|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On December 04 2014 23:55 maartendq wrote:
The problem with north african immigrants in Europe (i.e. those most easily radicalised) is their lack of education and integration. It's also partly cultural. Warning: I will paint with a really broad brush here.
North African countries, unlike Europe, the United States and south-east asia have a market culture: starting up your own business is in a way more important than actually getting education. The businesses they do start tend to cater mainly to their own community, and are relatively unambitious. I'm talking about your typical kebap place, night shops, tea houses, butcheries, bakeries etc. Getting wealthier is seemingly not their primary goal. Family ties are extremely important in those societies, and family structure tends to be rather conservative or even downright archaic.
This is a stark contrast with so-called Western culture, in which education is of primary importance, and in which your social standing is in many ways dependent on the education you received, and the subsequent job you managed to find, or business you found. A high level of ambition is expected: you must either want to grow within the company, or gain ever bigger markets with your business. This mentality seems to resonate with often pragmatic east-asians.
This former group has little reason to learn the language of the country they reside in. After all, their social life takes place inside their own community. As a consequence, they are distrusted by the 'original' people of the country they reside in: they speak a language no-one but them understands, their refuse to adapt to the country they migrated to because they have very little incentive to, etc. There is apparently a disparity between refugees and people who've lived here for multiple generations, but most people don't make this distinction.
East Asians, on the whole, tend to be more ambitious: their business networks tend to be rather extensive, and they are very ambitious. Traditionally, education plays a very important part in their lives, so learning the language of the country to reside in is a de facto requirement.
The whole anti-migration sentiment in Europe is mainly aimed at north africans or people from the near east, because they are regarded as people that will cost society without any prospect of repaying those 'debts'.
I'm sorry this post comes down to thinly veiled racism. Your whole post is based on stereotypes, and you use these stereotypes to extrapolate the current situation. Those "North Africans" (between you and me; could just call them sand monkeys winkwink) came to your country during the 50s and 60s, as Belgium was industrializing and required a larger cheap work force. What a surprise that people willing to do that work came from relatively close, poorer nations.
Under-educated people with low income become stuck in a social layer which can be extremely difficult to get out of, as their circumstances perpetuate each other. If you correct social statistics for social-economic status , e.i. poor white people with poor "North Africans" criminality statistics are remarkably similar, that is to say; your social and educational background have a much bigger influence on your life than your cultural background.
Furthermore, we could learn a lot from these cultures where greed and money grabbing (apparently) are frowned upon, as the current climate throughout the world becomes more and more neo-liberal and right wing (especially america) the politicians will bump into a physical problem; limitless growth does not exist, just like energy cannot be produced from scratch; it can only be transformed from one form into another.
|
^ And those two posts right here are a brillant example of why Sweden is currently in the pickle that they are. One side makes an overly simplified statement, the other side hurries in to paint the opposition as racists, fires a salvo at the right wingers whilst claiming the "truth" as theirs. Neither tactic is really serving the public debate any good and only leads to further polarisation.
|
Sorry. but "Asian people are so industrious and black people don't really like education" really is borderline racist no matter how hard you try to veil it. It's a terrible stereotype.
Traditionally, education plays a very important part in their lives, so learning the language of the country to reside in is a de facto requirement.
This for example, is just wrong. I live near the biggest Japanese community in Germany and virtually no one of them speaks a single word of German. They have their own Japanese kindergartens, schools and stores. No one actually cares because when they immigrated here they were already pretty wealthy and the aforementioned stereotype helps. But if you hear one person speak Turkish on the subway every white person has the "what has this country come to" look on their faces.
|
Any overly simplified statement is going to come off racist or factually wrong - just like your Turkish on the subway statement. Or the "virtually no one of them speaks German" statement. Further, I was under the impression we were talking about Sweden, not Germany... I'm not convinced the issues of Germany are transferable to the Scandinavian countries, but I will admit to not know enough about Germany to really talk in depth about the differences.
EDIT: My point is: There are some very real issues facing the Swedish society and the "close your ears and eyes whilst calling everyone who brings it up racist" doesn't really work. On the contrary, labeling all immigrants as the downfall of Swedish society isn't exactly helpful either.
|
There is nothing wrong with generalizations if they point to some genuine problem in a way. The problem is that the stereotypes that are being repeated are flatout wrong and politically motivated. There are many groups of immigrants that are not very well integrated, the Japanese here in Germany I mentioned for example. The fact that no one has a problem with that goes to show that this is not really about the level of integration. It's about not liking a very specific culture, often Muslim culture. And although Muslim communities have some very real problems that I have also mentioned already, right wing European populists blow the problems out of proportion and exploit small minorities.
