Image: Wikimedia Commons
-
The Wisdom of Psychopaths
In this engrossing journey into the lives of psychopaths and their infamously crafty behaviors, the renowned psychologist Kevin Dutton reveals that there is a...
Read More »
In the wake of the bombing in Oslo and the shooting on Utoya Island in Norway, the spotlight has focused on confessed perpetrator Anders Behring Breivik. What drove the Norwegian citizen with extremist right-wing views to these mass killings? Although one of the terrorist's driving motives was anti-immigrant sentiment, he also killed fellow Norwegians belonging to his own ethnic group.
Why do human beings develop this kind of prejudice, and what makes it sometimes erupt into violence? Scientific American spoke with Steven Neuberg, a professor of psychology at Arizona State University in Tempe, about the psychology of anti-immigrant prejudice.
[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]
How would you define prejudice in psychological terms?
Prejudice is traditionally defined in social psychology as a negative feeling towards a particular group and its members. It turns out, though, that there are different kinds of prejudices and different prejudices towards different groups—and these prejudices have very different emotional components to them. For instance, towards some groups, the prejudice is characterized by disgust, others by anger, yet others by fear.
What underlies prejudice against foreigners?
We're highly dependent on people in our own groups. In fact, one could argue that our highly ultrasocial, interdependent form of group living may be the most important human adaptation. People tend to be invested in members of their groups, to have ongoing histories of fair exchanges and reciprocal relations, to treat one another reasonably well, to create and follow a set of agreed-upon norms, and thereby build up trust. Outsiders aren't going to have that same built-up investment in us or our group. Because of this, we tend to believe that people who are foreign to us are more likely to pose certain kinds of threats: We believe they may be more interested in taking our resources, more likely to cheat us in exchanges, to violate our norms and values, to take more than their fair share, and the like. These perceptions of threats are linked to negative emotions such as anger and moral disgust that contribute to anti-immigrant prejudices.
My colleague Mark Schaller at the University of British Columbia has explored an additional threat that people are likely to see in foreigners: People who come from faraway places, who live in somewhat different ecologies, carry different pathogens within their bodies—pathogens that their immune systems have had an opportunity to adapt to but that ours have not. Schaller's work shows that people perceived as being foreign—perhaps because they look different than us, speak different languages, eat different foods—automatically activate perceptions of disease threat. And groups who are perceived to pose disease threats activate prejudices characterized by physical disgust.
The alleged attacker in Norway, Anders Behring Breivik, had strong anti-immigrant prejudices. What was he feeling?
I can't tell you exactly what he was thinking, but as I mentioned, foreign groups coming into one's own society—immigrants—activate perceptions of a wide range of threats and elicit accompanying negative emotions such as anger, disgust and fear, which increases the likelihood of discrimination. If the perceived threats and emotions are strong enough, an individual may believe that he needs to rid his country of those who pose them. Moreover, anger and disgust, together, contribute to feelings of contempt, which we feel towards others we believe to be "less" than us, and can serve to motivate extreme actions.
It's useful to note a couple of things here. First, because immigrants are perceived to pose multiple kinds of threats, they are likely to be on the receiving end of especially pernicious prejudices and acts of discrimination. Second, such reactions to immigrants are nothing new—and we can look not only to current anti-immigrant sentiments throughout the world, but also to our own history in the U.S. Whether it was Italians or Irish, Poles, Jews, Germans, Chinese or whomever, each of these groups were initially perceived to pose a wide range of threats and consequently evoked powerful prejudices. It was only once people came to see these groups as nonthreatening, usually as they were seen to adopt "American" norms, that they were perceived as Americans.
Given his prejudice against immigrants, why did Breivik target ethnic Norwegians, his own people?
I haven't read his writings, but I hypothesize he was going after members of his group he saw as responsible for allowing the immigrant threat to exist. I think he saw the liberal politicians and government bureaucracy—whom he perceived as supporting Muslim immigration, cultural diversity and overall tolerance—as betraying the Norwegian people. Indeed, he attacked the liberal political class: The bomb was set off in a government center and the shootings took place at a camp for teenagers being educated in liberal politics. To Breivik, these folks may have been traitors because, to his mind, they were allowing immigrant Muslims to adulterate and contaminate his country. People seen as traitors are universally despised and stigmatized. Given how much humans, as social animals, invest in and depend upon their groups, betrayal of one's group is seen as one of the worst things one can possibly do. My guess is that Breivik saw the liberal politics of his country as a betrayal of his people, and so he attacked those politics and those engaged in them.
