Europe is beginning to awaken...

[Perinquus]

I'm not so sure about the inevitability of integration. Just look at "black culture," if anything, it is continously seperating itself from typical "american culture".

That's because blacks have been the most hated minority group in the US for a very long time. They were pissed on for so long that a number of them have no interest whatsoever of entering the mainstream. Another thing to keep in mind that an Italian-American, for example could change his name and the way he talks, etc and fit into the mainstream society. A black person who did that is a...

And whose fault is that? If a black kid can't apply himself in school without being accused of "acting white", and being ridiculed for it; and if a black man or woman can't integrate into mainstream American society without being accused by other blacks of being an "Uncle Tom" or an "Oreo" (black in the outside, white on the inside), then blacks themselves have created a powerful mechanism to bar the way to integration and social advancement. This is not to say that they don't have some legitimate grievances. They do. But race hustling political opportunists like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson ultimately do more harm than good by perpetuating this culture of victimhood, and stigmatizing anyone in the black community who does integrate into the mainstream of American society.

[Elfdart]

I'm not so sure about the inevitability of integration. Just look at "black culture," if anything, it is continously seperating itself from typical "american culture".

That's because blacks have been the most hated minority group in the US for a very long time. They were pissed on for so long that a number of them have no interest whatsoever of entering the mainstream. Another thing to keep in mind that an Italian-American, for example could change his name and the way he talks, etc and fit into the mainstream society. A black person who did that is a...

And whose fault is that? If a black kid can't apply himself in school without being accused of "acting white", and being ridiculed for it; and if a black man or woman can't integrate into mainstream American society without being accused by other blacks of being an "Uncle Tom" or an "Oreo" (black in the outside, white on the inside), then blacks themselves have created a powerful mechanism to bar the way to integration and social advancement.

Let's see: 300-plus years of being ostracized and treated like livestock vs. a few catcalls from malcontents. Which do you think is more responsible for the fact that a number of black people in this country don't bother trying to assimilate?

That's why so many blacks are giving up on trying to work their way up in big companies and are starting their own businesses.

This is not to say that they don't have some legitimate grievances. They do. But race hustling political opportunists like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson ultimately do more harm than good by perpetuating this culture of victimhood, and stigmatizing anyone in the black community who does integrate into the mainstream of American society.

Were it not for people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, blacks would still be at the back of the bus. King, Abernathy, Bond and Evers were also reviled as "race hustlers" in their day.

Blacks aren't the only group in which people resent social climbers, nerds or the pretentious. The word "hifalutin" was invented for such people and no, it wasn't coined by blacks.

[Perinquus]

That's because blacks have been the most hated minority group in the US for a very long time. They were pissed on for so long that a number of them have no interest whatsoever of entering the mainstream. Another thing to keep in mind that an Italian-American, for example could change his name and the way he talks, etc and fit into the mainstream society. A black person who did that is a...

And whose fault is that? If a black kid can't apply himself in school without being accused of "acting white", and being ridiculed for it; and if a black man or woman can't integrate into mainstream American society without being accused by other blacks of being an "Uncle Tom" or an "Oreo" (black in the outside, white on the inside), then blacks themselves have created a powerful mechanism to bar the way to integration and social advancement.

Let's see: 300-plus years of being ostracized and treated like livestock vs. a few catcalls from malcontents. Which do you think is more responsible for the fact that a number of black people in this country don't bother trying to assimilate?

Yeah? And when my ancestors got here, they faced "No Irish need apply" signs in shop windows when they went to look for jobs. Before that, my family faced penal laws and land grabs by the English, and English mismanagement of the country during the famine, which drove them out of Ireland in the first place. Am I supposed to carry a grudge because of this? The past is the past. No former slaves are alive today, nor are any former slaveowners. No one today is faced with being sent to the back of the bus, or drinking from a "colored only" drinking fountain. It's time they started living in the present.

That's why so many blacks are giving up on trying to work their way up in big companies and are starting their own businesses.

Cui bono?

Who benefits?

