Swedish Parents can't name their kids whatever they choose.

[Stelliform]

BBC Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3701802.stm)

[mactastic]

Those freedom-hating Swedish ba$!@rds! Let's add them to the axis of evil. Candy fish will henceforth be known as Freedom Fish. :D

[mactastic]

Yeah, I know. It just doesn't seem to rise to the level of an offense that requires any more response from the rest of the world than for Sweden to be the butt of many jokes over it.

Pass the Freedom Meatballs please. :p

[Ugg]

As for posting it, I just felt like sharing. I can't imagine the government having a say in what you name your kid. So I was a bit surprised.

I was going to post it in current events, but I thought that comments on foreign laws were more a political domain.

Americans continue to have little understanding of countries with homogenous populations. The only parallel I can think of in the US is the habit of extremist religious types who only give their kids biblical names. Anyway, Sweden is not merely a country but a culture and an ethnicity, there's nothing wrong with maintaining that culture especially when the poor little ankle biter would have to endure a name that is impossible to live up to.

You've posted a number of similar articles, the french headscarf ban comes to mind, and I wonder why? The US is rather unique in its cultural makeup. Just because we do things a certain way doesn't mean that the rest of the world has to or even should follow suit.

[IJ Reilly]

That's it, no more Volvos for me.

Wait a sec, I've never owned a Volvo. Whew, that was close!

[Sun Baked]

Yeah, I know. It just doesn't seem to rise to the level of an offense that requires any more response from the rest of the world than for Sweden to be the butt of many jokes over it.

Pass the Freedom Meatballs please. :pKeep calling them Swedish Meatballs, at least that way you'll know for sure why their population is losing their balls.

[takao]

don't know what's so special about that..it's common practice over here (yes even in switzerland)
normally they are generous with foreign names etc but if somebody tries to give a kid like 41 names ,'funny' names,or naming them after famous celebrities they don't take it ...

sure superman sounds funny _now_ but the kid has to live with that name after all...

come on i saw names in the newspaper like "Kevin Fußenegger","Chris Mäser" and other ridiculous ones... not only does it look ugly but it soudns ugly as well

i remember the kid who was named
"Sue Köpfle"
the american "Sue" combined with the (vorarlbergian) name "Köpfle" sounds exactly like the dialect word "Suköpfle" which means "Pighead" ... i wouldn't have allowed that

(luckily my parents choose good names for us kids: Carmen,Markus, Michael)

[wordmunger]

Americans continue to have little understanding of countries with homogenous populations. The only parallel I can think of in the US is the habit of extremist religious types who only give their kids biblical names. Anyway, Sweden is not merely a country but a culture and an ethnicity, there's nothing wrong with maintaining that culture especially when the poor little ankle biter would have to endure a name that is impossible to live up to.

You've posted a number of similar articles, the french headscarf ban comes to mind, and I wonder why? The US is rather unique in its cultural makeup. Just because we do things a certain way doesn't mean that the rest of the world has to or even should follow suit.

Europeans think they're homogenous, but I saw just as many Africans in Rome as I do in any American city. Americans have tried to preserve a false homogeneity in the past, only to see it blow up in their face. Hmm... I think Europeans tried that once or twice, too, come to think of it.

This family might be scarring their kid for life by naming it "superman," but the government is setting a worse precedent by demanding conformity. We know what happens when when people are oppressed: The American Revolution and Civil War, World War II, the American Civil Rights movement. And the list goes on.

[Taft]

Europeans think they're homogenous, but I saw just as many Africans in Rome as I do in any American city. Americans have tried to preserve a false homogeneity in the past, only to see it blow up in their face. Hmm... I think Europeans tried that once or twice, too, come to think of it.

This family might be scarring their kid for life by naming it "superman," but the government is setting a worse precedent by demanding conformity. We know what happens when when people are oppressed: The American Revolution and Civil War, World War II, the American Civil Rights movement. And the list goes on.

Maybe its the American in me talking, but I agree wholeheartedly. A culture so insular and protective that it can't take a little outside influence is a dangerous thing, IMO. Phrases like "preserving culture" make me shudder as they remind me of the religious right in this country trying to preserve "traditional" marriage and other "traditional" morals on the rest of the country.

Taft

[mactastic]

Personally I'm more concerned about the repression in Darfur than the repression in Sweden at this point.

If the Swedish government starts repressing people harder I'll take notice, but this is pretty innocuous when you look at the big picture. Sure they're taking away some freedom, but don't all governments do that to some extent? Could the Dutch not say the same about the US vis-a-vis our drug laws?

