Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
@Kerome said:
That was the impression I got from the election as well - that he was playing to the crowd, and that his promises weren't worth the paper they were written on. The problem is, the public actually liked his empty words, and he will likely now be shown up as a bit of a hollow sham where a lot of the public thought they were getting a man of action.
Do not forget that he is a master at showmanship, and he intuitively understands his audience, far better than we do. What we call a "hollow sham" will be seen as "mission accomplished" by the believers. I will not be surprised if four years turns into eight.
I'm told it was in the news today that Trump has said he's going to either eliminate or privatize Medicare, Medicaid and one other program. That is definitely not what his constituency elected him to do. It makes no sense; how are people to get healthcare, then? It sounds like it's his way of balancing the budget--jettisoning programs that cost the government money. (If that's what he's aiming to do, he should start with winding down the wars, first.)
This is alarming. Terrifying, even! It's like when the World Bank tells 3rd World countries to privatize all gov't services, end any welfare programs, etc. to balance their budgets; it's an austerity program. Did he really say this? I haven't been able to get the newspaper today, and I don't have a TV.
It is a little unclear and depends what you read @Dakini. But despite his promises not to touch SS, Medicare and Medicaid, the people he is putting in those spots have been long term advocates of privatizing it, and one of his advisers has said it is a goal in the first 6-8 months to make "major overhauls."
I don't have TV either and the online media is out to bait for clicks -- so I decided to wait on this one until it actually turns into something. It seems like T would be severely shooting himself in the foot if he were to antagonize all those older voters who put him in the White House -- unless he clads this in some more lies to fool his brain-washed, gullible followers.
He seems to think out loud about policies and then checks on how it plays out. He doesn't have a clue, so he plays it by ear (or ratings). The press loves it, as it never gets dull - but it is very inefficient and damaging for the country. And devastating for the individual with health problems! Meanwhile the press is "just reporting" as erratically as the policies come tumbling out.
Now it's the boomers that are under attack, and maybe - just maybe - he's picking the wrong group of people to intimidate.
The more he screws around with this, the longer the rope is getting to hang himself with. Not a nice Buddhist visual, but hopefully an accurate parallel.
It is certainly scary to see him attack Medicare but he cannot eliminate it (can he?). He is messing with our minds and the freaking mainstream media is - as ususal - lapping it up to make a buck -- not to inform or to protest. They have no incentive to change. $$$ rule on every level.
He can effectively lay waste to those programs using reconciliation (from what I understand in what I am reading). They only need the majority, and not the extra 60 votes. So them already having a majority is a concern but I could see enough republicans standing against him on that if only to save their own careers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress)
I didn't see much of the election stuff but it sounded like a lot of what he got in for was 'making America great again'.
I've never been to the US but from what I gather there appears to be a bit of grandiosity within the US culture. As a dharma practitioner, how do you pull grandiosity apart?
The grandiosity comes mainly in advertising. This or that product or store is hyped as the "best in the world", or some similarly nonsensical claim. This is why Trump was called a "carnival barker" at one point, by the sitting President. He's all about hype, but doesn't really have all that much to offer in concrete terms.
@Dakini said:
The grandiosity comes mainly in advertising. This or that product or store is hyped as the "best in the world", or some similarly nonsensical claim.
If this were the case, why would it touch such a deep chord with people to the extent that it would become such a part of the election campaign?
I'm Australian and can't imagine that we'd have an election campaign based on 'make Australia great again'. Since when were we ever great to start with?
When I look at movies or read books by Americans, there's often a theme of a single-handedly overcoming the odds to become great.
But I digress... how does a person become aware of grandiosity through practice?
But I digress... how does a person become aware of grandiosity through practice?
That is a good question. Awareness.
As someone who has in inflated egoic gradiosity I often have to speak about lobster in the third person.
In other words we need an inner space to contemplate/become aware of self inflation in ourselves. You think you are humble? ... you may just be shy ... which is also a subtle form of protectionism ...
Grandiosity is thinking one has a chance to become a Buddha. Getting real may require reappraisal and change. Everything good in Dharma is about practice and change. If we are up to it, the inflated balloon may burst ...
[Said in my best Yoda voice] Plan this iz
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@Tiddlywinds said:
But I digress... how does a person become aware of grandiosity through practice?
I would say by exposing yourself to information and views that you aren't comfortable with, that don't necessarily reinforce your world view. Hopefully by doing so you could begin to see that maybe you and your ideas aren't always the best.
@Tiddlywinds said:
But I digress... how does a person become aware of grandiosity through practice?
I would say by exposing yourself to information and views that you aren't comfortable with, that don't necessarily reinforce your world view. Hopefully by doing so you could begin to see that maybe you and your ideas aren't always the best.
How can we see this if the ego is blinding us to it and we leap into greed, hatred and ignorance?
1
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
@Tiddlywinds wrote:
But I digress... how does a person become aware of grandiosity through practice?
If you can develop a love and appreciation for the earnest and the honest, the correctly represented truth, then at least other people's grandiosity quickly begins to grate. One's own grandiosity is usually hiding behind over-inflated egoic ideas, as friend @lobster was subtly hinting at, and delusion makes it that much harder to spot.
1
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@Tiddlywinds said:
But I digress... how does a person become aware of grandiosity through practice?
I would say by exposing yourself to information and views that you aren't comfortable with, that don't necessarily reinforce your world view. Hopefully by doing so you could begin to see that maybe you and your ideas aren't always the best.
How can we see this if the ego is blinding us to it and we leap into greed, hatred and ignorance?
They compare pride to a mountain peak, where information and ideas just run off and nothing sticks. So you make a fair point about the difficulty in even seeing the problem. I think convincing other people requires showing them examples of how you yourself burst your bubble. For yourself there is a distinction between knowing about it and actually seeing it. First you might learn about it and understand the truth of it but not directly see how or that you do it, in my experience practicing habits counter to the problem eventually allows one to see through the problem. So I'd say learn about things you don't know and get different perspectives, little by little as you start seeing that you don't know and aren't always right about everything your pride will be chipped away at.
There is something called the Dunning-Kruger effect where the less you know the more superior you feel about your knowledge and ability. The opposite is true too, that the more knowledgeable and capable you are the more likely you are to underestimate your competence.
@Dakini said:
The grandiosity comes mainly in advertising. This or that product or store is hyped as the "best in the world", or some similarly nonsensical claim.
If this were the case, why would it touch such a deep chord with people to the extent that it would become such a part of the election campaign?
I'm Australian and can't imagine that we'd have an election campaign based on 'make Australia great again'. Since when were we ever great to start with?
When I look at movies or read books by Americans, there's often a theme of a single-handedly overcoming the odds to become great.
But I digress... how does a person become aware of grandiosity through practice?
The slogan "Make America Great Again" was aimed at people who had been displaced by the collapse of manufacturing, the collapse of the home mortgage market in 2008, and other economic fallout. That's why it struck such a chord; people are out of work, or families are doubled up in one home after relatives became homeless, or they are underemployed in the service industry. There are a lot of unhappy people struggling to get by, and others not managing at all. There may also be a subtext there, relating to a certain sector's fears of being inundated by illegal workers and refugees who might be potential terrorists. People could read whatever they wanted into the slogan.