When blacks give up on trying to work their way up in big companies and start their own businesses, who benefits? Blacks? No. Far from it. They stay on the lower rungs of the economic ladder. If certain behavior patterns are manifestly self defeating, they need to be changed, not excused, no matter what the reasons for them.

This is not to say that they don't have some legitimate grievances. They do. But race hustling political opportunists like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson ultimately do more harm than good by perpetuating this culture of victimhood, and stigmatizing anyone in the black community who does integrate into the mainstream of American society.

Were it not for people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, blacks would still be at the back of the bus. King, Abernathy, Bond and Evers were also reviled as "race hustlers" in their day.

But King spoke of real integration. Sharpton and Jackson don't. And are you familiar at all with the history of the Sicilian mafia, or the tongs of Asia, or Irish gangs like the Molly Maguires? In each of these cases, these organizations came into being as means of protecting and fighting for the interests of peoples who were truly suffering oppression. Over time, however, when that oppression was alleviated, the people in charge of these organizations found they had acquired a certain amount of power, prestige, and influence in their communities. Like most people, they found these things very tempting and hard to give up. The leaders of these organizations began, ever so gradually, to think less and less about the cause of protecting their people, and more and more about maintaining their positions of power and influence. And so, over time, these underworld organizations, which began with truly laudable aims, became parasites and hindrances to the very people they were originally meant to protect.

Just because an organization starts out with noble aspirations and goals, does not mean that it remains so praiseworthy. I repeat: it's time to live in the present. Organizations like the NAACP, and politically active "black leaders" may at one time have served the interest of the black community. That was then. This is now. The question is, do they still do so?

Blacks aren't the only group in which people resent social climbers, nerds or the pretentious. The word "hifalutin" was invented for such people and no, it wasn't coined by blacks.

And isn't it interesting how other ethnic groups, like Japanese, Chinese, Koreans and others of Asian ancestry, who thanks to biology, are every bit as unable as blacks to integrate seamlessly by simply changing their names and the way they talk, have nevertheless managed to integrate far better into American society, despite the absence of any "Asian Leaders" comparable to "Black Leaders" like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson?

[Elfdart]

Yeah? And when my ancestors got here, they faced "No Irish need apply" signs in shop windows when they went to look for jobs. Before that, my family faced penal laws and land grabs by the English, and English mismanagement of the country during the famine, which drove them out of Ireland in the first place. Am I supposed to carry a grudge because of this? The past is the past. No former slaves are alive today, nor are any former slaveowners. No one today is faced with being sent to the back of the bus, or drinking from a "colored only" drinking fountain. It's time they started living in the present.

When was the last time an Irish-American (or an Irishman fresh from the Emerald Isle) was discriminated against in this country? @ WW1? Blacks still get screwed in this country. No it's not slavery or Jim Crow, but I wouldn't want to be in their shoes. Being black is a guarantee of being treated as a third-class citizen even today. Both the government and private industry fuck them over of a regular basis. Just a few years ago, two black Secret Service agents assigned to guard Clinton tried to buy lunch at a Denny's. The way they were treated, there might as well have been a "we don't serve coloreds here" sign.

That's why so many blacks are giving up on trying to work their way up in big companies and are starting their own businesses.

Cui bono?

Who benefits?

When blacks give up on trying to work their way up in big companies and start their own businesses, who benefits? Blacks? No. Far from it. They stay on the lower rungs of the economic ladder. If certain behavior patterns are manifestly self defeating, they need to be changed, not excused, no matter what the reasons for them.

It depends on if the business succeeds. If it does, of course the black person who owns it does!

But King spoke of real integration. Sharpton and Jackson don't. And are you familiar at all with the history of the Sicilian mafia, or the tongs of Asia, or Irish gangs like the Molly Maguires? In each of these cases, these organizations came into being as means of protecting and fighting for the interests of peoples who were truly suffering oppression. Over time, however, when that oppression was alleviated, the people in charge of these organizations found they had acquired a certain amount of power, prestige, and influence in their communities. Like most people, they found these things very tempting and hard to give up. The leaders of these organizations began, ever so gradually, to think less and less about the cause of protecting their people, and more and more about maintaining their positions of power and influence. And so, over time, these underworld organizations, which began with truly laudable aims, became parasites and hindrances to the very people they were originally meant to protect.