[wordmunger]

Personally I'm more concerned about the repression in Darfur than the repression in Sweden at this point.

If the Swedish government starts repressing people harder I'll take notice, but this is pretty innocuous when you look at the big picture. Sure they're taking away some freedom, but don't all governments do that to some extent? Could the Dutch not say the same about the US vis-a-vis our drug laws?

I'm not really concerned about this public interest story either. I'm more concerned with Ugg's attitude about homogeneity, which seems to be a rising sentiment in Europe, and which seems to me to be frighteningly similar to the attitudes in Africa that are contributing to the genocide in Darfur.

[Ugg]

I'm not really concerned about this public interest story either. I'm more concerned with Ugg's attitude about homogeneity, which seems to be a rising sentiment in Europe, and which seems to me to be frighteningly similar to the attitudes in Africa that are contributing to the genocide in Darfur.

What's happening in Darfur and what's happening in Northern Europe aren't really quite the same, similar yes, but not the same at all and I doubt that it would ever happen in Sweden.

There's nothing wrong with preserving one's culture. Would you rather see the Native American experience repeated in Europe? Certainly France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland are having a tough time dealing with this change but it is important to understand that they are not America or Canada. Even The Netherlands isn't immune from the right wing backlash that is sweeping the industrialized world. Left leaning I maybe but I see nothing wrong with cultural preservation.

As far as Darfur is concerned maybe what's needed is for Africa and the Middle East to be allowed to settle their own differences in their own way, much like Europe and the new world settled its own. It'll be bloody and horrifying but don't they have the same right of self-determination that we did?

[IJ Reilly]

From an American point of view, the way some Europeans (and now Scandinavians I suppose) work to "preserve their culture" borders on the ludicrous sometimes. The French have a Language Ministry that manufactures new, synthetic words rather than allow French to be "polluted" with foreign expressions. I believe even the French think this becomes silly at times, so pardon us if we snicker just a little over the frivolities of governments other than our own. By comparison, the Japanese who are very culturally protective (and far more insular than the French in many ways), adopt foreign words with abandon. Some in Japan believe this is fragmenting the Japanese language, but as fundamentally pragmatic people, they're not really trying to stop it either.

[wordmunger]

There's nothing wrong with preserving one's culture. Would you rather see the Native American experience repeated in Europe? Certainly France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland are having a tough time dealing with this change but it is important to understand that they are not America or Canada. Even The Netherlands isn't immune from the right wing backlash that is sweeping the industrialized world. Left leaning I maybe but I see nothing wrong with cultural preservation.
I see nothing wrong with cultural preservation as long as it's not imposed by the government. This is where it crosses the line: the government telling people what their culture should be. Let the people decide on their culture, and let the government support all cultures and subcultures that exist within a country's borders. The native americans were exterminated by colonial powers: this is government imposing culture, and it's wrong. A government requirement of a culturally appropriate name is also government imposing culture, and it's also wrong.


As far as Darfur is concerned maybe what's needed is for Africa and the Middle East to be allowed to settle their own differences in their own way, much like Europe and the new world settled its own. It'll be bloody and horrifying but don't they have the same right of self-determination that we did?

Sure... just like Rwanda. They're so much better off now, right?

[Ugg]

From an American point of view, the way some Europeans (and now Scandinavians I suppose) work to "preserve their culture" borders on the ludicrous sometimes. The French have a Language Ministry that manufactures new, synthetic words rather than allow French to be "polluted" with foreign expressions. I believe even the French think this becomes silly at times, so pardon us if we snicker just a little over the frivolities of governments other than our own. By comparison, the Japanese who are very culturally protective (and far more insular than the French in many ways), adopt foreign words with abandon. Some in Japan believe this is fragmenting the Japanese language, but as fundamentally pragmatic people, they're not really trying to stop it either.

It is humorous, of that there is no doubt. Some of the French words for technology are so forced that they end up ruining the language IMO. The Germans have taken a similar approach to the Japanese and the language is richer for it. It's easy though for english speakers to scoff at such efforts when english is a bastard language and has adopted words from virtually every language on the planet. Languages are dynamic but also are the basis of cultural identity and I would hate to see the day when all that is spoken is english with regional variations.

[Ugg]

I see nothing wrong with cultural preservation as long as it's not imposed by the government. This is where it crosses the line: the government telling people what their culture should be. Let the people decide on their culture, and let the government support all cultures and subcultures that exist within a country's borders. The native americans were exterminated by colonial powers: this is government imposing culture, and it's wrong. A government requirement of a culturally appropriate name is also government imposing culture, and it's also wrong.

