Comments by "Duskpede" (@duskpede5146) on "The Western European Demographic Revolution." video.
-
26
-
21
-
20
-
18
-
8
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@L333gok i could nitpick this thoroughly and explain my self more clearly but i also think we just kinda agree on like everything. i'm obviously taking a more hard line approach but really we both seem to be saying that immigration is possible to do well and isn't some inherent evil but we're just getting bogged down in an auxiliary discussion about culture.
but to start nitpicking
the rape thing is from. poverty -> crime -> rape. but i am just kinda assuming that and don't know the root cause of why people rape well enough to defend that. i'm not saying i'm wrong i'm just saying i will drop it at the first sign i am wrong
its not really a far comparison to compare the work it takes for an american farmer to do his job vs a farmer in a developing nation who does not have access to the same state of the art industrialised farming equipment. they aren't choosing not to make a surplus too sell for no reason, they likely are only making enough to feed themselves because thats ALL they can make with the resources at hand.
they still have a work ethic and know how to do a job. so i don't think thats a fair argument for why they struggle to get employed when so many other salient factors are apparent.
i'm also saying, in this example, that culture has little impact on the economic opportunities because the example you gave is just not a reasonable factor, as shown above.
i do need to explain this better. i'm really struggling to defend myself properly about "culture" because "culture" is such a vague concept that means like 20 different things, it could mean traditions, ideals, economic conditions, personality, or just a code word for ethnicity without saying ethnicity. so its hard to make a definitive statement about it because the person i'm talking to can just pivot to another definition. cause all of these range from "this is unequivocally stupid and not real" to "yeah its real but also not all that significant".
so i guess the best solution is, what do you mean by culture?
i think the standard definition of western values is societal ideology but for whatever reason in my head i was thinking "personality traits associated with western nations".
that being said, almost every single nation on earth claims its a democracy and liberty is just kinda an easy sale. they may officially be labelled as flawed but the average person isn't gonna have a strong opinion on them (people in the west also float authoritarian ideals in conversation all the time, people aren't ideologues and rarely read political theory). plus when someone is taken from a bad regime and placed into a regime that is working pretty well, like going from syria to sweden. they tend to warm up to the new regime pretty quickly.
i never said all traditions are harmless, i just wanted to keep my narrative clear without tacking on 20 caveats. in my opinion traditions do not hold inherent value unto themselves, so a harmful tradition like child brides or circumcisions can be removed without problem. but this also means european traditions are not automatically better than syrian traditions, so the immigrants don't need to abandon them for no reason.
i still think you're overstating the importance of "culture" in all of this. seems to me the real division is between secularism and religious zealots, of any religion. if you ever study theology you kinda realise that the bones of almost all religions are very similar, and really the difference is how strictly that religion is followed. islam is more common in poorer and less stable regions, which in all cases correlated with more religion, hence why islam seems to be more extreme. you see the same trend with christians in eastern europe /the american south and buddists in myanmar.
but thats all still splitting hairs
with settlers in northern ireland, they were explicitly there to overturn the political hierarchy there, they often used british force to maintain and expand their rule and they had no interest in integrating themselves with the locals. unlike the migrants.
you gotta admit that europe is still doing a lot better than the rest of the world. and they certainly didn't collapse like it was supposed to due to immigration.
housing is a problem in literally every developed city in the world. even in japan with no immigrants, rates are high and apartments small.
i'm not here to defend capitalism, there's problems. but immigration is not one of them. it can be done right in a way that benefits everyone. and race mixing is fine. (i think you agree with that but a lot of other people in this thread do not, and thats who i'm trying to pick on)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dexulescu they're not?
like for instance off the top of my head, the uk, belgium, germany, sweden, Australia, new zealand, Singapore, hong kong, canada, switzerland, luxemborg, estonia, ukraine, czechia, taiwan and sweden are all multi ethnic and often multi racial/mutli religious countries that are by most standards some of the most prosperous and developed nations in the world.
on top of that, historically at almost any point in history you can find the great powers being mutli ethnic societies themselves.