Just because an organization starts out with noble aspirations and goals, does not mean that it remains so praiseworthy. I repeat: it's time to live in the present. Organizations like the NAACP, and politically active "black leaders" may at one time have served the interest of the black community. That was then. This is now. The question is, do they still do so?

Since the NAACP has never killed or kneecapped anyone, it's pretty clear that anyone who supports them has the option of quitting the group. Nobody quits the Mafia. The fact that the NAACP is still held in high regard among most blacks shows that the group has clout and deservedly so.

Blacks aren't the only group in which people resent social climbers, nerds or the pretentious. The word "hifalutin" was invented for such people and no, it wasn't coined by blacks.

And isn't it interesting how other ethnic groups, like Japanese, Chinese, Koreans and others of Asian ancestry, who thanks to biology, are every bit as unable as blacks to integrate seamlessly by simply changing their names and the way they talk, have nevertheless managed to integrate far better into American society, despite the absence of any "Asian Leaders" comparable to "Black Leaders" like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson?

Asians are not now and never were as despised in this country like blacks have been. Even when Roosevelt had Japanese-Americans put into concentration camps, it was done without anyone getting killed. Compare this to the pogroms against blacks in the 1920s. Asians also came up with a certain amount of economic clout over the last 50 years -often by forming their own businesses rather than trying to work within someone else's.

The fact that a number of blacks don't even bother with assimilation is no surprise given that they have been rejected for so long and in many cases, still are -no matter how much they try to fit in. This is the opposite of the original subject of Muslims in Europe who haven't assimilated. Trying to force conformity always backfires and makes those on the receiving end reject the dominant culture just as much (if not more so) than if they were consciously rejected.

The best thing to do is leave it alone while enforcing the laws equally for everyone. If so-and-so doesn't want to speak American or French, fine. But spousal abuse is spousal abuse and no matter what your religion or ethnic background, if you are convicted, you need to go to jail. If you do things this way, nature will take its course and those Muslim girls will not only not wear the head scarves, but will get their tongues pierced and push-up bras in a generation.

[The Third Man]

The fact that a number of blacks don't even bother with assimilation is no surprise given that they have been rejected for so long and in many cases, still are -no matter how much they try to fit in. This is the opposite of the original subject of Muslims in Europe who haven't assimilated.

Can you elucidate on why this is "the opposite" please?

Trying to force conformity always backfires and makes those on the receiving end reject the dominant culture just as much (if not more so) than if they were consciously rejected.

True enough, but as regards the specific case of French headscarves, I have the sneaking feeling that the French government knew this and went ahead with the ban to provoke a showdown with Islam. Pretty dubious strategy all the same.

[Perinquus]

Yeah? And when my ancestors got here, they faced "No Irish need apply" signs in shop windows when they went to look for jobs. Before that, my family faced penal laws and land grabs by the English, and English mismanagement of the country during the famine, which drove them out of Ireland in the first place. Am I supposed to carry a grudge because of this? The past is the past. No former slaves are alive today, nor are any former slaveowners. No one today is faced with being sent to the back of the bus, or drinking from a "colored only" drinking fountain. It's time they started living in the present.

When was the last time an Irish-American (or an Irishman fresh from the Emerald Isle) was discriminated against in this country? @ WW1? Blacks still get screwed in this country. No it's not slavery or Jim Crow, but I wouldn't want to be in their shoes. Being black is a guarantee of being treated as a third-class citizen even today. Both the government and private industry fuck them over of a regular basis. Just a few years ago, two black Secret Service agents assigned to guard Clinton tried to buy lunch at a Denny's. The way they were treated, there might as well have been a "we don't serve coloreds here" sign.