Sure... just like Rwanda. They're so much better off now, right?

It may be the case in North Carolina that Native Americans were killed off by colonial powers but west of the Mississippi we can thank the American government as well as American citizens along with something called manifest destiny and a belief that a certain god decreed it all.

Culture is something we are born into and if we all share and revere that culture then the laws we enact will reflect that common ground. There's no way to separate culture from government because governments are made up of people. It can't be done.

You don't think the US govt. doesn't impose culture on Americans? Language, education, taxes, licenses, religious laws, laws regulating the media, all are elements of cultural expression. Culture cannot, I repeat, cannot be excised from government as long as governments are run by people.

This topic made me think of that Johnny Cash song, A Boy Named Sue. He makes the case that through adversity he was made stronger. Sky Dayton of Earthlink and a host of other oddly named people here in the US certainly havent' been limited by their names but we are a melting pot, Sweden is not and American ideals should not be imposed on other countries that don't share the US' unique background.

First you say that Americans aren't responsible for the Native American genocide, then you say that governments shouldn't impose culture on its citizens, that the citizens alone should decide, then you say that Rwanda and Darfur are bad because the citizens of those countries are making their own decisions about cultural expression. So what is it? When is individual cultural expression a bad thing and is it never permissible for goverments to dictate culure even when it could save millions of lives?

[wordmunger]

It may be the case in North Carolina that Native Americans were killed off by colonial powers but west of the Mississippi we can thank the American government as well as American citizens along with something called manifest destiny and a belief that a certain god decreed it all.
I'm not defending the American government. When I said "colonial powers" I was including the westward expansion of America. I'm saying Americans and Europeans have repeatedly made the same mistakes, and it looks to me like both places are in danger of doing it again.


Culture is something we are born into and if we all share and revere that culture then the laws we enact will reflect that common ground. There's no way to separate culture from government because governments are made up of people. It can't be done.
I find this attitude personally very frightening. Very 1930s Germany, very 1850s America, very 1490s Spain.


You don't think the US govt. doesn't impose culture on Americans? Language, education, taxes, licenses, religious laws, laws regulating the media, all are elements of cultural expression. Culture cannot, I repeat, cannot be excised from government as long as governments are run by people.
Language, no--the U.S. does not have an official language. Education, yes, but necessary in a democracy. Taxes and licenses I wouldn't consider to be culture. Religious laws, except for the dangerous precedent set by Bush regarding religious charities, tend to protect religious expression, not impose it. Media regulation is also typically done to preserve a variety of views, and is now being systematically dismantled by the Bush administration.


This topic made me think of that Johnny Cash song, A Boy Named Sue. He makes the case that through adversity he was made stronger. Sky Dayton of Earthlink and a host of other oddly named people here in the US certainly havent' been limited by their names but we are a melting pot, Sweden is not and American ideals should not be imposed on other countries that don't share the US' unique background.
Here's our key disagreement. Europeans are in denial about the growing diversity of their own nations. Many Americans are also leaning dangerously in that direction.


First you say that Americans aren't responsible for the Native American genocide, then you say that governments shouldn't impose culture on its citizens, that the citizens alone should decide, then you say that Rwanda and Darfur are bad because the citizens of those countries are making their own decisions about cultural expression. So what is it? When is individual cultural expression a bad thing and is it never permissible for goverments to dictate culure even when it could save millions of lives?
When people are misled into murdering each other because of cultural differences, I believe that is an appropriate point for government to intervene. When people have real cultural differences, I think it is a mistake for government to try to homogenize a population. I think the latter often leads to the former.

[takao]

repressing ? how often does it happen that a name is not accepted ?
a few times per year ? because somebody choose a ridiculous name ?

compared to 'putting people ,who denied to eat pork on a flight in to the US, on a watchlist' it doesn't seem very bad

[Taft]

First you say that Americans aren't responsible for the Native American genocide, then you say that governments shouldn't impose culture on its citizens, that the citizens alone should decide, then you say that Rwanda and Darfur are bad because the citizens of those countries are making their own decisions about cultural expression. So what is it? When is individual cultural expression a bad thing and is it never permissible for goverments to dictate culure even when it could save millions of lives?


This is a really great discussion, BTW...

I see where you are coming from, but I disagree. You are right that the government can never be seperated entirely from the culture of the people it governs, but I personally think that it is the duty of OUR government (the US) to not endorse any particular culture as far as it is possible.