What makes someone like Breivik break and decide to use violence?
It's normal for people to over-perceive threats; our mind is designed to err in that direction. It's also normal for people, when confronted with the kinds of threats we've been discussing, to experience emotions like anger, disgust and fear. But just because we stereotype groups as posing certain threats, and hold certain prejudices against them, doesn't mean that we act on these stereotypes and prejudices in extreme ways. It just doesn't make sense to do so, and the normal mind typically weighs the consequences of engaging in such planned, extreme actions. I suspect that Breivik, and other extremists like him, possess a much lower threshold for perceiving others as threats and perhaps also a much more intense emotional reaction to those perceptions. Moreover, for someone like him, the ability to dive deeply into media that's like-minded, on the Web or otherwise, and to spend time with like-minded others, may significantly reinforce his sense of threat and his belief that something needs to be done about it. Like most rare, extreme behaviors, it takes a perfect storm—a psychological disposition shaped by genes and environment, in concert with current experiences, circumstances and opportunities.
What are some ways we can combat this kind of prejudice?
Prejudice against new immigrant groups is a natural aspect of our psychology. What's natural, however, isn't always good, and we can try to reduce inclinations to those prejudices we find morally problematic. Throughout history, immigrant groups that were once stigmatized very often end up accepted into society, because people come to understand that they aren't actually posing the threats they were once thought to pose. It helps when immigrant groups begin to adopt the norms and practices of their new homes, and the reduction of threat perceptions is furthered as people begin to form friendships across group lines.
How do friendships help?
Friendship entails interacting interdependently with another—sharing, taking turns, self-disclosing, and the like—and such actions reveal that many of the threats initially expected to exist may not be there after all. With friendship also comes a sense of "we," a sense that the person is like me and that we share something important and can trust them. Having a close friend that's a member of another group then provides a model that the group may not actually be as threatening as initially believed. As members of groups come to interact with one another more, the likelihood that they'll form friendships increases, and this will accelerate the reduction of prejudices.
Can we prevent prejudice from turning into violence?
I'm not very confident that we'll ever be able to eliminate the kinds of rare acts of violence we saw in Norway. I am, however, somewhat more optimistic that we'll be able to develop the behavioral and political "technologies" to reduce, or at least to manage, the more typical intergroup prejudices that characterize all of our everyday lives.
See what we're tweeting about
34 Comments
Add CommentI am bothered by claims like these that dislike of people different from us and taking actions against them is normal or common. This belief dates back at least hundreds of years, including being part of the reason the US government was designed the way it was. But, from what I have seen in history, it is quite the opposite. Most people most of the time are NOT actively opposed to others just because they are different. What I see is that there is a vocal and active minority which takes action which is not opposed by the majority (or at least not effectively). The persecution of the Jews in Nazi Germany looks like a perfect example of this: a group which had a long peaceful coexistence suddenly being turned against under the direction of a few people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat I would really like to see here are some real studies, either history-based or experimental on just how readily (and under what conditions) ordinary people will take action against another person viewed as an outsider. I should point out that this is ACTION, which I think is very different from the studies which have been showing up lately about some unconscious bias showing up in response times to questions about associating a given group with either good or bad characteristics.
Can you spell Economics? Do you read history? Racism always rises during economic depressions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReligious beliefs can be problematic but you can't stick them in a box. They are very diverse. In sociology we describe prejudice as any preconceived notion of a person or group, such as the generalizations above. Discrimination involves action (as TTLG mentioned). These are treated as separate but interacting concepts. For instance, you have prejudice without discriminating and you can discriminate without being particularly prejudiced yourself. Robert Merton identified 4 types of relationships between those two.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are some theories that forming generalizations based on visible traits are adaptive as they relate to schematic thinking. Humans like to classify things. It also tends to reinforce in groups as the article says. However, regardless of how natural prejudice may or may not be, we have seen that altering discriminatory structures can influence the way people think and behave. Consider the progress made in the U.S. following desegregation. Although prejudice persists, we have seen dramatic changes in a short period of time (from a historical standpoint).
