[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
Nooo, you might have remembered that on 9/11 when they didn't know how many planes were being hijacked and smashed into buildings Canada allowed all airborn flights to land in Toronto and other Canadian places. They is rather nice as they allowed it immediately and didn't know if they would become a target in the process.

Not to mention Canadians have been helping in Afghanistan since the beginning and even been killed by other Americans by accident. Canada didn't want to participate in Iraq because they didn't believe there were weapons of mass destruction. Turns out Canada was right.

Canadians were also instrumental to help in many other ways that ae not obvious because it was never made public. Still, we have been acting as a pretty good neighbour, albeit the thanks we got from your President and some people of these boards. Canadians have their weaknesses, but that bashing around 9/11 and afterwards is unfair and inappropriate, except to show a lot of ignorance and selfishness.

We are not asking, as Canadians, special treatment, but these debates about "you guys in the North are commies" are tiresome, but only shows more about stupidity and ignorance.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Ok tough guy. Speak to the thread topic, now. Do you think Western Europe is finally waking up?

You'll ask me, "waking up to what?"

To terrorism. You'll say there was already a cognizance.

To the threat of Islamic terrorism. You'll repeat the previous assertion.

Then we get closer to the real question.

Can Islam peacefully integrate into non-Islamic societies at this point in time?

Was it only a matter of time and numbers before problems arose?

Does a critical mass number of minorities (in this case, mulims) lead to a reaction from the majority?

Once this hypothetical critical mass number is reached is an 'explosion' inevitable?

Is there something ALL western-type societies have in common that make them 'poisonous to Islamic culture?

Vice versa?

These questions are not just for Tarambana.

Jump in if you have something to contribute.

Please stay on topic.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by SimpleLife:
Canadians were also instrumental to help in many other ways that ae not obvious because it was never made public. Still, we have been acting as a pretty good neighbour, albeit the thanks we got from your President and some people of these boards. Canadians have their weaknesses, but that bashing around 9/11 and afterwards is unfair and inappropriate, except to show a lot of ignorance and selfishness.

We are not asking, as Canadians, special treatment, but these debates about "you guys in the North are commies" are tiresome, but only shows more about stupidity and ignorance.

OT

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by SimpleLife:
Please stay on topic.

After your little "Canadian goosing..."

(We are not asking, as Canadians, special treatment, but these debates about "you guys in the North are commies" are tiresome, but only shows more about stupidity and ignorance.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
you suspected you were going to get it from me so you launched a pre-emptive "OT" attack and beat me to it.

See how that works?

By the way, do you know why it hurts a thread to go Off Topic?

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Tarambana:
fora

We all know that forum is a second declension neuter noun and so therefore its plural is 'fora'. But we are speaking English not Latin! 'Forums' is the correct and most commonly used plural form in English. 'Fora' is almost never used and is hardly understood. You write to be understood, not to boast of your knowledge of obscure forms. Fowler has alot to say on this and on words like 'deem' which only create a barrier to the reader in interpreting your writings.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Tarambana:
Ok. I'll tell you this only once. Real Life gets preference over these fora, at least for me. Therefore I am in no way going to educate you. I told you to do so by yourself. I'll nevertheless answer this post and then let you go, as you seem to have some preconcieved ideas you just want to argue.

1st. and foremost.� There weren't census back in the XVIIth and XVIIIth century and very limited in the XIXth. I am sorry but I am not going to give you data so close as of 1900, though it is far more reliable, because your comment, which I quoted before, was referring to a supposed expulsion of muslims (FYI, we expelled the jews, not the muslims) back when the "Reconquista" took place. You should stick to your argument and not try to divert it. In my country many things happened between 1492 and 1900 and certainly the muslims conditions had changed by the XXth century.

Anyway, as I was saying there are almost no records and most of them are not factual. Bernal D�az del Castillo said referring to some of those census that �It was the same to put twenty or twenty thousand� (�Tanto le dio poner veinte como veinte mil.�). So, and this is important, no data I might give you has relevance whatsoever.

2nd.� If you really want to talk about their situation then in the XIXth. and XXth. century, many precisions should be made. I'll let you do them, in hopes that it leads to a better understanding of our history. But let me tell you that since 1812 and until 1978 (both in your given range), muslims and foreigners in general went through many different situations, just as our contry faced nine different Constitutions and many more different governments and policies. It would be great to be able to summarize it, but there are many nuances and it is a very complex matter to explain.

Now, if you should tell me exactly under which period, what government, or what policies you would like to be enlightened about, I'd gladly give you data regarding practicing muslims in Spain. But bear in mind: there were even times when they could practice freedom of religion with far greater liberty than in any other country back then or now.

Also, if the data is so relevant for you, it is also important to remember that most of those muslims were already fully integrated in Spain society by 1800 or 1900.