I find your final example not quite on the level in that you liken the government preventing genocide to an enforcement of culture. To me, that is an example of where the line is between cultural freedom and basic human rights. Killing people is a clear violation of their rights. The government stopping that behavior is not an endorsement or enforcement of a particular culture. Rather, it is an enforcement of the idea that all people are created equal.

You may argue that the idea of "all men created equal" is a product of a particular culture, but I would argue that eventually all cultures will need to share a common set of rules dictating the value of a human life. This is a bit of a paradox in that acheiving common ground would require a shift in SOMEONE's culture. But I guess that is my point: if a culture is so resistant to change that they reject any outside influence, that is very dangerous, both to that culture and its people, and ultimately unmaintainable. The outside cultures will eventually prevail in "corrupting" the "pure" culture with pieces of their own.

This is a controversial statement, I know. It speaks to the eventual loss of identity of all cultures (to one degree or another). I view it, however, as both good and necessary.

Taft

[Taft]

BTW, I'm actually dealing with this idea of "cultural clash" on a small and personal level.

My brother is currently dating a Jewish girl. My family is Protestant. They are very happy together except for one small detail: her parents are LIVID about their daughter dating a non-Jew. My bro's girlfriend remains steadfast in the face of CONSIDERABLE pressure from her parents who hav done various nasty things to try and stop them from dating, but everyone is very unhappy about how things are playing out.

From my perspective, this type of insular behavior is unacceptable. Maybe it is my American upbringing (we are the melting pot, after all, and parents enforced that belief in me). Maybe it is the fact that I am dating a Jewish girl myself and have a wonderful relationship with her parents. Maybe it is just how small minded this girl's parents are. I don't know. But I'm not happy with them right now.

And I can't help but "connect the dots" between the attitude of her parents and the attitude of "preserving culture." A big part of the reason her parents feel so strongly is because they are quite religious and dedicated to the Jewish faith and its people and want to see their traditions held. This, in and of itself, is quite honorable. But where is that line between respecting your past and your culture and being racist or "culturalist"? I don't have an answer to that.

Taft

[Ugg]

I find this attitude personally very frightening. Very 1930s Germany, very 1850s America, very 1490s Spain.

Language, no--the U.S. does not have an official language. Education, yes, but necessary in a democracy. Taxes and licenses I wouldn't consider to be culture. Religious laws, except for the dangerous precedent set by Bush regarding religious charities, tend to protect religious expression, not impose it. Media regulation is also typically done to preserve a variety of views, and is now being systematically dismantled by the Bush administration.

Here's our key disagreement. Europeans are in denial about the growing diversity of their own nations. Many Americans are also leaning dangerously in that direction.

When people are misled into murdering each other because of cultural differences, I believe that is an appropriate point for government to intervene. When people have real cultural differences, I think it is a mistake for government to try to homogenize a population. I think the latter often leads to the former.

What about that attitude is so frightening, the parallels you draw are vague and seem to indicate that I am some sort of fascist, slave owner, inquisition type. I think you're over-generalizing. History can show us parallels but it doesn't accurately reflect what is happening today.

Culture does evolve. It is evolving in Sweden, France and Germany. Europeans are having a difficult time accepting the fact that the immigrants from outside of Europe have in many cases, radically different values and cultural standards. Whose are more important? Should immigrants be held to the standards of their new country or the country they came from? What language should they speak? Should they be allowed to retain their own misogyinist policies? Should they be able to kill their daughters when they choose to marry without parental consent? Are de facto immigrant ghettoes a way of maintaining the cultural identity of the immigrants or do they just increase the separation between the immigrant and the new country? These are questions that they are asking themselves. Once again by applying American/Canadian solutions to European problems, you are showing a marked intolerance to cultural differences.

Once again, culture is not something defined by art, sculpture and religion. It is a basket containing many different things. Language is the basis of any individual culture, whether that culture be that of an Ivy League School or the culture of California surfers. It is not necessary to have an official language but it is through language that we define our culture and issue our laws. Licenses are definitely a product of culture. When do we issue driver's licenses, when do we take them away, who is eligible for them, what restrictions for different types of vehicles etc. Taxation is undoubtedly a major way of defining culture. Churches are tax exempt, families with children are given exemptions, people who adopt can write off the expense, etc. Culture is every aspect of who we are. Once again you cannot separate culture from government. It is innate. What is important is to realize that and accept it for what it is.

Europeans are not in denial but they are having a difficult time accepting the changes. Switzerland's failure to pass a recent referendum on granting citizenship to people born in Switzerland is scary but Switzerland has almost always refused to see itself as a part of a larger Europe. The US is experiencing the same problems and it's just as troubling to see so many arab americans demonized and refused entry based on their culture.

