Multiculturalism in the World Today

[Zakoo]

Originally Posted by solomon

The above vid is interesting.

No honestly it's not, I don't know whether it's the journalist who didn't do his job properly or the woman who is saying no sense.

I watched all of this with the utmost incomprehension, I know it's easier for them to have more watchers by saying crap but there should be limit. zone of no laws? Dangerous for white people and non muslim people ? Hahahaha.

I nearly wanted to jump by my window when they interviewed the bald one. That's not serious. And the end? Governed by the charia ? Civil war ? Oww what the ... is that .... .

Of course, there must little group of people who wants to use the charia, no there even must be people who are using it to settle the problems. Still saying all the muslims are doing that is so wrong.

The main problem, is that, presently, Europe is confronted to a rise of nationalism. EU is still fresh, Schengen too, for countries who during centuries centuries did war, it's a new concept. People who want to have their 'identity' can be found everywhere.
And the 'why' of this situation isn't hard to find. Economical crisis, gouvernments as the actual one in France who failed their 5 years want to rise their popularity by using extremism subjetcs.

I will say it simply: If you play with extremism subjects, it's not surprising you give more popularity to them.

I don't believe multicularism is a failure, it's in fact a necessity and above all for Europe whose population is getting really really old, thus there's a high need of immigrants, but we can't ask them to throw away all their believes, we can ask them to adapt their believes to the laws of the country though. So it must come from both sides : They need to adapt, and we need to understand them.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

It's actually strange to call Islam anti-science when it's the advancements made by Islamic middle-eastern cultures in science, mathematics and the arts that helped pull Europe's head out of its ass, end the Dark Ages. Hell, one could say that the European renaissance is just the ME's own period extending westward,

It was almost a fundamentally different system back then. Combination of Mongolians, Ottomans, and European interference changed the Middle East permanently. Ancient infrastructure was completely wiped out. It seems that the theocratic society actually worked quite well for them historically. It's just that in the polarized first world - third world globe of today they're permanently caught in a rut, and that has changed popular interpretation of Islam more towards that violent, fundamentalist side.

I think religion is a quite mold-able thing really. Whereas 900 years ago it helped facilitate a golden age in the Middle East, modern attitudes could help do the opposite. The same is true of Christianity - look over the past 1500 years and how it has variously promoted (ancient Ireland) and stifled (early Scientific Revolution) science/learning at different points in history.

[Vexx]

I define multi-culturalism as a state in which multiple cultures peacefully co-exist because there's a basic underlying secular thread of agreement about human rights.

Many of you are describing countries and situations where that shepherd's pie integration did not happen. Immigrants to the US (for the most part) keep their heritage while still subscribing to the "American Way" (US or Canada) ... be they Irish, Chinese, South Asian, etc. This mode seems to have never been fully implemented in Europe... leading to the absurd, ridiculous, and dangerous situation growing there today. I'm not exempting the US (or Canada) ... we're having some problems with some groups that refuse to "integrate" as well.

No immigrant should *ever* be allowed to continue with the delusion that they can keep *all* their customs or behavior when they move to a new place. If I move to Canada... most of my gun collection won't go with me and I'll learn some French. If I move to Japan, I'd damn well learn Japanese language and etiquette. If any religion I subscribe to contains standards that are anathema to the locals... well, I'd better drop those.

[solomon]

Originally Posted by TurkeyPotPie

The idea that "multiculturalism" (as practiced now) is something that is good and must be implemented is something that only seems to infect the West (especially "progressive" white folks). I think cultural suicide is a more appropriate description. Instead of assimilation, multiculturalism promotes Balkanization and the tolerance of ideas and mores that are antithetical to modern liberal Western society.

This admittedly is the only place where I can agree with more conservative viewpoints. It probably gives a decent answer to what I originally asked, how much can we expect others to leave at the door, at least in this specific context.

Originally Posted by Zakoo

No honestly it's not, I don't know whether it's the journalist who didn't do his job properly or the woman who is saying no sense.

I watched all of this with the utmost incomprehension, I know it's easier for them to have more watchers by saying crap but there should be limit. zone of no laws? Dangerous for white people and non muslim people ? Hahahaha.

I nearly wanted to jump by my window when they interviewed the bald one. That's not serious. And the end? Governed by the charia ? Civil war ? Oww what the ... is that .... .

Of course, there must little group of people who wants to use the charia, no there even must be people who are using it to settle the problems. Still saying all the muslims are doing that is so wrong.