And a couple of years ago, right here in Norfolk, one of the local Burger King franchises went out of business, because it was owned by blacks, but located in a predominantly white neighborhood, and they were noticeably favoring black customers. If you were white, you found yourself treated less politely, and often standing in line a suspicuously long time, while black customers were served ahead of you.

A few years ago, I took the test for NCIS. I scored quite well, but did not get accepted. One of the senior agenst for the NCIS is the father in law of a good friend of mine on the police department. I was told by him that the reason I didn't get the job was that I was white, and they were looking to hire more minority agents.

There are plenty of opportunities for blacks and other minorities today. Sure they face individual discrimination. They do not, except in very rare cases, face institutionalized discrimination anymore. The Jim Crow days, and "separate but equal" days are just as over as the "no Irish need apply" days.

That's why so many blacks are giving up on trying to work their way up in big companies and are starting their own businesses.

Cui bono?

Who benefits?

When blacks give up on trying to work their way up in big companies and start their own businesses, who benefits? Blacks? No. Far from it. They stay on the lower rungs of the economic ladder. If certain behavior patterns are manifestly self defeating, they need to be changed, not excused, no matter what the reasons for them.

It depends on if the business succeeds. If it does, of course the black person who owns it does!

Thanks for missing the point. When blacks give up on establishing businesses, or climbing higher in companies, and cite dissatisfaction with mainstream society, do they benefit? No.

But King spoke of real integration. Sharpton and Jackson don't. And are you familiar at all with the history of the Sicilian mafia, or the tongs of Asia, or Irish gangs like the Molly Maguires? In each of these cases, these organizations came into being as means of protecting and fighting for the interests of peoples who were truly suffering oppression. Over time, however, when that oppression was alleviated, the people in charge of these organizations found they had acquired a certain amount of power, prestige, and influence in their communities. Like most people, they found these things very tempting and hard to give up. The leaders of these organizations began, ever so gradually, to think less and less about the cause of protecting their people, and more and more about maintaining their positions of power and influence. And so, over time, these underworld organizations, which began with truly laudable aims, became parasites and hindrances to the very people they were originally meant to protect.

Just because an organization starts out with noble aspirations and goals, does not mean that it remains so praiseworthy. I repeat: it's time to live in the present. Organizations like the NAACP, and politically active "black leaders" may at one time have served the interest of the black community. That was then. This is now. The question is, do they still do so?

Since the NAACP has never killed or kneecapped anyone, it's pretty clear that anyone who supports them has the option of quitting the group. Nobody quits the Mafia. The fact that the NAACP is still held in high regard among most blacks shows that the group has clout and deservedly so.

Once again, I see you completely missed the point. No the NAACP is not just like the mafia. That's not what I am trying to say at all. What I am saying is that in the same way the mafia did, an organization like the NAACP can become more about keeping its leaders in their position of influence and power, and less about serving the ends for which it was founded.

Blacks aren't the only group in which people resent social climbers, nerds or the pretentious. The word "hifalutin" was invented for such people and no, it wasn't coined by blacks.

And isn't it interesting how other ethnic groups, like Japanese, Chinese, Koreans and others of Asian ancestry, who thanks to biology, are every bit as unable as blacks to integrate seamlessly by simply changing their names and the way they talk, have nevertheless managed to integrate far better into American society, despite the absence of any "Asian Leaders" comparable to "Black Leaders" like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson?

Asians are not now and never were as despised in this country like blacks have been. Even when Roosevelt had Japanese-Americans put into concentration camps, it was done without anyone getting killed. Compare this to the pogroms against blacks in the 1920s. Asians also came up with a certain amount of economic clout over the last 50 years -often by forming their own businesses rather than trying to work within someone else's.

Read up on the history of the Chinese immigrants in this country. I think you will find that they faced discrimination every bit as harsh as blacks did anywhere outside the south.

[Elfdart]

"outside the south"... nice caveat there.

Outside of the assassination of her husband, Mary Todd Lincoln had a lovely night on the town...