Saying that many native Germans look down on Turkish immigrants is a generalization, but it's also true. Saying that Malmö is currently run under Shariah Law is nothing but populism.
|
On December 05 2014 02:57 Nyxisto wrote:
There is nothing wrong with generalizations if they point to some genuine problem in a way. The problem is that the stereotypes that are being repeated are flatout wrong and politically motivated. There are many groups of immigrants that are not very well integrated, the Japanese here in Germany I mentioned for example. The fact that no one has a problem with that goes to show that this is not really about the level of integration. It's about not liking a very specific culture, often Muslim culture. And although Muslim communities have some very real problems that I have also mentioned already, right wing European populists blow the problems out of proportion and exploit small minorities.
Saying that many native Germans look down on Turkish immigrants is a generalization, but it's also true. Saying that Malmö is currently run under Shariah Law is nothing but populism.
It cannot be "Muslim culture" either, American Muslims or Canadian Muslims are well integrated and quite successful here. Pakistani and Bangladashi Americans make the most of all immigrant groups -- including the Belgian guys beloved and highly industrious East Asians (who actually are less industrious than Filipino immigrants to America).
The reality is, in the 50's and 60s Europe brought in a bunch of working class people, it didnt plan on keeping them and wanted them to leave. Instead of doing that a bunch of them had kids. Levels of religiosity of the first generation of immigrants were actually lower than their kids: if you Europeans didnt ghetoize them they'd probably be as assimilated as Muslims are in North America.
|
On December 05 2014 02:57 Nyxisto wrote:
There is nothing wrong with generalizations if they point to some genuine problem in a way. The problem is that the stereotypes that are being repeated are flatout wrong and politically motivated. There are many groups of immigrants that are not very well integrated, the Japanese here in Germany I mentioned for example. The fact that no one has a problem with that goes to show that this is not really about the level of integration. It's about not liking a very specific culture, often Muslim culture. And although Muslim communities have some very real problems that I have also mentioned already, right wing European populists blow the problems out of proportion and exploit small minorities.
Saying that many native Germans look down on Turkish immigrants is a generalization, but it's also true. Saying that Malmö is currently run under Shariah Law is nothing but populism.
Who is to decide what constitutes a genuine problem? Apparently 13% of the Swedish population considers lack of integration an issue.
Your example of Germany is so obviously flawed that even I, a person who just spent 5 minutes on google but never before had never real knowledge of a Japanese minority in Germany, am able to see how you pervert the facts to fit your narrative. What is the unemployment rate amongst Japanese in Germany? What is it amongst Turks?
Also, guess what the top hits on google are when you google "Germany Unemployment Rates"? DING DING DING:
http://www.dw.de/study-shows-turkish-immigrants-least-integrated-in-germany/a-3975683
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/at-home-in-a-foreign-country-german-turks-struggle-to-find-their-identity-a-795299.html
I think your conclusion is straight up wrong and unfounded in facts. Could it possibly be that people living in a country don't want people who do not contribute to said society? And when the majority of non-contributors are all of a certain culture/descent the generalization pointing to a very real problem is easily contrived as racist for those who would rather not face the issues? Or do you really think that the German populace harbored an á priori dislike for Turkish? Or 13% of Swedish an á priori dislike for muslims? I find it rather hard to believe.
P.S.:
I actually went back and looked it up. The Sharia-court was actually proposed in 2011 by a group of muslims to settle "internal disputes". It got slammed, but I can see how the rumor started without really being populism. The fact that anyone would find it reasonable to make such a proposition is disturbing enough in itself.
EDIT: Thank you Sub40APM - I had that train of though as well (the increasing religiosity is actually described in the spiegel-article as well) but must have forgotten about it along the way.
EDIT2: Please note that I'm not trying to make a definitive conclusion as to why or what about the Turks it is the majority of Germans allegedly dislike - I am simply pointing out that with the data we have Nyxisto's conclusion isn't the only one, nor the one that best corresponds to the facts.
|
First off, I never said that Japanese immigrants here aren't doing well economically. I specifically said most of them are pretty wealthy. That wasn't even my point. Also the unemployment rate of Turkish immigrants here in Germany is lower than most average unemployment rates over Europe. To claim that the average Turkish immigrant does not contribute to our society is just disgraceful.