3rd.� Regarding the great number of muslims the first thing to understand is that in Spain there were two type of muslims after the reconquista: the moors ("moros") that were mostly captives of war, and slaves, and the free moors ("moriscos") that were the muslims who had stayed in Spain after the rendition of Granada, and that had as I already explained the same rights tha natural born citizens. They were (the "moriscos") mostly dedicated to agriculture but there were also many artisans.

So, I won't give you a number (which would be misleading: either by excess or by defect) but I will quote you M. Herrero Garc�a on when he said: �Hoy cuesta creer que en una �poca de hostilidades tan rotas entre el catolicismo espa�ol y el mahometismo, anduviesen moros por Madrid; y sin embargo, los documentos hablan de un modo que hay que rendirse a la evidencia.� [�It's hard nowadays to understand that with such grave hostilities between spanish catolocism and mahometism, there were free moors walking by Madrid; and notwithoutstanding, the documents speak undoubtedly in that way.�].


All and every single respected scholar knows that muslims were able to live side by side with our ultra-catholic kings and for most part of our history to little or no problem at all. Many more arouse with the jews (only because they had far more power and properties), in fact. After all, as I already pointed, our country is formed through inclusion of different people through history. That's why it took us so long to gain identity as a nation.

If the Spanish were so tolerant, why where the Sephardim Jews expelled in 1492 by Ferdinand and Isabella?

I agree that the Spanish are often subject to biased Protestant English historians who often try and vilify the Spanish by exaggerating their persecutions in the Inquisition etc.

[Tarambana]

Originally posted by undotwa:
If the Spanish were so tolerant, why where the Sephardim Jews expelled in 1492 by Ferdinand and Isabella?

I agree that the Spanish are often subject to biased Protestant English historians who often try and vilify the Spanish by exaggerating their persecutions in the Inquisition etc.

I'll answer, though I never said we were that very tolerant with jews, and even though the last paragraph of my previous response you quoted ("Many more arouse with the jews only because they had far more power and properties") has the information you are looking for. In short, because many jews had a position of power in economic and political terms; one that had already led to problems (of which in little or no measure can jews be blamed, as most came from spaniards ourselves) in the reconquered terrotiries that were part of the cristianship. Fernando and Isabel had already envisioned making Spain the beacon of cristianity in Europe, and they were extremely intelligent. Through marriages they extended their influence to other royal houses in Europe setting the basis for their descendant's power. And, even though many jews were expelled in 1492, a lot of them did in fact stay in Spain, though converted (effectively or apparently only) to cristianism.

What happened in Europe with jews is, to me, one of the most interesting (and sad) things in human history. They went in very little time (and their expulsion from Spain in 1492 is only a hallmark, already in 1392 something similar to krystalnacht had taken place, when the jew neighbourhood in Barcelona was set on fire) from being respected and powerful to being despised and attacked and finally expelled from several countries. I haven't as of yet read a single thorough and convincing explanation about the causes and rationale behind this phenomenom.

Back to Spain. We were tolerant in different ways with different cultures. We were very tolerant with muslims, and even a lot more tolerant with frenchs up until the XVIIth century (bear in mind this is no little matter, as we had fought with them and would again not in a long time). We were very tolerant with jews until for the most stupid reasons we started attacking them. Finally, it is wise to dissociate what the kings wanted and how the people acted. The Inquisition had very little to do with the people and a lot to do with power mechanisms.

Anyway, you're right. We weren't (for longer) as tolerant as we should have been with jews. And, what is worse, we expelled them. That was a stupid thing to do both from a human and moral standpoint, and in economic terms, as we lost many rich and inventive people. In this regard only recently have efforts been made to (in a limited way whatsoever) restablish relations with them.


P.S.: Oh, and regarding your previous comment about "fora" (which is easily understood by most people here in Spain, as latin is taught in every school), I'm glad you explained. I thought it was also right to use latin's plurals in english, so thanks a lot for the heads-up.

Yet, you must keep in mind English is my second language and I thrive to use it the best I can. I am sorry if the way I express myself in this foreign language make my ideas hard for you (or anyone) to understand, but rest assured, I do my best to be clear (in spite of limited time to participate here).

P.S.S.: In spanish is also deemed chauvinist and disrispectful to translate personal names to our own language: I'd never say "Jorge Arbusto" (George Bush), nor would I call Fernando el Cat�lico, "Ferdinand the Catholic", as you did. As a side note, teh right translation of the name "Isabel la Cat�lica", wouldn't be Isabella but Elizabeth. Yet I incurred in that same mistake (voluntarily) when I translated the name Boabdil el Chico ("Boabdil the Kid") to help Slimey's better understanding of that paragraph

[Troll]

Originally posted by undotwa:
But we are speaking English not Latin!

I don't get it. Using the word "fora" is considered speaking Latin but using the word "forum" is not??? Forum is about the most Latin of words you can get.

In any event, most people I know say fora.

[Troll]

Originally posted by nath:
They didn't know I'm getting married and today I got an email from DHL saying they had sent me a crate of Rioja!

Congratulations! A whole crate of Rioja! Wow. And the getting married thing isn't bad either.

