Sweden is being shot up
economist.com
economist.com
[0] https://time.com/4182186/sweden-feminists-sexual-assault-ref...
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45269764
[2] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6095121/Eight-10-st...
Europeans also discover that weapons restrictions only go so far when you have active organized criminal groups with the initiative and contacts necessary to smuggle firearms and grenades into Western/Northern Europe from a number of regions (Ex-Yugoslavia, Albania, former Soviet Union, North Africa, etc.) that are only a car-ride or fishing boat trip away.
Heavily Islamic suburbs in Europe have a rather different set of cultural elements and while still geographically located in Europe, their cultural affinity is not that of the host country anymore.
With Martin Luther posting his Ninety-five Theses in 1517, followed by the Edict of Worms in 1521, when the Reformation occurred, Europe indeed wat almost wholly Catholic.
After the Reformation, the Protestants were still almost identical to the Catholic Church. It's not like they started calling their god "Uglamtafreck", whose dog became the savior of the world.
Protestants and Catholics have more in common than dissimilarities. But this is not the first time this has happened. In 1054 AD, there was the Great Schism, where the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox split from each other. This was due to stupid little things, as religions usually are about. The Great Schism was caused by the procession of the Holy Spirit (Filioque), whether leavened or unleavened bread should be used in the Eucharist,the bishop of Rome's claim to universal jurisdiction, and the place of the See of Constantinople in relation to the pentarchy. The Filioque clause means that the words that the Holy Spirit proceeds "from the Father", without additions of any kind, such as "and the Son" or "alone". That's it. Omit 3 words, split the Catholic Church in half.
But even then, the Roman Catholic Church has more in common with the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Europe was never a federation, but there was travel and communication between them. Not many European people would travel to South Africa or India. But England is a short boat ride away from France, so there was a lot of trade. In 1066, when the Normans took over England, they still were dukes in France and were royalty there.
So while there was not a political federation, there sure was a common culture of sorts, however tenuous it might be in some places, stronger in other places.
Like the USA with the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, and only one country to the north (canada) that we share a border, and only one to the south that we share a border(Mexico), the USA has an excellent barriers to conquest from others.
It was the same in Europe. There was a Sea to the south, the Mediterranean, nothing north of Northern Europe except cold, and the east was protected by the Ural Mountains which go from far north to the Artic Ocean down to Kazekhstan/Uzbekistan. The Caucasus Mountains protect invasions from Iran/Persia. The Isthmus at Constantinople and the Iberian Peninsula (Spain) have always been the weak spots, and indeed, those were the areas where most attacks on Europe emanated from. But luckly, the Iberian Peninsula is separated from the rest of Europe by the Pyrenees mountains. Muslims conquered Spain in 711 AD and held on to it for almost 800 years, until 1492 AD, when the muslims were finally expelled in the Re-Conquista (re-conquest) by Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand, who also sent Christopher Columbus to the west in that same year of conquering the muslims in Europe. Furthermore, many of the Muslim elite, including Granada's former Emir Muhammad XII, who had been given the area of the Alpujarras mountains as a principality, found life under Christian rule intolerable and emigrated to Tlemcen in North Africa. Which just goes to bolster the argument that the two cultures of christianity and islam are more incompatible than one christian nation with another. By the way, the muslims did try to conquer Europe, but were stopped by Charles "The Hammer" Martel in France. If he didn't do that, we might all be talking in Arabic right now. The muslims were defeated in Aquitaine at the Battle of Tours in 732, and the muslims never really tried again after that.
All the languages in Europe descended from the Proto-Indo-European language, and with that came certain cultural identities and commonalities passed down through generations. Language is very important in proscribing much in culture and that is very strong. Whereas Arabic is descendant from a proto-Semitic language.
There were many people that traveled throughout Europe. Obviously not the serf who were tied to the land, but certainly there was cross border communications.
Except for Basque!
Romans would tolerate a lot of cultural difference if it was of the non-threatening, non-destabilizing kind.
Are you trying to say that the situation in Europe is just "business as usual" or something?
Now I don't know if you've been paying attention these last few years, but in case you're not aware European countries have taken in a pretty unprecedented number of migrants over the last decade. Many of those migrants were/are young men from regions with cultural norms that are fundamentally different from the European countries that they end up in. In addition, many of these migrants lack strong proficiency in the standard language of the host country, and do not possess a level of education that would generally be commensurate with their age in the host country. Note that none of this is meant as a value judgement, it's just the reality of the situation. It's not an easy situation for the migrant or for the administration of the countries taking them in. It's not really any secret that integration/assimilation has failed in many parts of Europe, and this all has consequences.
With regards to gun violence, I don't know about Europe in General but Sweden's rate of gun homicides has risen consistently every year over the last decade. Obviously the numbers are nothing compared to what you'd see in the United States, but if the problem is getting worse, then it's probably worth talking about. Also, for a highly-developed Western country, Sweden experiences a large number of hand-grenade attacks every year in a pattern that also seems to be increasing.
But the main cause of violence tends to be organized crime, and as seen by the murder of Peter R De Vries earlier this year, a lot of European police agencies are simply not cut out to deal with organized crime in their current state.
[1] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/FRA/france/net-migrati... [2] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/SWE/sweden/net-migrati...
Oh come on, the migration into Sweden in the 80s was educationally, financially and culturally distinct from that of recent years. That’s the big experiment Europe is engaged in. Is there something about European culture and institutions that can assimilate migrants? (America is quite good at this.) Or is the success not extensible.
A major cultural shift needed in Europe is acceptance, not tolerance.
If you look over my post history, I'm resolutely against the new racist politics of our parties but your messaging is wrong on its face. I don't turn the numbers into fuel for further racism, however, unlike my fellow Danes. I blame the government for not having a plan to absorb the migrants they refuge. The Danish state creates the ghettos (which fuels the violence) by concentrating migrants in single neighborhoods. What should be happening is homing migrants evenly over the whole of cities and commiting to educating those people they take in.
But no, I don't think acceptance or tolerance of these egregiously violent actions is the right move. This is a country where women feel safe enough to walk alone at night at 3 am. And that's worth fighting for.
What's interesting is that a lot of them should not even be eligible for asylum, yet they were still allowed in. Does Sweden has a plan to deal with this wave of illegal immigration?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3422000/Just-old-th...
https://www.rt.com/news/316570-eu-false-syrian-refugees/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/the-mystery-surr...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/11/21...
Also, going and doing petty wars around the world has consequences.
Here let me get one more going: after trump left the JCPOA, Europe basically did nothing about it. Now there's a revolution going on in Iran. Where do you think a big portion of that population is going to escape to?
Europe, your actions have consequences. You're a good portion of the reason for migrants having to migrate from their countries. You're also still part of the reason why there's so much of a wealth difference between you and the average migrant.
And then it's again an issue where you keep passing laws fucking over migrants. Can't have hijab during work now? Really? Is this the important thing to spend your time on?
These are all going to create instability. Until you start ACTUALLY treating humans as humans, you're going to be subject to shit like this.
Worked for France and America.
Sure, maybe stop interfering with their country then? Also, it's still going to be Europe's problems for generations after the west generally stops interfering with other countries. Until then, "deal with it."
The electorate already is, and strong borders are becoming more and more popular among the citizens of many Europeans countries. Making the choice not to integrate has consequences, for everyone.