The origins of both prejudice and discrimination are still very much contested but you might want to look at psychological studies about the relationship between belief and action to get better idea of how they influence each other. I don’t know of any study off hand that addresses at what point a person may take action, but I think they often operate in a reinforcing feedback loop. A lot depends on an individual’s total life experience as well, which is difficult to account for empirically.
I agree with you, "Carburn" that America is an excellent example in how one culture can become part of another culture, and even reject another culture. If you come into a culture like a flood; you will never fit in. When the white man came to America, they came in like a flood and the native Indians here has never accepted them and has always maintained their distance. The white man didn't want to fit into the native tribes and they never did.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe negro came in as a trickle and basically was forced to fit into the white mans culture and was never allowed to dominate. It took a long time and a lot of hard work, but the negro became the black person and then the black person became the President. With patience and understanding, and a little intelligent cleverness - anything can be accomplished if you want to accomplish it.
In biblical times, Jesus said that there will always be the poor. In modern times there will always be the violent and violence will always pop its ugly head up in domination.
History is mainly written about wars between various groups of people. The fight is usually over territory, not religion.The religion is secondary, and often used as an excuse. When a new group "invades" an area populated by another group conflicts arise. Often the people look identical or very similar to the prevalent group. Often they hold very similar religious beliefs. When the new group totally rejects the traditional values of the area, and scoffs at them, they are in danger of more severe reactions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe greatest massacres in history have been those perpetrated by the religion of atheism. Hitler, Stalin, Mao were all atheists. They led and forced their armys to slaughter innocents by the millions. Islam has historically conquered as much territory as possible. They have been violent conquerors. They have temporarily allowed other religions, but have made life so difficult that others have left or suffered persecution and even death. Christians in the Americas have been guilty of many of the same acts, but nowhere has this happened in modern times. Persecution.com can provide many examples of present day persecution of Christians by Islam and atheists. Chinese atheists weekly provide news of persecution of non atheists of all religions, and mistreatment of their general populace.
Responding to the questions posed in the original article from a scientific-medical-psychiatric point of view, I would assert that:1. Heredity and 2. Environment are responsible for an individual's behavior.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would, also, assert, from a purely rational, ethical, and logical point of view that when dealing with individuals, it is important to remember that you are dealing with the particular and NOT the universal.
I believe it is the "ATTITUDE" and "AGENDA" of the immigrant which will determine whether or not they are readily accepted into the new host country of their choosing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf one voluntarily enters into a new territory, which appeals to their liking, with the desire of becoming a part of the culture, and contributes to it by using her/his skills and abilities for the benefit of that nation, its inhabitants, as well as themselves; I am certain that they would be readily accepted into that society.
If, on the other hand, one enters a country with the attitude that the culture from which they came is superior, and have the agenda of supplanting the host nation into which they have immigrated with their own culture, religion, and laws; then, they should expect to be met with resistance from the citizenry and (should be) by the government of the country being invaded as if they were a conscript of a foreign army!
Fear and distrust of "the other" is as common as breathing and has been a part of the human equation since we began to hunt and gather in clans.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe rudimentary instincts that govern our urge to procreate, socialize, and protect ourselves emanate from the most primitive part of our brain, the very first part of our brain to evolve.
The frontal lobes of our brain, are much higher functioning and and are responsible for our ability to speak and reason. This is the part of our brain that allows us to reason beyond our primitive instinct to determine if "the other" is indeed a threat or not.
Sometimes there really is an imminent threat, But most often nowadays, there isn't.Sometimes we humans make colossal blunders. Sometimes our brains short out and our primitive brains go into overdrive, seeing a threat everywhere. (see Breivik, Islamic terrorists, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot etc...)
All of these people, as smart as they seemed to be, were operating from profoundly primitive feelings of fear and loathing. They found it much easier to tap into the primitive feelings of their countrymen when they pointed to whole populations of "other" as the threat.