the ottoman empire, the british empire, all the chinese dynasties, the mughals, Achaemenid Empire, all the other persian empires, the Carthaginians, the romans, the spanish, the caliphate, the french, brazil, the hre, the united provinces, the russian empire and the ussr but most importantly AMERICA. the indisputably richest and most powerful single nation too ever exist, and it is a melting pot of various cultures, ethnicities, relgions and races from across europe, africa, asia and the america's.
a lot of those empires did end up collapsing, thats what empire do. but many of them reigned for centuries without trouble and ethnic tensions don't ever destroy a state on their own, they are simply the fault lines where other economic and political pressures crack first.
so yeah its actually a lot harder to think of counter examples of homogenous states that are better. like finland maybe if you ignore the swedish and russian minorities, modern china is allegedly mostly han but i've heard people say that thats more propaganda than anything and there are major regional differences in culture that persist. japan is another big one, but the fact that they have refused to use migrants to support the ageing work force is like the number 1 reason that they went from the 2nd largest economy in the world to the eighth.
1
-
1
-
@dexulescu ukraine was doing fine until they got invaded by the lunatic neighbouring them. internally they were doing great.
and i never said that the empires weren't oppressive or anything. they're empires. thats part of the deal.
but you are wrong to say that for the ottomans, where for the first 3 centuries during their peak they were remarkably progressive and secular, allowing anyone to practice whatever faith they wanted and other culture stuff.
it was only when they became the sickman of europe did they start to massacre rebels and do other genocide stuff.
also i explicitly did not say japan was diverse. you gotta work on that reading comprehension.
you can't just list several states who are all failing for various random reasons, that doesn't prove your point. because, my argument is that diverse countries CAN succeed, so finding even a single example of them will prove my point. but if you are arguing that multi ethnic countries CAN'T work, then its not just enough to find places where they didn't work, but also find a way to prove that EVERY example of a diverse country has failed. which is impossible.
this is basically the same as the null hypothesis stuff you might've learned in high school.
because i can also just list homogeneous countries that aren't doing well to the same effect, somalia, east timor, yemen, japan, north korea, bangladesh, mongolia, tunisia, portugual and haiti. all shit holes, all very pretty much one culture.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@festerbester7801 there's a reason i said sovereign and developed. colonialism is an entirely different dynamic with entirely different causes and effects. (the natives are poor and decimated by plague, the colonisers are loyal to the home crown and are there to annex the land not integrate with the native societies). they only thing they share in common is like, people moving from one place to another.
thats not 25% over 20 years that's 25% in 50 years. plus sweden hasn't been "culturally overwhelmed" at all. they're doing fine? fi anything the cultural domination comes from american media.
"Is it wrong for someone to take pride in their culture and feel kinship to their relatives that have already passed?"
yeah i think it's kinda stupid. whenever i see someone taking pride in some national hero i always just think that they've done nothing good with their life and just want to feel important. like yeah it's human nature but so is wanting to eat nothing but chocolate. because really what country you happen to be born in doesn't actually effect you that much (and you almost certainly share very little direct blood connection with those national hero's). there's already so much diversity of values and idea's inside a nation (certainly more than there is between nations) that it's just a non factor with what a person becomes compared to anything else.
you are conflating ethnicity and culture pretty heavily. in the sweden example a large part of the migration came from other parts of europe, germany, finland, russia, poland and others. which given even a single generation would become culturally Swedish after growing up. the same goes for non white people too. its not all just about blood.
example: leffen, a top guilty gear/ssbm fighting game player from sweden. he's swedish, everyone calls him swedish, he calls himself swedish and talks about being swedish in interviews. but his father was korean, but no one ever talks about that because he's taken almost nothing from his korean ancestry.
also migration will stop when third world birth rates slow down. the only reason they're so high now is because of greater access to medicine. but the trend in every country so far has been birth rates lowering decreasing after a generation or two. the world population is projected to peak under 12 billion. by no means will migration occur forever.