Ok, if you encourage government intervention then why the hell aren't we doing anything in the US? One in three black Floridian men have been incarcerated. Or is it ok to overlook genocide in America today.......

[takao]

BTW, I'm actually dealing with this idea of "cultural clash" on a small and personal level.

My brother is currently dating a Jewish girl. My family is Protestant. They are very happy together except for one small detail: her parents are LIVID about their daughter dating a non-Jew. My bro's girlfriend remains steadfast in the face of CONSIDERABLE pressure from her parents who hav done various nasty things to try and stop them from dating, but everyone is very unhappy about how things are playing out.

From my perspective, this type of insular behavior is unacceptable. Maybe it is my American upbringing (we are the melting pot, after all, and parents enforced that belief in me). Maybe it is the fact that I am dating a Jewish girl myself and have a wonderful relationship with her parents. Maybe it is just how small minded this girl's parents are. I don't know. But I'm not happy with them right now.

And I can't help but "connect the dots" between the attitude of her parents and the attitude of "preserving culture." A big part of the reason her parents feel so strongly is because they are quite religious and dedicated to the Jewish faith and its people and want to see their traditions held. This, in and of itself, is quite honorable. But where is that line between respecting your past and your culture and being racist or "culturalist"? I don't have an answer to that.

Taft


hm such things happen here as well especially in the critical case of christian guy + muslim girl (with brothers and religious brothers) ..there are very often ases where it ends in violence (aka.the her brothers/parents ) which end in front of court (->newspapers)
but the contary situation makes problems as well because of religion

i think that things happen all over the world

[Ugg]

This is a really great discussion, BTW...

I see where you are coming from, but I disagree. You are right that the government can never be seperated entirely from the culture of the people it governs, but I personally think that it is the duty of OUR government (the US) to not endorse any particular culture as far as it is possible.

I find your final example not quite on the level in that you liken the government preventing genocide to an enforcement of culture. To me, that is an example of where the line is between cultural freedom and basic human rights. Killing people is a clear violation of their rights. The government stopping that behavior is not an endorsement or enforcement of a particular culture. Rather, it is an enforcement of the idea that all people are created equal.

You may argue that the idea of "all men created equal" is a product of a particular culture, but I would argue that eventually all cultures will need to share a common set of rules dictating the value of a human life. This is a bit of a paradox in that acheiving common ground would require a shift in SOMEONE's culture. But I guess that is my point: if a culture is so resistant to change that they reject any outside influence, that is very dangerous, both to that culture and its people, and ultimately unmaintainable. The outside cultures will eventually prevail in "corrupting" the "pure" culture with pieces of their own.

This is a controversial statement, I know. It speaks to the eventual loss of identity of all cultures (to one degree or another). I view it, however, as both good and necessary.

Taft

We are constantly imposing our culture on Americans and non-Americans. Yes, in theory we shouldn't but this endless "we will bring freedom and democracy to the world and our fellow Americans through capitalistic economies" is a major cultural imposition. It may not be all bad but we are doing it and to a certain extent we can't help it because it is, for better or worse who we are.

Human rights are another cultural impostion, once again, not necessarily a bad thing but....

As far as losing our culture for the betterment of mankind, I agree that it is the only way forward. But, we don't have to lose all of it.

I think the EU is a good place to look at what happens when cultures begin to mesh for the common good. It's been a 50 year process and for the most part gradual although the last ten years things have accelerated. Going slow isn't a bad thing and while cultural evolution is inevitable it doesn't need to happen overnight and by forcing it we only end up with more conflict.

My favorite city on the west coast is Vancouver, BC. The mix of cultures is incredible and the Canadian ability to coexist peacefully is something that America, Europe and Japan would do well to emulate. I love diversity and I don't want to live in a homogenous society. Nothing appalls me more than a whitebread kind of existence; it doesn't mean though that I am going to give up my own unique cultural background nor do I want to force other people to give up theirs, BUT once you emigrate there are a different set of rules to play by.

