Living Together
There has to be some commonality. Aside from the fact that we are all human beings, that we harbour like aspirations, experience similar emotions, seek a comfortable way of life. Our aspirations, emotions and lifestyles are informed by our cultural heritage, our geography, our religion, or ethnicity, or both, the mores and morals acceptable by all the former. So when groups of people emigrate whether by necessity due to war or social duress or a wish to improve future opportunities for their families, they bring with them considerable baggage to their newly-adopted countries.Language is a temporary barrier. Cultural adaptation another. Recognition of the laws of the new land yet another. Finding one's place in the general society is an obvious necessity, and without the solution found through enterprising adaptation to the first three, finding employment will remain a severe difficulty. Once having solved these problems facing most immigrants, a gradual melding into the host country's way of life, adaptation to its legal system, its cultural, ethical and social mores is necessary to ensure the immigrant becomes a bona fide citizen of the country.
Remaining apart from the mainstream by design, with the intention of remaining true to the original country of birth's history, culture, religion and distinct behavioural mores ensures that there will always be a gulf of misunderstanding, a divide, a distrust and dislike between newcomers and the indigenous population of the country. As much as the country of adoption's citizens wish to extend understanding and a helping hand to the immigrants they will be put off and find fault with deliberate self-ghettoization.
People who live in close proximity, but who don't share a common language cannot communicate effectively and misunderstandings ensue. It should be understood by would-be emigrants to any country that it is incumbent upon them, and expected of them to learn the language of the new country. Many welcoming countries offer free language tuition to immigrants. The laws of the new country should be recognized as having primacy over all citizens; religious laws must be in conformance with a country's legal system for the equal protection of all citizens. If migrants' religious laws or cultural practices come into conflict with existing state laws, it is the state laws that must supercede the others.
Most immigrants from various countries of the world have, in the past, learned to adapt themselves to the countries to which they have been accepted as new citizens. On their own, they have learned the new language of the majority, they have sought employment, they have honoured their cultural, ethnic and religious backgrounds, while embracing the vital societal structure to which they have emigrated, and a gradual process of integration has taken place, where the second generation has found itself a sturdy place in the general population.
It has only been of late that the kind of multiculturalism practised by welcoming Western countries to emigrants from Muslim countries have been determined to have gone badly awry. Too lax rules have encouraged immigrants to Western societies to feel empowered to practise their religion in the very same manner in which they did in their countries of origin, where religion and state practise intermeshed. In secular Western countries which embrace a variety of religions and ethnicities the law of the land is meant to protect freedom of religion, of speech, of heterogenous cultural practices which do not come into conflict with the law.
It's fair to say that among Muslim populations in Western countries the greater proportion learn to become comfortable with the societal imperatives and practises of their adopted countries. This, despite the fact that these immigrants often suffer from discriminatory practises not encouraged by the state, but practised by some elements of society and by business interests. Because of this disadvantage, as a result of ignorance and racism resentment occurs and a restiveness among the youth of the introduced immigrant population often results in anti-social behaviour sometimes moving into violence.
It is just that element of the indigenous population which resents the presence of observable immigrants, meeting the equally resentful element of the introduced population that results in violent clashes. Young immigrants disadvantaged in education, social migration, employment are ripe pickings for radical religious groups, resulting in a deadly clash between the values of the original population and that of the introduced population.
A true recipe for disaster. Immigrants need to be made immediately and clearly aware of a welcoming country's expectations before they can be admitted to the country as potential citizens. Should immigrants not be prepared to adapt and respect the country's laws and social structures, they should be deemed inappropriate and refused entry.
As for the belligerants on both sides, racial extremists and religious extremists alike, they should be subject to full prosecution under the law. Neither the immigrants from among whom the religious extremists result, nor the host country's xenophobic extremists should be permitted to destroy the potential for harmony among the two solitudes.
posted by Pieface @ Monday, October 30, 2006
<< Home