient cause. The headscarf doesn't have to remain universally a sign of oppression -- it could become an innocuous tradition, like wedding rings, if it's allowed to. I know women for whom it is just that. And it's my personal belief that it's more likely to become so if governments don't go around heavy-handedly banning it.

Besides, you contradict yourself there a bit. You roll on the floor laughing at the ring as a symbol of binding or possession, then admit you hate to wear it yourself.

Renata

 

[Cheetah]

You see if the muslims really do that, they are not being xenophobic enough. More xenophobia please! That would solve the problem for everybody.

Trust me, we can play this game all day.

But what if your apartment was flowing over with oil, and at the same time I had a car in my apartment that needed fuel? If I'm xenophobic, I wouldn't trust or like you anyway, so a trade would be hard. But guess what? I also have an AK-47. So I kill you and take over your apartment. Now I have 2 apartments, oil, a car with fuel and one less neighbour to be xenophobic about.

Or maybe you wanted a car so you got some of your friends to help you kill me. Then you would have two apartments and one less neighbour to be xenophobic about.

I really don't see how this xenophobia is going to be very healthy. I guess it might have worked in earlier times, but with the transportation-possibilities and communication we have now, we just can't afford to be xenophobic.

 

[Stapel]

Unless you're going to claim that there's nothing wrong with being backwards - and if you do I'm afraid I shall have to assume you're simply backtracking - this isn't compatible with the belief that there aren't superior and inferior cultures.

It's not so black-and-white.
Though I don't think cultures can be superior in itself, I do think their development can be.

For instance, the American culture needs some development towards freedom, before I can regard it as healthy .

 

[Stapel]

The headscarf doesn't have to remain universally a sign of oppression -- it could become an innocuous tradition, like wedding rings, if it's allowed to. I know women for whom it is just that. And it's my personal belief that it's more likely to become so if governments don't go around heavy-handedly banning it.

Well, I guess you are right there.
Don't forget governments are hardly into banning these stuff. Usually there is more astake.
Otoh, as long as the headscarf simply IS a symbol of oppression (and it is here all too often), we might argue it would be a good idea of these women you know to wear them. (argue, not persuade, order or forbid).

There is quite an easy solution for it, I think. What we see here is girls dressed up fancy, with a very colourful headscarf. When you see that, there most defenitely (though I have to admit that is a rather personal impression) is hardly a sense of female oppresion left.
Also, the supermarket I go to regularily, has about 90% muslim cassieres. They all wear the same unifrom, (like any supermarket cassiere), but with a relatively hip scarf.

Yet, we should not forget the origion of these scarves.
The wedding ring story was unknown to me. I kinda like the comparrison, and it does make me review my stance on rings .

Yet, it's not a 100% fair compare. Today (afaik, this has always been so), men wear them too. If muslim men here would also dress up according to their cultural/religious tradition, just as they expect their wifes and daughters to do, we'd have a totally different discussion.

 

[MaisseArsouye]

The VB does not want an ethnically pure Flanders. That is nothing but annoying propaganda.
It's a stupid lie, and I think you should rectify it.

I won't rectify something true. Take more informations.

Whether the VB is extreme-right, is arguable.
Being anti-Belgium most certianly is not necissarilly extrem-right. There are good arguments agaisnt the Belgium union, whether you like it or not.

You should read some of my other posts. I AM anti-Belgium myself, and I respect separatist flemish parties such as Spirit or NV-a. Most walloon separatist parties are center-left. I don't condamn VB for separatism, this is a respectable political opinion. But they are a bunch of racists. And don't tell me this is "popaganda", they lost a CASE about racism, that's why they changed their name !!!!

Is "Belgie barst" a wish or a conclusion?

Belgium will disappear one day. IMHO, it will be a good point. The question is when ? 5 years ? 10 ? 50 ? But this is not the topic.

Answer that question honoustly please!

"Stupid lie", "propaganda" and now this !? Are you saying I'm stupid ? Liar ? Do you mean I don't allways answer honnestly ? If you want a fair discussion, stop this !

 

[Stapel]

I won't rectify something true. Take more informations.



You should read some of my other posts. I AM anti-Belgium myself, and I respect separatist flemish parties such as Spirit or NV-a. Most walloon separatist parties are center-left. I don't condamn VB for separatism, this is a respectable political opinion. But they are a bunch of racists. And don't tell me this is "popaganda", they lost a CASE about racism, that's why they changed their name !!!!

That is the whole point. They indeed did have some racist-like points. You won't hear me argue the VB is compeltely clean of racism / racist influences. Yet, you can't just say thye are a bunch of racists. That is really accross the line.
You came up with the statement that the VB does want an ethnically pure Flanders.
I still say that is complete rubbish.
You made a false claim. Up to you to back it up with facts.

I'm really puzzled why you think they want an ethnically pure Flanders. That is quite an accusation, you know! Such accusations hould not be made, unless backed-up with facts.
I consider making such remarks as below the belt, hence my fierce reaction.

"Stupid lie", "propaganda" and now this !? Are you saying I'm stupid ? Liar ? Do you mean I don't allways answer honnestly ? If you want a fair discussion, stop this !

Don't take it personal .
I still very much doubt the honnesty in your statement the VB wants an ethically pure Flanders.
I stand on my opinion this statement is indeed utterly ridiculous.

The way the VB is generally treated in Belgium is questionable. Undemocratic!

The political establishment in Belgium uses a lot of false propaganda to flame the VB. You can hardly deny that.

 

[Zeekater]

Probably a few of the VB members want an ethically pure Flanders, but their official stance is to crack down on illegal immigrants, the ones that aren't Belgian or that became Belgian through illegal ways.

An interesting thing about splitting Belgium is that there's more Walloons in favor of it then Flemish people, and yet there's 2 Billion Euros flowing from Flanders to the Walloons.

I for one don't want it to split.