[Tarambana]

Originally posted by Troll:
I don't get it. Using the word "fora" is considered speaking Latin but using the word "forum" is not??? Forum is about the most Latin of words you can get.

In any event, most people I know say fora.

[Off-Topic]

OK. Now I'm puzzled I guess there isn't such a good reason to make the effort of always writing "forums" instead of "fora".

[/Off-Topic]

[Troll]

Originally posted by Tarambana:
[Off-Topic]

OK. Now I'm puzzled I guess there isn't such a good reason to make the effort of always writing "forums" instead of "fora".

[/Off-Topic]

One forum many fora. Both are perfectly good English and Latin. "Forums" is neither Latin nor good English. It's an accepted plural in English but if you're used to saying fora already, stick with it. It's more correct.

[Tarambana]

Originally posted by Troll:
One forum many fora. Both are perfectly good English and Latin. "Forums" is neither Latin nor good English. It's an accepted plural in English but if you're used to saying fora already, stick with it. It's more correct.

Thanks.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by undotwa:
We all know that forum is a second declension neuter noun and so therefore its plural is 'fora'. But we are speaking English not Latin! 'Forums' is the correct and most commonly used plural form in English. 'Fora' is almost never used and is hardly understood. You write to be understood, not to boast of your knowledge of obscure forms. Fowler has alot to say on this and on words like 'deem' which only create a barrier to the reader in interpreting your writings.

I'm not sure if you're trying to be helpful, whether you're trying to show off your Latin skills ("We all know..."), or whether this is some lame set-up to discredit Tarambana before you make your on-topic point (even though Tarambana's English language skills far surpass those of many native speakers on these fora), but regarding "fora" as an incorrect plural:

The American Heritage Dictionary and Webster's Unabridged Dictionary (as per dictionary.com) disagree with you.

FWIW.

-s*

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Troll:
Congratulations! A whole crate of Rioja! Wow. And the getting married thing isn't bad either.

And probably Navarra, at that!

(yum.)

Enjoy! - and my congratulations, nath.


(Edit: I get confused sometimes, for lack of coffee... Sorry.)

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nath:
Oh come on, if you're not going to even make an effort then what's the point?

Your statement was "Europe was until very recently monocultural", not "Immigration is a relatively new phenomenon in Europe". Tarambana's posts and the EPC article I linked to above prove that first statement to be blatantly untrue.

Nath, you said originally that Europe had always had a large and vibrant Muslim population. That's what I responded to. This idea that the large Muslim community which you have today has been some kind of permanent fixture in European society, and that Europeans are used to living side by side within their communities with people of a radically different religion and culture. It just isn't true. The large and vibrant Muslim communities that exists in Britain, France, Holland, Germany, etc. is very recent in origin. At most it stretches back to the mid 1950s. Mostly it dates from the 1970s. It's a new phenomenon for you.

What you and others countered with is, frankly, irrelevant. Of course we all know that Spain was at one time Arab. We also know about how much Europe feared Islam when Islam was pressing up against the gates of Vienna. And of course we know that medieval Europe maintained loose trading ties with the Arab world. But that is not the same thing as saying that Europe was some kind of Multi-Kulti melting pot throughout your history. It's just not the case.

[Dave Brasgalla]

Originally posted by undotwa:
We all know that forum is a second declension neuter noun and so therefore its plural is 'fora'. But we are speaking English not Latin! 'Forums' is the correct and most commonly used plural form in English. 'Fora' is almost never used and is hardly understood. You write to be understood, not to boast of your knowledge of obscure forms. Fowler has alot to say on this and on words like 'deem' which only create a barrier to the reader in interpreting your writings.

I deem it acceptable. I'll take a little Latin over self-righteous and arrogant nationalism, bullying pomposity, snide condescension, and thinly-veiled intolerance any day of the week.

Cui malo?

[Tarambana]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
And probably Navarra, at that!

(yum.)

Enjoy! - and my congratulations, Tarambana.

Thank you, Spheric, but it is nath who is getting married.

I am afraid, my youth and huge workload don't leave much time for marriage.

---

Originally posted by Dave Brasgalla:
I deem it acceptable. I'll take a little Latin over self-righteous and arrogant nationalism, bullying pomposity, snide condescension, and thinly-veiled intolerance any day of the week.

Cui malo?

Dave, not only I am grateful to you for your icon work (you're probably the most talented iconist I know of), but now I am also thankful for your support.

Looks like I'll keep on saying "fora"

---

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:


[snip]

What you and others countered with is, frankly, irrelevant. Of course we all know that Spain was at one time Arab. We also know about how much Europe feared Islam when Islam was pressing up against the gates of Vienna. And of course we know that medieval Europe maintained loose trading ties with the Arab world. But that is not the same thing as saying that Europe was some kind of Multi-Kulti melting pot throughout your history. It's just not the case.

