Theo van Gogh murdered

[Postduifje 0]

I think all religions have violent and non violent people. But the ones frightening me the most are the extreme islam groups. I think it's because we don't understand why and what they are fighting for.

I don't know about who's more scary, burning down and attempting to blow up islamic primary schools looks pretty scary to me too.

But I think we finally had a piecefull night again last night, noone got blown up or burned down as far as I know of. And luckely the media has it's focus on Arafat right now, which leaves them no time to poke up the fire over here like they've done the last couple of days.

[JdB 151]

But I think we finally had a piecefull night again last night, noone got blown up or burned down as far as I know of.

Well, some people did try something again...link

[Postduifje 0]

Well, some people did try something again...link

Damn, and I was so hopefull we were finally calming down a bit. Well, atleast nothing bad happened and the incidents are decreasing.

edit: But than again...

[JRMZ 0]

We'll just keep our fingers crossed for the near future

[iNeo 0]

No it's not a blurry concept as long as you don't mix people (not by living together, but by putting people of "hybrid race" to the world).

What's wrong with mixing races and cultures? Maybe it's just the formulation of that sentence, but it sounds a bit like extreme racism where you desire a "pure" race that is superior in your eyes.

I said definitions of etnicity might get screwed up if you mix races, as long as you don't, etnicity is not a blurry concept, which you claimed it was. I didn't say it's wrong to mix races, but I can say it if you want me to; I wouldn't want to be mixed, cause I want to know where I have my roots. An example, picture an half-Dutch half-African having a baby with an half Japanese half-Russian. That child would be 25% Dutch, 25% African, 25% Japanese and 25% Russian, and when he gets older he marries a girl who's 25% each of four other peoples, and they have a baby together. I wouldn't wanna be that baby.

Quote[/b] ]Neighbouring countries aren't that different in most cases no, but we're talking muslim immigration to Europe, that's not neighbouring countries, nor very similar cultures.

What I was trying to say is that ethnicity changes gradually. It's is not a black and white descrete prosses, ethnics are continuisly.

People coming from neighbouring countries easily assimilate into the ethnic group they move to, so you can't say today's Dutchmen are non-Dutch, and that goes for "all" European countries and peoples.

Quote[/b] ]We never had to bring people from lands far away to have a cultural progress

The people are seldomly brought as guestworkers, most people move on their own, which should be stimulated as much as possible if it makes them happier.

Quote[/b] ], there was an exchange of cultures anyway through trade etc. What's wrong with tourism?

Just what I said, migration is a natural proces, nothing wrong with it, as is tourism.

You said that cultures etc change "often thanks to mixing of culture". What I said meant that we always had an exchange of culture, without massive immigration. Thus saying we can thank migration for development of culture is just wrong, it was never needed.

Quote[/b] ]But integration has not failed at all.

I can't speak for the continent, but it certainly has failed over here.

Quote[/b] ]If you fail to integrate into the multicultural society, it's your wrong, not everyone elses.

They should adjust to where they come to, I'm not going to change myself nor accept change of systems etc because they don't suite them. They can't come here and demand change.

[Supah 0]

I said definitions of etnicity might get screwed up if you mix races, as long as you don't, etnicity is not a blurry concept, which you claimed it was. I didn't say it's wrong to mix races, but I can say it if you want me to; I wouldn't want to be mixed, cause I want to know where I have my roots. An example, picture an half-Dutch half-African having a baby with an half Japanese half-Russian. That child would be 25% Dutch, 25% African, 25% Japanese and 25% Russian, and when he gets older he marries a girl who's 25% each of four other peoples, and they have a baby together. I wouldn't wanna be that baby.

That baby would be 100% dutch as both its parents are dutch.

[theavonlady 2]

The problem in this case is not the color of anyone's eyes, skin or hair or the type of clothes they wear.

[iNeo 0]

Look at Japan (old) , afghanistan etc etc at a social level their evolution of understanding and tolerating other culutres to an extent has been halted because of isolation.

Perhaps, but having limited immigration is not the same as isolation. You can have plenty of tourism, the people may be tourists in other countries, trade inbetween countries, international cooperation such as the EU, etc etc. You can do all that without massive integration. You don't isolate yourself.

