« Brown | Gene Expression Front Page | Youngish looking »
August 13, 2003

Brown man in a ice white land

Vinod goes to Iceland. He is both politic and insensitive, terming the Celtic slaves "indentured servants," and Icelandic a "pidgin" language. I enjoyed the links to the night-life that showed some chicks....

Godless comments:

Wow. It seem like even Iceland is becoming multicultural. Of its own volition:

Iceland is usually seen as one of the most isolated and ethnically homogeneous states in Europe; a place were national identity is jealously guarded and a rugged climate has forced people to pull together. Over the last few decades, Icelanders have had to come to terms with a more complex, multicultural reality.

...

The Icelandic legislation is racist towards non-EU immigrants," says Gudrun Ögmunsdóttir, an expert on this matter for the Social Democratic Party of Iceland. The law doesn't give them the same rights as to the EU immigrants. The country, however, needs foreign labour force in order to maintain living standard, and in the last decade hundreds of immigrants entered Iceland in search of economic prosperity. The highest number is from Asia.

...

Gudjon Atlason is an angry man. He is the leader of International office of the Human Rights Organisation (HRO), fighting for rights of non-white, non-EU immigrants.

"They belong to their boss. It is like cows working in stables", says Gudjon Atlason. After those 3 years they have to apply for another permit but this time they own it. "Now the immigrants don't have to work for a particular company and they can have as many jobs as they might need", he adds.

Ana Isorena Atlason, his wife, is from the Philippines. She is not allowed to work because of her nationality.

Needless to say, KMD-style scapegoating is no more of an explanation here than it is in most European countries with immigrants, including the Netherlands.

I don't really know what to say here. I'm neither pro nor con. If the people of Iceland vote to loosen immigration requirements for non-EU residents, it's their country and their decision. Of course, it is ridiculous to call Iceland "multicultural" or a "nation of immigrants". As I understand it, they're doing it for cheap labor and antiracist reasons...

Posted by razib at 01:00 AM




Iceland is indeed an amazing little country, isn't it? Less people than this crappy college town I live in but it's easily 100x more productive.

I wonder if they're going to bother setting up a military now that the US has stopped providing for their defence?

Posted by: Johnny Rotten at August 13, 2003 01:16 AM


Hmmm...the Icelandic women in the clubs and bars that are photographed basically look like American sorority girls. I'm disappointed.

Posted by: Chris W at August 13, 2003 03:41 AM


The observations about language and race were most peculiar. Was he trying to be funny, or baiting the GXP readership? My guess is that after 1000 years of intermarriage within a tiny population the Celtic and Norse strands are pretty well mixed. As I recall, they have great birth records and almost everyone know that they are everyone else's cousin fifteen times removed. (There are a fair number of red-haired freckled Scandinavians). And Icelandic is about as far from a pidgin language as you can get.

Posted by: zizka at August 13, 2003 08:35 AM


If Iceland ceases to be ethnically homogenous, this will happen:

http://www.nextcity.com/main/town/10tower.htm (written by a Canadian Pakistani).

Now Iceland is being be forced to accept immigrants (and all the extra baggage???) Iceland is as close as it gets to a peaceful, prosperous haven of white bliss.

Check this out:

"Iceland Needs More Foreigners"

..."We need more people who are not like us and have different things to offer. If we do not have more foreigners to live here this country will stay as boring as it is now," says Thorgerdur Gunnarsdóttir.

So it's boredom that's the problem...

"Building a New Society"

...The City Hall recently created a questionnaire to know what young Icelanders think about becoming a multicultural society, and distributed it in high schools. The result was shocking.

"They have a negative attitude towards foreigners living in Iceland," says Snjolaug Stefánsdottir, responsible for this survey and for the following project. "Their parents used to accept immigrants, but their points of view are changing", Snjolaug adds.

Yeah, it looks like Icleanders need ethnic-sensitivity training. But their notion is justifiable. I don't see what Iceland has to gain from accepting immigrants.

Posted by: Sen at August 13, 2003 10:10 AM


Needless to say, KMD-style scapegoating is no more of an explanation here than it is in most European countries with immigrants, including the Netherlands.

