11 ms·

> various European nations [...] some immigrant groups American Jew here, who spent years living in France and Spain. I've heard the same polite euphemisms ref

> various European nations [...] some immigrant groups American Jew here, who spent years living in France and Spain. I've heard the same polite euphemisms refering to Arabs and Gypsies from the mouths of members of the Front National. You know, before 1945 it was said in Europe that Jews weren't able to integrate fully with the host society. One might ask: Was that the Jews' fault? Or the host society's fault? It's a relevant question. You are blaming it on the particular group of migrants involved in the case of Europe right now. But historically Europe has ghettoized other groups. When the US ghettoized Chinese economic migrants, American politicians claimed they could never integrate. And yet the Chinese-American population is well integrated and hugely successful since the host society allowed it. Same with Jews in America, and increasingly with Hispanics. Why is it that economic migrants do, after a few generations, become successfully integrated in America, while they tend not to in Europe? I don't think the evidence definitively supports the conclusion that it's down to which group. Europe has a problem with integration that has its roots in the ethnic character of its states (something America does not have), in deep-seated xenophobia that causes social exclusion of immigrant or out-groups, and in the fact that its states' reasons for existence are based on tribal boundaries and wars for territory rather than on achieving broader democratic and economic flourishing by harnessing the capability of the whole population. And thus Europe presents neither a dream of integration nor a path toward integration (as in, "to become American"; there is neither an equivalent aspiration nor option "to become French"). And then, once again, Europe blames the groups it refuses to accept.