""what even is culture in the first place?" I have no idea what it would be in my nation so I cant answer it clearly."
this is exactly my point. it's just a vague idea of something important that plays on peoples tribalistic instincts but no one actually knows what it is.
because personally, i just don't see the inherent value of tradition. yeah its nice to see sometimes, but that's also just the case with seeing any history, fashion trend or holiday. for me i don't feel any more or less connection to easter compared to chinese new year. despite the fact that the former has been in my "cultural heritage" for thousands of years, in fact i kinda like chinese new year more because the legends are better and there's cooler traditions associated with it.
and thats fine, my city has a large chinese minority (and it has for centuries mind you) and both holidays are free to be celebrated without one super ceding the other. Chinese immigrants haven't done anything to replace the existing culture, they've only added to it.
and culture itself is just fun little oddities, which compared to the real consequences of banning immigration (you halt thousands of peoples only option for a better life, possibly forcing them to face death in a war torn country, AND, potentially ruining your own countries economy in the same way that japans has been, by having not enough manpower in the work force which grinds everything to a crawl) it just doesn't seem worth it, especially when the culture isn't even under threat.
valuing tradition is only bad when you value it above things that are more important, like human rights. or when the tradition itself is harmful, like foot binding or circumcisions.
"So what would you think if Finland would take all Syrian refugees (3.69 million) from Turkey? Most certainly it would be better for those refugees, no? And they could replace their ageing population in one fell swoop while almost doubling their population."
in a perfect world they should not all end up in finland. that would also be a humanitarian disaster as the country literally does not have the infrastructure or home to accommodate that many new people. what should happen is across the eu many countries should take in proportional amounts of refugee's. because like you said, it will boost the economy and save millions of people from dislocation and war (including millions of children too) who all did nothing to deserve this.
"And here lies the difference in our thought's. You think as long as you or someone like you will keep practicing the culture it wont vanish, but to me everything will end.
Even stone yields to water in passage of time."
the real difference in our thoughts is that you want to fight the water tooth and nail while i'm hopping in to look at the cool fish in there.
1
-
1
-
@festerbester7801 @festerbester7801 “But people nowadays don't integrate either.”
When I say integrate what I mean is, buying a house, getting a job and interacting with the preexisting institutions in the country. Which is what modern immigrants do and what colonisers in the past didn’t cortes didn’t rent an apartment in Tenochtitlan and get a job as a day labourer. No they came pillaged and conquered. On top of that you skipped the most important point, when people migrate countries, they don’t do it expecting to take the land for their home country. The Spanish colonisers took Mexico and made it a Spanish territory, a polish person moving to Sweden doesn’t plan to someday join Sweden into the polish realm and subjugate the swedes. No, they always become loyal to their new country, like this is a fact of sociology with numerous studies to support it. immigrants are not invaders, they’re migrants.
“Little Chinas are product of exactly this mentality.”
Bro like half my friends growing up and now were Asian, no they don’t just stick to their own race.
“It's undergoing drastic changes, including building projects like mosques. When my point is "it is going to happen".”
Building a mosque does not mean they’re going to tear down churches. Have you been to Sweden? It’s still pretty damn Swedish.
also you can’t just say “its going to happen” when you don’t have any examples of this actually happening.
“you can feel kinship for even complete stranger.”
That feeling of kinship doesn’t change with race. Immigration isn’t gonna mess with that.
Marcus Aurelius says it well in his meditations "A healthy sense of hearing or smell should be prepared for any sound or scent; a healthy stomach should have the same reaction to all foods, as a mill to what it grinds." “
You can pull marcky mark quotes out of context all you want but claiming people don’t like to eat unhealthy is not gonna get you anywhere. That’s a pretty hard sell to make.
“Before that regions inside nations played bigger part in peoples life.”
You miss understood my point, I’m not just saying regional differences exist inside countries. I’m saying people within even the same city will have drastically different values and modes of life. A conservative 50 year old plumber working 9 hour shifts every day is different from an communist university student who is different from a billionaire oil baron. They all have different values, different lifestyles, engage with different communities, dress differently, listen to different music and ultimately share little in common. Especially when you consider another hypothetical plumber, student and billionaire that lives on the other side of the world. Each of these people share a lot more along their class than they ever do within a nation. That’s my point.
Regional differences within larger countries are even smaller and insignificant than the already small and insignificant aspects of national identity. The only reason its played up is due to people being tribalistic. But people are just people no matter where you go.
"you are conflating ethnicity and culture pretty heavily" Am I? How come?
Cause you keep switching between talking about ethnic differences and how those will cause cultural problems because ethnicity is easy to track and culture is easy to feel protective over. Despite the fact they are not the same thing and exist independently
“and all of those european nations have different culture groups.’’