Quote[/b] ]You chose Iceland as a model for all? Iceland is a small country they dont influence world politics or anything , they cant be used in this argument. Imagine a big influential country closing down itself and then see what happens , see Russia during the old soviet days when people were brain washed in to believing whatever the govt wanted them to do , during the whole EAST/WEST germany fiasco how many ordinary soviet men/women were used as spy's by KGB they were told nonsense about the west and that capitalism is crap and all and america evil and finally persuaded people to carry out their acts in the name of patriotism. That happened because those people lived in the so called 'iron curtain' they hardly knew what the other side of the world was like many still dont.

My answer to the previous quotation goes for this aswell. Limited immigration doesn't meen that the government has the oppurtinity to isolate the people, and if they would have that oppurtinity, why would they use it? It doesn't do any good.

Quote[/b] ]And how do you suppose they were motivated in the false guise of the said issues 'war trophy , religion , border'. What were the reasons given to go to war ? Surely it wasnt lets go start a war because we need a bigger border? or trophy? Surely not it was because of peoples narrow minded views on each other they were told they were superior and others werent or they were right on a said issue and others wasnt and so forth , the soldiers that fought wars didnt fight just for fun they went for some brainwashed reason. And very rarely do we see a just war either conducted in the name of religion or some other one in history.

With war trophy I mean profit in money and products. And yes that together with the will to extend your borders (to get more tax payers, more soldiers and more easily defended borders) and to control trade etc were very well the reasons to go to war. Those things gives you money and power. They sure as hell didn't go to war because they thought the people in the next country were jackasses.

You seem very paranoid somehow, thinking the power always has brainwashed the people to go to war without reason. Crazy talk.

[iNeo 0]

I said definitions of etnicity might get screwed up if you mix races, as long as you don't, etnicity is not a blurry concept, which you claimed it was. I didn't say it's wrong to mix races, but I can say it if you want me to; I wouldn't want to be mixed, cause I want to know where I have my roots. An example, picture an half-Dutch half-African having a baby with an half Japanese half-Russian. That child would be 25% Dutch, 25% African, 25% Japanese and 25% Russian, and when he gets older he marries a girl who's 25% each of four other peoples, and they have a baby together. I wouldn't wanna be that baby.

That baby would be 100% dutch as both its parents are dutch.

No, one of them was 25% Dutch.

You're probably refering to nationality but you know damn well I'm talking etnicity. Besides, I didn't even say they were living in Holland. They might live on the botton of the sea.

[Postduifje 0]

I said definitions of etnicity might get screwed up if you mix races, as long as you don't, etnicity is not a blurry concept, which you claimed it was. I didn't say it's wrong to mix races, but I can say it if you want me to; I wouldn't want to be mixed, cause I want to know where I have my roots. An example, picture an half-Dutch half-African having a baby with an half Japanese half-Russian. That child would be 25% Dutch, 25% African, 25% Japanese and 25% Russian, and when he gets older he marries a girl who's 25% each of four other peoples, and they have a baby together. I wouldn't wanna be that baby.

It's your choice which baby you want to be, but it sounds a bit like shortsighted ethnic-purity crap.

Quote[/b] ]You said that cultures etc change "often thanks to mixing of culture". What I said meant that we always had an exchange of culture, without massive immigration. Thus saying we can thank migration for development of culture is just wrong, it was never needed.

I'm not saying we need migration to be better people, I'm just saying it's natural and not a bad thing at all.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]If you fail to integrate into the multicultural society, it's your wrong, not everyone elses.

They should adjust to where they come to, I'm not going to change myself nor accept change of systems etc because they don't suite them. They can't come here and demand change.

The system is defined by those who live in it. If people move in, the content of the system changes which means the system itself changes. If you stand still, you'll be in risk of desintegration (is that the right word?)

[Supah 0]

No, one of them was 25% Dutch.

You're probably refering to nationality but you know damn well I'm talking etnicity. Besides, I didn't even say they were living in Holland. They might live on the botton of the sea.

About 400 years back my great grandparents on one side moved here from Italy and 550 years ago great grandparents from the other side moved here from greece. That makes me less then 100% dutch I would wager. Ethnicity is largely Irrelevant, the longer certain types cling to it the more trouble we will have. There is no dutch ethnicity, if you go back long enough everyone here is a foreigner. Calling people less dutch because somewhere in their family are people who immigrated here is wrong. I bet if we dig back long enough in your families history you wont be a very "pure" swede either.