southernplaces7 2y ago
>I don't think the evidence definitively supports the conclusion that it's down to which group. Europe has a problem with integration that has its roots in the ethnic character of its states (something America does not have), in deep-seated xenophobia that causes social exclusion of immigrant or out-groups, and in the fact that its states' reasons for existence are based on tribal boundaries and wars for territory rather than on achieving broader democratic and economic flourishing by harnessing the capability of the whole population. And thus Europe presents neither a dream of integration nor a path toward integration (as in, "to become American"; there is neither an equivalent aspiration nor option "to become French"). And then, once again, Europe blames the groups it refuses to accept. Strongly agreed on most of these points. The U.S. on the one hand, for all the accusations of racism leveled against it (sometimes rightly) is generally very accepting towards immigrants and integrates them with surprisingly little xenophobia after a while. The U.S. has been doing this for many generations across many different ethnic groups and almost universally, after a couple or more generations, they identify more as americans than as members of their culture of origin, by far. Historically there has been tension and racism throughout this process but it tends to fade and millions of people of many ethnicities join the American mainstream remarkably well. Also, it helps that American society and culture are extremely charismatic in the eyes of much of the world in a way that powerfully encourages the desire to integrate among immigrants, and especially their kids. Most European societies don't have either of the above traits nearly as much as the U.S.
agumonkey 2y ago
Subtle topic. In France there were waves of italians and spaniards in the early 20th, it went bad for a short while and then became a non issue apparently (being born in the 80s, these groups were never causing trouble in the slightest). Sharing history probably helps too. I also never felt any issue regarding Jewish people but considering this was after ww2 .. nobody would really say a thing either, but personally they never displayed anything noteworthy society wise. another non issue Now it's African, northern African populations being at the forefront of news, but personally i had many more issues with them (and i'm partially brown so the chances of them thinking I'm too different are lower). regularly they displayed very low morals, aggressiveness, sudden high fanaticism toward religious principles they didn't really grasp, worse behavior in school. My mother knew people from Asia (Vietnamese, Cambodians) fleeing from war, with no resources, not speaking french, nothing in common with Europe, they mentioned seeing some racism, yet they too ended up being a non issue. They end up being as the cliche quiet-asian-1st-in-class kid and that's the end of it. It's possible France or other European countries have some underlying, hard to describe, notion of integration. It's less economical and more about mentality ? Maybe except UK, where it's often said that anybody will to work would rapidly integrate. I still can't say.
zozbot234 2y ago
Jews only got full citizenship rights in many European countries after the Enlightenment and in many ways their assimilation was absolutely a success, despite an enduring legacy of anti-Semitism (which was shown e.g. by the Dreyfus affair in France, not merely in places with a lengthy history of social authoritarianism and anti-Enlightenment values such as pre-1945 Germany). This, if anything, is proof that successful social integration can in fact be achieved in Europe - that "ethnic character" is not fixed in stone and can shift in response to incentives, at least over multi-generational timescales.
- noduerme 2y ago
  The path from Jewish emancipation in law to Jewish integration in practice was slowed and stymied by antisemitism at every turn, to greater and lesser degrees in different countries. It is hard to believe that Jews were ever regarded as true equals, broadly, in a country which willingly handed over so many to the Nazis. And of course in Spain, Jews were not full citizens and the practice of Judaism was simply forbidden entirely until 1978.
  - ghufran_syed 2y ago
    the people who “handed over so many to the nazis” - what makes you think they wouldn’t or didn’t gladly hand over non-jews if the regime demanded it? your point about judaism being forbidden in spain until 1978 is shocking, thank you for that. I would strongly recommend the following essay, which I read in an ethics class and found extremely powerful. The essay argues that humans can relatively easily be persuaded or intimidated into helping murder other humans, as long as they are introduced to it in the “correct” way. So we should understand what that way is and be vigilant against it. Destroying the innocent with a clear conscience: A sociopsychology of the Holocaust John P Sabini, Maury Silver Survivors, victims, and perpetrators: Essays on the Nazi Holocaust, 329-358, 1980
    - chefandy 2y ago
      > what makes you think they wouldn’t or didn’t gladly hand over non-jews if the regime demanded it? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Would someone need to exclusively repress Jews for that repression to meaningfully affect Jews' economic and human rights trajectory?
goatlover 2y ago
That’s only part of the problem. The other part is the incompatible religious values of the immigrants. Not all of course. But at least enough to cause conflict with western liberal values.
golergka 2y ago
> You know, before 1945 it was said in Europe that Jews weren't able to integrate fully with the host society. One might ask: Was that the Jews' fault? Or the host society's fault? Which Jews? Ultraorthodox don't integrate very well in Israel, for instance.
- margalabargala 2y ago
  To antisemites, the type of Jew is not relevant. I take your point though. Even nominally homgenous societies will stratify and have out-groups.
- noduerme 2y ago
  The tendency of a subsection of orthodox Jews from one area of Eastern Europe to self-ghettoize is something of a red herring. In Western Europe, Jews were never truly integrated unless they converted. And even those who converted and their mixed race children were ultimately slaughtered for their ethnic background, giving lie to the notion that even a WWI veteran ex-Jew could become German. The Haredi (ultraorthodox) movement itself is a reaction to urban Jews who wished to assimilate when such a thing became conceivable in the 19th C. And this is a ghetto mentality. In American terms, your question would be equivalent to "which Black people?" Implying that people who claim and cling to ghetto culture have a hard time integrating. But that 1. dismisses the role that ghettoization had on creating a subculture in the first place, and then 2. pretends the subculture itself is the reason for failure to integrate, i.e. that it's the cause rather than the effect, and 3. serves to allow and excuse and justify the mainstream of society projecting their negative perceptions of that subculture onto individual members of the same ethnic group who would like to integrate without completely renouncing their unique heritage. And in the Jewish case, even complete renunciation wasn't enough, so perhaps the ghetto culture had a point.
gwervc 2y ago
You may throw a Godwin point as introduction, it doesn't change the fact that some groups indeed doesn't integrate well into France. And this is despite billions of welfare money given for housing, free education, free access to health, etc. You mentioned Gypsies, well I read scholarly work stating that they were warmly welcomed 4 centuries ago in the towns of my region, until people discovered a tendency of their purses to disappear. Yes, the same exact complains that some French have nowadays. At some point facts are facts, and victimization doesn't work. For the record, a lot of other nationalities blended without issues within two generations (Portugese, Polonese, Vietnamese, etc.)
- margalabargala 2y ago
  It sounds from your comment that you are from Europe, but if you visit the US, you should travel to the south, find some white conservatives, and discuss black people. They will make astonishingly similar points to the ones you brought up, you'll find you and they have a lot in common.
  - gottorf 2y ago
    For what it's worth, I'm a nonwhite immigrant living in a Deep South state, with experience living in more liberal coastal metropolitan areas. You will find that whites and blacks are much better integrated with each other in the south, and that racism runs deeper up north. For example, it's widely known among black professional athletes that the most racist city to play in is Boston.
- Tao3300 2y ago
  And that's what we call racism. > scholarly work stating that they were warmly welcomed 4 centuries ago Yeah, that doesn't sound legit. Any general sentiment from that time period is lost, and the best your scholar can do is project the lens of the present onto sources from the past. To be fair, all histories are done that way.
  - goatlover 2y ago
    That's not true. The best scholars can do is figure out the lens the past sources were using, given the historical record about the time period. Take for example contemporary scholarship and the historical Jesus. It's now understood Jesus was a 2nd Temple apocalyptic Jew. Something nobody is today, since 2nd Temple Judaism and it's sects were replaced by Rabbinic Judaism, and Christianity went in it's own direction.
bko 2y ago
> It's a relevant question. You are blaming it on the particular group of migrants involved in the case of Europe right now. But historically Europe has ghettoized other groups. My understanding is that pre-WW2 Europe you had community groups that dealt with their people. So in a Jewish neighborhood, you had powerful Rabbis or other religious leaders that dole out law. These unofficial community leaders were given a lot of autonomy as to how to deal with their subjects. You see hints of that today in Jewish neighborhoods in Brooklyn where you have un-offical private police [0]. I don't think its as simple as saying they were excluded or ghettoized. But that begs the question, what does it mean to be a country? Some people think its just magical land, like you step onto the country, get a piece of paper that says you're from that country and that's it. I think every country has a cultural identity. Much less so for America, since its the only country I know of where you can call yourself American despite not being born there or have any blood relatives from there but no one would bat an eye. But even there, some things are anti-American. Things like women being second class citizens (e.g. women can't drive or are forced to cover up). Or lawlessness (e.g. riding illegal scooters the wrong way down the street). I think its perfectly reasonable to say that if you don't accept a countries values, you should not be allowed to move there. If you want to treat women like second class citizens or don't have respect for private policy or rule of law, you shouldn't be allowed to come to law abiding Western country. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/18/nyregion/brooklyns-private-jewish-patrols-wield-power-some-call-them-bullies.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/18/nyregion/brooklyns-privat...