My point was, again, that this isn't about integration. Many groups are not well integrated, but only with regard to a certain group of immigrants that seems to be an issue.
Or do you really think that the German populace harbored an á priori dislike for Turkish? Or 13% of Swedish an á priori dislike for muslims? I find it rather hard to believe.
Yes, the German population generally dislikes Turkish, or more generally Muslim culture. Islamophobia is widespread across Europe. People like Geert Wilders have based their political existence on it. It has largely replaced the Anti-Semitism of the political far-right, while ironically, Anti-Semitism is now increasingly popular among Muslim minorities.
|
On December 05 2014 04:03 Nyxisto wrote:First off, I never said that Japanese immigrants here aren't doing well economically. I specifically said most of them are pretty wealthy. That wasn't even my point. Also the unemployment rate of Turkish immigrants here in Germany is lower than most average unemployment rates over Europe. To claim that the average Turkish immigrant does not contribute to our society is just disgraceful. My point was, again, that this isn't about integration. Many groups are not well integrated, but only with regard to a certain group of immigrants that seems to be an issue. Show nested quote +Or do you really think that the German populace harbored an á priori dislike for Turkish? Or 13% of Swedish an á priori dislike for muslims? I find it rather hard to believe. Yes, the German population generally dislikes Turkish, or more generally Muslim culture. Islamophobia is widespread across Europe. People like Geert Wilders have based their political existence on it. It has largely replaced Anti-Semitism of the political far-right, while ironically, Anti-Semitism is now increasingly popular among Muslim minorities.
I agree you never said that Japanese immigrants aren't doing well economically - you just ignored it when drawing your conclusions. That was what I pointed out. I did not claim that the average Turkish immigrant does not contribute to society (and I think I have sufficiently pointed out how little I know about Germany and that we should keep it to Sweden which the discussion was originally about, but on your insistence we are now talking about Germany anyway). I stated that Germans (and Swedens) might be opposed to people not contributing. And that the biggest group proportionally of non-contributors could be interpreted (based on the numbers in Der Spiegel) as being the Turks in Germany and middle east muslims in Sweden.
I think you misunderstood my question when you are pointing to Islamophobia. Islamophobia (silly word, it isn't by any definition a phobia) as well as Geert Wilders are a far newer thing. The original immigration of Turks in Germany was in the 50's or 60's. When I asked about the ä priori state I meant literally that - prior to the immigration in the 50's. Obviously something must have happened since then and I doubt the majority of Germans began disliking Turks for no reason (their reason might be unfounded, but there most certainly is one).
Lastly, portraying anti-semitism as an exclusively far-right issue is an order of denial I find shocking.
|
I don't think it matters that much whether we're talking about Sweden,Germany or any other Northern European country here, the trends seem to be quite similar, although the amount of success these "new right" movements have is somewhat different.
lamophobia. Islamophobia (silly word, it isn't by any definition a phobia) as well as Geert Wilders are a far newer thing. The original immigration of Turks in Germany was in the 50's or 60's. When I asked about the ä priori state I meant literally that - prior to the immigration in the 50's. Obviously something must have happened since then and I doubt the majority of Germans began disliking Turks for no reason
Yes, they dislike them for basically "no reason". That's why the word Islamophobia is correct. It is an irrational fear based on emotional judgements with comparatively little factual support. Also it's no wonder that there was no Islamophobia prior to the immigration. If there are no Turks people are going to be indifferent.
Lastly, portraying anti-semitism as an exclusively far-right issue is an order of denial I find shocking.
Which again, I didn't even say. I think the modern left is really embarrassing honestly, and there is widespread Anti-Semitism among them(also overblown anti-capitalism/globalism). Even racist concepts like ethnic pluralism have been adopted by the left (most dominantly in France).
|
On December 05 2014 04:34 Nyxisto wrote:I don't think it matters that much whether we're talking about Sweden,Germany or any other Northern European country here, the trends seem to be quite similar, although the amount of success these "new right" movements have is somewhat different. Show nested quote +lamophobia. Islamophobia (silly word, it isn't by any definition a phobia) as well as Geert Wilders are a far newer thing. The original immigration of Turks in Germany was in the 50's or 60's. When I asked about the ä priori state I meant literally that - prior to the immigration in the 50's. Obviously something must have happened since then and I doubt the majority of Germans began disliking Turks for no reason Yes, they dislike them for basically "no reason". That's why the word Islamophobia is correct. It is an irrational fear based on emotional judgements with comparatively little factual support. Also it's no wonder that there was no Islamophobia prior to the immigration. If there are no Turks people are going to be indifferent.