The fact that a number of blacks don't even bother with assimilation is no surprise given that they have been rejected for so long and in many cases, still are -no matter how much they try to fit in. This is the opposite of the original subject of Muslims in Europe who haven't assimilated.

Can you elucidate on why this is "the opposite" please?

It's my understanding that the various Muslim immigrants don't want to assimilate. I have my doubts, but let's assume it's true that most don't want to -just for argument's sake. They aren't accepted in some quarters and don't want to be.

Blacks in the US, on the other hand, have spent over 150 years (or longer) trying to be accepted by white society. This effort (aka the Abolition and Civil Rights movements) cost thousands of blacks their lives. They were willing to die to be accepted.

Big difference, except that the effects of both scenarios is very similar: groups of people who either cannot or will not assimilate.

As for Perinquus' other points. In order:

1) I notice you haven't mentioned any discrimination against the Irish in this country. Concession accepted.

2) The NAACP can only keep its leaders in power if the members vote them in. If they're not satisfied with their leaders, the leaders get bounced as Ben Chavis found out.

3) Yeah, the "Chinamen" got the shaft quite often. How many were lynched? How many were sentenced to the Dixie Gulags like Angola or Parchman? How many are shot full of holes or beaten like pinatas by racist policemen? Please. The only group hated as much or more than blacks are American Indians and as you'll notice, they're pretty scarce. A number of those few who still exist won't assimilate, either. Can you blame them?

[Falkenhayn]

A friend of mine, Darryl Viscusi, used to play football for Hudson Valley Community College. He dosen't anymore.

Darryl is black. He has a brother who is black, and another who is white. He and his brothers were adopted by two second generation Americans of rather strong Italian extraction, good people, and raised Italian.

Darryl was hounded off the team by "authentic African-Americans" for not acting like they do.

Now to me, this proves two things:

1. Race is simply an idea that we all need to stop believing in, perpetuating or highlighting in any way, shape or form. How to do this is anybody's guess. But it seams to me that our time would be better spent exploring this possibility than engaging the piss-one way-bile another exchange or outright pandering, that characterizes race politics.
2. Parents are the instillers of values and behavior in children.

[Perinquus]

"outside the south"... nice caveat there.

Outside of the assassination of her husband, Mary Todd Lincoln had a lovely night on the town...

In case you hadn't noticed retard, the attitudes that prevail in the south are not representative of the rest of the country.

As for Perinquus' other points. In order:

1) I notice you haven't mentioned any discrimination against the Irish in this country. Concession accepted.

No, I never mentioned anti-Irish discrimination in this country. Oh, wait... it seems I did:

And when my ancestors got here, they faced "No Irish need apply" signs in shop windows when they went to look for jobs.

Learn to read dumbass.

But in case that's not specific enough for you, attend:

Note this nice little cartoon from a 19th century issue of "Harper's Weekly", representing Irishmen (along with blacks) as an inferior type of human being, drawn with distinctly brutish features.



It was common practice for Irishmen to be drawn with simian facial features in the political cartoons of the era, and portrayed in activities that showed them acting like savages.





Before the Civil War, Irish people were often employed in jobs considered too dangerous for black slaves to carry out because the loss of a slave was an out of pocket expense for the owner. The Irish were concentrated at the lowest rungs of the employment ladder - lower even than free blacks, because those blacks in pre-Civil War America who were free often possessed more education and skills than newly arrived Irish immigrants. In 1851-1852, railroad contractors in New York advertised for workers and promised good pay. When mostly Irish applied, the pay was lowered to fifty-five cents a day. When the workers protested, the militia was called in.

Anti-Irish sentiment became part of the country's politics as well. The Know Nothing party came to power at the height of Boston’s anti-Irish feeling in the 1840s and 50s. This party was opposed to foreign immigration, especially that of Irish Catholics. One of their slogans was “Americans must rule America.” By 1854 the Know Nothings boasted over one million members and had elected eight governors, more than 100 congressmen, the mayors of major cities such as Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia, and also thousands of lesser officials throughout the country. In 1854, a majority of two thirds of the voters in the state of Massachusetts voted for Know Nothing candidates. Once in power, the party passed a series of laws aimed specifically at the Irish Catholic population of Massachusetts, including compulsory readings from the (protestant) King James Bible in public schools; and disbanding Irish militia units and seizing their weapons in direct violation of their Constitutional rights.