- noduerme 2y ago
  I agree with your negative version of the point: >> if you don't accept a countries values, you should not be allowed to move there But in the positive version, I think in America it is much easier to integrate if you do accept American values than it is in some European countries. And this is because, as you alluded, the only thing that makes America a unified country is a social agreement to certain shared values like rule of law, property rights, freedom to conduct business, freedom of religion, and more recently civil rights. Whereas those ideals are only recently tacked on to (most) European nations, and are not core to their identity; one can accept all those values and still never become German, for instance. Even France where many of those values originated has an ethnic nationalist core which denies integration to those who are not ethnically French. So what I mean is, accepting values in Europe is a start, but it is not enough. And what we see in ghettoized cultures around the world, from African Americans to Algerians in France, is that the ghetto creates its own logic of rejecting the norms of the society which has rejected it. Welfare is not a substitute for a path toward individual success and acceptance in society; this is perhaps Europe's greatest mistake. On welfare, in the suburbs, who will believe and not mock the supposed values of equality and fraternity? It becomes a generational problem.
TMWNN 2y ago
>One might ask: Was that the Jews' fault? Or the host society's fault? I will speak from the perspective of one who emigrated to the US. Every new group is initially seen as "the other". After some point, however, employers that hire "the other" may find that they can pay them less because there is less demand to hire them, and thus benefit financially, they hire more. As other employers follow suit, over time the salaries go up until they match that of other groups. Their children benefit. The first generation of manual laborers and farmworkers begets the second generation of policemen, nurses, and soldiers begets the third generation of doctors and lawyers and professors. In the US this has happened to Irish, Italians, Germans, Russians, Jews, East Asians, Indians, and Latinos. Why hasn't this happened to blacks (or has happened in substantially less numbers), despite the latter having the benefit of US citizenship and command of the English language from birth? Why hasn't this happened to the Somalians mentioned elsewhere? The Muslims of Dearborn? Or look at Britain, where you have three groups from the Indian subcontinent: * Indian Hindus * Indian Sikhs * Indian and Pakistani Muslims Sikhs and Hindus have been very successful; they are more likely than the average to be part of the British middle class <http://www.theguardian.com/money/2010/dec/14/middle-britain-focus-slough http://www.theguardian.com/money/2010/dec/14/middle-britain-...>. Muslims are, by contrast, worse than average in every single social measure despite being, racially speaking, indistinguishable from the other two groups to any outsider (since none knows, or cares, about the myriad of caste differences); they are all "Asians" in Britain. But the outcomes are completely different. I will ask you the same question you posed. Are these differences in outcome the groups' fault? Or the host society's fault?
- avz 2y ago
  The US has extended the protection of the law to the law-abiding Irish, Italians, Germans, Russians, Jews, East Asians, Indians, and Latinos freeing them up to flourish and build human capital. By contrast, the same state has not only failed to do so for the Black community, but its agents have engaged in extrajudicial killings of the community's members with impunity since they lost their legal "protection" as someone else's private property. Community under assault will redirect its private efforts to security which then undermines cultural and economic development and slows down formation of human capital. That's because security needs are fundamental and trump cultural and economic development [1]. Regarding Indian Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims, I disagree they are indistinguishable for outsiders. Typically, anybody who cares can tell by the name, place where they live, or even just the job they do. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre
scrubs 2y ago
I strongly recommend modiano's occupation Trilogy on this general subject (jews in europe) 2012 Nobel prize winner (year from memory but modiano (french) def got a Nobel in literature)
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Georgelemental 2y ago
Many Gypsies do integrate, and soon they are no longer Gypsies. The ones that remain are the descendants of generation after generation that chose again and again not to integrate. See also the Irish Travellers, an ethnically unrelated group with a similar culture.
wwtrv 2y ago
> And then, once again, Europe blames the groups it refuses to accept. Can you explain in what way did this manifest in Sweden for instance? Or have any data/evidence besides some semi-vague claims about antisemitism and some immutable characteristics of European societies (which are hardly monolithic to begin with). It's not that I even necessarily disagree with what you're saying but unfortunately your comment is 80% demagoguery and 20% substance. > Why is it that economic migrants do, after a few generations, become successfully integrated in America, while they tend not to in Europe? Possible different population samples that don't overlap as much? By and large (unless you're crossing the Mexican border I guess...) immigrating to the US has been significantly harder than to the EU even if you're educated/relatively high skilled. The US can afford to be much more picky. > One might ask: Was that the Jews' fault? Or the host society's fault? There are 2x more Jews in France than before WW2? Guess from where most of the threats/attacks towards them are coming? (hint: not the host society).
- init 2y ago
  > Can you explain in what way did this manifest in Sweden for instance? Or have any data/evidence besides some semi-vague claims about antisemitism and some immutable characteristics of European societies (which are hardly monolithic to begin with). If you live in Sweden then you will also know that the state puts refugees in the same areas (Rinkeby, Vivalla, Tensta, etc ...). These areas are then labeled as unsafe because of a slightly elevated crime rate and because they're labeled unsafe, swedes start moving out and quality of services and house prices drop and the downward spiral continues until the area becomes a ghetto even though they're usually not that bad. Although SFI exists to teach Swedish to immigrants, the quality of the teaching is not great in most schools. That's where the integration effort stops. Even professionals who move to Sweden for work have a hard time integrating in Swedish society. That's how you end up with people living in upscale parts of Stockholm for 10+ years and can barely form a sentence in Sweden.
  - Ma8ee 2y ago
    It’s not the state that put the immigrants there, but outside those areas it’s almost impossible to find something to rent, and as an immigrant without a steady income it’s kind of impossible to buy anything.
jajko 2y ago
This post is incorrect in quite a few parts. Being a visitor, albeit even longer term, doesn't make you an automatic expert nor give you that much understanding, this thing isn't a linear function of time spent. Even being married or integrating hard doesn't automatically cover deeper topics. Not going to write novel about this complex topic but in US, if you fail career/financially wise, society lets you easily die homeless on streets, nobody really bats an eye and everybody is focused on 'american dream', chasing money and career. Not so much in Europe. This stressor for newcomers aligns people towards direction that is actually beneficial to native society, unless they fail and turn to highly punished crime. Here in Europe we are often benevolent with social help (sometimes too much I'd say), and abuse is not uncommon, especially with migrants since systems were often not designed with this in mind. Most people perform very differently if they have firm pressure on them from many/all directions vs not so much. Also, absolutely nothing you write is relevant about ie Switzerland, which works a bit more like US in terms of those pressures and it shows on the ground. The issue is easily 10 levels deeper and wider, no point drilling into all of that. But please refrain from reductionism and clearly very US-centric and confident view and judging of society you clearly don't understand that much.
weweweoo 2y ago
Personally I think it's less about accepting others, and more about the fact European economy sucks, has rigid job markets, and lacks entrepreneurial spirit. Historically people left Europe to the US, because that's where you could improve your life through hard work. Those Chinese-Americans improved their life by founding successful businesses, which doesn't seem to happen so much over here. Obviously the US being a land of immigrants with most commonly spoken language in the world helps a lot too. The fact Europe isn't like the US doesn't make it xenophobic. Compared to pretty much anything except the US, it's still among the most accepting towards people of different cultures.
- spaniard89277 2y ago
  The economy sucks for everyone, not only a subset of poor migrants. A subset of african migrants show up in crime stats way more than plenty of other poor migrants coming from pretty much everywhere, be it asia, africa or latam. Some poor indian has no advantage coming to Spain compared to someone from the Magreb, in fact we could argue quite the opposite as their support networks/country of origin are pretty far away.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