Simey, I agree that only recently the american "melting pot" model has began to permeate Europe, if that is what you are referring to with "the large and vibrant muslim communities that exists in Britain, France, Holland, Germany, etc."

I am sorry you don't consider those other arguments to be relevant, but rest assured they are not irrelevant. They surely are not as important as the actual situation. But because our heritage tends to conform our thoughts and behaviour, some of our reactions and the way how we deal with foreigners should be better understood through the lens of past.

[Edited for content]

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Dave Brasgalla:
I deem it acceptable. I'll take a little Latin over self-righteous and arrogant nationalism, bullying pomposity, snide condescension, and thinly-veiled intolerance any day of the week.

Cui malo?

Which is funny, because the prevalence of Latin is pretty much due to self-righteous and arrogant nationalism, bullying pomposity, snide condescension, and thinly-veiled intolerance on the part of the Romans.

[nath]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Nath, you said originally that Europe had always had a large and vibrant Muslim population. That's what I responded to.

You responded with the phrase 'Europe was until very recently monocultural', which has been subsequently demonstrated to be nonsense, as you now concede:

"Of course we all know that Spain was at one time Arab."

But don't just take your own words for it. Tarambana's posts and the info I linked to also demonstrated that the two cultures existed alongside each other for extended periods, further debunking your 'monocultural' rubbish.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
But that is not the same thing as saying that Europe was some kind of Multi-Kulti melting pot throughout your history.

Of course it isn't. And if I had posted the italicised words above anywhere in this thread then you might have a point! Don't let your own prejudices interpret and paraphrase other people's posts. You'll find that you tie yourself in a lot fewer knots.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nath:
You responded with the phrase 'Europe was until very recently monocultural', which has been subsequently demonstrated to be nonsense, as you now concede:

"Of course we all know that Spain was at one time Arab."

But don't just take your own words for it. Tarambana's posts and the info I linked to also demonstrated that the two cultures existed alongside each other for extended periods, further debunking your 'monocultural' rubbish.



Of course it isn't. And if I had posted the italicised words above anywhere in this thread then you might have a point! Don't let your own prejudices interpret and paraphrase other people's posts. You'll find that you tie yourself in a lot fewer knots.

Europe was until very recently monocultural. Of course, if you go back hundreds and hundreds of years, the peripheries of Europe were in different hands. That makes zero difference to the challenge of integrating countries like Holland, or Britain, which were, until very recently, monocultural.

By the way, did you know that at one time there were Neanderthals in Europe? I suppose that means that Europe has always had a large and vibrant Neanderthal community.

[TETENAL]

I'm somewhat surprised that the Reconquista is pictured here as a prime example for a multi-cultural society.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I suppose that means that Europe has always had a large and vibrant Neanderthal community.

ever been to d�sseldorf? ;-)

/if anybody here from cologne reads this i hope you appreciate it. *g*

[Abu Bakr]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Europe was until very recently monocultural. Of course, if you go back hundreds and hundreds of years, the peripheries of Europe were in different hands. That makes zero difference to the challenge of integrating countries like Holland, or Britain, which were, until very recently, monocultural.

By the way, did you know that at one time there were Neanderthals in Europe? I suppose that means that Europe has always had a large and vibrant Neanderthal community.

If you were referring especially to Holland and Britain you should have said so. Because Europe includes Spain, former Yugoslavia, Greece, and Turkey. Not to mention all the different cultures in Europe through history.

So if you meant Holland or Britain you should have said so. They aren't the only countries in Europe.

[nath]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Europe was until very recently monocultural. Of course, if you go back hundreds and hundreds of years, the peripheries of Europe were in different hands. That makes zero difference to the challenge of integrating countries like Holland, or Britain, which were, until very recently, monocultural.

Heh. Keep going in that direction chief, eventually you'll twist it into something non-contradictory!

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
By the way, did you know that at one time there were Neanderthals in Europe? I suppose that means that Europe has always had a large and vibrant Neanderthal community.

Now don't sulk - it's not nice.

[nath]

Originally posted by Abu Bakr:
If you were referring especially to Holland and Britain you should have said so. Because Europe includes Spain, former Yugoslavia, Greece, and Turkey. Not to mention all the different cultures in Europe through history.

So if you meant Holland or Britain you should have said so. They aren't the only countries in Europe.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Abu Bakr:
If you were referring especially to Holland and Britain you should have said so. Because Europe includes Spain, former Yugoslavia, Greece, and Turkey. Not to mention all the different cultures in Europe through history.

So if you meant Holland or Britain you should have said so. They aren't the only countries in Europe.

Talking about "Europe" in this context (integration of Muslim immigrants) is pretty artificial in any case. The idea of a European consciousness as "Europe" is quite modern. Even within my lifetime, national identities were much stronger, and common identification as "Europeans" rare. Just think back to Neville Chamberlain's comment about Czechoslovakia as being a country far away about which we know little. He said those words not that long ago. That is, within my parents' lifetime. It's really only since about the 1970s that Europeans got used to the idea of hopping on a jet and going to Malaga or the Dalmatian Coast.