[Blue Velvet]

"The freedom enjoyed in England and the United States as to the kind of Christian name which may be given to a child is somewhat limited in France and Germany. In France, by a decree of the II Germinal, an Xl., the only names permitted to be recorded in the civil register as Christian names (prnoms) of children were those of saints in the calendar and the names of personages known in ancient history. Even at the present day an official list is issued (revised from time to time) containing a selection of forenames, and no name of a child will be registered unless it occurs in this list. A limitation more or less similar prevails in Germany and other European countries."

from here:
http://73.1911encyclopedia.org/N/NA/NAME.htm

[takao]

"The freedom enjoyed in England and the United States as to the kind of Christian name which may be given to a child is somewhat limited in France and Germany. In France, by a decree of the II Germinal, an Xl., the only names permitted to be recorded in the civil register as Christian names (prnoms) of children were those of saints in the calendar and the names of personages known in ancient history. Even at the present day an official list is issued (revised from time to time) containing a selection of forenames, and no name of a child will be registered unless it occurs in this list. A limitation more or less similar prevails in Germany and other European countries."

from here:
http://73.1911encyclopedia.org/N/NA/NAME.htm

hm what exactly are "christian names" and more important what do they have to do with this discussion ?

[Blue Velvet]

hm what exactly are "christian names" and more important what do they have to do with this discussion ?

Just pointing out that Sweden is not the only place where choice of first names for children is restricted by law.

Sorry for posting something germane and relevant to the original thread topic, not.

Who made you the thread police around here, anyway?
Get off your high horse.

[takao]

Just pointing out that Sweden is not the only place where choice of first names for children is restricted by law.

do a google search for "Namensrecht" for the german naming right..from your article it sounds like it's a restricting law ..when reading it it's not...it just holds up that first names have to be _first names_ and that the parents don't do any damage to the child with giving it ridiculous names ..it's only a law for protecting children


i still don't know what a christian name is
is that the same as first name or just the name who gets written into the church registers ?

the mix up of past tense and present tense seems suspicious as well...


Sorry for posting something germane and relevant to the original thread topic, not.

Who made you the thread police around here, anyway?
Get off your high horse.

why so harsh ? i just asked a question ...

[skunk]

i still don't know what a christian name is
is that the same as first name or just the name who gets written into the church registers ?
In English, it is used (carelessly, by foolish and thoughtless people) as an alternative to "forename". It is assumed that everybody is Christian - and probably white and male, too...

why so harsh ? i just asked a question ...
Ignore it: it will go away. :rolleyes:

[takao]

In English, it is used (carelessly, by foolish and thoughtless people) as an alternative to "forename". It is assumed that everybody is Christian - and probably white and male, too...

what i found amusing is that the german law has a few names which muslim children shouldn't be named because these names are honor title from the former ottoman empire and aren't allowed anymore in turkey

just like there is a small lsit of names which aren't fitting for christian childrens (the names jesus,satan,judas,kain and christus are not allowed)
and 'maria' is only allowed for a male if he gets an additional name as well

a name has to be clearly associatable with male/female if not an additional one is required
insulting names,geographic locations(with exceptions),company names (coca cola etc.) are forbidden
names like 'chair' 'table','car' etc. aren't allowed either


for me this sounds like common sense and not like something very restricting

[mactastic]

BTW, I'm actually dealing with this idea of "cultural clash" on a small and personal level.

Have you suggested they sit down and watch "Fiddler" together?

[Blue Velvet]

Ignore it: it will go away. :rolleyes:

Who the hell are you calling it? Such condescending smugness...

Generally, this is one of the most friendly and laid-back forums around -- one where all people can usually contribute without being dismissed with patronising comments like '...more important, what do they have to do with this discussion ?'

Just exactly what is more important? Your opinion or mine?
Neither, so don't start having a go at other people for daring to contribute.

Excuse me for interrupting your mutual blokey back-slapping love-fest...

[takao]

Who the hell are you calling it? Such condescending smugness...

Generally, this is one of the most friendly and laid-back forums around -- one where all people can usually contribute without being dismissed with patronising comments like '...more important, what do they have to do with this discussion ?'

Just exactly what is more important? Your opinion or mine?
Neither, so don't start having a go at other people for daring to contribute.

Excuse me for interrupting your mutual blokey back-slapping love-fest...

i googled and searched for the french law your article quotedsince 8th January 1993 the law is obsolete
and only few exceptions are made to names like in germany....

i stated before you that many countries have some reservations to names ..so whats your point ? i just don't like throwing articles into discussion with out any further comments...
and i just asked what chrsitian names are and what they have to do with the discussion..it might have been something religious related... you know...
just calm a little bit down next time....

[Taft]

Have you suggested they sit down and watch "Fiddler" together?

Heh. If only it were that easy.

Most of the time, ideas that have been in people's head for decades don't come out that easily. Living proof of it, this guy.

Taft

[Blue Velvet]

i googled and searched for the french law your article quotedsince 8th January 1993 the law is obsolete
and only few exceptions are made to names like in germany....

i stated before you that many countries have some reservations to names ..so whats your point ? i just don't like throwing articles into discussion with out any further comments...
and i just asked what chrsitian names are and what they have to do with the discussion..it might have been something religious related... you know...
just calm a little bit down next time....