No they don’t. they’re all pretty much the same type of wealthy western nation with a well educated population. They’re just not different whatsoever, like the only difference is language, but Europeans all know like 6 languages each by the time they’re 3 so that doesn’t even count.
"would become culturally Swedish after growing up” Not necessarily. Could, but we can't say for certain.”
No yeah this is a pretty solid trend in sociology, first generation migrants tend to form insular communities but after the 2nd generation gets shoved through the countries school system, grows up around, goes to school with and works with other Swedish kids while they grow up reading Swedish books and watching Swedish tv and generally having a Swedish childhood. they assimilate very very easily. And if they’re white, its quite literally impossible to tell that they’re not ethnically Swedish if they don’t tell you themselves. They’re already a lot of people in Europe with a melting pot of genetic ancestry but have one strong national identity. I’d be comfortable saying for certain.
“it's ultimately to him if he wants to abandon his fathers culture and fully embrace swedish one.”
Sure, and the point is that ethnicity isn’t interchangeable with culture like you’re assuming it is.
“I think you are missing effects of global warming in your calculations and projections”
Oh I guess maybe we should do something about that whole global warming thing, maybe by voting for politicians that say they want to stop global warming? as well as maybe stopping all that imperialism that’s preventing nations outside of Europe from developing?
“I wish you would have elaborated on the points that I brought up on it, like music, arts, dialects and clothing typical to region”
Oh I thought I did when I described them as “cute little oddities” because that’s all that is. Do dialects matter at all to someone’s life?? Like if you want more cool dialects you’d wanna encourage mixing of cultures and languages to make new combinations right? Also music and art have only benefitted from the introduction of new idea’s from other cultures. There’s only so much you can do with white columns before you have to try something new for once. The old stuff isn’t going away either. And usually the main drivers of culture are social minorities like immigrants anyway.
art is not going to be destroyed. We have museums exactly to stop that, and it’s the 21st century there’s billions of terabytes of information on the internet, it’d be pretty hard to lose the old stuff. But, we can make NEW stuff that’s fresh and interesting, it’s a net positive.
“I'm actively even trying to avoid it. Hence why I wouldn't be good in giving accurate assessment what it would be.”
I think you are a better judge than you give yourself credit, because you’re assuming that culture is important and then trying to find evidence to back that up. But really you don’t think it’s important and just need to rethink why you’re putting so much effort into defending it? because idk why you’re writing thousands defending something you don’t care about or even think will change. I’m having fun though if that’s anything.
“"i just don't see the inherent value of tradition" I have noticed. I guess you wouldn't care even if all building looked the same.”
that’s not what I meant. I love art, i just don’t see why doing something the exact same way it was done in the past is seen as this sacred ideal. If something not working or gotten stale, change it.
To me world like that is just dull. Why even go to other country if everything looks exactly the same?
Climate differences and their effects on architecture alone are enough to prevent that from ever happening. Plus that has nothing to do with immigration, look at Japan now, all the buildings are the same modern designs you’d see anywhere in the world.
1
-
@festerbester7801 “"economy in the same way that japans has been" Blatant over-simplification. Biggest effect on Japans economy was Plaza accord and not population growth, aging population nor population decline. Plaza accord and it's effects on yen prize bubble even had large effect on modern day aging population crisis in Japan.”
I looked into this more, from what little I’ve read it is not universally accepted that it caused the price bubble or was even the only factor. And even if that’s true, the population issues are still there and as valid as ever. The reason why Japan couldn’t bounce back even thirty years on is because they just don’t have the workforce for it. read anything about modern Japan and they will say this. It’s just THE fact of the Japanese economy. (and it’s not just a problem seen in Japan, it’s just a clear cut well known example of it)
“but they could be accommodated on other peoples homes. I mean why not?”
Yeah they could technically do that? But that’s dumb so no government would ever force people to host complete strangers in their homes?? This is such a pointless hypothetical.
“This is genuine question to you btw. If you could, would you transport everyone in need in Africa, India or somewhere else to EU, America etc. I mean it would stop the need for humanitarian aid in those regions right?”
