# Is it right to treat minorities differently?



## übermönch

In Switzerland, there are twice as many Yugoslavians as Romansch, in Germany Turks and Kurds are much more numerous than Danes and Sorbs, in Russia there are more significantly more Azeris than Mordvins, in UK the amount of Hindustanis is approx. equal to the amount of Welsh (-speakers), nevertheless in all examples only the latter ones get previledges like self-administration, recognition of their language and teaching it at schools, preservation of culture etc. etc. while the approach to other ones significantly differs  - demanding cultural assimilation and taking steps like banning language use at schoolyard. Could you tell if it is similar in your country and if you support or oppose this approach?


----------



## maxiogee

Hiya übermönch
You might like to get a Mod to delete the 'h' in threat in the title. The word you need is 'treat' (I hope! I presume that you don't see the loack of privileges as a threat.).




übermönch said:


> In Switzerland, there are twice as many Yugoslavians as Romansch, in Germany Turks and Kurds are much more numerous than Danes and Sorbs, in Russia there are more significantly more Azeris than Mordvins, in UK the amount of Hindustanis is approx. equal to the amount of Welsh (-speakers), nevertheless in all examples only the latter ones get previledges like self-administration, recognition of their language and teaching it at schools, preservation of culture etc. etc. while the approach to other ones significantly differs  - demanding cultural assimilation and taking steps like banning language use at schoolyard. Could you tell if it is similar in your country and if you support or oppose this approach?



The reason many people get privileges is that they are an historical and geographic part of a larger country/entity.
The Welsh are a discrete part of Britain in a way that Hindustanis are not. How would you envisage giving self-administration to the Hindustanis in Britain - or even to the Irish in Britain, who probably outnumber both of them? 
As to the language teaching, it again is a geographic thing. The schools in a particular area teach it, not schools all over Britain. The Hindustani population do not fall into a geographic region.
The Welsh aslo learn English and use it. The teaching of Welsh is a way of keeping the language of the region alive. It is not up to British taxpayers to keep non-native languages alive. If Irish people in Britain wish to keep Irish alive they are welcome to leave Britain and come back to Ireland to do so. In that part of the UK where there are Irish speakers there is provision made for the language.

As to the preservation of culture, why should non-native culture be preserved at a cost to the taxpayer? Who would decide which cultures would qualify for assistance? At what percentage of the population would there be a cut-off point — there are 40,000 xyz-ians in a country, do they get a grant? Do they get one if they are the only community anywhere in the world outside xyzland? Who should give the grant, the host country, or the people of xyzland? It is xyzland's culture which is being 'maintained', why should abcistan pay for it?


----------



## Julito_Maraña

übermönch said:


> In Switzerland, there are twice as many Yugoslavians as Romansch, in Germany Turks and Kurds are much more numerous than Danes and Sorbs, in Russia there are more significantly more Azeris than Mordvins, in UK the amount of Hindustanis is approx. equal to the amount of Welsh (-speakers), nevertheless in all examples only the latter ones get previledges like self-administration, recognition of their language and teaching it at schools, preservation of culture etc. etc. while the approach to other ones significantly differs  - demanding cultural assimilation and taking steps like banning language use at schoolyard. Could you tell if it is similar in your country and if you support or oppose this approach?



Without getting into too many details, and since I really don't care about local politics in Switzerland, Russia or the United Kingdom, from a purely philosophical point of view, I think it's okay to treat people _differently_. What I disagree with is treating them _unfairly_.


----------



## Alxmrphi

I was wondering how to say my point without sounding offensive but Julito, you did it!

Basically, you can't keep everything, it's inevitable.


----------



## ireney

übermönch
Because the Welsh i.e. didn't choose to be a part of the UK really. Nor did they choose to have the English language shoved down their gullets for years (and years and years). 

Bet you a dollar that the other populations you mentioned didn't choose to be a part of the country they belong too either.


----------



## Julito_Maraña

Hmmm. 

In New York State we have Mohawks, who are a minority group with a minority language. We also have Puerto Ricans, who are a minority group with a minority language as well. I don't have a problem with New York State spending more money on education in Mohawk or even cutting education in Spanish completly while quadrupling the amount of money it spends on Mohawk. 

The reason: I think Mohawk is really endangered and Spanish is not. If all of the Puerto Ricans in New York State stop speaking Spanish tommorow, there are still 4 million on the island who still do and about 400 million around the world.

I don't think it has a whole lot to do with whether or not Puerto Ricans or Mohwaks chose to be a part of this state, country, or anything else.


----------



## ireney

Julito the small number of native speakers of a language is a reason for UNESCO and other organisations to put that language in the list of endangered languages and take some steps toward its preservation. It is not a reason for a state to fund that language. 

Take Greece for example: I bet you wouldn't call Turkish an endangered language would you (in fact, if I am not mistaken there are more native-speakers of Turkish than of Greek in the world) ? However, since Greek citizens of Turkish decent in Thrace didn't choose to live in the Greek state we are obliged to help them. Albanians (and others) on the other hand chose to come here. The Greek state doesn't have an _obligation_ toward the Albanian culture and language. I'm not saying that we shouldn't perhaps, i.e. teach Albanian in some schools (that's another issue); I'm saying that the Albanians chose to come here so it's different for them and those of Turkish decent.

 Anyway, we are not talking about language alone in this case.


----------



## boardslide315

maxiogee said:


> As to the preservation of culture, why should non-native culture be preserved at a cost to the taxpayer?



I don't see why people have such a large connection between language and culture--I understand they are related, but maintaining the former is not necessary to keep the latter alive and well, and in fact isolates it somewhat. 

Culture is valuable, true; but the primary function of language should be to communicate, and in today's world communication between other cultures is more important than it ever was. Finding a common language in which different cultures can communicate is not a step towards the loss of culture, but rather one towards letting it be better understood by people not of that background. People who truly value their culture should have no problem in independently maintaining its linguistic aspects.

Using taxpayers' money to give them special places of instruction in their native language is not helping them to preserve. In America especially, there are way too many different cultures to try to accomidate for everyone equally, and is therefore best treated as a responsibility of the individual.


----------



## Julito_Maraña

ireney said:


> Julito the small number of native speakers of a language is a reason for UNESCO and other organisations to put that language in the list of endangered languages and take some steps toward its preservation. It is not a reason for a state to fund that language.



Most peope here are not big UNESCO fans. Some because they don't even know what it is and a small minority because they do.