And I suppose the "great" meme refers back to post WWII, when the US helped Europe rebuild through the Marshal Plan. The US was not only unscathed by the war, it's economy had got back on its feet after the Great Depression via war manufacturing, and thrived after the war. Perhaps that's the point at which it evolved into a superpower? In any case, the economy boomed in the decades after the war, its image internationally was strong, in part due the assistance it gave Europe in rebuilding, so with the many economic setbacks since 2001, some people are nostalgic for those times. They just want everything to get back to "normal", as they perceive it.
What @Dakini says is pretty much right on. Living in a part of one of the states affected by those things, that is a major part of what went into Trump's campaign. Because while the federal government is touting how well we are recovering and adding jobs, the people in some states are thinking "Wait, what about us? We lost our jobs 3 years ago and there is no sign of them coming back. No one even remembers we are here." The other candidates mostly figured all was fine because the engine was chugging along just fine. They weren't paying attention to the brakes chirping in the background. It doesn't matter how good your engine is if you have brakes that are starting to fail, and that is what Trump took advantage of. The backbone of the country has been failing for a long time. He saw it and used it. No one else did. They were the forefront of what built America after WWII. They were recognized and noticed and thanked. Not anymore. And like a kid who just wants attention, any attention, the forgotten people jumped aboard no matter how negative it was, because someone finally saw them.
When you meditate and start looking deeply at things, you start to see beyond the carrot the ego is always dangling.
Also, "Make America Great Again" plays on people's desire to be proud of their country. Unfortunately, some of the dispossessed on the conservative side can't feel proud of a country that allows in vast numbers of illegal workers (no matter how much they're needed), welcomes Islamic refugees (though they're vetted abroad, and mainly only families are taken in), and ahem is under the stewardship of a Black President. That is the sad state of affairs. So the slogan subliminally appealed to those sentiments. Not to mention the actually campaign posturing, itself, by one of the candidates.
I have mixed feelings about this. Even though I did vote for Clinton, I did so mostly based on Trump's character, not because I thought she had a great vision. He does act like a bully and seems to appeal to our lower passions, while Clinton would just be more politics as usual. Just like many Americans I got emotionally involved in this election and it took me a few days to find inner balance again. Now that the dust settled, I see things a bit differently than I did in the heat of the election.
While Trump's person is still rather imperfect, to put it mildly, I find myself agreeing with many of his stated policies. I do think that open borders, both when it comes to illegal immigration and trade, are hurting our country. I am actually quite satisfied that this campaign brought forth concerns about globalization that so many of us have to the forefront.
As a legal first generation immigrant who is very familiar with our immigration sysyem I do not find Trump "anti-immigrant" as the Media has portayed him; wanting to control the flow of undocumented economic migrants does seem like a sensible and indeed the only correct position to me. Also, living in an urban area plagued by homelessness, I do not see why we would bring in hundreds of thousands refugees from the Middle East when there are so many Americans who lack decent shelter and food. Finally, is it not common sense that if a corporation wants to sell to Americans it should give back to them in some way, such as by employing them?
On the cultural front, I actually have been quite bothered by Political Correctness, another phenomenon that Trump has criticized. There are some taboo subjects in our society and expression seems to be quite stifled when it comes to those subjects. Race is an obvious one but also Islam, which emerged as a hot topic during this election season. As someone who studied Islam in some depth in college, I believe that in its present form it poses an existential threat to all other cultures. In practice, it often takes the form of an intolerant political ideology that has no issue with violence against any kind of dissenters and non-conformists. "The Left" clearly does not get that and was I a public figure who said what I just said, I would be crucified as if I were of Ku Klux Klan. I am quite happy that now there is an opening for honest discussion.
Finally, it is very clear to me that Main Stream Media, which whipped up so much hysteria about Trump (which at times I too got caught up in), is far from objective and is not exactly committed to facts. When I read such websites as Washington Post or CNN with a cool mind, I see a lot endless speculation about and endless regurgitation of what some public figure said, often taken out of context. At times, our media feels like a giant fear mongering machine rather than a simple source of information. I'll be honest, it gives me some satisfaction knowing that the machine failed to deliver, even with hundreds of million of dollars poured into it by corporations. The real eye opening moment for me, which showed whose voice the Media really is, was when it turned on Bernie near the end of the primaries. When there was some doubt that Clinton would be the nominee, Bernie suddenly started being portrayed as the bad guy, in a similar light as Trump himself!
...Don't get me wrong, I still would feel more at ease had the election turned out differently. I realize that Trump is somewhat of a loose cannon. All I am saying is the election was not some epic fight between Light and Darkness in which Light got defeated. That "Light" is actually quite out of touch and corrupt and for its own good probably needed that punch. I am hopeful that it will learn from its epic failure, reform itself, shed unnecessary baggage, and in the long run help contribute to a better society for us all.
Where do you get the impression that hundreds of thousands of refugees are coming to the US? Over a period of years in total, yes. We take in a very small fraction compared to other much smaller (land mass) countries. Did you know that every time there is a crisis in the world and we take people in, that someone worries those people are ruining our lives? Did you know they said the SAME things about refugees from WWII, and it turns out our country survived just fine? Did you know we took in 150,000 refugees in the mid 90s (per year) due to the Balkan war and again, we did just fine?
NO one has advocated for completely open borders or trade. Not a single person.
Studying Islam doesn't really teach you much of anything about it, and depends entirely on the scope of the classes and the perception of the teacher. Do you actually know Muslims and interact with them? Have you bothered to ask them their thoughts? Because the vast majority of them do NOT support any kind of takeover of the US or the world. Most are no different from Christians who think their religion is the one truth, and while that view can lend itself to rigidity, that doesn't mean they are trying to take over the planet. If any religion has sought to do that, it has been Christianity. But of course most of us don't, and haven't, considered Christians to be lunatics trying to take over the planet because we know lots of them. The same, for most of us, is not true of Muslims.
@karasti said:
Because the vast majority of them do NOT support any kind of takeover of the US or the world.
I'm not in the US but the UK where much of the same stuff gets regurgitated. I agree with @shadowleaver with the Media conversation which is why I don't watch the telly, read the 'news', facebook etc. A quick squizz on the Australian ABC website is about enough for me and it's usually so parochial as to be pretty much meaningless and seems to focus on things like a cat's up a tree. For the important stuff, as far as I can figure out the most neutral news you can get is Al Jazeera. So I'd recommend it if you want a more balanced and nuanced view of news.
I agree with @karasti about the Muslim community. I have good friends who are muslim - beautiful welcoming warmhearted people who are just really kind people with a focused devout approach to life (in much the same way that we have on this blog). I asked my friend why Muslims aren't against IS and he said, we are but no-one will hear us. It's not popular for politicians to find nuanced anything let alone a scapegoat community. Before 9/11 (which is how many years ago now?) there wasn't much antagonism.
@shadowleaver, I'm just putting an idea on the table - how much is the anti-muslim vibe a media black/white issue like other issues in politics?