We learn to hate wholesale. We learn to love retail
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe learn to hate wholesale. We learn to love retail
Fear and distrust of "the other" is as common as breathing and has been a part of the human equation since well before we began to hunt and gather in clans.
The rudimentary instincts that govern our urge to procreate, socialize, and protect ourselves emanate from the most primitive part of our brain, the very first part of our brain to evolve.
The frontal lobes of our brain, are much higher functioning and and are responsible for our ability to speak and reason. This is the part of our brain that allows us to reason beyond our primitive instincts to determine if "the other" is indeed a threat or not.
Sometimes there really is an existential threat, But most often nowadays there isn't.Sometimes we humans make colossal blunders. Sometimes our brains short out and our primitive brains go into overdrive, seeing a threat everywhere. (see Breivik, Islamic terrorists, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot etc...)
All of these people, as smart as they seemed to be, were operating from profoundly primitive feelings of fear and loathing. They found it much easier to tap into the primitive feelings of their countrymen when they pointed to whole populations of "other" as the threat.
When are ignorant "elites" going to differentiate between "immigrants" and "illegal aliens"? The one is welcome the second is a "home invader" and needs treated as the criminals they are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHistory is written by the winners. The losers go extinct.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRonwagn: Don't falsify history. Hitler was very much a Catholic. I have read his autobiography; when the first world war broke out Hitler ran to church, prostrated himself before the alter and thanked Jesus for allowing him to live in such interesting times. Please read his book to know how devoted a Christian he was.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStalin and Mao I accept as part of my atheistic tribe. However Marx another from my tribe, never said "Religion is the opium of the people" it is a deliberate misquotation to misrepresent the philosophical case against religion. I am quoting from Christopher Hitchens.
Your claim that religion is not the principal cause of wars, misery and mayhem is totally false. Go back into history, check out almost every war, it is based on religion, back in time, tribal religions. Also don't forget the witch hunts, explain why catholic priests needed to lick the vaginal lips of girls and women to check if they were witches? Why did they perform horrific acts on some newly born infants, very young girls, and young women? Were they not just masturbating, satisfying desires for pedophilia and committing rape? The priests who drew images and documented every detail were nothing more than pornographers.
Great revelations of the prophets never tell us of anything that is unknown, no mention ever of bacteria, viruses, animals like kangaroos, galaxies, protons etc, why? Because the simple prophet had no idea of them; however he could do incredible things like stop the sun, so his devotees could kill all the males and mothers of the other tribe, but reward themselves by keeping the virgins. Why is virginity so important to these idiots? Religion poisons our ability to think.
I live in a very multicultural city, people from all over the world live here the only folk who are not a part of the whole are the religious. Sad to say the Islamic group stands out in this group, its absolute resolution not to give an inch. Theirs is the exclusively, true word of a nonexistent god, it can not be questioned, those who question must be put to death.
The fact that our horrid, insane species will be extinct when the planet looses its critical ice mass is the only decent good thing that will happen in the not too distant future. Let me again emphasis extinctions don't generally happen by mass deaths, they are the result of no further births (verify this by studying the history of recently extinct animals). Large meteoric collisions could kill everything instantly however they are very rare events on our timescale.
Group cooperative behaviors leading to goal cycles, that at times take shapes and forms of prejudices against other groups, are nothing new. They are all too common and can be seen in each and every person who belongs to a certain group. Just observe people for a few months of time and it becomes all too apparent. These goal cycles take extreme forms of expressions only when the self identity (that is, a part of soft adaptation that involves ones own reflections from the environments, in conjunction with genetic predispositions) of a being is too strong toward ones own group, thereby amplifying those expressions many thousand times more.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany American Indians were prejudiced against immigrants and used violence against them because they feared that the immigrants would end their way of life and eliminate their civilization. If only they would have used friendship instead of violence!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are some subtle implicit premises in the questions and answers. Cato Institute, a major champion of immigration and the fact that it generally contributes to prosperity (to the extent the free market is allowed to create it). No prejudice here. In a forum on CSPAN with Q&A, one of their representatives cited studies that show that in areas where there is strong sentiment against "legalizing illegal immigrants", those same opponents are very welcoming to LEGAL immigrants.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(My disclaimer: I favor amnesty but don't like prejudice shown by interviews like this, given the dominant media narrative). Maybe some introspection and confession would be good for the anti-anti-intellectual smarter-than-thou class.