Anti Irish feeling was not confined to the east either. In San Francisco, a "Vigilance Committee" took control of the government and sought to eradicate Irish Catholics from the city. Two were lynched, causing many others to flee San Francisco. And in the south, Irishmen were called “niggers turned inside out” while the slaves were referred to as “smoked Irish.”

This enough evidence of anti-Irish discrimination for you?

2) The NAACP can only keep its leaders in power if the members vote them in. If they're not satisfied with their leaders, the leaders get bounced as Ben Chavis found out.

Are you really this innocent? Can it be possible that you really do not understand how political leaders influence people?

Those same leaders will say or do whatever it takes to keep themselves in power. Do you think you will ever hear an NAACP leader say: "We've done it. Jim Crow laws are history. Segregation is no more. People don't dare use the N-word in public much anymore. Even a whiff of racial discrimination in hiring or firing practices is enough to get and employer haled into court. The basic rights of black Americans are guaranteed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Most of the goals of the Civil Rights Movement have been realized"? Do you seriously think that you will ever hear the NAACP top brass utter any such sentiments? No. Why? Because doing so would imply that they aren't needed anymore, at least not like they used to be, and that would undermine their power. So they keep up the culture of victimhood, and this allows them to go on being the champions of the black community.

That's how it works. An organization arises to address real, legitimate issues and grievances. But when the issues are largely gone, the people who run these organizations exhibit the very common human tendency to resist relinquishing whatever power and influence they have acquired along the way.

3) Yeah, the "Chinamen" got the shaft quite often. How many were lynched? How many were sentenced to the Dixie Gulags like Angola or Parchman? How many are shot full of holes or beaten like pinatas by racist policemen?

And how often did these things happen outside the south? The south is its own subculture, not representative of America as a whole. And in fact, the rest of the country fought a very destructive and bloody war to put an end to certain objectionable southern practices. Or hadn't anyone told you?

Outside the south, both the Irish and the Chinese had it just as hard as blacks did. In 1852, California governor John Bigler declared that the Chinese were a menace to the state, anti-Chinese activity in California accelerated. The California legislature passed the "Anti-Coolie Act of 1862", to restrict the professions and jobs open to Chinese immigrants. Los Angeles' first race riot was not anti-black, it was anti-Chinese. On October 24, 1871 Los Angeles experienced the infamous Chinese Massacre, which resulted in the murder of 19 Chinese men and boys in the first Los Angeles Chinatown. Some ten percent of the town's population of 5,000 participated. In 1882, the Forty-Seventh Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which for a short time made immigration of Chinese to America illegal.

Anti-Chinese and anti-Irish racism were every bit as prevalent in this country at one time as anti-black racism was. It's merely that in the south, where blacks were kept as slaves, all kinds of ridiculous "racially inferior" arguments were used to justify a barbaric practice, and this fostered an especially virulent racism throughout that region of the country.

Please. The only group hated as much or more than blacks are American Indians and as you'll notice, they're pretty scarce. A number of those few who still exist won't assimilate, either. Can you blame them?

Yeah. Because you can either wallow in past grievances that happened to other people, or you can do what it takes to advance and get ahead. They're perfectly free to do the former, but it's not the road to success. Life's not fair. Their ancestors got the shaft. They absolutely did. But the past is the past and it can't be changed. What's done is done. Crying about it is not productive. You're trying to give them an excuse for sulking. Well, they're perfectly free to do that, but sulking is not productive, and as long as they do it, they won't get ahead. It may be emotionally satisfying, but it won't put food on the table. Maybe you don't like this. Maybe it's not fair. Hell, there's no doubt it's not fair. But that's the way the world works.