For most people in most of Europe, places like Turkey and the Balkans were so far away and alien that there would have been no sense that a person in, say, Belgium was used to seeing Moslems just because a Serb in faraway Bosnia was used to seeing Moslems. The experience of one is not imputable to the other because Belgians had really no experience of Bosnia. (And note, Yugoslavia isn't exactly a good example of Moslems and non-Moslems living together in harmony). In fact, if you go back just 30 or 40 years, most Western Europeans regarded each other as being pretty alien. If a Frenchman thought of a German as being radically different from himself, it stretches credulity to suppose he thought of Turks and Albanians as fellow Europeans.

My point remains solid. The countries of Northern and Western Europe that today are host to large Muslim populations were, until very recently, monocultural. Those large Muslim populations didn't exist until really the 1970s, or at most, the 1950s. That is a very short period of time. Pointing to Bosnia or to remote parts of Europe's history doesn't alter the fact that until recently, Western Europeans were not accustomed to sharing their countries with large communities of immigrant people.

[Troll]

Even in European pre-history, it has been proven conclusively that various animist religions coexisted alongside monotheistic religions like Judaism or Christianity. That applies to the UK as much as it does to any other parts of Europe. Stonehenge was apparently the site of pagan religious ceremonies even after Christianity had reached England's shores.

Besides, European cultures were even more divers before Christ than they are now. The epithet of Europe being monocultural doesn't apply today even if you ignore the religious differences between countries and it sure as hell didn't apply if you go back in history.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Even in European pre-history, it has been proven conclusively that various animist religions coexisted alongside monotheistic religions like Judaism or Christianity. That applies to the UK as much as it does to any other parts of Europe. Stonehenge was apparently the site of pagan religious ceremonies even after Christianity had reached England's shores.

Besides, European cultures were even more divers before Christ than they are now. The epithet of Europe being monocultural doesn't apply today even if you ignore the religious differences between countries and it sure as hell didn't apply if you go back in history.

You exaggerate the impact of that prehistory on more modern times. Jump in a time machine to 17th Century France or Britain, and I doubt you will run into too many pagans. Nor would you encounter much religious tolerance of any type.

[nath]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
My point remains solid.

Well, it would. Everytime someone has debunked it you've modified it slightly and added a load more guff to act as a diversion.

e.g.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The countries that today are host to large Muslim populations were, until very recently, monocultural. Those large Muslim populations didn't exist until really the 1970s, or at most, the 1950s. That is a very short period of time. Pointing to Bosnia or to remote parts of Europe's history doesn't alter the fact that until recently, Western Europeans were not accustomed to sharing their countries with large communities of immigrant people.

does not equal

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Europe was until very recently monocultural

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
My point remains solid. The countries that today are host to large Muslim populations were, until very recently, monocultural. Those large Muslim populations didn't exist until really the 1970s, or at most, the 1950s. That is a very short period of time. Pointing to Bosnia or to remote parts of Europe's history doesn't alter the fact that until recently, Western Europeans were not accustomed to sharing their countries with large communities of immigrant people.

Okay, let's take France and examine that statement.

Before the Roman invasion of what is today France there were already many different linguistic, religious, ethnic and cultural groups living there. There were of course the people that the Romans referred to as Gauls but there were also Iberians (in southern France and Spain), Ligurians (on the Mediterranean coast), Greeks and Phoenicians (in Marseille) and Vascons (on the Spanish/French border). Under Roman influence, many of these groups started speaking Latin in addition to their own languages.

From the third century on, Western Europe was invaded by Germanic tribes and some of these groups settled in Gaul. The Franks settled in what is today Northern France, the Alemanni settled near Alsace, the Burgundians settled in the Rhone valley and the Visigoths settled in the Aquitaine region and Spain. These Germanic-speaking groups had a profound effect on the Latin spoken in their respective regions, altering both the pronunciation and the syntax.

In medieval France there were three geographical subgroups of languaege in use: Langue d'O�l (in the North) and Langue d'Oc (in the South) being the major ones with Franco-Proven�al being considered transitional between the two major groups.

Langue d'O�l included languages like Picard, Walloon, Francien, Norman. During the 5th Century, the Franks started extending their power and the French language developed.

During the early middles ages other linguistic and cultural groups also move into France. Celts from south western Britain established themselves in Brittany. Breton is a largely Celtic language as a result.

From the 6th to the 7th centuries, the Vascons crossed over the Pyr�n�es and influenced the Occitan language spoken in south-western France. This dialect is called Gascon.

The Vikings invaded France from the 9th century on and established themselves in what would come to be called the Normandy region; they took up the langue d'o�l dialect spoken in that region but also contributed words. With the Norman conquest of England in 1066 the Normans brought their Norman language to England; the dialect which developed in the Norman realms as a language of administration and literature is referred to as Anglo-Norman.