[JRMZ 0]

No, one of them was 25% Dutch.

You're probably refering to nationality but you know damn well I'm talking etnicity. Besides, I didn't even say they were living in Holland. They might live on the botton of the sea.

About 400 years back my great grandparents on one side moved here from Italy and 550 years ago great grandparents from the other side moved here from greece. That makes me less then 100% dutch I would wager. Ethnicity is largely Irrelevant, the longer certain types cling to it the more trouble we will have. There is no dutch ethnicity, if you go back long enough everyone here is a foreigner. Calling people less dutch because somewhere in their family are people who immigrated here is wrong. I bet if we dig back long enough in your families history you wont be a very "pure" swede either.

These days no one is a pure Sweed / Dutch / Belg / Franc / Spain etc anymore.

When you are born in Sweden, then you are Swedish

when you are born in Holland, you are Dutch

etc, etc.

Theoretically it doesnt matter from which country your parrents come from.

[Postduifje 0]

I think it's usual for people to go back untill their grandparent, since those are often the furthest away family you've known. That would mean you can't be anything less than 1/8 of an ethnicity. But anyway, this adds little to a discussion.

[denoir 0]

You said that cultures etc change "often thanks to mixing of culture". What I said meant that we always had an exchange of culture, without massive immigration. Thus saying we can thank migration for development of culture is just wrong, it was never needed.

On the contrary, my of history ignorant friend. Our culture is 90% German, Dutch and Belgian. They were the ones that 'civilized' us - through massive immigrations. They taught us to read and write, to work with metal, to make weapons etc

Hell, our king is French and our queen is half-German, half-Brazilian.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]But integration has not failed at all.

I can't speak for the continent, but it certainly has failed over here.

You can't speak for Sweden either.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]If you fail to integrate into the multicultural society, it's your wrong, not everyone elses.

They should adjust to where they come to, I'm not going to change myself nor accept change of systems etc because they don't suite them. They can't come here and demand change.

Our system is one that respects the values of different cultures. Don't you understand that you are a problem equal to the ones you are criticizing?

[iNeo 0]

About 400 years back my great grandparents on one side moved here from Italy and 550 years ago great grandparents from the other side moved here from greece. That makes me less then 100% dutch I would wager. Ethnicity is largely Irrelevant, the longer certain types cling to it the more trouble we will have. There is no dutch ethnicity, if you go back long enough everyone here is a foreigner. Calling people less dutch because somewhere in their family are people who immigrated here is wrong. I bet if we dig back long enough in your families history you wont be a very "pure" swede either.

I'm guessing your ancestors had children with Dutch people, and then their babies had children with Dutch people again etc. Each generation gets more Dutch. Assimilation.

Of course there have been foreigners in almost every people, especially since if we go back long enough we'll all end up in Egypt or wherever it was man originated from.

People spread out and evolution kicked in. Some people mixed with people from near countries, assmilated and thus ethnicity remains. There are differences, removing the terms for them won't make them go away. Differences are there for a reason and aren't bad.

[denoir 0]

It's your choice which baby you want to be, but it sounds a bit like shortsighted ethnic-purity crap.

Of course it is. Especially notable here:

Quote[/b] ]People coming from neighbouring countries easily assimilate into the ethnic group they move to, so you can't say today's Dutchmen are non-Dutch, and that goes for "all" European countries and peoples.

So according to him, Dutch-Swedish mix or Polish-Swedish mix is ok, but Morrocan-Swedish or Sudanese-Swedish is not.

Well, the integration problem in Sweden is minor. Yes we do have problems with people like iNeo and his immigrant counterparts, but they are fortunately a very small minorty.

[theavonlady 2]

Our system is one that respects the values of different cultures. Don't you understand that you are a problem equal to the ones you are criticizing?

Would you respect another culture that wants to do away with respect for other cultures? That is the question.

Quote[/b] ]Hell, our king is French and our queen is half-German, half-Brazilian.

No wonder you all wound up speaking Swedish!

[Ironsight 1]

Our system is one that respects the values of different cultures. Don't you understand that you are a problem equal to the ones you are criticizing?

Would you respect another culture that wants to do away with respect for other cultures? That is the question.

Good point. You can only respect other peoples cultures if they respect your culture too.