The main problem, is that, presently, Europe is confronted to a rise of nationalism. EU is still fresh, Schengen too, for countries who during centuries centuries did war, it's a new concept. People who want to have their 'identity' can be found everywhere.
And the 'why' of this situation isn't hard to find. Economical crisis, gouvernments as the actual one in France who failed their 5 years want to rise their popularity by using extremism subjetcs.

I will say it simply: If you play with extremism subjects, it's not surprising you give more popularity to them.

I don't believe multicularism is a failure, it's in fact a necessity and above all for Europe whose population is getting really really old, thus there's a high need of immigrants, but we can't ask them to throw away all their believes, we can ask them to adapt their believes to the laws of the country though. So it must come from both sides : They need to adapt, and we need to understand them.

Well I said interesting be non offensive.

I do largely agree with you on criticism of the video. It at worse is a flare game to alert Christians of Muslism and their crazy practices without putting anything in context, especially as this originated from a Christian Broadcaster. Yea, Civil War, that's hyperbole to me.

Yea it is true that enthic white Whatevers are generally dealing with a larger culture shock because their societies aren't the hodgepodge that exist in the Americas.

Still is it not true though that you have enclaves of areas that are dangerous to be in that are heavily minority? (Not being mean here, am generously curious) I am Black American and I will readily admit that in some parts of black inner cities there are some hoods hostile to non-blacks and police.

Originally Posted by Vexx

I define multi-culturalism as a state in which multiple cultures peacefully co-exist because there's a basic underlying secular thread of agreement about human rights.

Many of you are describing countries and situations where that shepherd's pie integration did not happen. Immigrants to the US (for the most part) keep their heritage while still subscribing to the "American Way" (US or Canada) ... be they Irish, Chinese, South Asian, etc. This mode seems to have never been fully implemented in Europe... leading to the absurd, ridiculous, and dangerous situation growing there today. I'm not exempting the US (or Canada) ... we're having some problems with some groups that refuse to "integrate" as well.

No immigrant should *ever* be allowed to continue with the delusion that they can keep *all* their customs or behavior when they move to a new place. If I move to Canada... most of my gun collection won't go with me and I'll learn some French. If I move to Japan, I'd damn well learn Japanese language and etiquette. If any religion I subscribe to contains standards that are anathema to the locals... well, I'd better drop those.

Hey, Vexx. On the American issue specifically, could I highlight a bit of a distinction I believe exists between the largely European hodgepodge and the ones from "Further away?"

One thing that I think is over looked is how there are something that lead to easier assimilation and blending in of European cultures easier and quicker than say, Asian, Middle Eastern, African or even Latino. There the cultural gap gets larger and larger sometimes although it is often over exaggerated for political gain.

I don't know exactly WHY it was quicker (thats one thing I am going to investigate) but I just generally boil it down to a relativist viewpoint. There were enough commonalities to forge ties amongst groups in the white communities quicker than going further outside that circle.

Also balkanization has a lot to do with class and economic issues in my opinion as well. In the US there is such an emphasis on the all encompassing "Middle Class" that many who emigrate here to aspire to enter. Yet unless you are able to easily compete in a highly tech oriented society that requires LOTS of EXPENSIVE training, there is a barrier there. Many americans of all backgrounds including whites suffer from this. As many of any background will tell you, it's not the same as just graduating high school and going to work for the factory anymore.

I think that something similar is occuring in Europe although I could be wrong.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by solomon

Well I said interesting be non offensive.

I do largely agree with you on criticism of the video. It at worse is a flare game to alert Christians of Muslism and their crazy practices without putting anything in context, especially as this originated from a Christian Broadcaster. Yea, Civil War, that's hyperbole to me.

Yea it is true that enthic white Whatevers are generally dealing with a larger culture shock because their societies aren't the hodgepodge that exist in the Americas.

Still is it not true though that you have enclaves of areas that are dangerous to be in that are heavily minority? (Not being mean here, am generously curious) I am Black American and I will readily admit that in some parts of black inner cities there are some hoods hostile to non-blacks and police.

edit: o wait... I didn't read your post closely enough, Solomon... bleh, I'll leave this post but its less applicable than I thought.

They exist.. though it depends on the level of decay. On the upside, I was a mailman for a couple of years when I was in college in one of the poorest parts of Houston, TX... literally the only white guy for miles. Some children were frightened of the long-haired ghost... but I never had a single problem, even the Bandito gangs were friendly to me.