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Not looking for a political discussion but will touch on what you said about Muslims. I actually have come across a few and have found most to be terrific people. One of my favorite bosses was actually a devout Muslim. So I know beyond any reasonable doubt that Muslims can be great people.
But these are Muslims here, in the infidel West. Most Islamic countries are a different story, however. In many places such innocuous deeds as changing your religion, choosing a husband or living a gay lifestyle can literally get you killed. Not a single majority Muslim country can be said to be "free" in the Western sense. Do not take my word for it, check out human rights reports for places like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran etc. These are public and free of charge.
If you look at Europe which has a much larger Muslim population than the US (and less economucally integrated), you will see similar patterns re-emerge. Honor killings, violence against Islam critics and bad sexual behavior are well covered by the news. I do sincerely believe that Islam itself has something to do with these acts. Afterall, its founder was a warrior waging a religious war, not just a spiritual person like Christ or Buddha. And many of its texts do unambiguously call for violence.
...Lately I have become a big fan of Sam Harris. Great secular liberal thinker interested in spirituality, religion and politics. He also believes that Islam as it is presently approached is a big problem. I encourage you to check him out if this subject is of intetest to you. That is one guy who can never be accused of being a right wing nut job.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Not looking for a political discussion but will touch on what you said about Muslims. I actually have come across a few and have found most to be terrific people. One of my favorite bosses was actually a devout Muslim. So I know beyond any reasonable doubt that Muslims can be great people.
But these are Muslims here, in the infidel West. Most Islamic countries are a different story, however. In many places such innocuous deeds as changing your religion, choosing a husband or living a gay lifestyle can literally get you killed. Not a single majority Muslim country can be said to be "free" in the Western sense. Do not take my word for it, check out human rights reports for places like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran etc. These are public and free of charge.
If you look at Europe which has a much larger Muslim population than the US (and less economucally integrated), you will see similar patterns re-emerge. Honor killings, violence against Islam critics and bad sexual behavior are well covered by the news. I do sincerely believe that Islam itself has something to do with these acts. Afterall, its founder was a warrior waging a religious war, not just a spiritual person like Christ or Buddha. And many of its texts do unambiguously call for violence.
...Lately I have become a big fan of Sam Harris. Great secular liberal thinker interested in spirituality, religion and politics. He also believes that Islam as it is presently approached is a big problem. I encourage you to check him out if this subject is of intetest to you. That is one guy who can never be accused of being a right wing nut job.
I also really like Sam, I think he is great, clear thinker who thinks outside the standard left/right box. I haven't got on board with his critique of Islam though, I'm still of the opinion that the source of the problem in the Islamic world is cultural and tribal more than religious. Christianity acted the same way many years ago and Muslims in western countries, and mixed into Islamic countries, are much more moderate and peaceful.
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
"Honour" killings (ie ie, wilful murder) and forced marriages (ie, 'legalised' rape and slavery) are a big social problem here in the UK. There are organisations set up, often by, or prominently including, Muslim women (and some men) hell-bent on eradicating such practices.
My understanding in talking to some Muslims about the violence that is supposedly inherent within Islam is that western understanding is lacking. That is it somewhat like the Bible, not meant to be taken entirely as a way of life, but more so a way to point out mistakes of the past and look to the future. That the Quran is set up in that way, past, present and future, and that much of the violence pointed to is meant to be left i the past as a way of learning. And just as you have Christians who quote the bible as an excuse for mistreating gay people, you have Muslims who do the same with the Quran, largely lead by religious leaders who are "doing it wrong." But that makes it a problem with those people, those leaders. Not inherently within the religion itself. We aren't a Muslim nation obviously, but we use Christianity to withhold rights from people in the US all the time, and a lot of people would prefer we do it even more. It's not much different. It's just that we've mostly moved on from killing in the name of God to just treating people like dirt.
I was thinking about this conversation today and remembered that in Sydney there is quite a problem with the Lebanese community, especially against women and gays.
These people are Christian. The parents came from small rural patriarchal villages. The sons have grown up feeling marginalised and macho, an especially unpleasant mix.
0
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
Not looking for a political discussion but will touch on what you said about Muslims. I actually have come across a few and have found most to be terrific people. One of my favorite bosses was actually a devout Muslim. So I know beyond any reasonable doubt that Muslims can be great people.
But these are Muslims here, in the infidel West. Most Islamic countries are a different story, however. In many places such innocuous deeds as changing your religion, choosing a husband or living a gay lifestyle can literally get you killed. Not a single majority Muslim country can be said to be "free" in the Western sense. Do not take my word for it, check out human rights reports for places like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran etc. These are public and free of charge.
If you look at Europe which has a much larger Muslim population than the US (and less economucally integrated), you will see similar patterns re-emerge. Honor killings, violence against Islam critics and bad sexual behavior are well covered by the news. I do sincerely believe that Islam itself has something to do with these acts. Afterall, its founder was a warrior waging a religious war, not just a spiritual person like Christ or Buddha. And many of its texts do unambiguously call for violence.
...Lately I have become a big fan of Sam Harris. Great secular liberal thinker interested in spirituality, religion and politics. He also believes that Islam as it is presently approached is a big problem. I encourage you to check him out if this subject is of interest to you. That is one guy who can never be accused of being a right wing nut job.
I also really like Sam, I think he is great, clear thinker who thinks outside the standard left/right box. I haven't got on board with his critique of Islam though, I'm still of the opinion that the source of the problem in the Islamic world is cultural and tribal more than religious. Christianity acted the same way many years ago and Muslims in western countries, and mixed into Islamic countries, are much more moderate and peaceful.
I came across Sam Harris' podcast with Ayaan Hirsi Ali about Islam not long ago, and it somewhat shocked me, but I could not deny that they made a lot of sense. There is a certain proportion of immigrants who do integrate, and also a large fraction who do not, and who continue to cause problems by inappropriate sexual behaviour and other things. It is as if they bring their bad habits with them and don't manage to shed them despite a better environment.
But a bigger problem is that discussing it is still largely taboo here. There is an adherence to tolerance, as if we should be able to get along with anyone, but I don't think that is true for these people. The only politicians who talk about it are the far right people like Wilders, and in that way the central politicians cede this important discussion point to them.
@Kerome said:
But a bigger problem is that discussing it is still largely taboo here. There is an adherence to tolerance, as if we should be able to get along with anyone, but I don't think that is true for these people. The only politicians who talk about it are the far right people like Wilders, and in that way the central politicians cede this important discussion point to them.
I was thinking when typing this reply that I don't know what the conversation would be, how much of it relates to fear, how much is a vague sense of something foreboding but not sure what. My sense is that it's difficult to talk about a subject which has an edge of exclusion about it. What is the conversation you'd like to have?
If you strip away the 'narrative' part, what are the feelings underlying the conversation? Is it fear, confusion, frustration, concern?
When this conversation started, I thought it was a 'racist' conversation but now I'm not sure. I don't think I understand what you're saying - it's like I almost can't really hear you because I'm so reactive to the topic of racism.
And yet, I spent time yesterday with someone who was talking about how the Jewish community like to keep fairly segregated (only marrying Jewish people, kosher food, etc). Maybe it's this same type of segregation?
I'm trying my best to understand what you're talking about - so forgive any sense of rudeness.
