Blandet etnisiteter

[( )]

Ah, so dictionaries are infallible ?

 

Frankly, if "racism" is to have the same meaning as "discrimination", what's the point of maintaining both words ?

 

And both of us have overlooked a third version, where the nominators misjudge the mood of the population. Such a thing is not unthinkable, and would lead to faulty decisions.

 

As for voters rejecting party lists because of individuals: In that case they shouldn't be voters in the first place, as it is the party program(s) that decide what list to choose, not the individuals on the list.

[jjkoggan]

Ah, so dictionaries are infallible ?

Nope, but since most dictionaries use this definition one must accept it or realize they will misunderstand common usage of the word, as you have done, and in the USA it is common usage that determines the correct meaning of a word not a språkråd.

 

Frankly, if "racism" is to have the same meaning as "discrimination", what's the point of maintaining both words ?

Discrimination is an outcome of cultural racism that stems from a belief that certain cultures are inferior in some aspects

 

And both of us have overlooked a third version, where the nominators misjudge the mood of the population. Such a thing is not unthinkable, and would lead to faulty decisions.

 

. There are many possibilities but we know for sure at bigotry and racism exist in norway. Measuring the magnitude and effect on politics is difficult.

 

One thing we also know for sure, the common use of full "norskhet" as being only attainable by ethnic background and not citizenship or acculturation frustrates many ethnic minorities, causing some to embrace their inherited culture and not norwegian culture.

As for voters rejecting party lists because of individuals: In that case they shouldn't be voters in the first place, as it is the party program(s) that decide what list to choose, not the individuals on the list.

Some people should not vote, that's for sure, but they do anyway. You have a system that should easily overcome limited bigotry. So far your progress in that regard is no better than other European nations that typically have more minorities on their national football teams than in their parliaments

[( )]

 

 

 

Ah, so dictionaries are infallible ?

Nope, but since most dictionaries use this definition one must accept it or realize they will misunderstand common usage of the word, as you have done, and in the USA it is common usage that determines the correct meaning of a word not a språkråd.

And I still maintain that labeling one-time delegates that show up at one meeting, then go home, as leaders is wildly wrong. Just as I maintain that calling all of congress "leaders" is wildly optimistic (to use an understatement).

 

 

 

Frankly, if "racism" is to have the same meaning as "discrimination", what's the point of maintaining both words ?

Discrimination is an outcome of cultural racism that stems from a belief that certain cultures are inferior in some aspects

Yes, like when people discriminate against such deepseated cultural phenomenae as stoning and female circumcision...

(There are cases of unjust discrimination - but there are also some aspects of some cultures that are actually of lesser value, such as, e.g., the Russians' tendency to drink vodka as if it were water...)

 

 

And both of us have overlooked a third version, where the nominators misjudge the mood of the population. Such a thing is not unthinkable, and would lead to faulty decisions.

. There are many possibilities but we know for sure at bigotry and racism exist in norway. Measuring the magnitude and effect on politics is difficult.

Indeed ?

 

One thing we also know for sure, the common use of full "norskhet" as being only attainable by ethnic background and not citizenship or acculturation frustrates many ethnic minorities, causing some to embrace their inherited culture and not norwegian culture.

I'm not so sure that the required level of norwegianness for political or work activity is at such a high level as that - my impression is more that there is a smallish group of people debating this as if their very lives depended upon keeping that debate going, while the vast majority simply go about their own business (in the extended meaning of that word), and that a number of the debaters "know" what people think or should think about this, when they in fact have no idea what people think about this (or whether ordinary people here think about this at all).

 

 

 

 

As for voters rejecting party lists because of individuals: In that case they shouldn't be voters in the first place, as it is the party program(s) that decide what list to choose, not the individuals on the list.

Some people should not vote, that's for sure, but they do anyway. You have a system that should easily overcome limited bigotry. So far your progress in that regard is no better than other European nations that typically have more minorities on their national football teams than in their parliaments

Except that we don't even know whether that lack of immigrant (/-stock) politicians is because of bigotry, or because of people thinking voters would be bigoted, or simply because the given group of people simply don't bother activating themselves (which is the entrance key to the whole thing).