My son goes to USC in Los Angeles... there are nearby blocks they tell students Do Not Go, but otoh he volunteers to coach a debate team in a nearby inner school and has also never encountered a problem.

In fact, the only 'racial problems' we've ever encountered have been from white people (except for my high school friend's dad who hated anyone who wasn't black ). Obviously this is anecdotal -- and it is more about race economics than culture.

*Cultural* collisions are far different because now you're arguing over those mental things like which sky god you worship or what's wrong with not teaching the "wimmen" to read?

[solomon]

Originally Posted by Vexx

edit: o wait... I didn't read your post closely enough, Solomon... bleh, I'll leave this post but its less applicable than I thought.

They exist.. though it depends on the level of decay. On the upside, I was a mailman for a couple of years when I was in college in one of the poorest parts of Houston, TX... literally the only white guy for miles. Some children were frightened of the long-haired ghost... but I never had a single problem, even the Bandito gangs were friendly to me.

My son goes to USC in Los Angeles... there are nearby blocks they tell students Do Not Go, but otoh he volunteers to coach a debate team in a nearby inner school and has also never encountered a problem.

In fact, the only 'racial problems' we've ever encountered have been from white people (except for my high school friend's dad who hated anyone who wasn't black ). Obviously this is anecdotal -- and it is more about race economics than culture.

*Cultural* collisions are far different because now you're arguing over those mental things like which sky god you worship or what's wrong with not teaching the "wimmen" to read?

Wow, good reality check. I also forgot that the poor minority problem is really hyperbolized. Mainly by suburban people who have never been there and a stupid sensationalist media. I'm black but as a suburbanite and media junkie I still sometimes fall for it. There are problems but they can be easily twisted by people from a distance.

Anybody out there from the Latin American countries want to weigh in on this, seriously interested on what they thinnk and the problems they face.

I read once somewhere that Brazilians and Peruvians operate on a somewhat different wavelength then those in the United States. Largely because I think there was more intermixing instead of straight segregation, although I am aware that stark socio-economic gaps exist, presumably due to discrimination.

Yet it didn't seem as hardcore as it was here.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I define multi-culturalism as a state in which multiple cultures peacefully co-exist because there's a basic underlying secular thread of agreement about human rights.

Many of you are describing countries and situations where that shepherd's pie integration did not happen. Immigrants to the US (for the most part) keep their heritage while still subscribing to the "American Way" (US or Canada) ... be they Irish, Chinese, South Asian, etc. This mode seems to have never been fully implemented in Europe... leading to the absurd, ridiculous, and dangerous situation growing there today. I'm not exempting the US (or Canada) ... we're having some problems with some groups that refuse to "integrate" as well.

The difference is largely due to Europe consisting of Nation States, the USA is not a Nation State, but more of a political entity. The doctrine of Nationalism is what is ultimately causing the problem, IE we're a group and this is our land through some divine right. The reality is that most of these "nations" have not existed for very long, and even if they have historically large portions of the population were not from that nation.

No immigrant should *ever* be allowed to continue with the delusion that they can keep *all* their customs or behavior when they move to a new place. If I move to Canada... most of my gun collection won't go with me and I'll learn some French. If I move to Japan, I'd damn well learn Japanese language and etiquette. If any religion I subscribe to contains standards that are anathema to the locals... well, I'd better drop those.

I think you're right and wrong, obviously you should obey the laws of whichever country you are in (and if you don't like them, don't move there), but I see nothing wrong with people forming their own enclaves. In truth these enclaves in the long run always tend to get assimilated anyway. in the 19th and early 20th Century America had plenty of problems with immigration and multi-culturalism. Americans back then were paranoid about Catholic Irish and Germans, today all these groups are considered integrated and part of the "white majority". I think so long as we are not openly hostile, and they are able to live satisfactory lives, these groups will inevitably assimilate into the majority. Furthermore foreign immigrants do not usually have a large axe to grind with their new country, unless we give them a reason to. In my experience 95% of immigrants are people who are just looking for a better life. They have no reason to hate their new country(unless we give them one), and if they do, they can as easily leave as they came.