skrebbel 2y ago
Great observation. I’m European and I agree. We Europeans love to look down upon America when it comes to stuff like functional government, bicycle paths and public services, but wrt immigration we’re so far behind the US, it’s not even funny. > a path toward integration (as in, "to become American"; there is neither an equivalent aspiration nor option "to become French") We really need to copy this vibe wholesale from the US (and Canada). That people can move here but even their grandchildren won’t feel that they’re properly French (or in my case, Dutch) is obscene. I like your observation that the root cause is the ethnic character of our states but that doesn’t mean we can’t take a note or two out of the American playbook. Truth is we’re not even trying. Instead we’re hopelessly split between the left who stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that there’s a problem (and calls you a racist when you try), and the right who want to hold onto some ethnic nation state pipedream that we never were and never will be.
- sickblastoise 2y ago
  One thing nearly every American agrees on is if you’re a citizen, you’re American. It’s actually an extremely welcoming and beautiful thing about this country.
  - jkestner 2y ago
    Brown people love carrying around citizenship papers so that some Americans can be extremely welcoming.
- spaniard89277 2y ago
  The only reason you're thinking this way it's because you're thinking about problematic migrants, but there are many others you don't see. They don't need to become French, Spanish, Dutch, etc. They're perfectly fine feeling from $country in $eurocountry, going on with their lifes. Europe is not the US, it can't be, and that doesn't mean we're at fault of everything. Many poor migrants come and do ok and have the same opportunities and challenges that others who fail. But somehow is always the same subset we think about.
  - 2y ago
jimnotgym 2y ago
> One might ask: Was that the Jews' fault? Or the host society's fault? Or even ask, how much should they integrate? I'm in the UK. Jewish communities seem to have held on to a certain cohesion, and kept their traditions alive well past when the natives gave up on their own traditions and communities
andrepd 2y ago
Right in the money. No matter how many decades one lives in the Netherlands, one would never be seen as "Dutch". Whereas a Mexican living for 10 years in the USA and throwing BBQs in his backyard would be seen as 100% American.
vt85 2y ago
[dead]
dazc 2y ago
'Europe has a problem with integration that has its roots in the ethnic character of its states...' In the UK we have large numbers of both Pakistani and Indian immigrants. One group has integrated mostly successfully in all walks of life and the other one has not. Hard to argue that this has not been a consequence of choice although plenty of experts, who have never lived with 100 miles of these communities, tell us otherwise.
- alephnerd 2y ago
  The Pakistani (most Pahari/Mirpuri) community was segregated in de facto ghettos and were brought to work unskilled manual labor jobs in a couple industrial estates in the 50s-70s. When the UK began deindustrializing, they were extremely hard hit because the factories shut down. Poverty and Northern England racism (BNP was normalized and doing hate crimes well into the early 2000s, schools were shite with grammar schools closing, etc) kept Mirpuris stuck in the ghetto. And trust me - a Brown guy - when I say that tbe UK is miles more racist and passive aggressive to Desis compared to the US or Canada. Why integrate in a country that keeps being passive aggressive and using your community as a scapegoat. This is why my parents moved to North America instead of Europe in the 1990s - heck my dad had an offer to work for ARM plc in Cambridge back then around the initial IPO. None of the doors I was able to open here in the US would have been opened if I were in the UK or Germany. I'll get amazing schacenfreude when Labour finishes signing the FTA with India in a couple months and Rolls Royce and Dyson begin slowly moving operations.
  - dazc 2y ago
    None of the doors I was able to open here in the US would have been opened if I were in the UK or Germany... The UK recently had a Prime Minister of Indian descent, that he was able to breakthrough the glass ceiling of racism is quite remarkable given he subsequently was unable to demonstrate a talent for anything.
    - alephnerd 2y ago
      > The UK recently had a Prime Minister of Indian descent And the US had an African American President yet police brutality incidents still occur. And that Prime Minister has anyhow left the UK and returned to California (a couple blocks from the Santa Monica Pier). Some GSB alums are setting up a VC Fund for that PM post-Downing Street as we speak. Hell, his business career only started AFTER he immigrated to the US and then returned to the UK to work at TCM. > he was able to breakthrough the glass ceiling P Money is the ultimate equalizer in a country as status obsessed as the UK. Sunak attended an independent school which his parents were able to afford being specialists. Grammar Schools were shut down in the 80s-90s and comprehensives continue to underperform independent schools in placing students in Russell Group programs. If you're parents were working class, you statistically will remain working class. Intergenerational Social Mobility remains lows in the UK [0][1][2][3], and add to that economic depression in the North+Midlands and the very real othering that happens in the UK and that has caused the Mirpuri community to remain economically deprived. -------- In the US I never get asked where I'm from, or told that "my English is excellent", or after a couple pints with coworkers get told "you're one of the good ones". Yet I've faced this kinda BS ALL THE TIME whenever I'm in the UK for work. It's worse on the mainland. Fundamentally, in the US I am not treated as a token nor do I face microagressions. In the UK or Mainland Europe I have to deal with both. [0] - https://www.goldmansachs.com/intelligence/pages/from-briefings-07-april-2022.html https://www.goldmansachs.com/intelligence/pages/from-briefin... [1] - https://ifs.org.uk/news/social-mobility-continues-fall-and-moving-harder-if-you-grow-north-or-midlands https://ifs.org.uk/news/social-mobility-continues-fall-and-m... [2] - https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-sector/our-insights/fixing-the-ladder-how-uk-businesses-benefit-from-better-social-mobility https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-sector/our-insigh... [3] - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1468-4446.13095 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1468-4446.1...
spaniard89277 2y ago
In Europe we have inmmigrants from all over the world, but consistently there's an area in a continent that shows up in crime stats way more than others. Can you explain that? Is that we are all xenophobic or racists or can we admit that there's a cultural component into it, because similar migrants within the same continent but different culture do actually do ok? Other times may have different outcomes because countries and cultures change. Spain for example is a completely different country from what it was in the 80s, economically and culturally. When you live in a place, and you see the same people showing up in stats, and people see the same behavior over and over and over and over, it's about time to quit calling people things and admit that something is going on and we should do things differently. And if you don't then someone will show up promising to deal with it.
RecycledEle 2y ago
Noduerne, may I ask a question? I hope I do not offend you. I know that million of white men died fighting against the Germans in WW2. Why is it that 95% of what I hear from Jews is condemnation if white men for being NAZIs, when the majority of white men and the winning side fought against the Germans? It seems like there should be a 60% gratitude to 40% condemnation split.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
chewz 2y ago
> I've heard the same polite euphemisms refering to Arabs and Gypsies from the mouths of members of the Front National. You know, before 1945 it was said in Europe that Jews weren't able to integrate fully with the host society. I my country Jews lived for 800 years until they left without saying Godbye in 1940s. But we have never held them hostage - they were free to move to Ottoman Empire or North Africa if that suited them better. Or behind Pale of Settlement. Living in ghettoes, sitting shiva for members of community that married non-Jews or assimiliated, being under influence of fanatical rabbis didn't help with integration.
mihaic 2y ago
> I don't think the evidence definitively supports the conclusion that it's down to which group. I've lived besides Gypsy communities, and had during school Gypsy friends. Some were in the top of the class, and many were not. The big predictor for integration was not ethnicity but culture. Some have a culture that indoctrinated them to exploit and explicitly not integrate with the general population. How would you integrate a culture that explicitly rejects integration without changing the culture itself?
- dgb23 2y ago
  > Some have a culture that indoctrinated them to exploit and explicitly not integrate with the general population. Can we be more specific please? I live in an European country and have not observed what you're describing here. There are individuals and groups that have tendencies like you describe, but the generalization doesn't hold in my eyes. I've had refugees in my family, inner circle, at workplaces and so on. The most general observation I can make is that people who tend to flee or migrate from authoritarian, politically oppressive places tend to be very appreciative of social democratic systems.
  - mihaic 2y ago
    Specifically I meant some groups of Gypsies from Eastern Europe, where I've seen this behavior. Most immigrants don't fall in this pattern though, like you describe.
grugagag 2y ago
I think there’s a term confusion here, jews generally integrated well wherever they went but what they didn’t do was assimilate in the larger population. They kept their own traditions over the ones in the countries they migrated to and continued to keep tightly knited communities, to the envy or suspiciton of the host countries.
nso 2y ago
You may not know this, but the word Gypsy is considered an insult by the people you reference to. It's like the N-word for black people. The preferred name is Romani.
- kgwgk 2y ago
  [dead]