We are going to have to agree to disagree. For one I do not consider the opposition to a largely unrestrained immigration a fear, I consider it an acceptance of the issues brought on by cultural clashes. Secondly I do not think anyone dislikes anyone for "no reason". Lastly I do not consider it racist when someone points to a group which stastically fair far worse than all others and say " we, as a society, have an issue with this group".
Lastly, portraying anti-semitism as an exclusively far-right issue is an order of denial I find shocking.
Which again, I didn't even say. I think the modern left is really embarrassing honestly, and there is widespread Anti-Semitism among them(also overblown anti-capitalism/globalism). Even racist concepts like ethnic pluralism have been adopted by the left (most dominantly in France).[/QUOTE]
I misread your initial post, my apologies. I read it as the far-right being the only anti-semites, whereas you wrote that the far-right are now anti-muslim instead of anti-semites. Just to be perfectly clear, I do not consider most parties in Europe with a tough stance on immigration to be particularly far-right. Dansk Folkeparti (Danish people party) are in all other areas in the middle ground. It is my perception SD in Sweden is the same. I also think you are mistaking antisemitism for anti-Zionism. I think most leftist are in fact the latter.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
is anti-islam / anti-turk attitude stronger in east germany or something? given the very deep antiquity conflict between east europe and turkey all the way from the middle ages, there may be some historical roots to anti-turk sentiments. this is the case in places like serbia where anti-turk is almost a central tenet of their own identity
|
East Germany is quite anti-"a-lot", ranging from immigration to "the establishment" and the media, but it's pretty hard to find out where it's coming from. I think it's rather an economical and social issue than historical given the fact that the region was completely underdeveloped only 20 years ago. The left as well as the right are generally represented stronger in East Germany than in the West. In general I think historical sentiments are way weaker in Germany than in any surrounding country given the fact that the country was essentially rebooted twice over the last 80 years with a lot of "new world" influence.
|
On December 04 2014 04:03 A3th3r wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2014 03:14 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
While far right is still commonly used for the Swedish democrats most political commentators have stopped using that definition. Their economic policies are right in the middle. They are extremely anti-immigration and very socially conservative however. The party has roots in some really murky waters but right now they have a 0-tolerance for racism and frequently throw out people caught seeing stupid things.
SD is increasing a lot, the left party (former communist party) actually tanked in this election. Possibly because a brand new feminist party got 3 % and took a lot of their voters, almost getting into parliament.
And both sides in the middle aren't talking right now so no grand coalition yet. But it could happen.
As to why Swedes are voting for SD? Massive immigration zero integration and no other party wants to talk about it basically. It seems to me that Swedes need more immigration policies in place. In the US there are tons of immigration procedures set up to process people: Ellis Island, job-placement programs, government welfare systems for those in need, integration into the public school system, scholarships for smart people to go to college, businesses hiring immigrants. Admittedly people still hate immigrants in some places regardless, for example in the city of Phoenix, Hispanics take jobs blue-collar people want so they hate them. And the US still doesn't allow in enough H1-B's, as my dad has pointed out. I don't know, maybe they already have a lot of immigration systems in Sweden but they just don't work that well.
I know this is the European politics thread, but I imagine we don't let in more H1-B's because brain draining neighboring countries would piss them off.
|
On December 05 2014 01:16 Hoenicker wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2014 23:55 maartendq wrote:
The problem with north african immigrants in Europe (i.e. those most easily radicalised) is their lack of education and integration. It's also partly cultural. Warning: I will paint with a really broad brush here.
North African countries, unlike Europe, the United States and south-east asia have a market culture: starting up your own business is in a way more important than actually getting education. The businesses they do start tend to cater mainly to their own community, and are relatively unambitious. I'm talking about your typical kebap place, night shops, tea houses, butcheries, bakeries etc. Getting wealthier is seemingly not their primary goal. Family ties are extremely important in those societies, and family structure tends to be rather conservative or even downright archaic.