I'd say that the reason why Icelanders (and people in many European countries) are more anti-immigration than we are in the United States is because there is less Jewish influence there. But, even so, the development of multiculturalism at all in these countries is probably due to cultural and intellectual influence from the US, and hence ultimately Jewish in origin. Or do you believe that the Icelanders spontaneously developed multiculturalism all by themselves?

Posted by: Oleg at August 13, 2003 02:35 PM


Sen, if you don't think that boredom is a major problem, go live in Fargo for a couple of years. North Dakota is almost all white and has almost no social problems -- the murder rate in a good year is 0.000. But you can die of boredom there and people leave as fast as they can.

I'm not kidding, I have family there. North Dakota has the best objective statistics in the country, and no one wants to live there.

Posted by: zizka at August 13, 2003 04:51 PM


Objective statistics: low crime rate, high life expectancy, low unemployment, high literacy. N.D. is in the top five or so in all of those. These are not really arguable or subjective. It also has the highest out-migration of any state, or close.

The fallacy in what I said is that the best available in N.D is not as good as the best available on the West or the East Coast. The average is better. Even so, though, everyone on the coasts puts up with levels of crime risk and squalor (panhandlers, urine stains, junkies) that people in N.D. don't even have to think about.

Also relevant is -40 degree winters with a 20 mile wind.

My understanding is that you pay a lot in risk for excitement and fun. Crime and entertainment are linked. So are crime and cheap labor, crime and servants, etc.

I am not trying to be funny. North Dakota is what many Americans and others pretend they want, but don't. (There was an article in the NYT about the fiscally prudent ND legislature the other day. It's like ND is doing the Republican thing for the rest of the country, sort of like a fossil historical village like Williamsburg, while Bush and the national Republicans go stark raving mad).

Posted by: zizka at August 13, 2003 08:37 PM


2) Gentiles like Susan B. Anthony lead the first wave of feminism, which gave women the vote. Women are another reliably liberal group.

The feminism of Anthony was quite different from the Jewish 1960's feminism of Friedan/Allred/Steinem/Abzug/Sontag/Dworkin/etc.

4) Gentiles with war brides after World War 2 came back to the US with them. The result was public pressure to eliminate miscegenation laws and open immigration to Asians. That was the 1944 War Brides Act, the precursor to various immigration/marriage reforms that culminated in the 1965 Immigration Reform Act and the Loving decision.

I did a Google search on "1944 War Brides Act" and got only three pages, one of which was this same post of yours over on the Original Dissent forum. I don't see anything suggesting that this act was of influence on later immigration acts. Do you have a source indicating that it was? For the most part, there was a fairly strong anti-immigration sentiment in the United States until it was overwhelmed by Jewish lobbying.

7) Most importantly, the European countries with few or no Jews are secular, socialist, sympathetic to communism, anti-military, pro-immigration, high taxes + welfare...and basically much further left than we are. Think about it - how can less Jews in Europe mean more leftism, if KMD is right?

This depends on what you mean by "leftism". Neither KMD nor I (nor anyone I know of) claims that only Jews support government programs. That obviously would not be true. An good example: Hitler had plenty of welfare state programs without any Jewish influence. The point is that the sort of radical anti-American leftism has never caught on in Europe - most Europeans, even those who support an increased welfare state, have some sense of national pride (or at least a relative absence of self-loathing and guilt). Multiculturalism and immigration, although they certainly exist and are a problem in Europe, are not nearly as strong as they are here in the United States, and most European countries have fairly strong anti-immigration parties/movements. They may not constitute anywhere near a majority in these countries, but they're much stronger than anti-immigration groups in the US.


It continued as Europeans contacted people from other cultures via colonialism and realized that they were not all "wogs" (e.g. Meiji Japan, Ramanujan, Gurkhas, etc.) There is quite a bit of truth to the idea that many people with different skin tones are not necessarily hostile or stupid, which is one of the reasons it caught on.

I don't believe that all non-whites are stupid, and neither do most white nationalists. And neither do the Japanese, who remain intensely ethnocentric and nationalistic. Japan (and Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, etc.) provides a perfect counter-example to the notion that technologically advanced countries necessarily become de-ethnicized.

b) these trends were set in train centuries before Jews became disproportionately involved with liberal causes in the 20th century.