southernplaces7 2y ago

>I don't think the evidence definitively supports the conclusion that it's down to which group. Europe has a problem with integration that has its roots in the ethnic character of its states (something America does not have), in deep-seated xenophobia that causes social exclusion of immigrant or out-groups, and in the fact that its states' reasons for existence are based on tribal boundaries and wars for territory rather than on achieving broader democratic and economic flourishing by harnessing the capability of the whole population. And thus Europe presents neither a dream of integration nor a path toward integration (as in, "to become American"; there is neither an equivalent aspiration nor option "to become French"). And then, once again, Europe blames the groups it refuses to accept. Strongly agreed on most of these points. The U.S. on the one hand, for all the accusations of racism leveled against it (sometimes rightly) is generally very accepting towards immigrants and integrates them with surprisingly little xenophobia after a while. The U.S. has been doing this for many generations across many different ethnic groups and almost universally, after a couple or more generations, they identify more as americans than as members of their culture of origin, by far. Historically there has been tension and racism throughout this process but it tends to fade and millions of people of many ethnicities join the American mainstream remarkably well. Also, it helps that American society and culture are extremely charismatic in the eyes of much of the world in a way that powerfully encourages the desire to integrate among immigrants, and especially their kids. Most European societies don't have either of the above traits nearly as much as the U.S.

agumonkey 2y ago

Subtle topic. In France there were waves of italians and spaniards in the early 20th, it went bad for a short while and then became a non issue apparently (being born in the 80s, these groups were never causing trouble in the slightest). Sharing history probably helps too. I also never felt any issue regarding Jewish people but considering this was after ww2 .. nobody would really say a thing either, but personally they never displayed anything noteworthy society wise. another non issue Now it's African, northern African populations being at the forefront of news, but personally i had many more issues with them (and i'm partially brown so the chances of them thinking I'm too different are lower). regularly they displayed very low morals, aggressiveness, sudden high fanaticism toward religious principles they didn't really grasp, worse behavior in school. My mother knew people from Asia (Vietnamese, Cambodians) fleeing from war, with no resources, not speaking french, nothing in common with Europe, they mentioned seeing some racism, yet they too ended up being a non issue. They end up being as the cliche quiet-asian-1st-in-class kid and that's the end of it. It's possible France or other European countries have some underlying, hard to describe, notion of integration. It's less economical and more about mentality ? Maybe except UK, where it's often said that anybody will to work would rapidly integrate. I still can't say.

zozbot234 2y ago

Jews only got full citizenship rights in many European countries after the Enlightenment and in many ways their assimilation was absolutely a success, despite an enduring legacy of anti-Semitism (which was shown e.g. by the Dreyfus affair in France, not merely in places with a lengthy history of social authoritarianism and anti-Enlightenment values such as pre-1945 Germany). This, if anything, is proof that successful social integration can in fact be achieved in Europe - that "ethnic character" is not fixed in stone and can shift in response to incentives, at least over multi-generational timescales.

noduerme 2y ago
The path from Jewish emancipation in law to Jewish integration in practice was slowed and stymied by antisemitism at every turn, to greater and lesser degrees in different countries. It is hard to believe that Jews were ever regarded as true equals, broadly, in a country which willingly handed over so many to the Nazis. And of course in Spain, Jews were not full citizens and the practice of Judaism was simply forbidden entirely until 1978.
- ghufran_syed 2y ago
  the people who “handed over so many to the nazis” - what makes you think they wouldn’t or didn’t gladly hand over non-jews if the regime demanded it? your point about judaism being forbidden in spain until 1978 is shocking, thank you for that. I would strongly recommend the following essay, which I read in an ethics class and found extremely powerful. The essay argues that humans can relatively easily be persuaded or intimidated into helping murder other humans, as long as they are introduced to it in the “correct” way. So we should understand what that way is and be vigilant against it. Destroying the innocent with a clear conscience: A sociopsychology of the Holocaust John P Sabini, Maury Silver Survivors, victims, and perpetrators: Essays on the Nazi Holocaust, 329-358, 1980
  - chefandy 2y ago
    > what makes you think they wouldn’t or didn’t gladly hand over non-jews if the regime demanded it? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Would someone need to exclusively repress Jews for that repression to meaningfully affect Jews' economic and human rights trajectory?

goatlover 2y ago

That’s only part of the problem. The other part is the incompatible religious values of the immigrants. Not all of course. But at least enough to cause conflict with western liberal values.

golergka 2y ago

> You know, before 1945 it was said in Europe that Jews weren't able to integrate fully with the host society. One might ask: Was that the Jews' fault? Or the host society's fault? Which Jews? Ultraorthodox don't integrate very well in Israel, for instance.

margalabargala 2y ago
To antisemites, the type of Jew is not relevant. I take your point though. Even nominally homgenous societies will stratify and have out-groups.
noduerme 2y ago
The tendency of a subsection of orthodox Jews from one area of Eastern Europe to self-ghettoize is something of a red herring. In Western Europe, Jews were never truly integrated unless they converted. And even those who converted and their mixed race children were ultimately slaughtered for their ethnic background, giving lie to the notion that even a WWI veteran ex-Jew could become German. The Haredi (ultraorthodox) movement itself is a reaction to urban Jews who wished to assimilate when such a thing became conceivable in the 19th C. And this is a ghetto mentality. In American terms, your question would be equivalent to "which Black people?" Implying that people who claim and cling to ghetto culture have a hard time integrating. But that 1. dismisses the role that ghettoization had on creating a subculture in the first place, and then 2. pretends the subculture itself is the reason for failure to integrate, i.e. that it's the cause rather than the effect, and 3. serves to allow and excuse and justify the mainstream of society projecting their negative perceptions of that subculture onto individual members of the same ethnic group who would like to integrate without completely renouncing their unique heritage. And in the Jewish case, even complete renunciation wasn't enough, so perhaps the ghetto culture had a point.