For instance look at Japan, if the Japanese ceased to categorise the Zainichi Koreans as foreign, and made it easy for them to gain citizenship, I'd say they'd dissapear as a group within a few generations. Look at Jews in the USA(I have Jewish relatives in the US), when they immigrated many of them sticked together, and spoke Yiddish among themselves. Now they are one of the most integrated groups in the US, many are simply abandoning their religion, and none of them speak Yiddish any more. This is largely due to the fact that the Government put no barriers in place to their being integrated into society, unlike in Europe where discrimanatory laws were common. In another 50 years I'd say being a Jew in the US will be meaningless. The only people who will be truly passionate about their Jewishness will be the die hard Orthodox.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

The difference is largely due to Europe consisting of Nation States, the USA is not a Nation State, but more of a political entity. The doctrine of Nationalism is what is ultimately causing the problem, IE we're a group and this is our land through some divine right. The reality is that most of these "nations" have not existed for very long, and even if they have historically large portions of the population were not from that nation.

Truth. Teasing the national identity out of imaginary racial identity is tougher.... after all, its only been a few decades since people naturally spoke of the "British race" or the "German race".

I think you're right and wrong, obviously you should obey the laws of whichever country you are in (and if you don't like them, don't move there), but I see nothing wrong with people forming their own enclaves. In truth these enclaves in the long run always tend to get assimalated anyway. in the 19th and early 20th Century America had plenty of problems with immigration and multi-culturalism. Americans back then were paranoid about Catholic Irish and Germans, today all these groups are considered integrated and part of the "white majority". I think so long as we are not openly hostile, and they are able to live satisfactory lives, these groups will inevitably assimilate into the majority. Furthermore foreign immigrants do not usually have a large axe to grind with their new country, unless we give them a reason to. In my experience 95% of immigrants are people who are just looking for a better life. They have no reason to hate their new country(unless we give them one), and if they do, they can as easily leave as they came.

I was speaking too briefly, too much shorthand. What you say is correct and there are always bumps in the road when new groups arrive.

[solomon]

Whats happening in Europe is very specific although "Nativist" politics should still be kept in check.

However, I will wholeheartedly take stand of any body in AMERICA taking a Nativist standpoint. Everyone knows who the true Natives are, and even then that's a relative term as they traveled over the Bering Strait. I lot of it is just straight xenophobic bigotry wrapped in (sometimes mixed in) with rational logistical issues. I remember hearing the bruhaha in New York City over building a mosque near the WTC, AND I SAW A BLACK DUDE THERE YELLING HIS HEAD OFF! "shakes head"

[MaiNoKen]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

The difference is largely due to Europe consisting of Nation States, the USA is not a Nation State, but more of a political entity. The doctrine of Nationalism is what is ultimately causing the problem, IE we're a group and this is our land through some divine right. The reality is that most of these "nations" have not existed for very long, and even if they have historically large portions of the population were not from that nation.

As playing a bit of devil advocate and being orthodox in word/phrase meaning, what is your precise definition of a political entity and a nation state? How do those two concepts different? How would you define nationalism itself?

If people (Italians, Germans, Irish) defines a nation, how would you define people? There were European experiments to "build a nation" out of a broken fragments (such as Italy, Germany, Yugoslavia out from Prussia, Bavaria, Papal States, Genoa, Serbia, Croatia...). Some worked (Germany, Italy) and some didn't (Yugoslavia). Why Bismark and Garibaldi succeed in "making and building" Germans and Italians? And why Tito failed in making "Yugoslavs"?

What is building a nation out from economic, language, religious differences - given the differences are much larger among "Yugoslavs" than among Germans and Italians... And even up to today, economic difference between northern and southern Italy had persisted... from the days of Garibaldi.

I wish to hear your opinion, and everyone welcome to respond or to troll me

[Ithekro]

THere are still parts of regionalsim and "nationalism" in the United States (even in England for that matter between people form different parts of the country, London verse York I suppose, or Liverpool...they even still have distinctly different accents within a country that in no larger than Pennsylvania). While most would consider themselves Americans first, some consider themselves something else second. Be it their nation of origin (some generation removed) like England, or Germany, or Japan, or a smaller region where they were born (Texas, the South, New England, for example). Some still consider them that first and American second. It isn't as common anymore, but it does happen...sometimes in jest. Texans are fun with this when on trips. Virginians, if they are those that have been there since the Revolution, can be like this too (First Family of Virgina I think it is called). Some families that have been in places like Boston a long time do with as well. Also "The South will Rise again" groups...be they serious or not.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by MaiNoKen

As playing a bit of devil advocate and being orthodox in word/phrase meaning, what is your precise definition of a political entity and a nation state? How do those two concepts different? How would you define nationalism itself?