0
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
@Kerome said:
But a bigger problem is that discussing it is still largely taboo here. There is an adherence to tolerance, as if we should be able to get along with anyone, but I don't think that is true for these people. The only politicians who talk about it are the far right people like Wilders, and in that way the central politicians cede this important discussion point to them.
I was thinking when typing this reply that I don't know what the conversation would be, how much of it relates to fear, how much is a vague sense of something foreboding but not sure what. My sense is that it's difficult to talk about a subject which has an edge of exclusion about it. What is the conversation you'd like to have?
I'd frame it as "How do we keep the good features of Western society and cope with the bad elements among immigrants? Should we limit immigration? What is the best way to deal with those who refuse to integrate?"
A little bit over 5% of the population in the Netherlands is Muslim. Thats more than ten times as many as there are Buddhists. And there are significant problems with gangs of Moroccan youths and other undesirable elements. Some of this is about their attitude to sex. We've had demonstrations of Turks in support of Erdogan here.
I dislike far-right political parties, and abhor racists, but at the same time can't deny that there are problems, and that it's an important issue for many people here as well as in the USA.
I also really like Sam, I think he is great, clear thinker who thinks outside the standard left/right box. I haven't got on board with his critique of Islam though, I'm still of the opinion that the source of the problem in the Islamic world is cultural and tribal more than religious. Christianity acted the same way many years ago and Muslims in western countries, and mixed into Islamic countries, are much more moderate and peaceful.
Someone tipped me off to a recent 60 Minutes episode in which they interviewed the King of Jordan about Islam. It was very enlightening; he said that there have always been extremists in Islam, and that in the past, they were always kept in check by the moderates. I don't recall that it was discussed why they're out of control now, or how they got that way, and so forth. But the fact that he characterized the side of Islam that's generating all the buzz these days as "extremism", should make everyone who insists on lumping all of Islam into one pigeonhole reevaluate their opinion.
@upekka, thanks for the wise warning. I think this is an extremely difficult and painful topic and right speech is warranted. For those joining the conversation, it would be good to write from the heart and with sensitivity. I feel it's worthwhile to write about the nuance, the internal conflicts.
@Kerome is raising a confusing and complicated topic.
In Australia until the 1970s, the policy for Indigenous communities was assimilation. It has not had a good outcome for generations both during this time and now.
Australia has a good number of people fighting in Syria, children of people who left war-torn zones to seek a more open-minded society. Parents who are devastated that their children are so conservative.
For me, I see that society as a whole is more conservative than in the 1970s. Although there was a backbone in society that was very racist and sexist, there was a seeking to break out of the rigidity. Today, it feels like we're breaking back into rigidity, into conformity. I feel there's a sense of being lost and looking for solid ground.
My ex-husband is French and he was very anti-Muslim but he grew up in an area which had a high population of Muslim people. I've never lived in an area which has a high concentration of anyone other than White or Shanghai Chinese. So, in all honesty I don't know what it's like to be living in a community where there are tensions, where people feel disenfranchised from the mainstream. People who struggle to get work because of their name, who hold a faith which has become demonised, where women are told to wear less clothing, to expose themselves more.
That said, I went to a university which had 50% muslim and 50% everyone else. I had to do research experiments which involved touching both men and women on their chest. Everyone was really kind. If anything, the warmer people were muslim.
But the fact that he characterized the side of Islam that's generating all the buzz these days as "extremism", should make everyone who insists on lumping all of Islam into one pigeonhole reevaluate their opinion.
Islam is a societal religion which goes from Indonesia to the Indian sub-continent to China, to the former Soviet Union, to the Middle East, to Africa.
But the fact that he characterized the side of Islam that's generating all the buzz these days as "extremism", should make everyone who insists on lumping all of Islam into one pigeonhole reevaluate their opinion.
Islam is a societal religion which goes from Indonesia to the Indian sub-continent to China, to the former Soviet Union, to the Middle East, to Africa.
i m from melbourne, australia
R U somewhere around?
if so PM me, thanks
if there anyone who can translate sinhala into english or tamil into english and like to help me to translate what i have been writing, it would be much appreciated
i know a publisher who ready to publish what i write
so the one who translate it can get the translating authourship of the book in other words i do not hold the right of the authorship (copy right) for those two books
if there is anyone please pm me
thanks
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I am ever mindful of something a late Politician, Norman Tebbit once said:
"You can have multi-Nationalism. You cannot have Multi-Culturalism"
I think he was absolutely right. He had a formidable sense of Politics & people, and was much underestimated and under-valued. Certainly there were some views of his I would dispute, but I had - and still have - a great deal of respect for him.
@federica said:
I am ever mindful of something a late Politician, Norman Tebbit once said:
"You can have multi-Nationalism. You cannot have Multi-Culturalism"
I think he was absolutely right. He had a formidable sense of Politics & people, and was much underestimated and under-valued. Certainly there were some views of his I would dispute, but I had - and still have - a great deal of respect for him.
Just so I'm clear - can you let me know what multi-nationalism means and how it differs from multi-culturalism? (compare & contrast?)
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Multi-national means people from many countries, living in one nation.
Mulri-culturalism is all thee people exercising their desired rights to practise their lifestyle within an enclave that is not originally geared for them to do so.
A frequent argument put forward by British nationals, regarding foreign inhabitants is that, if they wish to live in the UK, they should prescribe to a British way of life.
The objections to stores selling produce specifically marketed for a minority sector of the population, or places of worship constructed to accommodate those who are not of the christian faith, are both rife and vocal.
I live in a British city where people object to lots of things. I got into trouble at work because, to the PA of a senior staffer, I forwarded a form to be signed and wrote a message to her to ask her boss to sign it. I wrote it on a post-it note instead of a 'with compliments' slip. I got a formal reprimand.
So is the best answer to the problems with people immigrating to refuse to allow them access to safety and stability? It seems to me the better answer is to help them see what it is like to achieve those things, which most cannot do in their home countries. It is a huge culture shock. Many of them are suffering PTSD, no doubt, and they are not put into cultures that they have no clue about and have probably largely been told lies about. Their entire upbringing is based on a set of rules that no longer applies, and that has to be pretty hard. Like when a western woman is refused entry to a country because of a tattoo or the UK woman who was jailed for reporting a sexual assault (in Dubai I think). We do what our culture has taught us, and find out quickly that that is not the way in another place. It's a steep learning curve. Instead of looking at what we can do solely to keep them from "acting out" (for lack of better phrase) what about looking at what we can do to better help them succeed in their new countries?
In my state, there are many programs in place to help with this. They are assigned a volunteer to help them get to language classes. To help them learn how to get jobs, use mass transit. They take classes to learn about the culture. They are not simply arriving with no guidance whatsoever, and maybe that is a place that other states, and other countries, could do better with. In these countries where they are so widely accepting SO many refugees, it is fair to them to accept them without the resources to properly educate and help them integrate?
1
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
In my state, there are many programs in place to help with this. They are assigned a volunteer to help them get to language classes. To help them learn how to get jobs, use mass transit. They take classes to learn about the culture. They are not simply arriving with no guidance whatsoever, and maybe that is a place that other states, and other countries, could do better with. In these countries where they are so widely accepting SO many refugees, it is fair to them to accept them without the resources to properly educate and help them integrate?