[denoir 0]

Would you respect another culture that wants to do away with respect for other cultures? That is the question.

Yeah, that is the big question, isn't it? My answer to that is:

1) I don't believe there are cultures that per se want to get rid of other cultures.

2) As for individuals like iNeo, I strongly disapprove of their position, but I recognize their right to have their opinion. This includes others like for instance militant muslims that for instance want to force their religious beliefs on the general Swedish population.

Is it naive? Perhaps. I don't however see the need to start violating our own core values in order to protect them.

[Ironsight 1]

1) I don't believe there are cultures that per se want to get rid of other cultures.

We are not talking about getting rid of cultures, but cultures that disrepect other cultures.

EDIT:

But there are people in a culture (fundamentalists) who disrespect or want to get rid of other cultures, not all the people.

[iNeo 0]

On the contrary, my of history ignorant friend. Our culture is 90% German, Dutch and Belgian. They were the ones that 'civilized' us - through massive immigrations. They taught us to read and write, to work with metal, to make weapons etc

I'm not ignorant of history nor am I your friend, I often find history very interesting.

Your source on the 90% culture thing?

Even if that was the case, which it is not, you're saying that the German, Dutch and Belgian cultures were 100% uninfluenced by others as opposed to ours? Maybe you mean that Europeans have a common culture that later has evolved differently around Europe.

When did they civilize us? When we were Christianized? The vikings couldn't read and write? They couldn't work with metal and make weapons? lol anyway, source please (internet).

Quote[/b] ]Hell, our king is French and our queen is half-German, half-Brazilian.

Yes so what? The European royal families have "married each other" for hundreds of years. It's tradition.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]But integration has not failed at all.

I can't speak for the continent, but it certainly has failed over here.

You can't speak for Sweden either.

Please visit Rosengĺrd tomorrow night

Wear a police uniform if you feel extra brave.

[denoir 0]

When did they civilize us? When we were Christianized? The vikings couldn't read and write? They couldn't work with metal and make weapons? lol anyway, source please (internet).

Valloner and flammländare (i.e Belgians and Dutch) made our steel industry. Still in my home parts (Bergslagen), there are families with flemmish last names.

Read: http://www.vallon.a.se/ind_hist.htm

As for the Germans, it was Gustave II Adolf who started the immigration - in form of pilgrims that were to educate the Swedish general populations. Germans became the main immigrants in Sweden for a long time. You had German quarters in Stockholm. Göteborg had a German majority:

Read: http://www.geocities.com/forfader/nya/tyskar.html

Anyway, if you want to learn a bit about our history, apart from paying attention in school, I can recommend Herman Lindqvist's history volumes "Historien om Sverige"

[theavonlady 2]

Would you respect another culture that wants to do away with respect for other cultures? That is the question.

Yeah, that is the big question, isn't it? My answer to that is:

1) I don't believe there are cultures that per se want to get rid of other cultures.

Wake up, Europe! From your illustrious Guardian:

Quote[/b] ]'The West needs to understand it is inevitable: Islam is coming back'

Faisal al Yafai talks to Britain's most radical Islamic group, banned across the Middle East, about faith, defiance and the future

Thursday November 11, 2004

The Guardian

The east London hall echoes to the sound of the speaker's voice: "They want us to redefine Islam to fit the agenda of the west," he intones, and the audience murmurs. "Islam is going to be political, no matter how hard they try. Islam itself is political. Allah has not remained silent when it comes to political matters."

The speaker is a member of Hizb ut Tahrir, the most controversial Islamic group in Britain today. Critics have called for the group to be banned, as it is in Germany, while supporters hail it as the saviour of the Muslim community. Hizb - the name means Party of Liberation in Arabic - is banned throughout the Middle East, and three British men are in jail in Egypt accused of propagating its views. In Uzbekistan, thousands of Hizb members are in jail, and a Russian thinktank has compared the group to al-Qaida.

Eighteen months ago, the group briefly appeared in the public eye when the wife of Omar Sharif, the Briton who launched a failed suicide-bomb attack in Tel Aviv, was found to have leaflets from the group in her home. Hizb ut Tahrir also has a presence on university campuses, where it has been accused of anti-semitism.

