immigrants

riots in france. I suppose it was bound to happen. with the reported widespread discrimination. but even without such outright discrimination, there is discontent among immigrants in other EU countries. even without blatant discrimination, being the minority can be difficult. I suppose the 1st generation immigrants understand what they are giving up. they chose to go to a different country and be part of it. leaving behind the things they were used to. because they believe that it is necessary or better for them to call another country home.

I have been in another country for over a decade, but I still do not consider it home. the days I spend here vs msia is like 35:1. but I still consider myself malaysian not just because I have a malaysian passport. I suppose it is in what I identify with. even the conscious time I've spent in both countries is getting pretty close. so I sort of understand the problems immigrants face when trying to identify themselves with their 'new' country. I don't think there is much discontent with the generation did the actual act of immigration. but the generation after that did not make the conscious choice of immigrating. those that were born in the new country. citizens. but yet they are different from the majority in their new country. they are muslims, not christians. they speak the language of the new country but yet they don't identify with it. they don't feel they are really citizens because they are different. but yet they can't go back to their 'home' country because they are also different. sort of stuck in between. neither here nor there. they didn't choose to leave, but now they can't go back.

the 1st generation understood that things will be different in the new country and that they will have to adapt to it. accept it. but the 2nd generation would ask why must I be like this? I want to be myself. and also with the idealistic and rebellious nature of youth, they will show their dissatisfaction. the first generation acquiesced. the 2nd generation don't think it's fair. after all they are citizens of the new country. do as the romans do. but they are the romans. so why can't they be who they are? why must they change to become french, dutch, german, italian or british? some of the french people belittle the need to integrate the immigrants saying 'they are french! what is there to integrate?' but do the traditional french view them as french? no no no. the european countries accepted the immigrants for various reasons. political. humanitarian. economical. but they expected them to fit in. be quiet and play your part. they did not want the immigrants to change the way things were. they didn't like how the immigrants changed their daily lives. they felt that the physical and social changes were marring their country. their identity. the immigrants were accepted not as themselves, but as people who would fit in the old mold.

so who's at fault? the countries who accepted the immigrants but refuse to accept change. or the immigrants who chose to come and yet refuse to blend in? what if you're a 2nd generation immigrant. you can say that you didn't choose this. but since you are now a roman, shouldn't you live as one?

but why is the unrest most visible with the muslim immigrants? what about the chinese, indian, thai, vietnamese? are they more patient? are they more willing to adapt? are they less touchy and less prone to play victim? are they more self reliant and have more perseverance? or is it because islam as a religion is too contradictory to christianity? hence the muslims are viewed differently and there is an inherent bias against them? islam is just too visibly different? headgear and all. does resorting to violence come easier to muslims or is it because the christians give them no choice?

of course this is all just from my bias, observing from a distance. but this effects everyone and we should all at least think about it.