I think, as a New York resident, that it's ok that NY state goes ahead and pays for saving Mohawk at my expense. It's a part of our culture and it's been around for much longer than the UN which in my experience just makes getting around the East Side a living hell. There is not much sympathy here for asking the UN for solving our problems. But it would be nice if they didn't shut down the city every time they have a meeting.

I can't get into the whole situation in Greece because I don't really know the history and think that it's very unlikely that the money that comes out of my check is going towards teaching kids in Greece Albanian or Turkish. But if people in Greece think it's something they want UNESCO to take care of, well, you're free to do that. That's fine with me too.


----------



## ireney

Julito you probably should read my post again.

In case I wasn't clear (probably) I am not saying that UNESCO should take care of these issues. I am saying that, as I see it, it's not rarity of a language that explains why money should be spent for the preservation of a culture and its language. Only UNESCO works this way.

I don't expect you to get the whole situation in Greece; I just gave you an example of a country that has an obligation towards a language (to say the least) which is not in UNESCO's list and I don't think is ever going to be , to show what I meant by "it's not rarity it's obligation".


----------



## übermönch

ireney said:


> übermönch
> Because the Welsh i.e. didn't choose to be a part of the UK really.


It's the other way round. The _Welsh_ Tudor dynasty unified Wales and England. Does it matter? Neither modern welsh, nor englishman took part in it. did they choose to have the English language shoved down their gullets for years (and years and years). 


> Bet you a dollar that the other populations you mentioned didn't choose to be a part of the country they belong too either.


Indeed, no (at least, starting from second generation) member of a minority can choose to which country to belong at birth. 



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> The reason many people get privileges is that they are an historical and geographic part of a larger country/entity.
> The Welsh are a discrete part of Britain in a way that Hindustanis are not.


English Hindustanis are as much a part of modern great Britain and of it's culture as the Welsh. Their prensence in GB lasts for several generations and is certainly a result of english modern history starting with first contacts and cultural exchange in the 17th century. Hindustani polo and tea are as British as Welsh fiddles, Scottish whiskey and Cornish knives. They just happened to migrate a few centuries later than the other peoples of Albion. Same goes to all other examples - Döner Kebab, for instance, originated in German Turkish community became a part of modern German quisine and culture. Nevertheless Turks are still seen as strangers officially, unlike the Danes in Schleswig-Holstein or Sorbs in Saxony.


----------



## MrJamSandwich

This links very well with the old debate about linguistic policy in France - according to the 2nd article of the French Constitution, the language of the Republic is French - even at the exclusion of all indigenous regional languages, such as Breton, Basque, Occitan etc. Breton is in fact the only Celtic language not to be officially recognised today, and for much of the 20th Century, schoolchildren in Brittany were forbidden to speak it. As such it is now considered in danger of becoming a dead language. Is the monolingual policy in France ensuring equal treatment for all citizens, or is it just eroding regional identity? The arguments on both sides are endless.


----------



## choppy seas

übermönch said:


> It's the other way round. The _Welsh_ Tudor dynasty unified Wales and England. Does it matter? Neither modern welsh, nor englishman took part in it. did they choose to have the English language shoved down their gullets for years (and years and years).
> 
> Indeed, no (at least, starting from second generation) member of a minority can choose to which country to belong at birth.
> 
> 
> English Hindustanis are as much a part of modern great Britain and of it's culture as the Welsh. Their prensence in GB lasts for several generations and is certainly a result of english modern history starting with first contacts and cultural exchange in the 17th century. Hindustani polo and tea are as British as Welsh fiddles, Scottish whiskey and Cornish knives. They just happened to migrate a few centuries later than the other peoples of Albion. Same goes to all other examples - Döner Kebab, for instance, originated in German Turkish community became a part of modern German quisine and culture. Nevertheless Turks are still seen as strangers officially, unlike the Danes in Schleswig-Holstein or Sorbs in Saxony.


In this debate there has been a tendency to use the term Hindustani.It is derived from the term Hindustan, which literally means land of the Hindus. We are better known as Indians, which is a term incidentally derived from the Greek term Indica,from which the name India is derived. Use of the term Hindustani, I must say, is therefore misleading and erronous.The Indians are a variegated peoples,belonging to various faiths. While eighty percent of the population is Hindu, the Mohammedans number is the second highest in the world,after Indonesia. Even in Britain, my guess is that the Indian people resident there,are not exclusively of the Hindu faith.
   While the Indian population resident in that country,the U.K.,are undoubtedly organically part of that society,in the manner you have described above, India as such is a very different and distinct entity ,despite the historical linkages with Britain.


----------



## don maico

choppy seas said:


> In this debate there has been a tendency to use the term Hindustani.It is derived from the term Hindustan, which literally means land of the Hindus. We are better known as Indians, which is a term incidentally derived from the Greek term Indica,from which the name India is derived. Use of the term Hindustani, I must say, is therefore misleading and erronous.The Indians are a variegated peoples,belonging to various faiths. While eighty percent of the population is Hindu, the Mohammedans number is the second highest in the world,after Indonesia. Even in Britain, my guess is that the Indian people resident there,are not exclusively of the Hindu faith.
> While the Indian population resident in that country,the U.K.,are undoubtedly organically part of that society,in the manner you have described above, India as such is a very different and distinct entity ,despite the historical linkages with Britain.



Most of the Hinus here in the UK are from Uganda in the main I think. They came as refugess in the seventies.Muslims are mostly  either from Pakistan or Bangla Desh


----------



## Etcetera

übermönch said:


> <...>in Russia there are more significantly more Azeris than Mordvins <...> nevertheless in all examples only the latter ones get previledges like self-administration, recognition of their language and teaching it at schools, preservation of culture etc. etc. while the approach to other ones significantly differs  - demanding cultural assimilation and taking steps like banning language use at schoolyard. Could you tell if it is similar in your country and if you support or oppose this approach?


Because the Mordvins have been living in Russia for many centuries, their lands are now part of the Russian territory, and the Azeris just come from outside, and they have a country of their own. Frankly, I don't see why there should be any privileges to Azeris like self-administration and so on.


----------



## maxiogee

übermönch said:


> English Hindustanis are as much a part of modern great Britain and of it's culture as the Welsh.


As *much*? Surely not. 
Hindustani Britons have not got the wealth of historical background invested in Britain which the Welsh have, they have not yet contributed to the society of Britain as the Welsh have, in literature, in music, in engineering, in many, many ways.
Hindustani Britons are not a discrete grouping, they are not geographically identifiable, and they are not yet a 'part' of the nation, as the Welsh are.