See?
Your problem is saying something like... 'I don't like throwing articles into discussion without further comments.'

The quote I first included speaks for itself – I shouldn't have to spell it out.
I don't post here to satisfy your likes and dislikes.

If I want to comment on something – I will...
You don't have to respond – you can easily ignore.

But I was more annoyed by the later contribution from Skunk.

Don't worry – I'm usually good-natured & laid-back, but was taken aback by your initial tone... I had read the thread and people seemed to be surprised that such laws existed and so it seemed natural to provide a little background.

In some ways, my opinion on this subject matters little – just trying to provide some historical context.

(And never, never, never, ever tell people to calm down... just a little advice from an old lady...)

:)

[IJ Reilly]

BTW, I'm actually dealing with this idea of "cultural clash" on a small and personal level.

My brother is currently dating a Jewish girl. My family is Protestant. They are very happy together except for one small detail: her parents are LIVID about their daughter dating a non-Jew. My bro's girlfriend remains steadfast in the face of CONSIDERABLE pressure from her parents who hav done various nasty things to try and stop them from dating, but everyone is very unhappy about how things are playing out.

From my perspective, this type of insular behavior is unacceptable. Maybe it is my American upbringing (we are the melting pot, after all, and parents enforced that belief in me). Maybe it is the fact that I am dating a Jewish girl myself and have a wonderful relationship with her parents. Maybe it is just how small minded this girl's parents are. I don't know. But I'm not happy with them right now.

And I can't help but "connect the dots" between the attitude of her parents and the attitude of "preserving culture." A big part of the reason her parents feel so strongly is because they are quite religious and dedicated to the Jewish faith and its people and want to see their traditions held. This, in and of itself, is quite honorable. But where is that line between respecting your past and your culture and being racist or "culturalist"? I don't have an answer to that.

Taft

This is generally far less of a religious and cultural issue than you might think. The fear among American Jews isn't so much cultural assimilation (if you look at the history of Jews in the US you'll find that they've been very willing if not anxious to assimilate), but rather the fear of a dwindling population of religiously observant Jews.

[Ugg]

See?
Don't worry – I'm usually good-natured & laid-back, but was taken aback by your initial tone... I had read the thread and people seemed to be surprised that such laws existed and so it seemed natural to provide a little background.

In some ways, my opinion on this subject matters little – just trying to provide some historical context.

(And never, never, never, ever tell people to calm down... just a little advice from an old lady...)

:)

The article was informative, as was takao's further research. If you've been here for awhile, you would have realized that takao's native language is German and therefore his question referred to the english use of christian name. He could well have assumed that you were saying that names have to be religious in nature. Such are the vagaries of the english language.

All opinions are welcome and it's always a pleasure to have new people on board. There always seems to be a breaking in period though whereby everyone gets used to everyone else's idiocyncracies.

[Ugg]

This is generally far less of a religious and cultural issue than you might think. The fear among American Jews isn't so much cultural assimilation (if you look at the history of Jews in the US you'll find that they've been very willing if not anxious to assimilate), but rather the fear of a dwindling population of religiously observant Jews.

That is the very fear that smaller European countries have. That somehow their language and other cultural institutions will disappear to be replaced by those of the immigrants. It's a very valid fear and if a country only has a few million inhabitants it wouldn't take long for them to disappear. So many wars of the last century have been fought over this very issue. People want their own culture enshrined in their own goverment and they don't want to be ruled by someone from another culture.

Measured immigration is the only real way to deal with the problem, too much at once could easily overwhelm the existing systems and create an underclass. Pick any European country and look at the rate of immigration and the degree of assimilation and the problems and successes will become readily apparent.

Takao, how are things in Austria?

[IJ Reilly]

True, but in the instance I cited, the issue isn't specifically cultural. This might be a little difficult to explain. Jews have been particularly adept at maintaining their religious and ethnic identity even while living within a large variety of cultures over many centuries (and under a lot of pressure to abandon it). Jews in the US are worried about the religion literally dying out due to lack of observance and intermarriage. This is why the children of observant Jews are often put under a lot of pressure to marry within the faith, not bigotry or insularity. If Taft's brother let his girlfriend's parents know that he would be prepared to raise their children as Jews (assuming that's what she wanted), then I have an idea her parents would be far less uncomfortable about their dating.