This is a stark contrast with so-called Western culture, in which education is of primary importance, and in which your social standing is in many ways dependent on the education you received, and the subsequent job you managed to find, or business you found. A high level of ambition is expected: you must either want to grow within the company, or gain ever bigger markets with your business. This mentality seems to resonate with often pragmatic east-asians.
This former group has little reason to learn the language of the country they reside in. After all, their social life takes place inside their own community. As a consequence, they are distrusted by the 'original' people of the country they reside in: they speak a language no-one but them understands, their refuse to adapt to the country they migrated to because they have very little incentive to, etc. There is apparently a disparity between refugees and people who've lived here for multiple generations, but most people don't make this distinction.
East Asians, on the whole, tend to be more ambitious: their business networks tend to be rather extensive, and they are very ambitious. Traditionally, education plays a very important part in their lives, so learning the language of the country to reside in is a de facto requirement.
The whole anti-migration sentiment in Europe is mainly aimed at north africans or people from the near east, because they are regarded as people that will cost society without any prospect of repaying those 'debts'. I'm sorry this post comes down to thinly veiled racism. Your whole post is based on stereotypes, and you use these stereotypes to extrapolate the current situation. Those "North Africans" (between you and me; could just call them sand monkeys winkwink) came to your country during the 50s and 60s, as Belgium was industrializing and required a larger cheap work force. What a surprise that people willing to do that work came from relatively close, poorer nations. Under-educated people with low income become stuck in a social layer which can be extremely difficult to get out of, as their circumstances perpetuate each other. If you correct social statistics for social-economic status , e.i. poor white people with poor "North Africans" criminality statistics are remarkably similar, that is to say; your social and educational background have a much bigger influence on your life than your cultural background. Furthermore, we could learn a lot from these cultures where greed and money grabbing (apparently) are frowned upon, as the current climate throughout the world becomes more and more neo-liberal and right wing (especially america) the politicians will bump into a physical problem; limitless growth does not exist, just like energy cannot be produced from scratch; it can only be transformed from one form into another.
I forgot this was the internet, where you are supposed to be politically correct and where people cherry-pick your post instead of reading all of it.
Hence the first line. I said I was going to paint with a very broad brush. I use the term north-Africans because they are from North Africa. I am not going to spell out four different countries every time I want to talk about them.
As a disclaimer, below I will again be painting with a broad brush, both for the north-African migrants and the Belgians.
They came here because we invited them. Then we closed off our coal mines, and other industry just left, and instead of making sure those people had a future within a country that runs a market-based economy, government did not do anything. The result is the situation many of those people are in now: undereducated and overrepresented in poverty and crime statistics. However, claiming that they are in this situation only because government abandoned them is over-simplifying the issue. The problem comes from both sides, at least in Belgium.
Firstly: language and education. If you don't speak either Dutch or French, the middle-class segment of the job market is closed to you. End of story. The problem in Belgium is that we have a third generation of 'migrants' who still either don't or just barely speak either of those two languages. Their parents have little to no interest in their education: on teacher-parent-student meetings, the parents don't show up most of the time, or if they show up, don't really know what's happening. At home or among friends, those kids do not speak Dutch or French, but whatever language their parents use, meaning that the only moment they do use the national languages is when they are forced to, i.e. in class. There have been many initiatives to try to do something about this, with little to no success. Those people do not find their way into our universities and colleges. Many of them just drop out of school before they are 18 in a society where having a bachelor's degree (or equal qualifications through work experience) is slowly becoming the norm. I've seen the figures, and they are worrying. We really are creating a completely lost generation. It also doesn't help that there is an influx of east and central Europeans who vie for the same jobs those people would do.
The second is cultural differences, such as family structure and values. Their family structure tends to be very male-dominated, which to Belgians is very close to criminal. The headscarf is widely regarded as a symbol of male oppression, and many people would like to see wearing it banned from public altogether. They are not all that fond of the idea of gay people, which most Belgians tend to find plain retarded, narrow-minded and backward. This is the country that has allowed same-sex marriages since the early 1990ies.
Concerning your claim that "we can learn from people who live in cultures where money grabbing is frowned upon": the recent revolutions in that part of the world leads me to believe that money-grabbing and greed is just as rampant over there as it is over here, if not more so. Additionally, Europe is part of a highly competitive market economy. You can have principles all you want, if they do not bring food on the table, they are useless.