I don’t think that’s something most people in Africa or india would want? Like transporting a bunch of old poor people across the world is only gonna create more humanitarian problems. But impracticalities aside the people looking to migrate are young people looking for work or a good education to support their families at home, which yeah I’m more than happy to accept them. It’s better than them going to Saudi arabia. Or the other migrant group is asylum seekers, which also deserve to escape certain death.
The reason why migration is good has nothing to do with preventing humanitarian issues
“What would it matter if EU would need drastic changes in it's operation or schooling or if original population would be in minority?”
It wouldn’t
And they wouldn’t be a minority, even in your hypothetical they’re not all going to Europe and most people would choose to stay
“Oh but you are quite mistaken. I have no intention of fighting change. I don't vote in anything political. Mass immigration wont stop, declining native population won't start reproducing in numbers, cultural practises will vanish etc. Why would I try to stop something that can't be stopped? Hundred year from now I wouldn't recognize my nation as the same one.”
I just don’t know why you care, these are all made up problems.
yeah it wouldn't let me send this as a single comment
1
-
1
-
1
-
@m.m.1301 nah immigrants have been proven in multiple scientific papers to increase wages for everyone in a society overall (except for high school drop outs). you're just factually wrong about this and making things up.
"it is still much better to be ethnically homogeneous and poor than to be diverse and rich"
why lol?
also you can just cherry pick examples of bad countries with diversity cause there are far more good countries with diversity you could choose.
belgium, the uk, sweden, finland, germany, spain, malta, canada, australia, new zealand, singapore, china, switzerland, and most notably, the most powerful and prosperous empire in the history of the world. the usa.
all incredibly diverse nations who are all doing absolutely great.
(and there are homogenous nations that are suffering too, north korea, somalia, tunisia, bangladesh, yemen)
its also just nowhere near the most important factor whatsoever. even the most conservative sociologist you could find wouldn't tell you that, thats silly. literacy, access to natural resources, geography, proximity to powerful nations, political stability, and sheer population are all far far more relevant factors than "people in this country are slighty less distantly related from each other than they could be" all thats gonna contribute is a shallower gene pool
1
-
@cicciobenzina4379 the protests in france are not race riots, they're pretty explicitly just about police brutality. they're not trying to destroy france because they're dirty immigrants or even because of some "culture clash", they're just protesting a bad part of the government that disproportionately effects them without good reason.
you wouldn't say that the yellow vest protests from a few years ago were examples of how homogeneity is bad, despite the demographics being a lot more ethnically french and rural. even though the protests were very similar calibre
bro, i am ethnically majority scottish. i have no connection to scotland what so ever, if i went to a scottish pub and tried to pass myself of as scottish i would get laughed out the building. culture is not genetic, your personality is not genetic, its built from how you grew up and the connections that exist between people.
someone who was taken from their native country from birth and dropped on the otherside of the world to grow up wouldn't magically understand their native language, they wouldn't know the customs or traditions, if you took them back as an adult they would struggle to fit in even if they looked the part. but they WOULD know all that stuff for the country they grew up in, because thats THEIR culture and THEIR community, despite their genes having a couple mutations associated with a different region of the world.
and idk if you know but thats a very common story to hear from the children of migrants. its not hypothetical at all, they go back to visit extended family and experience complete culture shock. even if the parent tries to instil this culture into their kids (or just as often, not and purposefully not teach them the language so they can fit in better).
europe has been multicultural since europe has had global empires. through the 19th century, both world wars and the post war economic miracles. europe has had their colonial subjects move back to the metropole for whatever reason.
RETHINKING THE EFFECTS OF IMMIGRATION ON WAGES Gianmarco I.P. Ottaviano Giovanni Peri;
The Impact of the Mariel Boatlift on the Miami Labor Market David Card;
The Impact of Immigration on the French Labor Market: Why so different? Javier Ortega, Gregory Verdugo;
The Effects of Immigration on the United States’ Economy university of Pennsylvania;
here's the studies proving that immigration helps the economy overall, boosts the labour pool and increases wages for everyone overall.
and your point that migrants just sit around on welfare is a massive exaggeration and has a far smaller effect on the economy than the value that they bring anyway.