[SecondStorm]

And once again Americans manage to make a topic about Europe into a topic about America.

[Perinquus]

And once again Americans manage to make a topic about Europe into a topic about America.

Well if it will make you feel better, I can dig up just as much dirt on anti-Irish discrimination in England, and anti-Semitism in Europe.

[SecondStorm]

And once again Americans manage to make a topic about Europe into a topic about America.

Well if it will make you feel better, I can dig up just as much dirt on anti-Irish discrimination in England, and anti-Semitism in Europe.

Those cartoons are hilarious.
Serves you right for being lazy Catholic neanderthals.

How do you define anti-Semitism ? And in what timeline are you referring to ?
Europe as of today dont like Israel because of their rather dubious "internal-affairs" but thats not anti-Semitism except ofc in the Israel governements eyes where if you dare utter a single negative word about Israel they scream "You are anti-Semitic, Hitler reborn!" proceded by lots of moaning of hard it is to oppress those stubborn Palestinians.

Ill speak for Denmark and say that Jews usually arent descriminated against but there is a strong dislike of Israel.

[Perinquus]

And once again Americans manage to make a topic about Europe into a topic about America.

Well if it will make you feel better, I can dig up just as much dirt on anti-Irish discrimination in England, and anti-Semitism in Europe.

Those cartoons are hilarious.
Serves you right for being lazy Catholic neanderthals.

How do you define anti-Semitism ? And in what timeline are you referring to ?
Europe as of today dont like Israel because of their rather dubious "internal-affairs" but thats not anti-Semitism except ofc in the Israel governements eyes where if you dare utter a single negative word about Israel they scream "You are anti-Semitic, Hitler reborn!" proceded by lots of moaning of hard it is to oppress those stubborn Palestinians.

Ill speak for Denmark and say that Jews usually arent descriminated against but there is a strong dislike of Israel.

I've been mostly talking about history here. There is a lot of that in Europe, even if today open anti-semitism is considered unacceptable. And I suspect that that is so for the same reason that open anti-black racism is no longer acceptable in the United States. In some ways, things are getting better. Surely it cannot be seen as anything but positive that racism was once not only common, but respectable, and today it is stigmatized. Yet bigotry is not entirely gone, of course. It is certain that there are still anti-semites in Europe, who hate Jews just for being Jews. It is just as certain that there are anti-black racists in the U.S. who hate blacks just for being blacks. But these days they simply dare not be as open about it. The European anti-semites are reluctant to be lumped in with Nazis, and the American anti-black bigots are reluctant to be lumped in with the skinheads and the Klan. In both cases, it seems, it has taken the barbaric excesses of true savages to make certain things socially unacceptable. It's a pity history has to work that way.

[The Dark]

Actually, most of Islam shouldn't be that much of a problem. Even Khomeini was a Sufi-inspired Shi'ite, who was worried about religious purity but not such a bad guy (some of his followers, OTOH... ). The true problem is the Wahhabi sect from Saudi Arabia. These guys ban music as being an affront to Allah, and actually suggest jihad against other Muslims is justified if they're not Wahhabi, despite the fact that the Qur'an expressly forbids Muslim warring on Muslim. As with Christianity, the problem is a relatively small, highly vocal right-wing group that obtains most of the publicity and becomes the public face of the religion. All the Muslims I know have fairly seamlessly integrated into Western society.

Oh, and I really must recommend the John Esposito book that Duchess used as a source. He spoke at my college's religion Lecture series last year about Islam, and I got The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality then. Very good book, well written and well reasoned. I'm also currently read The Two Faces of Islam, by Stephen Schwartz. Writing style is a bit looser than Esposito's, but still very good at comparing Wahhabi Islam to mainstream (particularly Shi'a) Islam.

[Elfdart]

And once again Americans manage to make a topic about Europe into a topic about America.

Like other countries even matter.

[Ace Pace]

And once again Americans manage to make a topic about Europe into a topic about America.

Like other countries even matter.

Americans have this obsession with some countries you know, such as France