If people (Italians, Germans, Irish) defines a nation, how would you define people? There were European experiments to "build a nation" out of a broken fragments (such as Italy, Germany, Yugoslavia out from Prussia, Bavaria, Papal States, Genoa, Serbia, Croatia...). Some worked (Germany, Italy) and some didn't (Yugoslavia). Why Bismark and Garibaldi succeed in "making and building" Germans and Italians? And why Tito failed? What is building a nation?

I wish to hear your opinion, and everyone welcome to respond or to troll me

I would say more in the modern definition, I would give both Italy and Germany as good examples as to why Nation States are absurd concepts. In Italy in particular, most Italians did not, in fact, speak Italian prior to the 19th Century, even today there are large variations in what language is spoken.

But the real difference between, say, the USA and Germany is where the government draws it's legitimacy, and how the state defines itself. Germany describes itself as the state for Germans, in Germany: IE We are Germans, this is our land, and this is our government. Germany describes itself as a nation state, even if certain people within that nation who the nation says are in it (say Bavarians) may disagree.

The USA, however does not derive it's legitimacy from nationalism (though it did to an extent in the late 19th and early 20th century). Instead America derives it's legitimacy from concepts like Freedom and Democracy. It's based on an ideology: "This is the land of the Free". The Soviet Union was similiar, though in it's case it was based on Communism: "We are spearheading the communist revolution around the world". Most modern western states fall into one of those 2 categories. Things get more complicated when we talk about former colonies though, they have more murky foundations for their legitimacy, which may be part of the reason they are often so unstable, those living in them have no reason to believe "this is my country".

[Ithekro]

Would does beg the question....what is the European Union founded on in terms of ideology? Can't be nationalism because such a thing didn't exist with all the various nations within its structure at present still being nationalistic in their own rights (British, French, German, Dutch, etc, etc, etc....)

[MaiNoKen]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

THere are still parts of regionalsim and "nationalism" in the United States (even in England for that matter between people form different parts of the country, London verse York I suppose, or Liverpool...they even still have distinctly different accents within a country that in no larger than Pennsylvania). While most would consider themselves Americans first, some consider themselves something else second. Be it their nation of origin (some generation removed) like England, or Germany, or Japan, or a smaller region where they were born (Texas, the South, New England, for example). Some still consider them that first and American second. It isn't as common anymore, but it does happen...sometimes in jest. Texans are fun with this when on trips. Virginians, if they are those that have been there since the Revolution, can be like this too (First Family of Virgina I think it is called). Some families that have been in places like Boston a long time do with as well. Also "The South will Rise again" groups...be they serious or not.

The borders of US is drawn in agreement within the people living within. The same is true as in UK. When German and Italy unified, it occurred out mostly from the agreement from within even they are some differences inside - otherwise there would have been no American Civil War ;p.

When borders are artificially drawn by foreign power or by a few strong men (spells USSR, Yugoslavia, and many parts of Africa), the strife among the people inside will be much violent and unstable.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

The USA, however does not derive it's legitimacy from nationalism (though it did to an extent in the late 19th and early 20th century). Instead America derives it's legitimacy from concepts like Freedom and Democracy. It's based on an ideology: "This is the land of the Free". The Soviet Union was similiar, though in it's case it was based on Communism: "We are spearheading the communist revolution around the world". Most modern western states fall into one of those 2 categories. Things get more complicated when we talk about former colonies though, they have more murky foundations for their legitimacy, which may be part of the reason they are often so unstable, those living in them have no reason to believe "this is my country".

A large difference between USSR and US is dictatorship vs (imperfect) democracy. USSR is bounded together as a few strong men with force from Moscow (like Stalin and Khrushchev). After the American Civil War when the south reunited, the south was not deprived of any rights at the national level. In USSR, you don't like Moscow, Stalin or Khrushchev meaning tanks, AK-47s and Mig-21 are heading your way. As Moscow power began to fade in 80s, USSR broke up as well. That is quite similar to Yugoslavia, but Tito did try to build the "Yugoslav" identity, but folks were just too fragmented to get along.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Would does beg the question....what is the European Union founded on in terms of ideology? Can't be nationalism because such a thing didn't exist with all the various nations within its structure at present still being nationalistic in their own rights (British, French, German, Dutch, etc, etc, etc....)