gwervc 2y ago

You may throw a Godwin point as introduction, it doesn't change the fact that some groups indeed doesn't integrate well into France. And this is despite billions of welfare money given for housing, free education, free access to health, etc. You mentioned Gypsies, well I read scholarly work stating that they were warmly welcomed 4 centuries ago in the towns of my region, until people discovered a tendency of their purses to disappear. Yes, the same exact complains that some French have nowadays. At some point facts are facts, and victimization doesn't work. For the record, a lot of other nationalities blended without issues within two generations (Portugese, Polonese, Vietnamese, etc.)

margalabargala 2y ago
It sounds from your comment that you are from Europe, but if you visit the US, you should travel to the south, find some white conservatives, and discuss black people. They will make astonishingly similar points to the ones you brought up, you'll find you and they have a lot in common.
- gottorf 2y ago
  For what it's worth, I'm a nonwhite immigrant living in a Deep South state, with experience living in more liberal coastal metropolitan areas. You will find that whites and blacks are much better integrated with each other in the south, and that racism runs deeper up north. For example, it's widely known among black professional athletes that the most racist city to play in is Boston.
Tao3300 2y ago
And that's what we call racism. > scholarly work stating that they were warmly welcomed 4 centuries ago Yeah, that doesn't sound legit. Any general sentiment from that time period is lost, and the best your scholar can do is project the lens of the present onto sources from the past. To be fair, all histories are done that way.
- goatlover 2y ago
  That's not true. The best scholars can do is figure out the lens the past sources were using, given the historical record about the time period. Take for example contemporary scholarship and the historical Jesus. It's now understood Jesus was a 2nd Temple apocalyptic Jew. Something nobody is today, since 2nd Temple Judaism and it's sects were replaced by Rabbinic Judaism, and Christianity went in it's own direction.

bko 2y ago

> It's a relevant question. You are blaming it on the particular group of migrants involved in the case of Europe right now. But historically Europe has ghettoized other groups. My understanding is that pre-WW2 Europe you had community groups that dealt with their people. So in a Jewish neighborhood, you had powerful Rabbis or other religious leaders that dole out law. These unofficial community leaders were given a lot of autonomy as to how to deal with their subjects. You see hints of that today in Jewish neighborhoods in Brooklyn where you have un-offical private police [0]. I don't think its as simple as saying they were excluded or ghettoized. But that begs the question, what does it mean to be a country? Some people think its just magical land, like you step onto the country, get a piece of paper that says you're from that country and that's it. I think every country has a cultural identity. Much less so for America, since its the only country I know of where you can call yourself American despite not being born there or have any blood relatives from there but no one would bat an eye. But even there, some things are anti-American. Things like women being second class citizens (e.g. women can't drive or are forced to cover up). Or lawlessness (e.g. riding illegal scooters the wrong way down the street). I think its perfectly reasonable to say that if you don't accept a countries values, you should not be allowed to move there. If you want to treat women like second class citizens or don't have respect for private policy or rule of law, you shouldn't be allowed to come to law abiding Western country. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/18/nyregion/brooklyns-private-jewish-patrols-wield-power-some-call-them-bullies.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/18/nyregion/brooklyns-privat...

noduerme 2y ago
I agree with your negative version of the point: >> if you don't accept a countries values, you should not be allowed to move there But in the positive version, I think in America it is much easier to integrate if you do accept American values than it is in some European countries. And this is because, as you alluded, the only thing that makes America a unified country is a social agreement to certain shared values like rule of law, property rights, freedom to conduct business, freedom of religion, and more recently civil rights. Whereas those ideals are only recently tacked on to (most) European nations, and are not core to their identity; one can accept all those values and still never become German, for instance. Even France where many of those values originated has an ethnic nationalist core which denies integration to those who are not ethnically French. So what I mean is, accepting values in Europe is a start, but it is not enough. And what we see in ghettoized cultures around the world, from African Americans to Algerians in France, is that the ghetto creates its own logic of rejecting the norms of the society which has rejected it. Welfare is not a substitute for a path toward individual success and acceptance in society; this is perhaps Europe's greatest mistake. On welfare, in the suburbs, who will believe and not mock the supposed values of equality and fraternity? It becomes a generational problem.

TMWNN 2y ago

>One might ask: Was that the Jews' fault? Or the host society's fault? I will speak from the perspective of one who emigrated to the US. Every new group is initially seen as "the other". After some point, however, employers that hire "the other" may find that they can pay them less because there is less demand to hire them, and thus benefit financially, they hire more. As other employers follow suit, over time the salaries go up until they match that of other groups. Their children benefit. The first generation of manual laborers and farmworkers begets the second generation of policemen, nurses, and soldiers begets the third generation of doctors and lawyers and professors. In the US this has happened to Irish, Italians, Germans, Russians, Jews, East Asians, Indians, and Latinos. Why hasn't this happened to blacks (or has happened in substantially less numbers), despite the latter having the benefit of US citizenship and command of the English language from birth? Why hasn't this happened to the Somalians mentioned elsewhere? The Muslims of Dearborn? Or look at Britain, where you have three groups from the Indian subcontinent: * Indian Hindus * Indian Sikhs * Indian and Pakistani Muslims Sikhs and Hindus have been very successful; they are more likely than the average to be part of the British middle class <http://www.theguardian.com/money/2010/dec/14/middle-britain-focus-slough http://www.theguardian.com/money/2010/dec/14/middle-britain-...>. Muslims are, by contrast, worse than average in every single social measure despite being, racially speaking, indistinguishable from the other two groups to any outsider (since none knows, or cares, about the myriad of caste differences); they are all "Asians" in Britain. But the outcomes are completely different. I will ask you the same question you posed. Are these differences in outcome the groups' fault? Or the host society's fault?

avz 2y ago
The US has extended the protection of the law to the law-abiding Irish, Italians, Germans, Russians, Jews, East Asians, Indians, and Latinos freeing them up to flourish and build human capital. By contrast, the same state has not only failed to do so for the Black community, but its agents have engaged in extrajudicial killings of the community's members with impunity since they lost their legal "protection" as someone else's private property. Community under assault will redirect its private efforts to security which then undermines cultural and economic development and slows down formation of human capital. That's because security needs are fundamental and trump cultural and economic development [1]. Regarding Indian Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims, I disagree they are indistinguishable for outsiders. Typically, anybody who cares can tell by the name, place where they live, or even just the job they do. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre

scrubs 2y ago

I strongly recommend modiano's occupation Trilogy on this general subject (jews in europe) 2012 Nobel prize winner (year from memory but modiano (french) def got a Nobel in literature)