Not really - there was not a trend toward race unrealism before Boas, there was not a trend toward anti-Westernism before various Jewish movements (e.g. Freudianism, Frankfurt School) made it popular, there was not a trend toward lax immigration policies before Jewish lobbying succeeded in passing the 1965 Immigration Act, etc. I don't agree that whites ending slavery and giving women the right to vote constituted a trend toward total de-ethnicization and racial suicide.

Posted by: Oleg at August 13, 2003 10:42 PM


Godless wrote:
"Personally, I like the benign multiculturalism of the Bay Area and NYC (i.e. food, clothes, movies, music, etc.). The only real negative about multiracial societies is the violence that often accompanies them."

I grew up in the Bay Area, and after living in the significantly less international and cosmopolitan cities of Imbler and Portland (Imbler) for 5 years, I realize that I never gave the cultural diversity that was present very much thought as I was growing up. I took it for granted, and it just seemed normal. Now, I'm far more likely to meet somebody who grew up in a decaying logging town in rural Oregon than I am to meet somebody born in Russia or India (as friends who I grew up with were).

At any rate, I think the Bay Area or NYC are some of the few examples in which multiculturalism lives up to its own standards. If you have a educated population who lives in a cosmopolitan area because they enjoy meeting interesting new people who are different, cultural diversity is great. And personally, I prefer cosmopolitan settings for that very reason (and of course the Asian food, which I consider far superior to western cuisine). However, in areas where the education level is lower, people seek comfort among those who share a common culture and lifestyle. In these situations, diversity leads to cultural fragmentation. Two scientists or academics from different cultural backgrounds will find each others differences intriguing and will tend to appreciate each other more than lower-class whites, blacks, Mexicans and Hmongs living in the same run-down apartment complex.

As for me, I would never choose to live in an area that wasn't diverse and cosmopolitan -- I love it. But I think that masses tend to be much more tribal with respect to interpersonal relations.

Of course, this observation supports your favored immigration policy that supports the entry of skilled and educated immigrants.

Posted by: Chris W at August 13, 2003 11:59 PM


hey, did you go to the UofO? where did you hang out in eugene? i went to school there. lived in portland too....

there was not a trend toward lax immigration policies before Jewish lobbying succeeded in passing the 1965 Immigration Act

well, throughout much of the 19th and early 20th century immigration policies were lax.... (special exclusion acts against chinese had to passed, etc.)

Posted by: razib at August 14, 2003 01:24 PM


well, throughout much of the 19th and early 20th century immigration policies were lax.... (special exclusion acts against chinese had to passed, etc.)

Yes, I realize that some non-white immigration would have occurred (and did occur) without Jewish influence. However, immigration restrictionism had triumphed by 1924 and would not have been overcome if not for Jewish lobbying and (perhaps more importantly) Jewish-promoted intellectual movements.

Posted by: Oleg at August 14, 2003 02:54 PM


Razib,

Yes, I did go to UO -- for two and half years. I then worked and hung out in Imbler for another two and a half years, before moving to Portland where I've been for about 2 years. (So that means that I've been in the state for more than 5 years...)

I'll be returning to Imbler in the winter to do post-BA coursework in history before applying to the graduate school.

I stuck around campus for the most part during my tenure at the UO (spending too much time using the Internet), but spent my last couple of years near the Whiteaker neighborhood. I was a strongly ideological libertarian when I attended school, and became a strongly ideological green anarchist (while partipating in the Imbler scene) about a year after graduating. I'm now a moderate -- center-right on economic issues and center-left on social issues...

Posted by: Chris W at August 15, 2003 01:17 AM


Razib, did you go to Reed?

Posted by: rob at August 19, 2003 11:08 AM


I get so damn sick and tired of people saying that because their White society is boring and they need people of color to move in so that it won't be boring anymore. That's a damn insult! As a black woman I'm interested in visiting Iceland as well as other countries. But now I guess I won't go.
Why is it that some Whites--and sometimes the very liberal-minded ones--want us to act like shuckin'and jiving minstrels. DAMN!!!!!!!!!!1

Posted by: Cocogrrl at September 11, 2003 03:39 PM