It's not a state, though it does appeal to a greater sense of European identity and achievement. However it's primarily based on mutual self interest. The EU has been good for pretty much all involved, and none of us want to go back to the pre-WW2 days where we were all at each other's throats.

Originally Posted by MaiNoKen

The borders of US is drawn in agreement within the people living within. The same is true as in UK. When German and Italy unified, it occurred out mostly from the agreement from within even they are some differences inside - otherwise there would have been no American Civil War ;p.

When borders are artificially drawn by foreign power or by a few strong men (spells USSR, Yugoslavia, and many parts of Africa), the chance of strife among the people inside will be much violent and unstable.

Actually Italy was unified by force by Guiseppe Garibaldi, the Red shirts and the Kingdom of Sardinia-Piedmont, and the UK was formed by monarchical succession but the gist is right.

A large difference between USSR and US is dictatorship vs (imperfect) democracy. USSR is bounded together as a few strong men with force (like Stalin and Khrushchev). After the American Civil War when the south reunited, the south was not deprived of any rights at the national level. In USSR, you don't like Moscow, Stalin or Khrushchev meaning tanks, AK-47s and Mig-21 are heading your way.

Initially I think the USSR was adequately held together by belief in communism. I think what caused the downfall of the USSR was the fact that the government couldn't translate this belief in the ideal, into reality.

[Ithekro]

The EU seems to be moving in the direction to become a state, much like the United States did (remember each colony that become a state was considered a nation at first. Each with its own currency, army, laws, and borders.) The failure of the Articles of Confederation that lead to the US Constitution and the Civil War some 70 years later eventually changed it from being a collection of nations to be one nation. ("The United States are", becoming "The United States is...")

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

The EU seems to be moving in the direction to become a state, much like the United States did (remember each colony that become a state was considered a nation at first. Each with its own currency, army, laws, and borders.) The failure of the Articles of Confederation that lead to the US Constitution and the Civil War some 70 years later eventually changed it from being a collection of nations to be one nation. ("The United States are", becoming "The United States is...")

From the outside, it may look a bit like that, but as a resident in the EU I don't see it happening. I'd say it'll become a close knit powerblock, heck it already is, but I don't see any country being willing to give up it's national sovereignty, nor do I see any need to.

What I do see occuring is the gradual lessening of importance of the state. When you can work anywhere, travel freely, do business freely, and laws are relatively homogenous, does it really matter whether you're in one country or another.

My personal dream is that free trade and movement zones, like the EU, will spread all around the world, and eventually only practical considerations will prevent people living wherever they want, and doing business wherever they wish. The state will only operate in the background providing services etc.

[Zakoo]

Originally Posted by solomon

Well I said interesting be non offensive.

Sorry if I seemed that way, I was in a hurry and aside talking about anime i'm not really used to argue in English.

[MaiNoKen]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Actually Italy was unified by force by Guiseppe Garibaldi, the Red shirts and the Kingdom of Sardinia-Piedmont, and the UK was formed by monarchical succession but the gist is right.

Of course, it was by force. It is by force as well in USA as well, but the subsequent events differ. Even the unity is built on force, the unity of Italy and UK is not maintained by force, but through law and guarantees of individual rights. That is not the case for USSR when the unity was held by violence and deprivation of rights. It was the same in Yugoslavia and the Ottoman Empire. When the threat of violence weakens (aka Moscow, Belgrade, Istanbul's threat of force weakens), the country broke up.

I think I misused and misled in what I meant by "force" in my previous post.

Initially I think the USSR was adequately held together by belief in communism. I think what caused the downfall of the USSR was the fact that the government couldn't translate this belief in the ideal, into reality.

George Orwell's 2-feet walking pigs are laughing.

[solomon]

Either that will be a long time coming or could be accelerated by the furthering Middle Eastern and African immigrant debacle.

My outsiders opinion, while I do think EU citizenry are aware and share a certain European identity, the present nationalist and cultural identification are too entrenched to really ferment support for more federalism.

I mean there is a common thread of ethnic background culture and history between various Southern U.S. states who see themselves as somewhat "different" than the North.

However, I see and hear of large culture gaps between not only also Northern vs. Southern Europe (and West vs. East) but Britian vs. Germany vs. France vs. Italy. Hell look at Ireland and Spain.

It's not impossible, but will be a LONG time in the works.