If you were to visit Japan you would experience a country devoid of cultural interference, it is rich intense in its own cultural heritage. If part of keeping a national identity is in controlling the impact of outside interference than limiting foreigners is crucial. I suppose it depends on your view of national identity and the relationship between countries. Should they be diverse contrasting or a watered down version of their former selves now a blend of many flavours? Take a look at Sweden and the influx of foreigners there, see the rise of the new political classes, perhaps a response to the overwhelming impact a foreign body larger than the Swedish themselves has had on their social scene. I've lived in many countries within Europe and even though I was born and bred in a host country I've always been very aware of being an outsider, and it makes for a different life. You see as an outsider you look for ways to benefit from association with others in a new way, you are aware of the body of resistance that is slight but ever present, the consequence is that you form your own macro world within that host country. Its quite obvious if you were to visit certain cities in UK for example where non English have created, very successfully, their own macro state, complete with everything they require to live the life that their own culture bred into them from birth. It has nothing to do with an English identity at all. In essence by accepting a huge influx of foreigners the politicians are risking and will ultimate forsake their cultural identity. It happens, I lived through it in my host country, it took 10 years but it happened. Why do politicians risk this - instinct suggests to me that Merkel and her party were feeling hammered from the hard line they took on the Greeks, and wanted to show the soft palm to their iron fist. Do they worry about the sentiments of the general public?, I doubt it, Germany declined quite noticeably in the quality of its social infrastructure after the collapse of the wall, and there was some antagonism about the cost that the west had to carry for the east, will Germans on the street be quiet and show restraint with the new invasion? Unfortunately Germans, particularly politicians, are so sensitive about the atrocities committed during the war that they are almost lobotomised from expressing caution or indifference. Hence the open door policies, or perhaps they need the base level cheaper workers like Sweden does? I expect Germany will see a rise in underground nationalism, suppressed and all the more dangerous than a street level border controlled type. The foreigners will create their own macro states with the host country, and like in Sweden will, naturally, fill their bellies to the full with their hosts liberal generosity. Their culutral identity will thrive and slowly in the weaker areas will lay down roots. See it in England, in some cities you wouldn't know you were in England at all. Perhaps this will be the Europe of tomorrow, fractured identity, insecurity and malevolent unease?
RE: GERMANY,,, WHERE ARE WE NOW ?
If you were to visit Japan you would experience a country devoid of cultural interference, it is rich intense in its own cultural heritage.If part of keeping a national identity is in controlling the impact of outside interference than limiting foreigners is crucial.
I suppose it depends on your view of national identity and the relationship between countries. Should they be diverse contrasting or a watered down version of their former selves now a blend of many flavours?
Take a look at Sweden and the influx of foreigners there, see the rise of the new political classes, perhaps a response to the overwhelming impact a foreign body larger than the Swedish themselves has had on their social scene.
I've lived in many countries within Europe and even though I was born and bred in a host country I've always been very aware of being an outsider, and it makes for a different life. You see as an outsider you look for ways to benefit from association with others in a new way, you are aware of the body of resistance that is slight but ever present, the consequence is that you form your own macro world within that host country.
Its quite obvious if you were to visit certain cities in UK for example where non English have created, very successfully, their own macro state, complete with everything they require to live the life that their own culture bred into them from birth. It has nothing to do with an English identity at all.
In essence by accepting a huge influx of foreigners the politicians are risking and will ultimate forsake their cultural identity. It happens, I lived through it in my host country, it took 10 years but it happened.
Why do politicians risk this - instinct suggests to me that Merkel and her party were feeling hammered from the hard line they took on the Greeks, and wanted to show the soft palm to their iron fist. Do they worry about the sentiments of the general public?, I doubt it, Germany declined quite noticeably in the quality of its social infrastructure after the collapse of the wall, and there was some antagonism about the cost that the west had to carry for the east, will Germans on the street be quiet and show restraint with the new invasion? Unfortunately Germans, particularly politicians, are so sensitive about the atrocities committed during the war that they are almost lobotomised from expressing caution or indifference. Hence the open door policies, or perhaps they need the base level cheaper workers like Sweden does?
I expect Germany will see a rise in underground nationalism, suppressed and all the more dangerous than a street level border controlled type.
The foreigners will create their own macro states with the host country, and like in Sweden will, naturally, fill their bellies to the full with their hosts liberal generosity. Their culutral identity will thrive and slowly in the weaker areas will lay down roots.
See it in England, in some cities you wouldn't know you were in England at all.
Perhaps this will be the Europe of tomorrow, fractured identity, insecurity and malevolent unease?