Certainly they may become so, but there are not there yet, nor even nearly there. To get there they will need to assimilate more. The Welsh did not become 'part' of Britain over a few generations, they became part of Britain over centuries, after becoming involved with the Britons on the rest of the island. Hindustani Britons do not appear to be doing this. They appear to be trying to maintain a distance. To truly assimilate one needs to make the effort. One cannot expect the community one moves into to just accept your different culture, respect it, and adapt to it.
Culture 'moves' by being brought to other cultures, exposing itself to them and then taking its chances that people will like what they see in it and adopt some of it.
Do immigrant populations (in any community, anywhere) have a real cause for complaint that they and their culture are not accepted when they make no effort to bring their culture to their new neighbours.

Ireland nowadays is a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic place, we have people of all sorts of backgrounds — but many of them do nothing to reveal their culture to the Irish. Does Irish society owe them any duties? Must we fund their preference to not assimilate, culturally or educationally, socially or politically?



> Hindustani polo and tea are as British as Welsh fiddles, Scottish whiskey and Cornish knives. They just happened to migrate a few centuries later than the other peoples of Albion.


I would disagree there. Polo and tea came to England with Britons. They were not brought by those from whose culture they originated.


----------



## übermönch

@choppy seas
I'm sorry if the term Hindustani is offending to you, I actually used it trying to avoid using Indians, since this would exclude Pakistanis . Linguistically the term Hindustani refers to both Urdu and Hindi - it come from the same source as the Greek term India - from the Indus river. I had the impression, that it meant the region around Indus valley and the regions westwards where Indic languages are spoken, while _India _refered to the country or the subcontinent. So would "Indians" be a correcter way to refer to Pakistanis, Bengalis and Nepalese as well?


			
				etcetera said:
			
		

> Because the Mordvins have been li*v*ing in Russia for many centuries, their lands are now part of the Russian territory, and the Azeris just come from outside, and they have a country of their own. Frankly, I don't see why there should be any privileges to Azeris like self-administration and so on.


Each people in Russia *"came from outside"* at some point of history. First the Ugres, later Scythians, Slavs, Turks, Jews and later the Kalmyks and then the Azeris. Did the latter ones just come in too late?  If someone is a* citizen of Russia* (being born or naturalized), *Russia *is *his homeland*, right? Or does one remain _forever _a stranger with unequal rights if she has the wrong ethnicity? 


> and they have a country of their own


They don't Naturalized Russian Azeris of Moscow do not have a country of their own, they don't even have any kind of autonomy (unlike, say, Kazakh Germans or Russians) - Azerbaijan is _another _country far far away.  Shouldn't Russia/Macedonia have existed because some other Slavs already had Bulgaria?


> maxiogee said:
> 
> 
> 
> As *much*? Surely not.
> 
> 
> 
> What's welsh on modern GB? From India, there are tea ceremonies, pyjamas, vanilla, chicken tikka masala, balti, curry sauce, bandana, crown jewels, bungalow, shampoo, juggernaught, yoga, new age movement, vegetarianity, ahimsa (pacifism/nonviolence), thugs etc etc. etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Hindustani Britons have not got the wealth of historical background invested in Britain which the Welsh have, they have not yet contributed to the society of Britain as the Welsh have, in literature, in music, in engineering, in many, many ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? What about Freddy Mercury, Ben Kingsley, Simon Singh, Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti - there are indians in the house of lords, in most political parties, in the media, music, science, there are indian shopkeepers, indian workers, indian professors, indian artists - their influence is significant in every part of the british soceity.
> 
> 
> 
> Hindustani Britons are not a discrete grouping, they are not geographically identifiable, and they are not yet a 'part' of the nation, as the Welsh are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An indian with a british passport belongs to the united kingdom - equally to scots, welsh or irishmen.
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly they may become so, but there are not there yet, nor even nearly there. To get there they will need to assimilate more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why shouldn't, say, scots assimilate? You know, those unenglish mountainous-kilt wearing-whiskey drinkers with those horrible doodlesacks are kind of abnormal and unenglish, not?
> 
> 
> 
> The Welsh did not become 'part' of Britain over a few generations, they became part of Britain over centuries, after becoming involved with the Britons on the rest of the island.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you say the eradication of celtic culture and language all over the british isles was a right thing to do and should be repeated on modern minorities?
> 
> 
> 
> Hindustani Britons do not appear to be doing this. They appear to be trying to maintain a distance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it them ('immigrant' minorities) or us who maintain a distance? What if we'd accept them the way they are as completely equal europeans? Don't we look upon the cultures of theirs as lowly and barbarious? If we wont look upon them with those evil arrenged mariages of them as alien beings, if _we_ don't draw a border between us and them, they just will be an equal conservative of the soceity, just like any other with the ability to change and to melt together to a common alloy.
> 
> 
> 
> To truly assimilate one needs to make the effort. One cannot expect the community one moves into to just accept your different culture, respect it, and adapt to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, if one moves to a country with our values like liberty, tolerance and equality, this is exactly what one expects  Besides, only the first generation emigrants actually choose to move to a different soceity - all the others are just born into it, same way as the natives. If we stay at the UK example, we'll see that many of the "immigrants", in fact, are descendants of immigrants, who mostly migrated during the sixties.
> 
> 
> 
> Culture 'moves' by being brought to other cultures, exposing itself to them and then taking its chances that people will like what they see in it and adopt some of it.
> Do immigrant populations (in any community, anywhere) have a real cause for complaint that they and their culture are not accepted when they make no effort to bring their culture to their new neighbours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they do. As I mentioned before, our values include cultural tolerance. That's why we attract so many immigrants. We should be fond of it
> 
> 
> 
> Ireland nowadays is a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic place, we have people of all sorts of backgrounds — but many of them do nothing to reveal their culture to the Irish. Does Irish society owe them any duties? Must we fund their preference to not assimilate, culturally or educationally, socially or politically?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm afraid I know too little about the situation in Ireland. What do you mean by _"must we fund their preference not to assimilate"_? From what I know _You (the ones you refered to as *we*, whoever it might be)_ already "owe" something to the Gaellic speaking minority or am I wrong? You cannot enforce assimilation, a cultural genocide isn't a nice thing to do and it can have opposite results - it is _'you' (once again, the *we *you mentioned)_ who paint the border between 'us' and 'them', already by differenciating between "us" and "them". Just remember the historical developement of relations between the Irish and the British.
> 
> 
> 
> I would disagree there. Polo and tea came to England with Britons. They were not brought by those from whose culture they originated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Err, what? What's the difference? What makes aspects "brought" by pillaging vikings, romans and saxons better/different? Indians and Englishmen living in the same country, just as the irish, that is where most of the similarities come from. Could you elaborate why, say whiskey, the church, pants and harps were introduced differently to pyjamas, bandanas, shampoo and vegetarianity?
Click to expand...