Finally, the Arabs also supplied many words to French in this period, including words for luxury goods, spices, trade stuffs, sciences and mathematics.

By the Ordinance of Villers-Cotter�ts in 1539 King Francis I made French the official language of administration and court proceedings in France. Despite this centralisation and another period of centralistaion in 17th to the 18th centuries, up until 1790, one half of the French population did not speak or understand French!

Still today, a huge part of southern France speaks Occitan dialects, such as Proven�al, Gascon (including B�arnais), Auvergnat, Limousin, Languedocian and (along the Spanish border) Catalan. In the Savoie region of France, Franco-Proven�al was spoken. One also found Alsatian (a Germanic language), Flemish (a dialect of Dutch), Basque and Corsican (a dialect of Italian).

It was only in the 19th Century that people began to speak a relatively common language. By 1910, 90% of the French population understood French, although 50% still understood a local dialect.

This is just the most obvious question of language. If you look at cultures, each of these groups had very distinct traditions, religions and customs.

It is simply wrong to say that countries in Europe only became multicultural in the 20th century.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You exaggerate the impact of that prehistory on more modern times. Jump in a time machine to 17th Century France or Britain, and I doubt you will run into too many pagans. Nor would you encounter much religious tolerance of any type.

I'm not sure what your point is anymore! Why should we jump to the 17th century when your point is apparently that before 1950, Europe was monocultural? I think we've shown you that European history is characterised by a mix of cultures and religions from pre-history right up to modern times.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nath:
Well, it would. Everytime someone has debunked it you've modified it slightly and added a load more guff to act as a diversion.

e.g.



does not equal

I have explained fully what I was saying -- and it is accurate. You are trying to score debating points on technicalities such as the geographical reach of Europe, which is much larger than the common identification of Europe.

In any case, your statement about Europe always having large and vibrant Muslim populations is bunk. Unless, you mean that people in Belgium had their cultural identity shaped by Bosnians.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
I'm not sure what your point is anymore! Why should we jump to the 17th century when your point is apparently that before 1950, Europe was monocultural? I think we've shown you that European history is characterised by a mix of cultures and religions from pre-history right up to modern times.

No, not prehistory right up until modern times. Europe wiped out those mixtures of cultures and the different European nations became in a practical sense, monocultural. That began breaking down when large scale immigration begain in the 1950s, accellerating in the 1970s.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Okay, let's take France and examine that statement.

Before the Roman invasion of what is today France there were already many different linguistic, religious, ethnic and cultural groups living there. There were of course the people that the Romans referred to as Gauls but there were also Iberians (in southern France and Spain), Ligurians (on the Mediterranean coast), Greeks and Phoenicians (in Marseille) and Vascons (on the Spanish/French border). Under Roman influence, many of these groups started speaking Latin in addition to their own languages.

From the third century on, Western Europe was invaded by Germanic tribes and some of these groups settled in Gaul. The Franks settled in what is today Northern France, the Alemanni settled near Alsace, the Burgundians settled in the Rhone valley and the Visigoths settled in the Aquitaine region and Spain. These Germanic-speaking groups had a profound effect on the Latin spoken in their respective regions, altering both the pronunciation and the syntax.

In medieval France there were three geographical subgroups of languaege in use: Langue d'O�l (in the North) and Langue d'Oc (in the South) being the major ones with Franco-Proven�al being considered transitional between the two major groups.

Langue d'O�l included languages like Picard, Walloon, Francien, Norman. During the 5th Century, the Franks started extending their power and the French language developed.

During the early middles ages other linguistic and cultural groups also move into France. Celts from south western Britain established themselves in Brittany. Breton is a largely Celtic language as a result.

From the 6th to the 7th centuries, the Vascons crossed over the Pyr�n�es and influenced the Occitan language spoken in south-western France. This dialect is called Gascon.

The Vikings invaded France from the 9th century on and established themselves in what would come to be called the Normandy region; they took up the langue d'o�l dialect spoken in that region but also contributed words. With the Norman conquest of England in 1066 the Normans brought their Norman language to England; the dialect which developed in the Norman realms as a language of administration and literature is referred to as Anglo-Norman.

Finally, the Arabs also supplied many words to French in this period, including words for luxury goods, spices, trade stuffs, sciences and mathematics.

By the Ordinance of Villers-Cotter�ts in 1539 King Francis I made French the official language of administration and court proceedings in France. Despite this centralisation and another period of centralistaion in 17th to the 18th centuries, up until 1790, one half of the French population did not speak or understand French!

Still today, a huge part of southern France speaks Occitan dialects, such as Proven�al, Gascon (including B�arnais), Auvergnat, Limousin, Languedocian and (along the Spanish border) Catalan. In the Savoie region of France, Franco-Proven�al was spoken. One also found Alsatian (a Germanic language), Flemish (a dialect of Dutch), Basque and Corsican (a dialect of Italian).

It was only in the 19th Century that people began to speak a relatively common language. By 1910, 90% of the French population understood French, although 50% still understood a local dialect.