There have been many attempts at trying to integrate those people into society more, to give those kids chances to climb up the social ladder. So far with very little success. Most politicians here are at their wit's end.
There is, by the way, a huge discrepancy between those third-generation migrants and refugees. That latter group has significantly less trouble integrating and is far more ambitious.
There is absolutely no need to be politically correct and pretend it is the "evil racist western states" who are the sole cause of the problems those people face. You need to look at it from both sides, and no, that does not make me a racist.
My statement about east Asians being more ambitious/industrious than north-Africans comes from the single fact that the former region modernized at a rapid pace while the latter has not. Both regions are or were run by dictators. Again, it is politically incorrect to say this nowadays, but I do believe that culture plays a role here. I also do believe that east-Asians are more industrious and ambitious than people from other parts of the world, just like some countries are more prone to clientelistic government than others.
|
i'd just go with one culture fits all; assimilation not integration.
Cameron, Merkel, Sarkozy all said multiculturalism failed. sure, it could've been the implementation of it but, what if it doesn't work?, ever.
and don't give me US as an example here because there, people just skipped over the cultural differences and rallied under other goals; like, money or being Nr.1. that's just diversion not integration and it only works when everything is fine, materially.
edit: Sub40APM is also right is saying that mostly (but not limited to) in central, eastern, south-eastern Europe people learn in history classes that turks were bad guys who killed their ancestors not even 150years ago. how is the average joe supposed to get over that?, i mean really ...
|
Well, they should also learn that Germans are the bad guys and killed their ancestors not even 80 years ago, and people seem to be able to get over that quite easily.
|
On December 05 2014 06:41 oneofthem wrote:
is anti-islam / anti-turk attitude stronger in east germany or something? given the very deep antiquity conflict between east europe and turkey all the way from the middle ages, there may be some historical roots to anti-turk sentiments. this is the case in places like serbia where anti-turk is almost a central tenet of their own identity
as a rule of thumb: people are the more afraid of something the less they are exposed to it. xenophobia is often the strongest in parts where the least foreign people are present. i.e. as switzerland was voting for a prohibition of minarets, regions with no moselms whatsoever voted for the prohibiton while regions with a mentionable size of muslims voted against it. and that wasnt the case because muslims themselve where the tipping point, non muslims of swiss heritage were much more likely to vote against a prohibition when they lived in areas where they had contact with muslims.
its the same in east germany. there are much less people of other nationalities in east germany, so the people are less exposed to their culture and as a result they are more afraid of it and against it.
as for why turks are less liked than other minorities, i think it has more to do with how media portraits a society as a whole. turks are generally not less successful than their german counterparts if you count for socio-economic backrounds. most of the first generation turkish imigrants had no education and could barely read, which lead to low income and their children are more likely to fail at school. if you compare turks from poorly educated and low income households and germans with the same, the are very few differences between both groups.
however, the immigrants were concentrated in mostly the large cities where they held the very low payment jobs. therefore, turkish (but also other immigrants) are overrepresented in the lower class in those large cities.
well, and now what does the media focus on? the big cities or the flat country?
edit: i dont think there is any historical reason for prejudice against turks. germany was for the most part not involved in the ottoman conquest of southeast europe. what we learn is that they were stopped in vienna and thats it. there was only very minor influence in the german states north of austria. i think quite the opposite is the case, the ottoman empire was more a historical ally of germany which might actually be one of the reasons why the cooperation with turkey in the 60s was done.
|
On December 05 2014 18:43 Simberto wrote:
Well, they should also learn that Germans are the bad guys and killed their ancestors not even 80 years ago, and people seem to be able to get over that quite easily.
^ not exactly the same. Ottoman Empire stopped the economic, intelectual, cultural, religious etc.. development of Eastern Europe for almost 500 years. Not quite easy to get over this.
|
On December 05 2014 18:43 Simberto wrote:
Well, they should also learn that Germans are the bad guys and killed their ancestors not even 80 years ago, and people seem to be able to get over that quite easily.
but they don't. they learn that Hitler was a bad guy and that in the name of/at the orders of a german, their ancestors were killed.
regardless, there is still no comparison to be made here (based on similarities or what have you): 4 years of genocidal spree vs hundreds of years of <happenings>.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