----------



## Julito_Maraña

ireney said:


> Julito you probably should read my post again.
> 
> In case I wasn't clear (probably) I am not saying that UNESCO should take care of these issues. I am saying that, as I see it, it's not rarity of a language that explains why money should be spent for the preservation of a culture and its language. Only UNESCO works this way.
> 
> I don't expect you to get the whole situation in Greece; I just gave you an example of a country that has an obligation towards a language (to say the least) which is not in UNESCO's list and I don't think is ever going to be , to show what I meant by "it's not rarity it's obligation".



Probably not. And I don't really know if *any *government should spend one red cent on promoting a language but I, personally, would not have a problem having money taken out of my check for Mohawk. A part of that is because it's a "little language". I don't think, on the other hand, New York State is in charge of saving Spanish. Spanish is a "big" langauge. It's just a personal opinion and one that's related to how two minority groups can be treated differently but fairly because the circumstances are different.


----------



## Outsider

This is a very interesting question. I've been thinking about it, but can't come up with an answer.
I guess it has to do with the cultural self-image of the foster country. For example, Brits accept Wales and Welsh as a part of what the U.K. is (even if not consensually so). They do not identify Hindi or Islam with the U.K.


----------



## Etcetera

übermönch said:


> Each people in Russia *"came from outside"* at some point of history. First the Ugres, later Scythians, Slavs, Turks, Jews and later the Kalmyks and then the Azeris. Did the latter ones just come in too late?  If someone is a* citizen of Russia* (being born or naturalized), *Russia *is *his homeland*, right? Or does one remain _forever _a stranger with unequal rights if she has the wrong ethnicity?
> 
> They don't Naturalized Russian Azeris of Moscow do not have a country of their own, they don't even have any kind of autonomy (unlike, say, Kazakh Germans or Russians)  - Azerbaijan is _another _country far far away.  Shouldn't there be a Russia/Macedonia because some other Slavs already had Bulgaria?


Oh, really... 
There's one more difference between the Azeris and the Mordvins. The second live mostly in one area. The Azeris, however big their number might be, aren't a strong community. They live in different Russian cities (not only Moscow). What's the point of granting autonomy to them?
If these Azeris have come to Moscow (or any other place in Russia), that mean that they also chose to adopt the language of Russia. And mind you, I've never heard any demands for teaching children at schools in their languages, for example. 
And what's more, in every country nowadays there are many people who come from other countries. There's a lot of Russians in Germany, for example. Should the German government grant them self-administration or any other privilege? For what purpose?


----------



## maxiogee

Outsider said:


> This is a very interesting question. I've been thinking about it, but can't come up with an answer.
> I guess it has to do with the cultural self-image of the foster country. For example, Brits accept Wales and Welsh as a part of what the U.K. is (even if not consensually so). They do not identify Hindi or Islam with the U.K.



Could that be because the Welsh have accepted (generally speaking) their part in the U.K., and Islam doesn't - it resolutely remains apart?

Don't forget, the U.K. has had many centuries of the Welsh being "in". The Hindustanis and the Muslims are relative newbies.


----------



## Etcetera

maxiogee said:


> Don't forget, the U.K. has had many centuries of the Welsh being "in". The Hindustanis and the Muslims are relative newbies.


The same with Mordvins and Azeris in Russia. 
Sorry for using your example, Tony, but it's just perfect.


----------



## Outsider

maxiogee said:


> Could that be because the Welsh have accepted (generally speaking) their part in the U.K., and Islam doesn't - it resolutely remains apart?


Are you talking about the Muslims who live in the U.K.?



maxiogee said:


> Don't forget, the U.K. has had many centuries of the Welsh being "in". The Hindustanis and the Muslims are relative newbies.


But at which point in time are you going to draw the line? In the end, it's still subjective. (If the Welsh got very picky, they might claim that the English and the Scots are still an alien body in Great Britain, what, with all those Anglo-Saxon and Viking and Irish and Norman ancestors they probably have, and with the strange languages and barbarous customs they brought to the island... )


----------



## Brioche

übermönch said:


> Hindustani polo and tea are as British as Welsh fiddles, Scottish whiskey and Cornish knives. They just happened to migrate a few centuries later than the other peoples of Albion. Same goes to all other examples - Döner Kebab, for instance, originated in German Turkish community became a part of modern German quisine and culture. Nevertheless Turks are still seen as strangers officially, unlike the Danes in Schleswig-Holstein or Sorbs in Saxony.


 
Tea did not come to Albion thanks to Hindustanis.
The English originally bought their tea from China.
The British established commercial tea growing in India in the late 1830s.

The Sorbs/Wends have been in Saxony, and the Danes have been living in Schleswig-Holstein for longer than the Turks have been in Turkey. The border between Denmark and Germany has changed up and down the penisular over the years.

I dare say they eat more pommes frites [chips, french fries] in Germany than donner kebab, but that's no reason to give special treatment to the Belgians.


----------



## übermönch

Brioche said:


> Tea did not come to Albion thanks to Hindustanis.
> The English originally bought their tea from China.
> The British established commercial tea growing in India in the late 1830s.


Yes, and that is why Britons actually have the tea drinking traditions.


> The Sobs have been in Saxony, and the Danes have been living in Schleswig-Holstein for longer than the Turks have been in Turkey. The border between Denmark and Germany has changed up and down the penisular over the years.


A dane or a sorb does live the same time in Germany as a Germany-born Turk the equal lifespan. The past deeds of their race/ethnicity is not supposed to give them special rights. In fact, *all* (old world) humans who lived in 2000BC are related to *all* modern humans (see most recent common ancenstor).


> I dare say they eat more pommes frites [chips, french fries] in Germany than donner kebab, but that's no reason to give special treatment to the Belgians.


Thing is, Döner Kebab was _invented _in *Germany*, by *German *Turks and it really is an essential part of modern german culture. It *is *the most popular fast food in Germany. Google prooves Döners are *three times* as often mentioned on German sites as *Pommes Frites*, *twice *as often as *Bratwurst* and *1.7 *more often than *Sauerkraut. *Though *Bier *is still ten times as popular 



Etcetera said:


> Oh, really...
> There's one more difference between the Azeris and the Mordvins. The second live mostly in one area. The Azeris, however big their number might be, aren't a strong community. They live in different Russian cities (not only Moscow).


Moscow has, if i am not wrong, the biggest community with over a million members.