[takao]

Takao, how are things in Austria?

well it's sometiems a big discussion point because in some parts of the country the percentage of people living in austria without austrian passport is already rather high

in vorarlberg (where i live) around 12-15% don't have an austrian passport and if you include those who already got an austrian passport and don't speak german at all after nearly 20 years being in the country

with most of them there are zero problems like the immigrants of italy and other surrounding countries ...i personallly know lots of people wo live here who have parents from croatia/italy/former yugoslavia/ poland or came from this countries as kids

most problems appear with the _children_ of the immigrants from turkey...those who came here as imigrants are happy to be here because in turkey most of them were poor farmers...
many of their kids have problems in school because some don't grew up speaking german as second language at home but only turkish, and because of the bad marks the end up with bad payed jobs etc. and get frustrated

it's getting better with the generatio nwhich is in school now ..but there is a whole generation of tuskish speaking austrians with bad jobs who don't feel like they are austrians

[skunk]

Who the hell are you calling it? Such condescending smugness...

Generally, this is one of the most friendly and laid-back forums around -- one where all people can usually contribute without being dismissed with patronising comments like '...more important, what do they have to do with this discussion ?'

Just exactly what is more important? Your opinion or mine?
Neither, so don't start having a go at other people for daring to contribute.

Excuse me for interrupting your mutual blokey back-slapping love-fest...
Whoa there! Your initial response to Takao was:
"Who made you the thread police around here, anyway?
Get off your high horse." Which is not what I'd call "friendly" or "laid back". Not all of us here are native English-speakers, so a little reflection is sometimes required to avoid such over-reactions.

No offence intended, only defence.

Welcome aboard.

[Taft]

True, but in the instance I cited, the issue isn't specifically cultural. This might be a little difficult to explain. Jews have been particularly adept at maintaining their religious and ethnic identity even while living within a large variety of cultures over many centuries (and under a lot of pressure to abandon it). Jews in the US are worried about the religion literally dying out due to lack of observance and intermarriage. This is why the children of observant Jews are often put under a lot of pressure to marry within the faith, not bigotry or insularity. If Taft's brother let his girlfriend's parents know that he would be prepared to raise their children as Jews (assuming that's what she wanted), then I have an idea her parents would be far less uncomfortable about their dating.

The last sentence hit the nail on the head, at least for their circumstance.

I just wonder what the basis of that fear is. I mean, it seems to me this is an issue EVERY religion is facing. Of the people my age I know who are getting married, very few of them have married a person of their own religion. Does this fear grip their parents as well, or is it something born of the unique Jewish experience?

I am really struggling to understand this semmingly large cultural difference, as I think it might make me dislike them a bit less. I just don't see how they view this as anything less than inevitable. I just think that is such an obvious part of the American experience that to deny that it will eventually happen to a culture is pure naivete. Do people think they can stop it somehow? Again, that seems pretty naive to me.

And by "it" I don't mean the destruction of the culture, but rather the mixing of all cultures. Or do some view those two as the same thing?

Taft

[mactastic]

Lots of people view mixing of race/culture the same as it's destruction. For example, the Christian terrorists with their white supremacy ideology and their ideas on 'mud races'.

Thankfully most people that I know don't have that issue. Neither I, nor my sister who was married last weekend, chose to marry within the faith my parents raised us in. They have been very accepting of the fact, and certainly don't view it as a destruction of any culture. For pete's sake, my sister married a Canadian! :p

[IJ Reilly]

Ohmygod, not a Canadian!

No, I don't think other religions face the single most important issue Judaism faces -- a small and diminishing "market share" in the world's faiths, if you will. The problem is even more acute in the US where Jews have assimilated into the national culture perhaps all to well. Observance is down and intermarriage is up. So there is something unique in the Jewish experience, in that the faith has been under the threat of extinction over many centuries through a variety of forces of a political and cultural nature. (Consider the psychology of historical persecution and I think you'll also understand not only your brother's girlfriend's parents, but the mindset of State of Israel, more completely.)

I don't think you'll get anywhere by suggesting that American Jews should accept the effective eradication of their religion in this country as "inevitable," if only because Jews have withstood far more direct threats to their existence historically. And I reiterate, the problem your brother is experiencing with his girlfriend's parents very likely has nothing to do with racism or bigotry, and certainly not naiveté. It has everything to do with their feelings of duty to pass their religious traditions onto the next generation. This has always been the central Jewish issue in the world and throughout history, so it would be unrealistic to expect it to change in the case of your brother's girlfriend's family.

He could make peace with this issue if he wanted to, I suspect. But if he's in essence telling his prospective in-laws that he intends to raise their grandkids as Protestants, then I think you can see where they might take it none too kindly.