Until recently, the leadership of Hizb was secretive and cautious, reluctant to release details of the scale of its membership, its leadership structure or its funding. One ex-member who spent years with the group says there are probably only 500 members across the country, but the group may have 10 times that number as committed supporters. Hizb's annual conference in Birmingham last year attracted about 8,000, by the far the most for a Muslim organisation.

In a sign that the group is changing direction, it has given the Guardian unprecedented access to its leadership. The newspaper has spoken to current and former Hizb members and supporters in London, Derby, Leicester, Birmingham, Nottingham and Manchester in an attempt to piece together the group's motivation and ideology.

The leader of the group, a 28-year-old IT consultant called Jalaluddin Patel, is the first leader in its 18-year history in the UK to speak to the national press. He says Hizb has nothing to hide but will not release membership figures: "It's a genuine security issue. We're unsure about the manner in which western society would treat a group like ours."

Patel insists that Hizb is no threat to the west, but part of it. But he adds that the west "needs to understand what is really an inevitable matter, and that is that Islam is coming back, the Islamic caliphate is going to be implemented in the world very soon ... The Muslim people need to realise that the way in which they will restore a form of dignity and bring civilisation back to the Islamic world is to establish a modern caliphate."

The call to re-establish the caliphate, the single Islamic state that existed for a millennium and a half, until the end of the Ottoman empire in 1924, forms the thrust of the group's message. But its call for Muslims to be strong is not just political; it is also religious: "Secularism has failed the world" declares a Hizb poster.

Bringing the caliphate back will not be easy: at one debate on the future of Iraq, held just off Brick Lane, an American journalist warned the audience that America, China and India would never tolerate an Islamic state "strung like a belt across the world. There would have to be a response."

Hizb's message is too radical to seem immediately threatening. But it is the scale of its ambition that is striking. Hizb appears to be focusing its efforts in Britain on removing Pakistan's President Musharraf, a key ally in the US war on terror. Last month the group led a march of thousands to the Pakistani high commission in London, calling for regime change and declaring "Pakistan Army: why are you silent?"

In Pakistan the security services say they are keeping close watch on Hizb, mindful of the group's links with an educated middle class and fearful of possible links with other, more radical groups.

Brainwash

Despite recent moves by the group to open itself up - in March this year, for the first time, Hizb announced the nine people on its executive committee - it remains difficult to join it. Before membership, supporters must be invited to join a study group. Patel dismisses the idea that these study groups brainwash supporters: "If you call brainwashing the imparting of ideas and discourse based on those ideas, then I'm afraid that's what it must be. But fortunately we're not in the business of brainwashing."

At 28, Patel is relatively young to be leading a national group, though he has been involved with Hizb since he was 16. He came to Hizb searching for answers, studied with the group, and became chair of the executive committee at 26. Although reluctant to talk about his own background, it is clear his upbringing was comfortable and not particularly political - he says his father knows he is involved with Hizb but doesn't know he leads it. "He will now."

Hizb often holds public debates with figures from politics or the media. The meetings are usually packed. Across the country the group publishes books and magazines and holds discussion groups trying to galvanise the Muslim community on a variety of issues. But the solution is always the re-establishment of the caliphate.

Hizb is reluctant to say where its gets the money for these activities. Patel says it all comes entirely from donations from members and supporters, gathered as and when needed. No one in the party receives a salary.

Hizb ut Tahrir was formed in Jerusalem in 1953 by a Palestinian judge. Since then, it has expanded across the Middle East and throughout the world, from Indonesia to America. But it is in Britain that the group probably has its strongest presence. Its conferences have attracted thousands of British Muslims.

In Tower Hamlets, east London, Hizb distributed a leaflet opposing the Brick Lane festival last month, arguing that the promotion of "the culture of drinking alcohol, dancing and free-mixing" was not the image the area's Muslim community ought to be projecting.

Meetings - or "circles" - follow the same format, with a speaker from the group expanding on a subject for around 40 minutes. The audience, almost always students and professionals in their 20s and 30s, listen and then pepper the speaker with questions. Some meetings are men- or women-only. At those that are mixed, the women, seated separately from the men, ask the most forceful and detailed questions, usually from beneath a sea of headscarves.

Although one of the main aims of the group is to forge a strong religious identity for Muslims in Britain, it also believes the wider Muslim world has been ill-served by its rulers. It has openly called for coups against Arab governments to establish more representative leadership. Governments such as Egypt which feel that Hizb is a threat have banned it and arrested its members.