> What's the point of granting autonomy to them?
> If these Azeris have come to Moscow (or any other place in Russia), that mean that they also chose to adopt the language of Russia. And mind you, I've never heard any demands for teaching children at schools in their languages, for example.
> And what's more, in every country nowadays there are many people who come from other countries. There's a lot of Russians in Germany, for example. Should the German government grant them self-administration or any other privilege? For what purpose?


 For to treat them equally to other minorities, the Sorbs and Danes in Germany/Kalmyks, Jews, Ingushes, Tatars and others in Russia. Why shouldn't an Azeri born in Russia have equal rights and possibilities to a Tatar? Doesn't it alienate him from the soceity?


----------



## Everness

The word minority assumes that minority populations are being treated differently (discrimination) and should be treated differently as a sort of corrective action. Here's a good definition of minority. Wirth (1945): "A group of people who, because of physical or cultural characteristics, are singled out from others in society in which they live for differential and unequal treatment, and who therefore regard themselves as objects of collective discrimination… Minority status carries with it the exclusion from full participation in the life of the society." Minority has to do with negative qualitative treatment and not with quantitative representation. Are different minority groups treated differently? Are they discriminated against more than others? That's a different question.


----------



## maxiogee

übermönch said:


> The past deeds of their race/ethnicity is not supposed to give them special rights.



Who says?


----------



## ireney

Etcetera I agree completely. I should probably disagree what with having many Greeks in Germany (and the USA and Australia) but I agree.


übermönch I'll tell you what: when Indians have been living in the British Isles for as long as the Welsh we'll talk about it again


----------



## beclija

First of all, I do sense some rationality in treating historically "old" minorities differently, but I can't really explain why (the regional clustering might go some why, but that't leave out other "old" minorities like Roma or Jews in Europe, which I'd rather avoid). But I do think thet "new" minorities should also be able to get some "benefits" in terms of subventions for cultural events and (optional) language training for the children. The latter mainly for pragmatic reasons: It has been shown repeatedly that immigrant children, particularly those at the lower end of the scale of command of the national language, make more progress when offered some amount of formal training in their home language _besides _the normal schooling. I think it should be in the interest of any country to enable its residents to take the best out of the education system, and only the better if enhancing bilingualism - a benefit of its own already - helps to achieve this. (Of course, it won't be realistic to claim such a thing for one or to Tongeans in the country, but for larger immigrant groups it can work well.) They explain how to operate the ticket automats on Vienna's tramways in German, Serbian, Turkish and English (in this order, if I am not mistaken, and their might be some French and Italian as well), and that's a good thing.

Sorry, I don't think that's a good argument, even less so a good example. Why not declare the Welsh culture and language as the only one native and tell the English that they have their Frisian homeland and talk again about it when they have lived here as long as the Welsh? Or should we make Basque the only national language in the entire northern third of Spain because that's where its predecessor was presumably spoken in pre-Roman times? I am all for considering history if you give me some parameters by which to decide.

So, to sum up: In an ideal world it would be natural that all minorities and individuals be given equal opportunity to live the life they decide, but until then (which probably means forever), giving statutory rights to "old" minorities is a step in the right direction.


----------



## ireney

Note: "you" is used in a generic way ; I had trouble formulating my sentences using "one"  

Live where they decide yes. Keep your culture alive yes. Live in country X in almost the exact way you were living in country Y is wrong the way I see it. Yes, you had to move because in Y you couldn't make enough money. By immigrating to X both the country _and_ you gained something. You decided to stay in country X. You want rights in country X and expect them because X is a liberal country. But of course, apart from following the laws of this country you have no obligation whatsoever towards that country? That seems like ingratitude (though I am not so happy with this word) to me, especially if you say something like "now that so many of us Ylanders have come here we deserve to be granted i.e. self-administration".


----------



## übermönch

maxiogee said:


> Who says?



Title 3 of *"CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION"* (it is supposed to be written in all-caps - not my idea )  [CLICK] It will be put in power in all EU countries in 2007. Though all what is written there is already part of the EU country constitutions I know, I have no idea if it is that way in Eire.


----------



## maxiogee

übermönch said:


> Title 3 of *"CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION"* (it is supposed to be written in all-caps - not my idea )  [CLICK] It will be put in power in all EU countries in 2007. Though all what is written there is already part of the EU country constitutions I know, I have no idea if it is that way in Eire.



I've never heard of that.
I'm not surprised - "Europe" comes up with a lot of stuff 

I note that the main passage, which comes under the lead-in sentence "Everyone is equal before the law." reads …
1. Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, 
genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a 
national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited. ​I note the 'get out' in the use the "membership of a national minority". This applies to discrimination against individuals - not positive support for groupings, which lawyers would argue is totally different.

I also mavel at how that paragraph contrasts with the one which follows shortly after
The Union shall respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity. ​


----------



## choppy seas

übermönch said:


> @choppy seas
> I'm sorry if the term Hindustani is offending to you, I actually used it trying to avoid using Indians, since this would exclude Pakistanis . Linguistically the term Hindustani refers to both Urdu and Hindi - it come from the same source as the Greek term India - from the Indus river. I had the impression, that it meant the region around Indus valley and the regions westwards where Indic languages are spoken, while _India _refered to the country or the subcontinent. So would "Indians" be a correcter way to refer to Pakistanis, Bengalis and Nepalese as well?
> 
> Each people in Russia *"came from outside"* at some point of history. First the Ugres, later Scythians, Slavs, Turks, Jews and later the Kalmyks and then the Azeris. Did the latter ones just come in too late?  If someone is a* citizen of Russia* (being born or naturalized), *Russia *is *his homeland*, right? Or does one remain _forever _a stranger with unequal rights if she has the wrong ethnicity?
> They don't Naturalized Russian Azeris of Moscow do not have a country of their own, they don't even have any kind of autonomy (unlike, say, Kazakh Germans or Russians) - Azerbaijan is _another _country far far away. Shouldn't Russia/Macedonia have existed because some other Slavs already had Bulgaria?
> 
> 
> 
> What's welsh on modern GB? From India, there are tea ceremonies, pyjamas, vanilla, chicken tikka masala, balti, curry sauce, bandana, crown jewels, bungalow, shampoo, juggernaught, yoga, new age movement, vegetarianity, ahimsa (pacifism/nonviolence), thugs etc etc. etc.
> Really? What about Freddy Mercury, Ben Kingsley, Simon Singh, Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti - there are indians in the house of lords, in most political parties, in the media, music, science, there are indian shopkeepers, indian workers, indian professors, indian artists - their influence is significant in every part of the british soceity.
> An indian with a british passport belongs to the united kingdom - equally to scots, welsh or irishmen.
> Why shouldn't, say, scots assimilate? You know, those unenglish mountainous-kilt wearing-whiskey drinkers with those horrible doodlesacks are kind of abnormal and unenglish, not?
> So, you say the eradication of celtic culture and language all over the british isles was a right thing to do and should be repeated on modern minorities?
> Is it them ('immigrant' minorities) or us who maintain a distance? What if we'd accept them the way they are as completely equal europeans? Don't we look upon the cultures of theirs as lowly and barbarious? If we wont look upon them with those evil arrenged mariages of them as alien beings, if _we_ don't draw a border between us and them, they just will be an equal conservative of the soceity, just like any other with the ability to change and to melt together to a common alloy.
> Actually, if one moves to a country with our values like liberty, tolerance and equality, this is exactly what one expects  Besides, only the first generation emigrants actually choose to move to a different soceity - all the others are just born into it, same way as the natives. If we stay at the UK example, we'll see that many of the "immigrants", in fact, are descendants of immigrants, who mostly migrated during the sixties.
> Yes, they do. As I mentioned before, our values include cultural tolerance. That's why we attract so many immigrants. We should be fond of it
> I'm afraid I know too little about the situation in Ireland. What do you mean by _"must we fund their preference not to assimilate"_? From what I know _You (the ones you refered to as *we*, whoever it might be)_ already "owe" something to the Gaellic speaking minority or am I wrong? You cannot enforce assimilation, a cultural genocide isn't a nice thing to do and it can have opposite results - it is _'you' (once again, the *we *you mentioned)_ who paint the border between 'us' and 'them', already by differenciating between "us" and "them". Just remember the historical developement of relations between the Irish and the British.
> Err, what? What's the difference? What makes aspects "brought" by pillaging vikings, romans and saxons better/different? Indians and Englishmen living in the same country, just as the irish, that is where most of the similarities come from. Could you elaborate why, say whiskey, the church, pants and harps were introduced differently to pyjamas, bandanas, shampoo and vegetarianity?
> 
> 
> 
> Ubermonch thankyou for your defence of the Indian community in Britain. To refer to your first para,-it is erronous to use a term to club all S.Asians together.Though we may look superficially similar, these are countries with very different polities. While India represents a variety of cultures and faiths and is a functioning democracy,Pakistan is an exclusively Islamic state,may one add and also a military dictatorship.Nepal while being Hindu is a semi-monarchy with no clear state structure.Some like to describe it as a failed state.
> The use of the term Hindustani in the sense you refer to it, would have been correct in the pre-1947 period when both countries were undivided.Indeed this is a term the British themselves originally coined.However after 1947,with the end of British dominion on the subcontinent,it is erronous and misleading  to use this term to define the inhabitants of the subcontinent.Similarly Bengalis belong to Bengal,whose Western part is an integral part of India.The eastern part forms what is now Bangladesh.I think you would understand this better with the now defunct corollary of the former east Germany and present day Austria.
> Secondly,this debate appears to presuppose that Indians as  a community are only to be found in Britain, apart from India. They are spread out throughout the world.There are for example twenty-thousand Indians in Austria! Six thousand of those are from my state and have an association which celebrates our festivals.Members of the Vienna local government also regularly attend its annual function,apart from our representative there.I think this contrasts pretty sharply with the experience of those of them in Britain.
> Having been resident in the former W.Germany between 1985-1987,I can also say there are more progressive societies than Britain.Lastly let me get back to the main point,  there are Indian communities in virtually all continents.It is an extensive diaspora, and not simply to be viewed from the experience of those of them resident in Britain.
Click to expand...


----------



## Daddyo

Aristotle said: "Treat equals equally, and unequals unequally, according to the differences between them."

Also, there are some child psychologists who think that "you must treat all your children equally by treating each one differently."

I think there might be a good lesson somewhere in those aphorisms. If only I could say what it is.


----------



## distille

Hi,
it's likely my opinion on this topic is highly distorted by my french cultural background, but here it is.
Before thinking about treating minorities differently, the important thing is to treat them equally. And even in rich, democratic countries it's not always the case. People from minorities may have a hard time finding a job or a place to live only because of their ethnicity - at least that's the case in France, and it's pretty hard to punish people that discriminate because evidence are scarce and society tends to close her eyes on this matter.

When it comes to give minorities the right to self-administration, I tend to disagree, i don't see the point of multiplicating administrations and second, i tend to believe that the law should be done to apply to everyone the same way. At the same time, when a region has a population and a geographic situation that makes its needs and functionning highly different from the rest of the country i understand it can be useful. For example local governments oversea (french oversea counties) have more autonomy from the central power than other local french governments.
But please, keep in mind that this opinion largely derives from the history of centralisation of my country. 

About language.... Here my opinion is the one of the taxpayer. Education is costly and the French system is not even able to teach foreign langagues properly. So, the priority should go to those languages that make people able to communicate with foreigners and to understand other cultures. The teaching of english, german, italian, spanish, russian, japanese, arabic and so on should be financed by public money. If in a specific region they want to propote the teaching of a local language such as breton or occitan, i think private associations should take the financial burden of promoting these languages. There are already enough issues and topics that need public funding. 

However, France is by nature a country of migrants, many people here have foreign origins and nowadays the global geopolitics tend to make relationship between communities a bit harsher. So I think it would be good to promote in public education the teaching of the main languages of minority communities. For instance, arabic is insufficiently taught here. But, of course, it should be made available to all pupils from all origins. This would also constitutes an asset for trade exchanges with former colonies but also for mutual understanding.

To conclude, i don't support policies that want migrants or decent of migrants to assimilate. Assimilation means giving up the former culture and i believe people must be able practice their religion and cherish what belongs to their own culture. Speaking two languages is an asset, being able to share different foods and different traditions make life more interesting.
As long as minorities respect the main values of the country they live in, I consider it is a duty for the native to treat them the same way than any other citizen. But we're still not there!


----------



## Maja

übermönch said:


> Each people in Russia *"came from outside"* at some point of history. First the Ugres, later Scythians, Slavs, Turks, Jews and later the Kalmyks and then the Azeris. Did the latter ones just come in too late?


So is the same in every country in the  world!


übermönch said:


> If someone is a* citizen of Russia*  (being born or naturalized), *Russia *is *his homeland*,  right?


Yes, officially and legally, but people tend to long for their mother countries even several generations after their ancestors moved to a different one!