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Georgelemental 2y ago

Many Gypsies do integrate, and soon they are no longer Gypsies. The ones that remain are the descendants of generation after generation that chose again and again not to integrate. See also the Irish Travellers, an ethnically unrelated group with a similar culture.

wwtrv 2y ago

> And then, once again, Europe blames the groups it refuses to accept. Can you explain in what way did this manifest in Sweden for instance? Or have any data/evidence besides some semi-vague claims about antisemitism and some immutable characteristics of European societies (which are hardly monolithic to begin with). It's not that I even necessarily disagree with what you're saying but unfortunately your comment is 80% demagoguery and 20% substance. > Why is it that economic migrants do, after a few generations, become successfully integrated in America, while they tend not to in Europe? Possible different population samples that don't overlap as much? By and large (unless you're crossing the Mexican border I guess...) immigrating to the US has been significantly harder than to the EU even if you're educated/relatively high skilled. The US can afford to be much more picky. > One might ask: Was that the Jews' fault? Or the host society's fault? There are 2x more Jews in France than before WW2? Guess from where most of the threats/attacks towards them are coming? (hint: not the host society).

init 2y ago
> Can you explain in what way did this manifest in Sweden for instance? Or have any data/evidence besides some semi-vague claims about antisemitism and some immutable characteristics of European societies (which are hardly monolithic to begin with). If you live in Sweden then you will also know that the state puts refugees in the same areas (Rinkeby, Vivalla, Tensta, etc ...). These areas are then labeled as unsafe because of a slightly elevated crime rate and because they're labeled unsafe, swedes start moving out and quality of services and house prices drop and the downward spiral continues until the area becomes a ghetto even though they're usually not that bad. Although SFI exists to teach Swedish to immigrants, the quality of the teaching is not great in most schools. That's where the integration effort stops. Even professionals who move to Sweden for work have a hard time integrating in Swedish society. That's how you end up with people living in upscale parts of Stockholm for 10+ years and can barely form a sentence in Sweden.
- Ma8ee 2y ago
  It’s not the state that put the immigrants there, but outside those areas it’s almost impossible to find something to rent, and as an immigrant without a steady income it’s kind of impossible to buy anything.

jajko 2y ago

This post is incorrect in quite a few parts. Being a visitor, albeit even longer term, doesn't make you an automatic expert nor give you that much understanding, this thing isn't a linear function of time spent. Even being married or integrating hard doesn't automatically cover deeper topics. Not going to write novel about this complex topic but in US, if you fail career/financially wise, society lets you easily die homeless on streets, nobody really bats an eye and everybody is focused on 'american dream', chasing money and career. Not so much in Europe. This stressor for newcomers aligns people towards direction that is actually beneficial to native society, unless they fail and turn to highly punished crime. Here in Europe we are often benevolent with social help (sometimes too much I'd say), and abuse is not uncommon, especially with migrants since systems were often not designed with this in mind. Most people perform very differently if they have firm pressure on them from many/all directions vs not so much. Also, absolutely nothing you write is relevant about ie Switzerland, which works a bit more like US in terms of those pressures and it shows on the ground. The issue is easily 10 levels deeper and wider, no point drilling into all of that. But please refrain from reductionism and clearly very US-centric and confident view and judging of society you clearly don't understand that much.

weweweoo 2y ago

Personally I think it's less about accepting others, and more about the fact European economy sucks, has rigid job markets, and lacks entrepreneurial spirit. Historically people left Europe to the US, because that's where you could improve your life through hard work. Those Chinese-Americans improved their life by founding successful businesses, which doesn't seem to happen so much over here. Obviously the US being a land of immigrants with most commonly spoken language in the world helps a lot too. The fact Europe isn't like the US doesn't make it xenophobic. Compared to pretty much anything except the US, it's still among the most accepting towards people of different cultures.

spaniard89277 2y ago
The economy sucks for everyone, not only a subset of poor migrants. A subset of african migrants show up in crime stats way more than plenty of other poor migrants coming from pretty much everywhere, be it asia, africa or latam. Some poor indian has no advantage coming to Spain compared to someone from the Magreb, in fact we could argue quite the opposite as their support networks/country of origin are pretty far away.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

skrebbel 2y ago

Great observation. I’m European and I agree. We Europeans love to look down upon America when it comes to stuff like functional government, bicycle paths and public services, but wrt immigration we’re so far behind the US, it’s not even funny. > a path toward integration (as in, "to become American"; there is neither an equivalent aspiration nor option "to become French") We really need to copy this vibe wholesale from the US (and Canada). That people can move here but even their grandchildren won’t feel that they’re properly French (or in my case, Dutch) is obscene. I like your observation that the root cause is the ethnic character of our states but that doesn’t mean we can’t take a note or two out of the American playbook. Truth is we’re not even trying. Instead we’re hopelessly split between the left who stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that there’s a problem (and calls you a racist when you try), and the right who want to hold onto some ethnic nation state pipedream that we never were and never will be.

sickblastoise 2y ago
One thing nearly every American agrees on is if you’re a citizen, you’re American. It’s actually an extremely welcoming and beautiful thing about this country.
- jkestner 2y ago
  Brown people love carrying around citizenship papers so that some Americans can be extremely welcoming.
spaniard89277 2y ago
The only reason you're thinking this way it's because you're thinking about problematic migrants, but there are many others you don't see. They don't need to become French, Spanish, Dutch, etc. They're perfectly fine feeling from $country in $eurocountry, going on with their lifes. Europe is not the US, it can't be, and that doesn't mean we're at fault of everything. Many poor migrants come and do ok and have the same opportunities and challenges that others who fail. But somehow is always the same subset we think about.
- 2y ago

jimnotgym 2y ago

> One might ask: Was that the Jews' fault? Or the host society's fault? Or even ask, how much should they integrate? I'm in the UK. Jewish communities seem to have held on to a certain cohesion, and kept their traditions alive well past when the natives gave up on their own traditions and communities

andrepd 2y ago

Right in the money. No matter how many decades one lives in the Netherlands, one would never be seen as "Dutch". Whereas a Mexican living for 10 years in the USA and throwing BBQs in his backyard would be seen as 100% American.