The group came to Britain in 1986, founded by a Syrian called Omar Bakri Muhammed. Bakri remained leader for 10 years until he left to form another, more radical, Islamic group, al-Muhajiroun.

In the mid-1990s, Hizb was a fixture on university campuses, organising societies and debates. Its rhetoric was fierce and angry. Then Hizb went quiet, and now its influence on campus is limited to some Islamic societies or smaller groups. Some maintain it is still a threat: in March this year a motion proposed by the Union of Jewish Students to the National Union of Students conference banned Hizb from campuses because of alleged anti-semitism.

Last year the German government banned the group for the same reasons and the country's interior minister, Otto Schilly, proposed Britain should follow suit, saying: "It won't do if the same thing is then not banned in a neighbouring country. We have to act in harmony."

Patel calls such accusations misguided. But he does not deny being anti-Israel: "Being anti-Israel is probably a sentiment held by one billion Muslims around the world. It's not unique to the party. A lot of western commentators could be classified as anti-Israel."

On some campuses, the group has renamed itself, using such names as the Ideological Society. Its uncompromising tone, in contrast to the mute moderation of some imams, is a powerful attraction. In cities where it has a strong presence, such as Birmingham and Leicester, some mosques have made it clear that Hizb is unwelcome. "We don't like their ideas at all," said the imam of one of Birmingham's biggest mosques. "They're not Islamic ideas, they're very nationalistic, racist ideas that they've got from somewhere else."

Angry

Hizb says such criticism is an attempt to depoliticise Islam and warns against seeing political awareness always in the context of angry youth. Hizb offers a worldview that can be easily grasped, a straightforward solution to many of the problems of society. The scope of Hizb - Patel says "every mosque in this country" has members or supporters - has led to worries about its influence. But it is not on the Home Office's list of proscribed organisations, and the Metropolitan police's anti-terrorism branch says it has no evidence of illegal activity.

Critics are most concerned about Hizb in Central Asia, where its brand of political Islam is motivating impoverished Uzbeks against the government of Uzbekistan. In testimony before the US Congress earlier this year, a director of the Nixon Centre, a rightwing thinktank, warned: "Like other Islamist movements, HT's goal is to overthrow secular regimes around the world. Unlike many others, however, HT hopes to achieve this goal peacefully ... I think HT, which is not considered a terrorist organisation, is an even more dangerous long-term threat, as it is the elementary school for the ideological training of many other groups."

This is the "conveyor belt for terrorism" argument: the implication is that such an organisation might inspire others. Patel is dismissive: "I think it's a very disingenuous view. The Founding Fathers of America would probably have been called a conveyor belt for terrorists because they produced the intellectual ideas which led to the American people rising up against colonial rule."

If there is a threat it comes in ideas, because the message of Hizb - of a strong, international Islamic state; of a Middle East free of the western powers; of Islam as a solution to the problems of society - may be far more dangerous to the west.

Patel accepts that the very notion of a caliphate implies the destruction of institutions and government systems, but believes there is no alternative - although he stresses the transition will not be violent. And although Hizb has been making its argument for over half a century without visible results, Patel does not see that as a criticism of the concept. "We believe the caliphate could be established tomorrow. We believe all the ingredients are there," he says. And he has a warning for the Muslim rulers of the world: "One of the greatest obstacles that exists is the brutality of the state and the fear that is instilled in the masses. What we say is that it is a matter of time before the masses observe that brutality and say enough is enough."

Suddenly, "Invasion of The Body Snatchers" is not looking like sci-fi any more.

[denoir 0]

Wake up, Europe! From your illustrious Guardian:

OMG, 8,000 out of a population of 60 million

That's about the same size as the larger neo-nazi yearly summits. They have some fancy claims of their own about the future as well.

You shouldn't believe everything people write Avon, especially not when they are extremist nuts.

[iNeo 0]

Anyway, if you want to learn a bit about our history, apart from paying attention in school, I can recommend Herman Lindqvist's history volumes "Historien om Sverige"

Yes I'm actually currently listening to the audio book verison with my mp3-player I know our history.

Anyway that immigration came with the extended borders during our great power era and that didn't cause 90% of our culture to be foreign. That's just outrageous.