4 ms·

I wonder how the Danish immigrants in Lebanon are fairing under the government and society in place.

pjc50 8y ago
The few Danes in Lebanon are almost certainly doing alright. It's the refugees in Lebanon that aren't; there's 1.5 million Syrian refugees there, which is causing similar social and economic tensions on a much larger scale. (The headline article mentions that several of those interviewed are refugees, presumably from the previous civil war in Lebanon.)
- classicsnoot 8y ago
  I posted that comment to be snarky, but your earnest response has compelled me to elaborate on the motivation behind the crassness. I imagine any Dane in Lebanon is doing quite well because, barring the exceedingly unlikely but not impossible chance of human trafficking, Danes in the Levant are there by choice and persons of considerable means (or privileged volunteers subjecting themselves to unnecessary hardship for a plethora of potential reasons). Denmark hasn't experienced a war since 1945 and hasn't had a home front war since ~1860. They don't generate refugees, and by and large neither do their neighbors. This is not magic. This is not a product of colonialism, or racism, or slavery. This is because certain cultures made a concerted effort to stop repeating a cycle and chose to operate differently. Having the means to do this was a lucky break in history (Nazis loved the Danes but the Danes never publicly reciprocated so they got all that sweet Marshall Plan cash) as well as some incredibly forward thinking and talented people who wanted their ethnostate to be happy, healthy, and productive. The last place Europe sent a bunch of refugees (outside of Europa) was Palestine. This led directly to a diaspora of Arabs and others out of the Levant. Guilt opened Europe's borders, foolishness propped the door open, and cognitive dissonance will claim it is the right thing to do. Denmark, or any country, that attempts to transfer culture through enforced education (as opposed to child rearing, intermarriage, social pressure, or the quite effective but completely contemptible method of attempted genocide) is doomed to fail. It is just a matter of time. The author of the article tried very hard to paint the immigrants as hapless victims with a sthole on one side and stty people on the other, a poor young mother desperate to be accepted by the country she wishes to be a part of. And this may be true for her. It could be true for many of the immigrants in Europe currently. But history is very clear about what mass migration does to native populations, regardless of the initial power dynamic between immigrant and native, nevermind the motivation for immigration (European immigrants to North America were fleeing widespread violence, scant economic opportunity, and oppressive religious suppression as well). Color, Creed, and chronology are irrelevant. The advantage lies with the more aggressive in almost all conflicts, regardless of whether or not each participant acknowledges that the fight is occurring.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    > Denmark hasn't experienced a war since 1945 and hasn't had a home front war since ~1860. Yes > They don't generate refugees, and by and large neither do their neighbors. Not since the war, no. > This is not magic. This is not a product of colonialism, or racism, or slavery. .. no. The refugees fleeing the Levant absolutely are doing so as a result of colonialism, and the more modern phenomenon of "spheres of influence". The Syrian civil war wouldn't be happening without the colonialism of the 21st century, including Russia trying to preserve its Mediterranean naval base. Certainly Libya wasn't sending any refugees to the West until the West bombed it. > Denmark, or any country, that attempts to transfer culture through enforced education (as opposed to child rearing, intermarriage, social pressure, or the quite effective but completely contemptible method of attempted genocide) is doomed to fail. Enforced culture transfer may not work, but voluntary culture transfer works extremely well. That's why American culture is so prevalent across the world to the extent that some countries have minimum "native content percentage" media laws.

The few Danes in Lebanon are almost certainly doing alright. It's the refugees in Lebanon that aren't; there's 1.5 million Syrian refugees there, which is causing similar social and economic tensions on a much larger scale. (The headline article mentions that several of those interviewed are refugees, presumably from the previous civil war in Lebanon.)

classicsnoot 8y ago
I posted that comment to be snarky, but your earnest response has compelled me to elaborate on the motivation behind the crassness. I imagine any Dane in Lebanon is doing quite well because, barring the exceedingly unlikely but not impossible chance of human trafficking, Danes in the Levant are there by choice and persons of considerable means (or privileged volunteers subjecting themselves to unnecessary hardship for a plethora of potential reasons). Denmark hasn't experienced a war since 1945 and hasn't had a home front war since ~1860. They don't generate refugees, and by and large neither do their neighbors. This is not magic. This is not a product of colonialism, or racism, or slavery. This is because certain cultures made a concerted effort to stop repeating a cycle and chose to operate differently. Having the means to do this was a lucky break in history (Nazis loved the Danes but the Danes never publicly reciprocated so they got all that sweet Marshall Plan cash) as well as some incredibly forward thinking and talented people who wanted their ethnostate to be happy, healthy, and productive. The last place Europe sent a bunch of refugees (outside of Europa) was Palestine. This led directly to a diaspora of Arabs and others out of the Levant. Guilt opened Europe's borders, foolishness propped the door open, and cognitive dissonance will claim it is the right thing to do. Denmark, or any country, that attempts to transfer culture through enforced education (as opposed to child rearing, intermarriage, social pressure, or the quite effective but completely contemptible method of attempted genocide) is doomed to fail. It is just a matter of time. The author of the article tried very hard to paint the immigrants as hapless victims with a sthole on one side and stty people on the other, a poor young mother desperate to be accepted by the country she wishes to be a part of. And this may be true for her. It could be true for many of the immigrants in Europe currently. But history is very clear about what mass migration does to native populations, regardless of the initial power dynamic between immigrant and native, nevermind the motivation for immigration (European immigrants to North America were fleeing widespread violence, scant economic opportunity, and oppressive religious suppression as well). Color, Creed, and chronology are irrelevant. The advantage lies with the more aggressive in almost all conflicts, regardless of whether or not each participant acknowledges that the fight is occurring.
- pjc50 8y ago
  > Denmark hasn't experienced a war since 1945 and hasn't had a home front war since ~1860. Yes > They don't generate refugees, and by and large neither do their neighbors. Not since the war, no. > This is not magic. This is not a product of colonialism, or racism, or slavery. .. no. The refugees fleeing the Levant absolutely are doing so as a result of colonialism, and the more modern phenomenon of "spheres of influence". The Syrian civil war wouldn't be happening without the colonialism of the 21st century, including Russia trying to preserve its Mediterranean naval base. Certainly Libya wasn't sending any refugees to the West until the West bombed it. > Denmark, or any country, that attempts to transfer culture through enforced education (as opposed to child rearing, intermarriage, social pressure, or the quite effective but completely contemptible method of attempted genocide) is doomed to fail. Enforced culture transfer may not work, but voluntary culture transfer works extremely well. That's why American culture is so prevalent across the world to the extent that some countries have minimum "native content percentage" media laws.