Compare this approach with one that demonizes and is aggressive towards immigrants, which one is going to make it more likely that they assimilate?
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
It's also a question, @karasti, of gleaning the wheat from the chaff. Tragically, not all those who purport to be economic or conflict refugees are who they claim to be. Neither do all of those coming to our shores legitimately, come with good intentions.
We have a spate of high-skill shoplifting crews working London at the moment, and they are known to be an exclusively Eastern European team. And I'm talking hundreds, men, women and children.
Our news broadcasts are peppered with accounts of law-breaking incidents, and sadly, those who are not native to the UK, feature frequently and prominently.
It is these groups of people who give the law-abiding, sincere and genuine incomers, the poor reputation and they are therefore all viewed with a level of mistrust....
I'm not suggesting that it should be accepted, of course. Just asking how much of that horrid behavior is cultural, or at least a result of their fractured experience and all that they know, and how we can help with those situations.
@karasti said:
I'm not suggesting that it should be accepted, of course. Just asking how much of that horrid behavior is cultural, or at least a result of their fractured experience and all that they know, and how we can help with those situations.
I read a book for uni called 'the Seamstress' about a Jewish woman in the 2nd world war having survived in Romania. When the war finished, she had trouble getting her rations, becoming friends with her neighbours etc because of the social fear of Jews from the previous 15 years of negative press. When she returned to 'normal' society and was struggling with the simple act of being human, she said something along the lines of 'it's true that the teenagers who'd been in the camps were running wild and being bad, but I'm a married woman with a baby who's just trying to feed my family'. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Seamstress-Survival-Sara-Tuvel-Bernstein/dp/0425166309/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1480137973&sr=8-1&keywords=9780425166307
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited December 2016
I happen to think, as an outside observer, that the entire election programme was an utter shambles and a travesty from start to finish, but then, I don't have a very high opinion of Politics and politicians... If any changes should be implemented, the whole process should be scrapped and the run for election done again, when already-qualified Politicians with reasonable records, should run....
But I don't think it really portends hope, unfortunately, if by hope you mean that the EC will vote for Hillary because she won the popular vote. This elector wants to find and vote for a different Republican.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
I don't want Trump for president either but the if the electoral college voted for someone else en masse that would be a total catastrophe for democracy. People's (particularly the half of the country that voted for Trump) faith in the system would be shattered and who knows what level of rioting or violence ( a lot of the Trump supporters are already prepping in case they need to overthrow the government) would follow.
Comments
I'm even less impressed with Bannon than I was before. It doesn't seem to me that Trump and his team have any intention of considering all Americans. They only want to control the country for the next 50 years to get what they want. It's a comfort to know that the man advising the president likes the power of darkness, Satan, Dick Cheney and Darth Vader.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/steve-bannon-trump-tower-interview-trumps-strategist-plots-new-political-movement-948747
Good thing we have better powers. Dharma Super Powers: Activate!
Do not forget that he is a master at showmanship, and he intuitively understands his audience, far better than we do. What we call a "hollow sham" will be seen as "mission accomplished" by the believers. I will not be surprised if four years turns into eight.
I'm told it was in the news today that Trump has said he's going to either eliminate or privatize Medicare, Medicaid and one other program. That is definitely not what his constituency elected him to do. It makes no sense; how are people to get healthcare, then? It sounds like it's his way of balancing the budget--jettisoning programs that cost the government money. (If that's what he's aiming to do, he should start with winding down the wars, first.)
This is alarming. Terrifying, even! It's like when the World Bank tells 3rd World countries to privatize all gov't services, end any welfare programs, etc. to balance their budgets; it's an austerity program. Did he really say this? I haven't been able to get the newspaper today, and I don't have a TV.
It is a little unclear and depends what you read @Dakini. But despite his promises not to touch SS, Medicare and Medicaid, the people he is putting in those spots have been long term advocates of privatizing it, and one of his advisers has said it is a goal in the first 6-8 months to make "major overhauls."
Here are some links in a Google search.
I don't have TV either and the online media is out to bait for clicks -- so I decided to wait on this one until it actually turns into something. It seems like T would be severely shooting himself in the foot if he were to antagonize all those older voters who put him in the White House -- unless he clads this in some more lies to fool his brain-washed, gullible followers.
He seems to think out loud about policies and then checks on how it plays out. He doesn't have a clue, so he plays it by ear (or ratings). The press loves it, as it never gets dull - but it is very inefficient and damaging for the country. And devastating for the individual with health problems! Meanwhile the press is "just reporting" as erratically as the policies come tumbling out.
Now it's the boomers that are under attack, and maybe - just maybe - he's picking the wrong group of people to intimidate.
The more he screws around with this, the longer the rope is getting to hang himself with. Not a nice Buddhist visual, but hopefully an accurate parallel.
It is certainly scary to see him attack Medicare but he cannot eliminate it (can he?). He is messing with our minds and the freaking mainstream media is - as ususal - lapping it up to make a buck -- not to inform or to protest. They have no incentive to change. $$$ rule on every level.
Cenk Yugur of The Young Turks has an uncanny intuition/insight on how Trump (and any other politician) thinks.
http://www.ora.tv/politicking/2016/11/18/democrats-regroup-name-bernie-sanders-to-leadership-role ---- starting at ca 8:00
He can effectively lay waste to those programs using reconciliation (from what I understand in what I am reading). They only need the majority, and not the extra 60 votes. So them already having a majority is a concern but I could see enough republicans standing against him on that if only to save their own careers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress)
This article talks about how it works but doesn't explain what reconciliation is as much
http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2016/11/10/will-president-trump-cut-medicare-and-social-security-as-well-as-taxes/#4277097ea43f
I didn't see much of the election stuff but it sounded like a lot of what he got in for was 'making America great again'.
I've never been to the US but from what I gather there appears to be a bit of grandiosity within the US culture. As a dharma practitioner, how do you pull grandiosity apart?
The grandiosity comes mainly in advertising. This or that product or store is hyped as the "best in the world", or some similarly nonsensical claim. This is why Trump was called a "carnival barker" at one point, by the sitting President. He's all about hype, but doesn't really have all that much to offer in concrete terms.
If this were the case, why would it touch such a deep chord with people to the extent that it would become such a part of the election campaign?
I'm Australian and can't imagine that we'd have an election campaign based on 'make Australia great again'. Since when were we ever great to start with?
When I look at movies or read books by Americans, there's often a theme of a single-handedly overcoming the odds to become great.
But I digress... how does a person become aware of grandiosity through practice?
That is a good question. Awareness.
As someone who has in inflated egoic gradiosity
I often have to speak about lobster in the third person.
In other words we need an inner space to contemplate/become aware of self inflation in ourselves. You think you are humble? ... you may just be shy ... which is also a subtle form of protectionism ...
Grandiosity is thinking one has a chance to become a Buddha. Getting real may require reappraisal and change. Everything good in Dharma is about practice and change. If we are up to it, the inflated balloon may burst ...