also intra europe migration is also exactly the same economically speaking? just cause their skin is pale they're still coming from a different culture, often a different religion and different ethnicity??? all the factors you've brought up as arguments still apply (and are still wrong)
and don't try and justify some pan european culture, because across the meditereanean those people have had millenia of cross contact, trade and intermarriage. if a greek or russian has the same broad culture as an Irishman or a swede, than an Egyptian also fits.
slowing birth rates are not because of jewish propaganda and the woke agenda. pretty sure gay and trans couples will have kids at the normal rates that people have kids. the real reason is a well documented process where as child mortality goes down, the birthrate will too after a few generations. because most people don't actually want 17 kids. but they do want more than they're currently having on average, and the reason is because they don't think they can afford it in the economy. (which getting more migrants would help with) (also fixing the housing crisis is a big one).
cultures not being replaced, its just changing, and it was gonna change anyway.
also i just don't agree that culture is sacred anyway and more valuable than tangibly improving the lives of everyone involved.
also multiculturalism has no downsides other than "you might be exposed to different idea's than you would otherwise" like oh no, god forbid you might have to see a restaurant serving Ethiopian food and maybe even eat it and realise that it's really good D: this is the worst D: D: D:
really i don't care if europe is multiethnic, either way. i just think "not crashing the economy pointlessly" and "allowing people to have a better life" are pretty good things that we should try to do more for next to no downsides.
it isn't so simple for you to think that i'm some agent of jewish propaganda trying to destroy europe. when its far far simpler to believe, i'm just a guy who disagree's with you (and might just be right) (and you're the one falling for propaganda designed to enrage you and divide you from your fellow man by the elites)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jout738 you might wanna double check that. japan is 4th behind germany (while having 40 million more people or 1.4 times the population of germany)
and if you google the gdp of germany and japan in the past 30 years. germany has incrementally been going up while japan is still at the same place it was 30 years ago. which is massive because for a capitalist economy to function investors need to see a return on their investment for them to want to invest. and without investors giving money to companies the economy falls apart. growth is mandatory.
gdp is not a good way to quantify how "good" an economy is because it fails to take into account actual living conditions. but like, looking at the suicide rate alone should be a sufficient pub test for the populations opinion
the more you dig into sociology and economics the more you'll realise that literally nothing is as simple as "people should just work harder or be nicer and that will fix the issue", it's always systemic and peoples personalities are pretty stable bar some outside shift in society as a whole.
people stop having babies because they stop needing children in order to take care of them when they're old. plus a lack of access to medicine causes people to make a lot of kids because most won't survive, but when they do start surviving that causes a boom until attitudes shift and people have less again.
also specially with japan, the number 1 reason people don't have kids is the financial burden. japan has a horrible working culture, with long hours, low wages, expected overtime, no benefits like time off and maternity pay. people struggle to live on their own and do not have the time to even socialise and find a partner, let alone have actual children.
and the reason for the terrible conditions is because japan doesn't have any unions to represent them.
there's a bunch of welfare stuff you can do to increase the birth rate, which the conservative party that runs japan hasn't implemented because they suck. also because japan doesn't have unions to support an alternative party to the coalition.
i've read arguments that a big reason the nordic model works so well is because there's opportunity for either government to be replaced very quickly so they have to stay on top of their game, which is better for everyone.
china has a birthrate problem because the ccp was stupid and did the one child policy
even if japan could turn around the birthrate instantly it would still take 20 years to create a new generation. so imagine waiting since 2003 while the economy actively gets worse as more people retire. immigration skips that and is just absolute free labour for no downsides.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@maozedong537 france itself has been a hodgepodge of several different ethnic groups from the start. its full of occitans, bretons, germans, basque, arpatines, picards, italians, iberians, poles, africans, arabs, turks, most who have been there for centuries even before there was a "french nation".
there has never been one single french ethnicity, or even one single french language. what we understand to be french is just one dialect originating from near paris that over the past 200 years has been standardised across the country.
and i might add assimilation is not even the golden standard when it comes to migrant communities, rather it should be integration and taking the best from both cultures.
so you are just wrong, europe is not a unique case in human society, the idea of a single nation has always been a lie to connect an arbitrary group of people under a single flag. you can't say that a nation is inherently unable to accept migrants because, they already have been for centuries without issue, and because nations themselves have no inherent nature to them and will always just reflect the rest of the economic and politic nature of the country.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1