This is just the most obvious question of language. If you look at cultures, each of these groups had very distinct traditions, religions and customs.

It is simply wrong to say that countries in Europe only became multicultural in the 20th century.

I know all this. It has nothing to do with what we are talking about. We aren't talking about multiculturalism in the sense of Celts and Romans. We are talking much more recently.

Europeans in countries like Holland, France, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Scotland, England, Ireland, and so on did not live in multicultural societies with large Muslim populations until very recently.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nath:
It seems unlikely that Europeans would ever become as frightened as some Americans have become, because most of Europe has had prior experience of terrorism, and because we have always had a large and vibrant muslim population.

It's much easier to whip up fear in a population when it's a relatively unknown quantity being branded 'the enemy'. aberdeenwriter will agree with this, being a big fan of documentary series 'The Power of Nightmares'.

Just a reminder that this was the post I responded to. No Celts, no Romans. Just an absurd idea that the communities now in existence in places like Britain, Holland, Sweden, etc. have roots in those countries that go back more than 30 to 50 years.

[nath]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You are trying to score debating points on technicalities such as the geographical reach of Europe, which is much larger than the common identification of Europe.

Now you're just being silly. Just so you know in the future, when I say the word Europe, I mean Europe - the whole of Europe, as it exists and is recognised at the time of posting.

Yes, that's right, including all the countries that are in Europe, geographically

Yes, absolutely, even the ones that create problems for whatever point you are trying to make at the time. And yes, I would include Spain as being in the 'common identification' of Europe!

Playing this dumb is truly the last refuge of the pwned.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I know all this. It has nothing to do with what we are talking about. We aren't talking about multiculturalism in the sense of Celts and Romans. We are talking much more recently.

Precisely what time period is it that you are referring to when you say that Europe was "monocultural"?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Precisely what time period is it that you are referring to when you say that Europe was "monocultural"?

Well it is going to depend from country to country, isn't it? It also depends on how narrow or broadly you define monoculturalism.

For example, would you say that 19th century Britain was a multicultural country in the modern sense? How many Mosques do you suppose there were in Birmingham at that time? Or in the whole country? Shall we guess zero as a nice round number?

If, on the other hand, you define "multicultural" as saying that there was a small Jewish community in Britain at that time. Or that by the 19th century, Britain had finally legalised Catholicism, or that the Welsh and Scots aren't quite like the English, then I suppose you can say that Britain was multicultural. But in reality, you didn't see a lot of people of Pakistani descent in Britain at that time, and you know it. Also very few people of non-caucasian origin of any type. Using a sensible definition of multicultural, Britain was not multicultural until large scale immigration began in the 1950s -- and really not multicultural in any meaningful sense until the 60s and 70s.

That's just an example. The same can be said for most of the rest of Western Europe.

[nath]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Just an absurd idea that the communities now in existence in places like Britain, Holland, Sweden, etc. have roots in those countries that go back more than 30 to 50 years.

I'm glad you're confessing it's an absurd idea, because all of those words are a diversion produced by your own imagination.

I didn't refer to Britain, Holland or Sweden in my post, or immigration over the last 50 years. I said that "we [Europe - the whole of Europe, including all the countries ] have always had a large and vibrant muslim population" Which we have.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nath:
I'm glad you're confessing it's an absurd idea, because all of those words are a diversion produced by your own imagination.

I didn't refer to Britain, Holland or Sweden in my post, or immigration over the last 50 years. I said that "we [Europe - the whole of Europe, including all the countries ] have always had a large and vibrant muslim population" Which we have.

Prior to perhaps the 1970s, nobody would have said "we" in that context. Europe didn't have a single identity that would have included places like Bosnia. A Briton, or Frenchman, or German (you can keep adding to the list) would not have included a Bosnian as "we." It would have been "they" and "their" experience with a Muslim community had no impact whatsoever on attitudes toward Muslims in other parts of Europe.

[nath]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Prior to perhaps the 1970s nobody would have said "we" in that context. Europe didn't have a single identity

It's 2004.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

How many Mosques do you suppose there were in Birmingham at that time? Or in the whole country? Shall we guess zero as a nice round number?

The first mosque in Britain is recorded as having been at 2 Glyn Rhondda Street, Cardiff, in 1860.

In the 18th and 19th Centuries there were a number of converts to Islam amongst the English upper classes, including Edward Montagu, son of the ambassador to Turkey.

The first large group of Muslims in Britain arrived about 300 years ago. They were sailors recruited in India to work for the East India Company, and so it's not surprising that the first Muslim communities were found in port towns.

Ships' cooks came too, many of them from Sylhet in what is now Bangladesh. There are records of Sylhetis working in London restaurants as early as 1873.

Some Muslim sailors decided to stay in Britain and simply left their ships without going through any formal immigration procedure.

The next wave of Muslim immigration to Britain followed the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869. The increase in trade caused a demand for men to work in ports and on ships.