übermönch said:


> Shouldn't there be a  Russia/Macedonia because some other Slavs already had Bulgaria?


As far as I know, Bulgarians are not Slavs, at least not by their origin. They mixed with Slavs who lived on the land of the current Bulgaria, accepted the language, customs and religion. See here ( the old Bulgars that settled in the Balkans were not Slavs, but a nomadic Turkic tribe that was later Slavicized and imposed its name to the Slavic population of Bulgaria). 
 Slavs had tribes which are now considered different nations and nationalities! It cannot be consider the same as say Albanians who live in Kosovo, Greece, Macedonia and Montenegro. Or Bulgarians and Romanians who live in Serbia (close to the border with their mother countries).


----------



## Maja

ireney said:


> Live where they decide yes. Keep your culture alive yes. Live in country X in almost the exact way you were living in country Y is wrong the way I see it...
> ... But of course, apart from following the laws of this country you have no obligation whatsoever towards that country? That seems like ingratitude (though I am not so happy with this word) to me, especially if you say something like "now that so many of us Ylanders have come here we deserve to be granted i.e. self-administration".


I absolutely  agree!

 As far as I know, there is a certain thing called "positive discrimination" when it comes to minorities. For instance, in my country, they have a certain number of seats in the Parliament regardless of the number of votes they won at the elections, they have TV programme on their mother tongues, go to "their" schools etc.
And I don't mind that. The only thing that bothers me is the fact that many people who are minority members do not speak Serbian which is the official language of the country they live in!!! 

Firstly, that is very disrespectful. (I had a certain incident when I entered a store, apparently owned by a member of a minority who said "Good day" to me in his language and refused to serve me because he didn't know what I was looking for. Whether he pretend or really didn't know, I am not sure, but both are equally bad.)
Secondly, as a linguist  I can only see the advantages of being bilingual from birth! 

The other example of  "not fitting in" is: 
a certain Mufti was invited in a talk-show on the television in my country and when a hostess asked him how many wives those he have (Muslims can have as many wives and children they want as long as they can support them financially), he refused to answer saying that "God's laws are above civil ones". So if he was to be arrested for bigamy (which is a crime in my country) he would probable claim that he was "persecuted" because of his religion!!!


----------



## choppy seas

Maja, thankyou for your links on the Bulgars and southern slavs. I find this region,i.e. the Balkans very interesting as it so resembles S.Asia in its complexity of faiths and ethnicities. Indeed the states of India and Pakistan were formed in 1947,by the departing British, under an operation codenamed Balkan! 
  The people in the northern belt of my country,India, are believed to have originally migrated from Siberia as part of the movement of the Indo-Aryan peoples in historic times, to escape the rigours of the Siberian climate. In the southern part of my country, it has been found, we are a mixture of Caucasian with African blood. As such the origins of races as described in your thread was of great interest.
  I have also lived in Russia twice, and am now in Turkey, therefore the links you provided on the Balkans,were particularly interesting. Would you recommend how to become more well-versed in the history of this region,that is east Europe and more particularly the Balkans and the origins and mixture of races in this region? Hope I dont sound  racist!


----------



## venenum

Maja said:


> As far as I know, there is a certain thing called "positive discrimination" when it comes to minorities.
> ... And I don't mind that. The only thing that bothers me is the fact that many people who are minority members do not speak Serbian which is the official language of the country they live in!!!


 
Maja, dearest, are we speaking of the same minority that lives in Croatia, too? (Won't name them, to avoid being impolite or un-PC) 
Just for the record, I positively, completely agree with you on that. Hey, man, I don't care if your great-great-great grandparents came from the country X - you're wellcome to preserve the language and the culture, but living in Croatia for 100 or more years, your family could and should have learned to speak Croatian.


----------



## Maja

venenum said:


> Maja, dearest, are we speaking of the same minority that lives in Croatia, too? (Won't name them, to avoid being impolite or un-PC)
> Just for the record, I positively, completely agree with you on that. Hey, man, I don't care if your great-great-great grandparents came from the country X - you're wellcome to preserve the language and the culture, but living in Croatia for 100 or more years, your family could and should have learned to speak Croatian.


I am not sure if we are thinking about the same minority! 
My point is that  something like that could not have happened in say America or Germany... More  likely scenario in those Western countries is: 1st generation can have  difficulties learning a new language, but their children learn the official  language of the country they live in as their native language (+ the one of  their parents, and smt not even that)! 
There is a vast migration of Chinese  to my country for the last 7/8 years. But when you go to the part of the city  were they have their stores, they don't speak in Chinese with customers but in  Serbian!!! Sure, they don't speak it well, but at least they try. They even smt  name their children according to Serbian (or should I say Slavic) names like  Milica, Goran etc. 
If they can do it, so can others who were born here and  whose ancestors lived here for 100 years, right?


----------



## beclija

But has it been Croatia or Serbia (or even Yugoslavia) they lived in 100 years ago? probably not.


----------



## Maja

beclija said:


> But has it been Croatia or Serbia (or even Yugoslavia) they lived in 100 years ago? probably not.


Serbia yes!


----------



## übermönch

Maja said:


> So is the same in every country in the  world!


That's what I'm saying! 


> Yes, officially and legally, but people tend to long for their mother countries even several generations after their ancestors moved to a different one!


Indeed, if people are not accepted where they live now, as the jews for instance, they tend to search a new home - in the 19th century an Urheimat was considered to be a good choice, though it didn't work for Roma. Most people have their homeland there where they feel good. You know, all modern humans originated in Eastern Africa. Wanna go there?


> As far as I know, Bulgarians are not Slavs, at least not by their origin. They mixed with Slavs who lived on the land of the current Bulgaria, accepted the language, customs and religion.


What else does imply being 'Slavic' except language and customs? Where do you think all the baltic Prussians go? What about Kipchaks, Etruscs, Iberians, Picts, Gauls, Sumers, Lusatians? Turnt into vapour? Nope, they got assimilated and became Italics, Hispanics, Celts, Slavs, Germans etc. etc. Bulgarians are slavs and Bulgaria was the first *slavic *empire.


> See here ( the old Bulgars that settled in the Balkans were not Slavs, but a nomadic Turkic tribe that was later Slavicized and imposed its name to the Slavic population of Bulgaria).


I know, I know. There is no such thing as "ethnical/racial purity" - modern Germans, Turks, Englishmen, Japanese and Russians are also mixed descendants of assimilated peoples. Nevertheless, Russians are Slavic and Englishmen germanic because of their language and culture.