[Said in my best Yoda voice] Plan this iz
I would say by exposing yourself to information and views that you aren't comfortable with, that don't necessarily reinforce your world view. Hopefully by doing so you could begin to see that maybe you and your ideas aren't always the best.
How can we see this if the ego is blinding us to it and we leap into greed, hatred and ignorance?
If you can develop a love and appreciation for the earnest and the honest, the correctly represented truth, then at least other people's grandiosity quickly begins to grate. One's own grandiosity is usually hiding behind over-inflated egoic ideas, as friend @lobster was subtly hinting at, and delusion makes it that much harder to spot.
They compare pride to a mountain peak, where information and ideas just run off and nothing sticks. So you make a fair point about the difficulty in even seeing the problem. I think convincing other people requires showing them examples of how you yourself burst your bubble. For yourself there is a distinction between knowing about it and actually seeing it. First you might learn about it and understand the truth of it but not directly see how or that you do it, in my experience practicing habits counter to the problem eventually allows one to see through the problem. So I'd say learn about things you don't know and get different perspectives, little by little as you start seeing that you don't know and aren't always right about everything your pride will be chipped away at.
There is something called the Dunning-Kruger effect where the less you know the more superior you feel about your knowledge and ability. The opposite is true too, that the more knowledgeable and capable you are the more likely you are to underestimate your competence.
The slogan "Make America Great Again" was aimed at people who had been displaced by the collapse of manufacturing, the collapse of the home mortgage market in 2008, and other economic fallout. That's why it struck such a chord; people are out of work, or families are doubled up in one home after relatives became homeless, or they are underemployed in the service industry. There are a lot of unhappy people struggling to get by, and others not managing at all. There may also be a subtext there, relating to a certain sector's fears of being inundated by illegal workers and refugees who might be potential terrorists. People could read whatever they wanted into the slogan.
And I suppose the "great" meme refers back to post WWII, when the US helped Europe rebuild through the Marshal Plan. The US was not only unscathed by the war, it's economy had got back on its feet after the Great Depression via war manufacturing, and thrived after the war. Perhaps that's the point at which it evolved into a superpower? In any case, the economy boomed in the decades after the war, its image internationally was strong, in part due the assistance it gave Europe in rebuilding, so with the many economic setbacks since 2001, some people are nostalgic for those times. They just want everything to get back to "normal", as they perceive it.
You are asking all the right questions
... and getting good advice from @Kerome and @person
The monkey mind ego does not serve us. We have to train it, tame it and eventually 'ride the tiger home'.
What @Dakini says is pretty much right on. Living in a part of one of the states affected by those things, that is a major part of what went into Trump's campaign. Because while the federal government is touting how well we are recovering and adding jobs, the people in some states are thinking "Wait, what about us? We lost our jobs 3 years ago and there is no sign of them coming back. No one even remembers we are here." The other candidates mostly figured all was fine because the engine was chugging along just fine. They weren't paying attention to the brakes chirping in the background. It doesn't matter how good your engine is if you have brakes that are starting to fail, and that is what Trump took advantage of. The backbone of the country has been failing for a long time. He saw it and used it. No one else did. They were the forefront of what built America after WWII. They were recognized and noticed and thanked. Not anymore. And like a kid who just wants attention, any attention, the forgotten people jumped aboard no matter how negative it was, because someone finally saw them.
When you meditate and start looking deeply at things, you start to see beyond the carrot the ego is always dangling.
Some good insights from @karasti.
Also, "Make America Great Again" plays on people's desire to be proud of their country. Unfortunately, some of the dispossessed on the conservative side can't feel proud of a country that allows in vast numbers of illegal workers (no matter how much they're needed), welcomes Islamic refugees (though they're vetted abroad, and mainly only families are taken in), and ahem is under the stewardship of a Black President. That is the sad state of affairs. So the slogan subliminally appealed to those sentiments. Not to mention the actually campaign posturing, itself, by one of the candidates.
I have mixed feelings about this. Even though I did vote for Clinton, I did so mostly based on Trump's character, not because I thought she had a great vision. He does act like a bully and seems to appeal to our lower passions, while Clinton would just be more politics as usual. Just like many Americans I got emotionally involved in this election and it took me a few days to find inner balance again. Now that the dust settled, I see things a bit differently than I did in the heat of the election.
While Trump's person is still rather imperfect, to put it mildly, I find myself agreeing with many of his stated policies. I do think that open borders, both when it comes to illegal immigration and trade, are hurting our country. I am actually quite satisfied that this campaign brought forth concerns about globalization that so many of us have to the forefront.
As a legal first generation immigrant who is very familiar with our immigration sysyem I do not find Trump "anti-immigrant" as the Media has portayed him; wanting to control the flow of undocumented economic migrants does seem like a sensible and indeed the only correct position to me. Also, living in an urban area plagued by homelessness, I do not see why we would bring in hundreds of thousands refugees from the Middle East when there are so many Americans who lack decent shelter and food. Finally, is it not common sense that if a corporation wants to sell to Americans it should give back to them in some way, such as by employing them?
On the cultural front, I actually have been quite bothered by Political Correctness, another phenomenon that Trump has criticized. There are some taboo subjects in our society and expression seems to be quite stifled when it comes to those subjects. Race is an obvious one but also Islam, which emerged as a hot topic during this election season. As someone who studied Islam in some depth in college, I believe that in its present form it poses an existential threat to all other cultures. In practice, it often takes the form of an intolerant political ideology that has no issue with violence against any kind of dissenters and non-conformists. "The Left" clearly does not get that and was I a public figure who said what I just said, I would be crucified as if I were of Ku Klux Klan. I am quite happy that now there is an opening for honest discussion.
Finally, it is very clear to me that Main Stream Media, which whipped up so much hysteria about Trump (which at times I too got caught up in), is far from objective and is not exactly committed to facts. When I read such websites as Washington Post or CNN with a cool mind, I see a lot endless speculation about and endless regurgitation of what some public figure said, often taken out of context. At times, our media feels like a giant fear mongering machine rather than a simple source of information. I'll be honest, it gives me some satisfaction knowing that the machine failed to deliver, even with hundreds of million of dollars poured into it by corporations. The real eye opening moment for me, which showed whose voice the Media really is, was when it turned on Bernie near the end of the primaries. When there was some doubt that Clinton would be the nominee, Bernie suddenly started being portrayed as the bad guy, in a similar light as Trump himself!
...Don't get me wrong, I still would feel more at ease had the election turned out differently. I realize that Trump is somewhat of a loose cannon. All I am saying is the election was not some epic fight between Light and Darkness in which Light got defeated. That "Light" is actually quite out of touch and corrupt and for its own good probably needed that punch. I am hopeful that it will learn from its epic failure, reform itself, shed unnecessary baggage, and in the long run help contribute to a better society for us all.
Where do you get the impression that hundreds of thousands of refugees are coming to the US? Over a period of years in total, yes. We take in a very small fraction compared to other much smaller (land mass) countries. Did you know that every time there is a crisis in the world and we take people in, that someone worries those people are ruining our lives? Did you know they said the SAME things about refugees from WWII, and it turns out our country survived just fine? Did you know we took in 150,000 refugees in the mid 90s (per year) due to the Balkan war and again, we did just fine?