Most of these immigrants came from the Yemen, probably because Aden was the main refuelling stop for ships between Britain and the Far East, and many of the seamen later settled in the port cities of Cardiff, Liverpool, South Shields, Hull, and London. There are now an estimated 70-80,000 Yemenis living in Britain, who form the longest-established Muslim group in Britain.

An example is the Yemeni community of South Shields, which began at the end of the 19th century when Yemenis working as stokers on steamships moved ashore and set up boarding houses in the dock area.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nath:
It's 2004.



The first mosque in Britain is recorded as having been at 2 Glyn Rhondda Street, Cardiff, in 1860.

In the 18th and 19th Centuries there were a number of converts to Islam amongst the English upper classes, including Edward Montagu, son of the ambassador to Turkey.

The first large group of Muslims in Britain arrived about 300 years ago. They were sailors recruited in India to work for the East India Company, and so it's not surprising that the first Muslim communities were found in port towns.

Ships' cooks came too, many of them from Sylhet in what is now Bangladesh. There are records of Sylhetis working in London restaurants as early as 1873.

Some Muslim sailors decided to stay in Britain and simply left their ships without going through any formal immigration procedure.

The next wave of Muslim immigration to Britain followed the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869. The increase in trade caused a demand for men to work in ports and on ships.

Most of these immigrants came from the Yemen, probably because Aden was the main refuelling stop for ships between Britain and the Far East, and many of the seamen later settled in the port cities of Cardiff, Liverpool, South Shields, Hull, and London. There are now an estimated 70-80,000 Yemenis living in Britain, who form the longest-established Muslim group in Britain.

An example is the Yemeni community of South Shields, which began at the end of the 19th century when Yemenis working as stokers on steamships moved ashore and set up boarding houses in the dock area.

Now that is getting intersting. However, how much impact do you suppose those small numbers had on British culture? What percentage of the population do you suppose ever met a Muslim? Very few. The impact of a few sailors was negligible. It certainly doesn't make a country multicultural.

[Troll]

Originally posted by nath:
The first mosque in Britain is recorded as having been at 2 Glyn Rhondda Street, Cardiff, in 1860.

In the 18th and 19th Centuries there were a number of converts to Islam amongst the English upper classes, including Edward Montagu, son of the ambassador to Turkey.

Game, set and match!

[nath]

Originally posted by Troll:
Game, set and match!

Whoa, hold it there. Apparently it's only 'getting interesting'

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Game, set and match!

Oh good grief! So Britain had millions of Muslims prior to the 1950s? I suppose they just disguised themselves very well so that nobody noticed them.

I think nath needs to get out of his London bubble and go talk to some older British people who actually recall things from more than a few years ago.

[nath]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I think nath needs to get out of his London bubble and go talk to some older British people who actually recall things from more than a few years ago.

Oh, give it up.

The mosque was in Cardiff. That's in Wales. In 1860.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nath:
Oh, give it up.

The mosque was in Cardiff. That's in Wales. In 1860.

I'll concede there was a Mosque in Cardiff in 1860. That doesn't translate into a multicultural society. It just means there were enough people in Cardiff in 1860 to turn a house into a Mosque.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'll concede there was a Mosque in Cardiff in 1860. That doesn't translate into a multicultural society. It just means there were enough people in Cardiff in 1860 to turn a house into a Mosque.

You don't need millions of Muslims to make a multicultural society. Even if Muslims only arrived in European countries in 1999, it's still clear that European countries have been multicultural, multi-ethnic, multi-lingual and multi-religious for centuries.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
You don't need millions of Muslims to make a multicultural society. Even if Muslims only arrived in European countries in 1999, it's still clear that European countries have been multicultural, multi-ethnic, multi-lingual and multi-religious for centuries.

I think we are talking past one another. Obviously all kinds of people moved around Europe at various points of history. That's where all those wars came from. But in terms of large scale immigration from other continents, Western Europe is is only recently dealing with something it has never encountered before to any significant degree in recent cultural memory.

This website has some interesting viewpoints and statistics. For example, the first recorded practicing Muslim in England was in 1583, but his name was John Nelson. There was a "surge of immigration follwing the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869" and there were sailors brought in by the British East India Company in the 1800s. But the numbers were small. There were around 21,000 Muslims in Britain in 1951.

21,000 in a population as large as Britain's (about 50 million in 1950) does not make Britain a multicultural society at that time. And if you talk to anyone who was in Britain at that time, you will find out that their welcome wasn't overwhelming and Britain didn't suddenly embrace a different culture. See Enoch Powell for details.

[nath]

Originally posted by Troll:
You don't need millions of Muslims to make a multicultural society. Even if Muslims only arrived in European countries in 1999, it's still clear that European countries have been multicultural, multi-ethnic, multi-lingual and multi-religious for centuries.

I never said anything about multicultural societies anyway. That particular phrase was introduced by the Simey-Filter.


I'm bookmarking this thread, it's funny as hell!