> Slavs had tribes


Well? So did Greeks, Germans, Finns, Turks, Protoindoeuropeans and all other peoples. At some point there was one tribe - it divided and divided and divided *and divides*.


> which are now considered different nations and nationalities!


Indeed, the only thing indicating a nation is consideration. Mind the "Greek Slavs", Macedonians tell they're actually Macedonian, Bulgarians call both Macedonians and Greek Slavs Bulgarian while the official stance of the Greek government is that it actually is a different nation. I'm not even going to mention the Balkans or Romania/Moldova. 


> It cannot be consider the same as say Albanians who live in Kosovo, Greece, Macedonia and Montenegro.


Why not? Koreans living in Uzbekistan (immigrated in 19th century) call and see themselves as a distinct ethnicity, _Koryo-Saram_, even after moving to South Korea. Volga Germans or the american Amish might have been "German" in the past, but nowadays they turnt into a distinct peoples with distinct traditions - Those Frisian Dutch Germans on Albion are called Englishmen if i'm not wrong  America is the most obvious example how a new people is formed. Even the 45-year-long partition of Germany created two different peoples with own distinct mentalities which couldn't really get along untill most recent times! Same goes to a German Turk who was born in FRG to people who migrated in the 1960s and lived there all his life - his language, his culture and whatever else constitutes an ethnicity/minority would have very little to do with modern Turkey, in fact some of them get sick of being eternal foreigners to germany and move to Turkey where they also are mocked as "Germans". Same goes to French Maghrebins, Indian Englishmen, Ukrainian Russians and all others


> Or Bulgarians and Romanians who live in Serbia (close to the border with their mother countries).


What about Torbesh, Pomaks, Dopii? Sebian Romanians can be see as such because they *are *seen as such. They, very well could also be called Serbian Dacians/Moldowans/Italians etc. etc. It wouldn't change anything about them.


----------



## ireney

choppy seas you'd better be ready for extensive reading if you want to get a good idea about the Balkans as each nation tends to interpret things from its own perspective (I am being nice with all of us) 

ubermonch so that I can understand: what would you suggest? Not only for Turks mind you 

P.S. The Bulgarians are quite different from the other Slavs really. Not all of them consider themselves quite as Slavs really.


----------



## Blackleaf

übermönch said:


> In Switzerland, there are twice as many Yugoslavians as Romansch, in Germany Turks and Kurds are much more numerous than Danes and Sorbs, in Russia there are more significantly more Azeris than Mordvins, in UK the amount of Hindustanis is approx. equal to the amount of Welsh (-speakers), nevertheless in all examples only the latter ones get previledges like self-administration, recognition of their language and teaching it at schools, preservation of culture etc. etc. while the approach to other ones significantly differs - demanding cultural assimilation and taking steps like banning language use at schoolyard. Could you tell if it is similar in your country and if you support or oppose this approach?


 

Why should Hindustanis get preferential treatment over the Welsh in Britain?


----------



## venenum

beclija said:


> But has it been Croatia or Serbia (or even Yugoslavia) they lived in 100 years ago? probably not.


 
Actually,yes, it has been Croatia. Most of it. It has been, for around 1100 years, or more. Unfortunatelly, Croatia has had its share of bad luck, which appeared in the form of personal unions, first with Hungary, and then with the Habsburg house, but all the time it had kept its name and parliament (teritory shifted, but even the mentioned two were succes, due to the numerous attempts of assimilation from both sides)


----------



## natasha2000

ireney said:


> choppy seas you'd better be ready for extensive reading if you want to get a good idea about the Balkans as each nation tends to interpret things from its own perspective (I am being nice with all of us)


 
I agree with you on this!  As a matter of fact, sometimes not even Balcanians understand themselves (nor each other, even though some speak the same language), so how can we expect to be understood by other people?


----------



## Brioche

It is quite insulting and patronizing to immigrate to a country and expect it to adapt to the very things you left behind. This is the behavior of a conqueror, not an immigrant. 

By definition, an immigrant asks for the privilege of being allowed to live in a country not her or his own. 

Do I have a right to barge into your house and demand you rearrange the furniture, knock out the wall between the kitchen and sitting room, and paint the walls a different colour?

By the very fact that she or he emigrates, an immigrant demonstrates that the country which she or he has chosen has a superior system. Without such an attraction, why else leave behind family, friends and the attachments of sentiment?


----------



## maxiogee

Brioche said:


> Do I have a right to barge into your house and demand you rearrange the furniture, knock out the wall between the kitchen and sitting room, and paint the walls a different colour?


Do it for nothing and I'll leave a key under the mat and you can have all the tea-bags and coffee you need. 
Tidy up after yourself and I'll chuck in a bottle of whiskey when you're leaving. 

If we like your colour-scheme we'll keep it <— and that's the essence of cultural interchange. If the country you go to likes what you bring they'll adopt it, or adapt to it.


----------



## Etcetera

Brioche said:


> By the very fact that she or he emigrates, an immigrant demonstrates that the country which she or he has chosen has a superior system. Without such an attraction, why else leave behind family, friends and the attachments of sentiment?


That's it!
And even if the immigrant still considers the culture of their own country superior, it doesn't matter. If you move to another country, you should accept the rules followed by the citizens of this country.


----------



## choppy seas

People migrate to other countries for various reasons. The most common causes are economic and political compulsions. To give concrete examples, many Russians and East Europeans fled their countries due to economic hardship following the implosion of the Soviet Union between 1989/1990. Indians were driven out of Uganda earlier, due to the  ruthless dictatorship of Idi Ameen, who threw them out,and consequently they fled mainly to England.Today with talk of the imminent integration of Bulgaria and Romania into the European Union, there is fear of another migration,according to the B.B.C., of the Bulgarians westwards,particularly to Britain, due to prevailing economic problems.Similarly the Jews were thrown out of the Promised Land in biblical times by the Romans, and dispersed throughout the world.
  In all these cases the migrants migrated or will migrate due to strong compulsions, not because they have disowned their respective cultures, and accepted the superiority of the culture of the country to which they migrated or will migrate to. This does not mean that I am against the integration of migrants into cultures to which they have migrated.This is however something very different from disowning the culture one is originally from, and accepting the superiority of the culture to which the migrant migrates.....


----------



## justjukka

Define minority.  It all comes down to blood.  The closest blood we have to anyone is that of a sibling.


----------



## Outsider

Rozax said:


> It all comes down to blood.


What does?


----------



## GenJen54

*Mod Note*: Somewhere in the course of this thread, another thread, discussing the history of the unification of England, Scotland and Wales appeared.  It may now be found HERE.


----------