NO one has advocated for completely open borders or trade. Not a single person.
Studying Islam doesn't really teach you much of anything about it, and depends entirely on the scope of the classes and the perception of the teacher. Do you actually know Muslims and interact with them? Have you bothered to ask them their thoughts? Because the vast majority of them do NOT support any kind of takeover of the US or the world. Most are no different from Christians who think their religion is the one truth, and while that view can lend itself to rigidity, that doesn't mean they are trying to take over the planet. If any religion has sought to do that, it has been Christianity. But of course most of us don't, and haven't, considered Christians to be lunatics trying to take over the planet because we know lots of them. The same, for most of us, is not true of Muslims.
I'm not in the US but the UK where much of the same stuff gets regurgitated. I agree with @shadowleaver with the Media conversation which is why I don't watch the telly, read the 'news', facebook etc. A quick squizz on the Australian ABC website is about enough for me and it's usually so parochial as to be pretty much meaningless and seems to focus on things like a cat's up a tree. For the important stuff, as far as I can figure out the most neutral news you can get is Al Jazeera. So I'd recommend it if you want a more balanced and nuanced view of news.
I agree with @karasti about the Muslim community. I have good friends who are muslim - beautiful welcoming warmhearted people who are just really kind people with a focused devout approach to life (in much the same way that we have on this blog). I asked my friend why Muslims aren't against IS and he said, we are but no-one will hear us. It's not popular for politicians to find nuanced anything let alone a scapegoat community. Before 9/11 (which is how many years ago now?) there wasn't much antagonism.
@shadowleaver, I'm just putting an idea on the table - how much is the anti-muslim vibe a media black/white issue like other issues in politics?
"We are, but no-one will hear us"...
http://www.mintpressnews.com/media-blackout-millions-muslims-march-isis-iraq/222443/
@karasti :
Not looking for a political discussion but will touch on what you said about Muslims. I actually have come across a few and have found most to be terrific people. One of my favorite bosses was actually a devout Muslim. So I know beyond any reasonable doubt that Muslims can be great people.
But these are Muslims here, in the infidel West. Most Islamic countries are a different story, however. In many places such innocuous deeds as changing your religion, choosing a husband or living a gay lifestyle can literally get you killed. Not a single majority Muslim country can be said to be "free" in the Western sense. Do not take my word for it, check out human rights reports for places like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran etc. These are public and free of charge.
If you look at Europe which has a much larger Muslim population than the US (and less economucally integrated), you will see similar patterns re-emerge. Honor killings, violence against Islam critics and bad sexual behavior are well covered by the news. I do sincerely believe that Islam itself has something to do with these acts. Afterall, its founder was a warrior waging a religious war, not just a spiritual person like Christ or Buddha. And many of its texts do unambiguously call for violence.
...Lately I have become a big fan of Sam Harris. Great secular liberal thinker interested in spirituality, religion and politics. He also believes that Islam as it is presently approached is a big problem. I encourage you to check him out if this subject is of intetest to you. That is one guy who can never be accused of being a right wing nut job.
I also really like Sam, I think he is great, clear thinker who thinks outside the standard left/right box. I haven't got on board with his critique of Islam though, I'm still of the opinion that the source of the problem in the Islamic world is cultural and tribal more than religious. Christianity acted the same way many years ago and Muslims in western countries, and mixed into Islamic countries, are much more moderate and peaceful.
"Honour" killings (ie ie, wilful murder) and forced marriages (ie, 'legalised' rape and slavery) are a big social problem here in the UK. There are organisations set up, often by, or prominently including, Muslim women (and some men) hell-bent on eradicating such practices.
My understanding in talking to some Muslims about the violence that is supposedly inherent within Islam is that western understanding is lacking. That is it somewhat like the Bible, not meant to be taken entirely as a way of life, but more so a way to point out mistakes of the past and look to the future. That the Quran is set up in that way, past, present and future, and that much of the violence pointed to is meant to be left i the past as a way of learning. And just as you have Christians who quote the bible as an excuse for mistreating gay people, you have Muslims who do the same with the Quran, largely lead by religious leaders who are "doing it wrong." But that makes it a problem with those people, those leaders. Not inherently within the religion itself. We aren't a Muslim nation obviously, but we use Christianity to withhold rights from people in the US all the time, and a lot of people would prefer we do it even more. It's not much different. It's just that we've mostly moved on from killing in the name of God to just treating people like dirt.
I was thinking about this conversation today and remembered that in Sydney there is quite a problem with the Lebanese community, especially against women and gays.
These people are Christian. The parents came from small rural patriarchal villages. The sons have grown up feeling marginalised and macho, an especially unpleasant mix.
I came across Sam Harris' podcast with Ayaan Hirsi Ali about Islam not long ago, and it somewhat shocked me, but I could not deny that they made a lot of sense. There is a certain proportion of immigrants who do integrate, and also a large fraction who do not, and who continue to cause problems by inappropriate sexual behaviour and other things. It is as if they bring their bad habits with them and don't manage to shed them despite a better environment.
But a bigger problem is that discussing it is still largely taboo here. There is an adherence to tolerance, as if we should be able to get along with anyone, but I don't think that is true for these people. The only politicians who talk about it are the far right people like Wilders, and in that way the central politicians cede this important discussion point to them.
I was thinking when typing this reply that I don't know what the conversation would be, how much of it relates to fear, how much is a vague sense of something foreboding but not sure what. My sense is that it's difficult to talk about a subject which has an edge of exclusion about it. What is the conversation you'd like to have?
If you strip away the 'narrative' part, what are the feelings underlying the conversation? Is it fear, confusion, frustration, concern?
When this conversation started, I thought it was a 'racist' conversation but now I'm not sure. I don't think I understand what you're saying - it's like I almost can't really hear you because I'm so reactive to the topic of racism.
And yet, I spent time yesterday with someone who was talking about how the Jewish community like to keep fairly segregated (only marrying Jewish people, kosher food, etc). Maybe it's this same type of segregation?
I'm trying my best to understand what you're talking about - so forgive any sense of rudeness.
I'd frame it as "How do we keep the good features of Western society and cope with the bad elements among immigrants? Should we limit immigration? What is the best way to deal with those who refuse to integrate?"
A little bit over 5% of the population in the Netherlands is Muslim. Thats more than ten times as many as there are Buddhists. And there are significant problems with gangs of Moroccan youths and other undesirable elements. Some of this is about their attitude to sex. We've had demonstrations of Turks in support of Erdogan here.
I dislike far-right political parties, and abhor racists, but at the same time can't deny that there are problems, and that it's an important issue for many people here as well as in the USA.
the thing came into mind and i am sending it out now is 'better be silent'
Someone tipped me off to a recent 60 Minutes episode in which they interviewed the King of Jordan about Islam. It was very enlightening; he said that there have always been extremists in Islam, and that in the past, they were always kept in check by the moderates. I don't recall that it was discussed why they're out of control now, or how they got that way, and so forth. But the fact that he characterized the side of Islam that's generating all the buzz these days as "extremism", should make everyone who insists on lumping all of Islam into one pigeonhole reevaluate their opinion.