I was an immigrant to the USA and held a green card for about 10 years. I'm white A/S looking and was hardly ever seen as an outsider.I was once attacked for my nationality in Boston Mass. by an Irish American who objected to my British sounding English.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have now lived in Mexico for the same time. People look at me and think I'm from the USA, if they ask I tell them I'm not an American.
In the USA I was never "the other" here in Mexico my foreignness is obvious yet I have never been overtly cast as "the other".
Could the number or % of others with in a society/nation play a role in the self justification of attacking others?
As the Mexican population has been increasing in the USA are Mexicans seen as more of a threat?
"When are ignorant "elites" going to differentiate between "immigrants" and "illegal aliens"? The one is welcome the second is a "home invader" and needs treated as the criminals they are."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder--- are we talking about the europeans who invaded the Americas?
No ...... I bet you're talking about the "Reconquista".
That's when native Americans ...er .. Mexicans take back their land.
Prejudice against outsider is seen in all animal also.It arise from selfishness,no one tolerate outsider share in his food.Same is true in mankind they never tolerate Immigrants who occupied their Territory.I think this is a natural tendency of mankind.,you can see all over the world. Original residents afraid to immigrants,they think immigrants all harmful to their existence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou could make the same argument about fundamentalist Christians.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this311,901,115 is the US population today per census.gov, about double that during the time of the "Golden Age" of immigration over which so many writers wax nostalgic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this6,952,960,679 the global population today per census. Of course, these numbers are ± a few thousand but the message is clear.
The greatest part of the resentment of immigrants is NOT the individuals but the immigration policies.
Shrieks and squeals to the contrary from some, America is suffering from a degree from stress of over population. Much of the political turmoil and suffering that is giving rise to immigration around the planet in general (read Europe stuff) have their roots in the stresses of over population.
On a personal level, as an enumerator for the census a year ago, I have met hundreds of recent immigrants up close and personal and always found a good relationship of mutual respect and comfort. The fact is that the only hostility I encountered at all was from one citizen who was obviously born here.
The Islamic hardliners poison the well for many. What many folk do not understand is that their targeted victims are other Believers of Islam, Sunni vs. Shiite, not totally unlike Northern Ireland.
The hardliners are control freaks - fill in any religious movement.
The only aspect of Believers of Islam I do find troubling is the broad support for Sharia. They are like hardline Christians (and many other religious movements) in that they do not understand that morality cannot be mandated.
If morality is forced by legal mandate or fear the people are denied the freedom to choose be moral. They behave morally not by choice but because they are forced to.
Morality has to arise in the heart, otherwise you have the truth in the comment Jimmy Carter made so many years ago that he sinned in his heart on some occasions.
Mandated morality results in a population that is Amoral.
My cat knows that it is related to me. If people know they have a common ancestor, perhaps they will be more tolerant. The key is education.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlthough the situation in many places in the USA can be different, in most of the world people and families are bond to a place in a quite stable way, so they know each other, and even what kind of traits or defects an individual family has. Some say that the children that countries like Russia do give for adoption, belong to groups known for decades, if not centuries, for not being the best in town. Fear of foreigners just reflect the uncertain nature of their personality and behavior for those who receive them, a conservation instinct mechanism, and some point that violence just begins to surge when the new population reaches a certain percentage in the host population. It's just our animal heritage, you can supress it in a preventive way, but at the cost of destroying other features of human mind that are useful for daily living. Preventive medicine for such kind of fightings may enter in conflict with the principle of law that states that everybody is innocent until proven otherwise. Patience is all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe did.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFocusing on the evil people of a country can create negativity and helpless feelings. People would be better off building good opinions of the good people in a country.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBesides, all prejudice forms in the ego. The ego seeks to confirm itself and it does that through acceptance of similar people and rejection of dissimilar people.
Those of us, who understand this, recognize this negative tendency and try to be more rational toward people who are different.
