About war yes, but lots of those people have not "suffered" gender-inequality or homo-phobic state-politics -- In fact those things might be part of what the believe and support themselves.
Those things are part of their culture -- and grassroots -- not stuff that some bad regime imposed upon the masses. The same way they are not "imposed" upon the people in the Bible Belt.
And lest we feel much superior, those kind of laws and public sentiment was common place in the far more wealthy and educated West too. Just 50 years ago there was open, legal even, segregation. Just today there's widespread support for police brutality. And just 75 years ago several million jews/homosexuals/communists and gypsies were obliterated in the center of "civilized Europe".
And if you think those times are "ancient history" and can't understand why everyone hasn't moved forward since then, just remember stuff that's still acceptable (or going on anyway) in some places, from the death penalty and racially motivated police shootings, to mass surveillance. Or consider the fact that "sodomy" stopped being a crime only 10-15 years ago in tons of places. And that "moving forward" is easier when you're not in a state of war or even fearful of those preaching "moving forward".
Precisely. Indoctrination literally from the moment you are born is unimaginably hard to undo. Impossible, even.
On an aggregate level, perhaps, but on an individual level, not at all.
From what I've seen, the ability to handle the culture shock varies wildly from person to person and is strongly correlated with age.
The younger a person is, the better they adapt to the new situation. IMO the two main reasons for this are that younger people are more flexible intellectually, and that a significant number of them (but not all!) have had more exposure to other cultures due to the Internet.
I also get the impression that frustration and language skill are correlated. The ability to learn a new language is obviously also correlated with age and educational history.
Note that there are outliers in all directions, but these are the trends that I observed.
[1] http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/gsi2-overview-1.png
ISIS is not creating Sharia in the commonly understood sense. It's creating a Nazi-version of Sharia.
I suggest you get a few (I would also suggest from respectable universities, not polemicists) and compare what they describe to ISIS.
1. http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-wh...
https://fullfact.org/law/uks-sharia-courts/
> While feuding couples have to at least consider mediation before going to court, it doesn't override family law. A court has to sign off on any agreement made after divorce for it to be legally binding, and won't do so if the judge thinks it's unfair.
> In 2013, the High Court was asked by an Orthodox Jewish couple to accept the ruling of a Jewish religious court on post-divorce family arrangements. The judge said that while the agreement would carry weight, it would be non-binding—neither party could get around English law by agreeing to abide by the decision of another tribunal.
edit: I mean practically, not formally. It's enough that violations of host country's laws stay unreported and violations of whatever other norms are punished unofficially.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-go_area#Contemporary_no-go_...
Getting people from oppressive cultures who end up living in isolation with others like them to suddenly start exercising their new rights is a hard problem which can't simply be wished out of existence.
From your link:
Local police forces denied the claims [of no-
go areas]
Katie Hopkins could not name areas of Britain
that were no-go areas because it would not be
"legally accurate"
British Prime Minister David Cameron described
Steven Emerson as "clearly a complete idiot".What else would they do if the claims are not true?
Either way, that instance was related to drug dealing, not Sharia law.
This (certainly as far as I'm aware) isn't true. The laws and courts of England and Wales apply in England and Wales, and the relevant local laws and courts (e.g. Scottish laws in Scotland etc) apply elsewhere in the UK.
In terms of Sharia, there is a voluntary arbitration system for civil issues as an alternative to the civil courts, the same as the Beth Din Jewish courts voluntarily used for Jewish civil issues in the UK.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/anders-breivik-trial-lu...
> “In the early days when we arrived, the people
> were impressed with us,” he said. “They were taking
> pictures of us, inviting us into their homes.
> They liked our brown skin and our dark hair.”
Which is not bad in itself, but can be dangerous when there's no substance to that, and their hosts become bored with that "cause" and forget about them or turn hostile.
If they can't survive on their own, they SHOULD go back to where they came from and make a life there.
Now, the main point in the whole migrant / refugee crisis seems to be that many people who would be economic migrants are using the asylum system to try to enter certain EU countries, but there also this thing that the-would-be-legitimate asylum seekers are also are prone to have much better economic future if they are granted in asylum in country like Finland: differentiating between those is very difficult. This is why it's difficult mess.
edit. is, not isn't.
The article talks about more than one migrant. This poor Iraqi's story sounds a lot like a refugee. How safe would you feel after that happening to you?
What are psychologists going to do? Tell them they have been brainwashed ?
western psychologists have very little clue as to how to deal with things like these.
It seems like a reasonable suggestion to me that people visit trained professionals rather than quacks, or people who will give advice or 'help' skewed by their own personal, perhaps fundamentalist, beliefs.
Curiously, psychology itself was quite mixed with religion in the past; in some places, it still is. I remember reading Polish psychology texts as a kid, quite a lot of them had serious Catholic undertones (and sometimes explicit references). Which is sort-of understandable when you can count on religion as being an important part of your average person's life.
There's not much of a culture shock. You probably think they lived captive or in some "iron curtain" regime. They know everything about Europe, the follow the same tv shows, they use the internet etc. Including poorer people.
They don't come because suddenly they were let free and can now experience the world for the first time. They come because they had a devastating war in their country, and they, sadly (for them), can no longer stay there safely.
when not having documents == {theft, murder, fraud}
You mean the Greek subjects of an emperor who spent his time adventuring past the known extent of the world, with all the communications technology the world could offer 2400 years ago? The Greeks who split off from the Asian part of Alexander's empire immediately after he died in a foreign country thousands of miles away?
The empire split after Alexander's death into the Macedonians proper, the Seleucids in Asia, and the Ptolemies in Egypt. The Ptolemies certainly kept a lot of cultural continuity with the Greek / Macedonian world -- so much so that the last Ptolemaic pharaoh, Cleopatra, is believed to have been the first one who was able to speak the Egyptian language (after ruling Egypt for 250 years!). They did set up syncretistic temples, which was standard practice basically everywhere in the classical period. That was an effort to get the Egyptians to accept Greek religion, not the other way around. The Ptolemies even set up a major new city for Greeks. Their accommodations to Egypt weren't particularly impressive.
To the extent that the Greeks and the Macedonians had a common cultural identity, it was because the Macedonians aspired to Greek culture (it seems safe to say that the Ptolemies eventually succeeded at this). The Greeks didn't think highly of the barbarians to their north.
The Romans, IIRC, were uncommonly willing to allow subjects to participate in Roman society as long as they followed the rules. This did not mean that the Romans themselves changed their own lifestyles.
I'm really happy to know people from Syria, Pakistan, Taiwan & Japan. It's so cool when we all try to understand more about the way we live our every-day life , but on the other hand all of us will feel offended if forced to change it. No matter what "When in Rome, do as the Romans do ...", if you can't just leave.