[jjkoggan]

And I still maintain that labeling one-time delegates that show up at one meeting, then go home, as leaders is wildly wrong. Just as I maintain that calling all of congress "leaders" is wildly optimistic (to use an understatement).

You can have your own private definition of words if you want, it hinders communication with others though.

 

Yes, like when people discriminate against such deepseated cultural phenomenae as stoning and female circumcision...

(There are cases of unjust discrimination - but there are also some aspects of some cultures that are actually of lesser value, such as, e.g., the Russians' tendency to drink vodka as if it were water...)

Absolutely, but you shouldn't presume that I subscribe to those cultural aspects if my ethnic background is from those cultures, you should ask me first.

 

I'm not so sure that the required level of norwegianness for political or work activity is at such a high level as that - my impression is more that there is a smallish group of people debating this as if their very lives depended upon keeping that debate going, while the vast majority simply go about their own business (in the extended meaning of that word), and that a number of the debaters "know" what people think or should think about this, when they in fact have no idea what people think about this (or whether ordinary people here think about this at all).

The link I showed you from UIO illustrated the frustration of several minorities with the sense of never become true norwegians. This is not simply an opinion about "what people think", multiple studies confirm this frustration. How much it affects political participation is of course debatable.

 

Here is an example:http://www.utrop.no/Plenum/Kommentar/Blogg/26621

 

Etnisitet skaper skiller

Hvor viktig er etnisitet egentlig? Det er en måte å klassifisere mennesker på som gjør at man skaper et unaturlig og utdatert skille mellom folk basert på deres såkalte etnisitet.

 

Den svenske journalisten Bjørn Lindahl understreker at bruken av begrepet "etnisk norsk" gjør at folk som er bosatt i Norge med bakgrunn fra en annen verdensdel eller kultur aldri vil bli oppfattet som helt norske.

 

Og hvis det stemmer, hva skal jeg da hevde meg som?

 

Passet mitt gir meg retten til å hevde meg som nordmann, men jeg bærer ikke på passet mitt hver gang noen finner på å spørre hvor jeg er fra.

 

 

 

Except that we don't even know whether that lack of immigrant (/-stock) politicians is because of bigotry, or because of people thinking voters would be bigoted, or simply because the given group of people simply don't bother activating themselves (which is the entrance key to the whole thing).

Covert bigotry/racism can be difficult to assign to specific behaviors, this is true, but these same arguments have also been used to excuse bad behavior and prevent needed introspection. More studies should be conducted to understand this problem of underrepresentation.

 

What does "activating themselves" mean exactly? Sounds like a science fiction event.

[( )]

That expression (activating) may have been a norvagism, but the meaning ought to be clear given context: Getting off their arses and start actively participating in a local party organisation.

 

As for the rest, I don't have time to comment right now.

[jjkoggan]

Her snakker en forsker om sin forskning på hvorfor minoriteter underrepresenteres i norsk politikk. Hennes forskning sier:

 

Mens partiene tar hensyn til kjønn,alder og andre demografiske faktorer (disse rekrutteres aktivt), hensyn til etnisk bakgrunn Er meget rart

 

Teorien får støtte i sosiolog Beret Bråtens forskning, som viser at minoritetsbakgrunn kan være en større barriere for menn enn for kvinner i politikken. Bråten har blant annet intervjuet ledere for lokale nominasjonskomiteer om temaet.

 

Der minoritetskvinnene forstås som ofre for eller opprørere mot patriarkalsk kultur, representerer mennene den patriarkalske kulturen. For å overbevise om at han er likestillingsvennlig, holder det ikke å erklære at han er det, han må vurderes nærmere, sa Bråten i 2011.

 

http://forskning.no/innvandring-demokrati-politikk/2013/11/fa-tiltak-flerkulturelt-demokrati

[jjkoggan]

Minoriteter strykes på partiliste

 

Minoritetspolitikere ble strøket i langt større grad enn andre politikere under stortingsvalget i 2009 da velgerne gikk til urnene. Det viser en gjennomgang av stemmesedlene i Oslo.

 

 

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/politikk/article3741330.ece