- Zajonc, R. B. 1985. Emotion and Facial Efference: A theory reclaimed. Sci. vol. 228(5):15-21. The avoidance of a looming object, withdrawal of an injured limb, and the fear of strangers are three involuntary traits found in most all animals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf only things were so simple! The real problem is that people exist in varying degrees of isolation from the agenda of other ‘cultures’ (in the broadest sense), consciously or unconsciously promoting homeostasis in their own or, no news being good news, often leaving this to chance. But other agenda randomly and unexpectedly, even chaotically, violate their metastability: Katrina, 9/11, Breivik. People cannot know everything, and even if they could, there may be no ‘optimal’ course of action. They may have genuine differences from other people or systems which it is not in their interests to resolve. This does not matter so long as they are not forced into close contact, either by crowding or mobility.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReligion is not a cause of wars, it's just an occassion. Soccer was banned in the UK shortly after its popularity was growing, centuries ago, because many soccer games ended with quarrels and deaths between the rival team's fans. If you don't learn that the cause of violence is inside mankind and not in its productions or ideas, you'll never be able to diminish it. The issue is that today some are deliberately inducing violence from others to have an occasion for punishing them,and thus having the violent acts trend extinguished. They say "it's easier to cut somebody's cock when he's hot". Beware of the dog !
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe cause of violence is of less relevance without the means. Easy access to automatic guns, industrial amounts of fertiliser and cars to transport them is most helpful. Much the same applies in Somalia (for example). Who is supplying these weapons? Not the people who use them. And if the makers were users I suspect most of the population of UK, USA, Germany, Switzerland and Russia would be dead or starving too. In Norway some of this vile stuff slipped through the net. In most of the world there is no net.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisscientific earthling - In addition to hating all humanity and wanting everyone to die, you now are displaying an intense bigotry against a specific religion that you feel superior to. Indeed you display all of the same characteristics that you condemn. You also got a number of your supposed "facts" quite wrong. Ethiopia is not a Muslim nation - They are Orthodox Christian. Bosnia is not a Muslim nation - They are a secular democracy with a high percentage of agnostics and atheists. For most of it's history Islam was very tolerant. It wasn't until European imperialism began to destroy their countries that Islam began to radicalize.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisronwagn - You are quite wrong of course. Modern day Christians in Africa, India South America and some other areas still engage in religiously motivated murder, witch burnings, genocide and a variety of crimes against humanity. All your post did was prove your fundamental dishonesty or massive ignorance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiskevin_neilson - When they used friendship they suffered plagues and had the whites turn on them and steal their land. Very few of the tribes that were friendly survived and most of them survived in a greatly reduced way. The tribes that were hostile tended to survive just as well and in some cases better than the friendly ones.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSteve3 - LOL, I love your response! I'm tired of the "it is ok if my parents were murdering thieves as long as no one treats me the same way" mind set that dominates so much of white America. I'm 99% European with blue eyes, blond hair and I sunburn easily. Oddly enough, most of my friends growing up were Asian, Hispanic or Black. The whites were mean to me because I was thin and frail. My champions were always minorities. I guess that caused me to view pretty much everyone as "my people". It is nice to see someone else also have a civilized view of humanity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisToothful, you have truly hit the nail on the head. The Muslims in France are a perfect case in point. As their numbers grow they feel more free to segregate themselves from the majority and begin to pose a threat. Thus the reaction of the government banning full body burqas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know many muslims and if they don't dress or behave in an extreme way such as wearing burqas or bringing out the prayer mat on the job five times a day, I am more than willing to build bridges and accept them.
In our PC world, it seems that westerners are always at fault for being intolerant, but immigrants also must bear some responsibility for their actions when they introduce themselves into a new group.
I also perceive a policy problem in governments by establishing this multicultural philosophy rather than full integration.
This applies to all immigrant groups but especially Muslims as their basic culture is so foreign to the west and because the Muslims worldwide are the poorest and most illiterate group, they are the ones that integrate the least.
If one immigrates to America but does not accept the precept of secular government over religious government, or one refuses to learn the language of the host country, one should not be allowed into said country. The new immigrants have to make some efforts also.
Then all of the westerners would need to thrown out of the Americas. Talk about home invasion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think other solutions such as making sure your neighbouring countries (such as Mexico) prosper rather than far away lands such as China would cut down on illegal immigration.