vt85 2y ago

[dead]

dazc 2y ago

'Europe has a problem with integration that has its roots in the ethnic character of its states...' In the UK we have large numbers of both Pakistani and Indian immigrants. One group has integrated mostly successfully in all walks of life and the other one has not. Hard to argue that this has not been a consequence of choice although plenty of experts, who have never lived with 100 miles of these communities, tell us otherwise.

alephnerd 2y ago
The Pakistani (most Pahari/Mirpuri) community was segregated in de facto ghettos and were brought to work unskilled manual labor jobs in a couple industrial estates in the 50s-70s. When the UK began deindustrializing, they were extremely hard hit because the factories shut down. Poverty and Northern England racism (BNP was normalized and doing hate crimes well into the early 2000s, schools were shite with grammar schools closing, etc) kept Mirpuris stuck in the ghetto. And trust me - a Brown guy - when I say that tbe UK is miles more racist and passive aggressive to Desis compared to the US or Canada. Why integrate in a country that keeps being passive aggressive and using your community as a scapegoat. This is why my parents moved to North America instead of Europe in the 1990s - heck my dad had an offer to work for ARM plc in Cambridge back then around the initial IPO. None of the doors I was able to open here in the US would have been opened if I were in the UK or Germany. I'll get amazing schacenfreude when Labour finishes signing the FTA with India in a couple months and Rolls Royce and Dyson begin slowly moving operations.
- dazc 2y ago
  None of the doors I was able to open here in the US would have been opened if I were in the UK or Germany... The UK recently had a Prime Minister of Indian descent, that he was able to breakthrough the glass ceiling of racism is quite remarkable given he subsequently was unable to demonstrate a talent for anything.
  - alephnerd 2y ago
    > The UK recently had a Prime Minister of Indian descent And the US had an African American President yet police brutality incidents still occur. And that Prime Minister has anyhow left the UK and returned to California (a couple blocks from the Santa Monica Pier). Some GSB alums are setting up a VC Fund for that PM post-Downing Street as we speak. Hell, his business career only started AFTER he immigrated to the US and then returned to the UK to work at TCM. > he was able to breakthrough the glass ceiling P Money is the ultimate equalizer in a country as status obsessed as the UK. Sunak attended an independent school which his parents were able to afford being specialists. Grammar Schools were shut down in the 80s-90s and comprehensives continue to underperform independent schools in placing students in Russell Group programs. If you're parents were working class, you statistically will remain working class. Intergenerational Social Mobility remains lows in the UK [0][1][2][3], and add to that economic depression in the North+Midlands and the very real othering that happens in the UK and that has caused the Mirpuri community to remain economically deprived. -------- In the US I never get asked where I'm from, or told that "my English is excellent", or after a couple pints with coworkers get told "you're one of the good ones". Yet I've faced this kinda BS ALL THE TIME whenever I'm in the UK for work. It's worse on the mainland. Fundamentally, in the US I am not treated as a token nor do I face microagressions. In the UK or Mainland Europe I have to deal with both. [0] - https://www.goldmansachs.com/intelligence/pages/from-briefings-07-april-2022.html https://www.goldmansachs.com/intelligence/pages/from-briefin... [1] - https://ifs.org.uk/news/social-mobility-continues-fall-and-moving-harder-if-you-grow-north-or-midlands https://ifs.org.uk/news/social-mobility-continues-fall-and-m... [2] - https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-sector/our-insights/fixing-the-ladder-how-uk-businesses-benefit-from-better-social-mobility https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-sector/our-insigh... [3] - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1468-4446.13095 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1468-4446.1...

spaniard89277 2y ago

In Europe we have inmmigrants from all over the world, but consistently there's an area in a continent that shows up in crime stats way more than others. Can you explain that? Is that we are all xenophobic or racists or can we admit that there's a cultural component into it, because similar migrants within the same continent but different culture do actually do ok? Other times may have different outcomes because countries and cultures change. Spain for example is a completely different country from what it was in the 80s, economically and culturally. When you live in a place, and you see the same people showing up in stats, and people see the same behavior over and over and over and over, it's about time to quit calling people things and admit that something is going on and we should do things differently. And if you don't then someone will show up promising to deal with it.

RecycledEle 2y ago

Noduerne, may I ask a question? I hope I do not offend you. I know that million of white men died fighting against the Germans in WW2. Why is it that 95% of what I hear from Jews is condemnation if white men for being NAZIs, when the majority of white men and the winning side fought against the Germans? It seems like there should be a 60% gratitude to 40% condemnation split.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

chewz 2y ago

> I've heard the same polite euphemisms refering to Arabs and Gypsies from the mouths of members of the Front National. You know, before 1945 it was said in Europe that Jews weren't able to integrate fully with the host society. I my country Jews lived for 800 years until they left without saying Godbye in 1940s. But we have never held them hostage - they were free to move to Ottoman Empire or North Africa if that suited them better. Or behind Pale of Settlement. Living in ghettoes, sitting shiva for members of community that married non-Jews or assimiliated, being under influence of fanatical rabbis didn't help with integration.

mihaic 2y ago

> I don't think the evidence definitively supports the conclusion that it's down to which group. I've lived besides Gypsy communities, and had during school Gypsy friends. Some were in the top of the class, and many were not. The big predictor for integration was not ethnicity but culture. Some have a culture that indoctrinated them to exploit and explicitly not integrate with the general population. How would you integrate a culture that explicitly rejects integration without changing the culture itself?

dgb23 2y ago
> Some have a culture that indoctrinated them to exploit and explicitly not integrate with the general population. Can we be more specific please? I live in an European country and have not observed what you're describing here. There are individuals and groups that have tendencies like you describe, but the generalization doesn't hold in my eyes. I've had refugees in my family, inner circle, at workplaces and so on. The most general observation I can make is that people who tend to flee or migrate from authoritarian, politically oppressive places tend to be very appreciative of social democratic systems.
- mihaic 2y ago
  Specifically I meant some groups of Gypsies from Eastern Europe, where I've seen this behavior. Most immigrants don't fall in this pattern though, like you describe.

grugagag 2y ago

I think there’s a term confusion here, jews generally integrated well wherever they went but what they didn’t do was assimilate in the larger population. They kept their own traditions over the ones in the countries they migrated to and continued to keep tightly knited communities, to the envy or suspiciton of the host countries.

nso 2y ago

You may not know this, but the word Gypsy is considered an insult by the people you reference to. It's like the N-word for black people. The preferred name is Romani.

kgwgk 2y ago
[dead]