@upekka, thanks for the wise warning. I think this is an extremely difficult and painful topic and right speech is warranted. For those joining the conversation, it would be good to write from the heart and with sensitivity. I feel it's worthwhile to write about the nuance, the internal conflicts.
@Kerome is raising a confusing and complicated topic.
In Australia until the 1970s, the policy for Indigenous communities was assimilation. It has not had a good outcome for generations both during this time and now.
Australia has a good number of people fighting in Syria, children of people who left war-torn zones to seek a more open-minded society. Parents who are devastated that their children are so conservative.
For me, I see that society as a whole is more conservative than in the 1970s. Although there was a backbone in society that was very racist and sexist, there was a seeking to break out of the rigidity. Today, it feels like we're breaking back into rigidity, into conformity. I feel there's a sense of being lost and looking for solid ground.
My ex-husband is French and he was very anti-Muslim but he grew up in an area which had a high population of Muslim people. I've never lived in an area which has a high concentration of anyone other than White or Shanghai Chinese. So, in all honesty I don't know what it's like to be living in a community where there are tensions, where people feel disenfranchised from the mainstream. People who struggle to get work because of their name, who hold a faith which has become demonised, where women are told to wear less clothing, to expose themselves more.
That said, I went to a university which had 50% muslim and 50% everyone else. I had to do research experiments which involved touching both men and women on their chest. Everyone was really kind. If anything, the warmer people were muslim.
Islam is a societal religion which goes from Indonesia to the Indian sub-continent to China, to the former Soviet Union, to the Middle East, to Africa.
I think that was exactly @person's point.
i m from melbourne, australia
R U somewhere around?
if so PM me, thanks
if there anyone who can translate sinhala into english or tamil into english and like to help me to translate what i have been writing, it would be much appreciated
i know a publisher who ready to publish what i write
so the one who translate it can get the translating authourship of the book in other words i do not hold the right of the authorship (copy right) for those two books
if there is anyone please pm me
thanks
I am ever mindful of something a late Politician, Norman Tebbit once said:
"You can have multi-Nationalism. You cannot have Multi-Culturalism"
I think he was absolutely right. He had a formidable sense of Politics & people, and was much underestimated and under-valued. Certainly there were some views of his I would dispute, but I had - and still have - a great deal of respect for him.
Just so I'm clear - can you let me know what multi-nationalism means and how it differs from multi-culturalism? (compare & contrast?)
Multi-national means people from many countries, living in one nation.
Mulri-culturalism is all thee people exercising their desired rights to practise their lifestyle within an enclave that is not originally geared for them to do so.
A frequent argument put forward by British nationals, regarding foreign inhabitants is that, if they wish to live in the UK, they should prescribe to a British way of life.
The objections to stores selling produce specifically marketed for a minority sector of the population, or places of worship constructed to accommodate those who are not of the christian faith, are both rife and vocal.
I live in a British city where people object to lots of things. I got into trouble at work because, to the PA of a senior staffer, I forwarded a form to be signed and wrote a message to her to ask her boss to sign it. I wrote it on a post-it note instead of a 'with compliments' slip. I got a formal reprimand.
thanks
instead of asking i should have verified the profile
lazy me
So is the best answer to the problems with people immigrating to refuse to allow them access to safety and stability? It seems to me the better answer is to help them see what it is like to achieve those things, which most cannot do in their home countries. It is a huge culture shock. Many of them are suffering PTSD, no doubt, and they are not put into cultures that they have no clue about and have probably largely been told lies about. Their entire upbringing is based on a set of rules that no longer applies, and that has to be pretty hard. Like when a western woman is refused entry to a country because of a tattoo or the UK woman who was jailed for reporting a sexual assault (in Dubai I think). We do what our culture has taught us, and find out quickly that that is not the way in another place. It's a steep learning curve. Instead of looking at what we can do solely to keep them from "acting out" (for lack of better phrase) what about looking at what we can do to better help them succeed in their new countries?
In my state, there are many programs in place to help with this. They are assigned a volunteer to help them get to language classes. To help them learn how to get jobs, use mass transit. They take classes to learn about the culture. They are not simply arriving with no guidance whatsoever, and maybe that is a place that other states, and other countries, could do better with. In these countries where they are so widely accepting SO many refugees, it is fair to them to accept them without the resources to properly educate and help them integrate?
Compare this approach with one that demonizes and is aggressive towards immigrants, which one is going to make it more likely that they assimilate?
It's also a question, @karasti, of gleaning the wheat from the chaff. Tragically, not all those who purport to be economic or conflict refugees are who they claim to be. Neither do all of those coming to our shores legitimately, come with good intentions.
We have a spate of high-skill shoplifting crews working London at the moment, and they are known to be an exclusively Eastern European team. And I'm talking hundreds, men, women and children.
Our news broadcasts are peppered with accounts of law-breaking incidents, and sadly, those who are not native to the UK, feature frequently and prominently.
It is these groups of people who give the law-abiding, sincere and genuine incomers, the poor reputation and they are therefore all viewed with a level of mistrust....
I'm not suggesting that it should be accepted, of course. Just asking how much of that horrid behavior is cultural, or at least a result of their fractured experience and all that they know, and how we can help with those situations.
I read a book for uni called 'the Seamstress' about a Jewish woman in the 2nd world war having survived in Romania. When the war finished, she had trouble getting her rations, becoming friends with her neighbours etc because of the social fear of Jews from the previous 15 years of negative press. When she returned to 'normal' society and was struggling with the simple act of being human, she said something along the lines of 'it's true that the teenagers who'd been in the camps were running wild and being bad, but I'm a married woman with a baby who's just trying to feed my family'. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Seamstress-Survival-Sara-Tuvel-Bernstein/dp/0425166309/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1480137973&sr=8-1&keywords=9780425166307
Here's a story about people living in the Zaatari refugee camp: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-22/syrian-entrepreneurs-thrive-in-zaatari-refugee-camp/8009324
That said, there does appear to be a bit of a criminal element that is growing in some quarters. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/saturdayextra/migration-settlement-inquiry/8058774.
But I'm not sure that the mainstream is much better: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-24/women-limited-by-interruptions-in-senate-estimates/8053722
THERE IS HOPE!
A Republican Elector published an opinion piece in the NY Times yesterday, calling for all Electors to reject Trump, who he says is unqualified for office, when the EC votes later this month.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/opinion/why-i-will-not-cast-my-electoral-vote-for-donald-trump.html?_r=0
I happen to think, as an outside observer, that the entire election programme was an utter shambles and a travesty from start to finish, but then, I don't have a very high opinion of Politics and politicians... If any changes should be implemented, the whole process should be scrapped and the run for election done again, when already-qualified Politicians with reasonable records, should run....
But I don't think it really portends hope, unfortunately, if by hope you mean that the EC will vote for Hillary because she won the popular vote. This elector wants to find and vote for a different Republican.
I don't want Trump for president either but the if the electoral college voted for someone else en masse that would be a total catastrophe for democracy. People's (particularly the half of the country that voted for Trump) faith in the system would be shattered and who knows what level of rioting or violence ( a lot of the Trump supporters are already prepping in case they need to overthrow the government) would follow.