Tensions in Malta

Kate McMillan, the Canadian artist who blogged about the immigration controversy in Malta has generated a number of comments in reaction to her posts.

From the WesternStandard blog:

I agree! When legitimate concerns on these issues are suppressed, then things begin to fester, the discourse envenimates to the point where only emotions matter! Words like "purity" and "homogenous" begin to dominate.
Posted by: John Palubiski January 24, 2005 08:37 AM

It's a recurring theme, isn't it? When will governments learn that when they apply curbs of political correctness to so-called race/culture sensitive issues, the result is to spawn Norman Lowells who then gather supporters because they can find no one else to speak to their concerns.
Posted by: Kate January 24, 2005 08:25 AM

Illegal immigration is one thing, but this Norman Lowell is quite another. I'm not completely sure who he is, but I do believe his mother was that infamous Nazi collaborator, Lotta Krappe!
Posted by: John Palubiski January 24, 2005 08:15 AM

From OutsideTheBeltway blog (comment entries started by Wired Temples):

It’s more like non-coverage by US media. The BBC and French media had extensive coverage of the efforts to keep illegal immigrants out of the Chunnel entrance in France and the status of the immigrant camp nearby. I also recall the constant reports of Albanians coming across the Adriatic to Italy. The flow of economic migrants isn’t anything new, but publicity of this sort only give people like LePen and Lowell a platform to spew more of their ideology.
Posted by: DC Loser at January 23, 2005 21:31 Permalink

Maltese is considered by linguists to be a dialect of Arabic, albeit more distinct than, say, Egyptian v. Levantine Arabic. The population is as homogenous as a mongrel, combining Arabs, Berbers, Italians, Greeks, and assorted invaders over its considerable history.
That said, there is certainly something to be said for trying to maintain a currently identifiable Maltese culture and not letting it get diluted by accident of history.
Posted by: John at January 24, 2005 01:26 Permalink

John, Point taken on maintaining an identity. But let’s take history as a continuum, I would assume every group in its time has tried to maintain its identity, but over time things conspire to change it. The current Maltese identity wouldn’t be what it is if it hadn’t been influenced by migration patterns over the millenia. One could say those “accidents of history” were what made them who they are today.
Posted by: DC Loser at January 24, 2005 08:47 Permalink

Lt Bell, What would you call what Lowell is doing? As far as I can tell, he’s a racist nut case. But things like this give him a platform to foam at the mouth and get him on TV. He’s using all the right neo-nazi buzzwords in that article, so his disclaimer is pretty unconvincing.
Posted by: DC Loser at January 24, 2005 08:51 Permalink

DC Loser: Of course! I merely note that people tend to resist change, particularly change that they do not instigate themselves. I’m bemused by the way some immigrants move to a place because it either offers opportunities that do not exist in the place they’re leaving, or have benefits that do not exist in the homeland, then try to replicate the conditions they just left. Whether it’s done to “protect ethnic identity” or simply resistence to change on the part of the immigrant, they seem not to realize that they are tending to make disappear that which was so appealing in the first place. Assimilation is always a two-way street, but the receiving culture should have “dibs” on the interpretation.
Posted by: John at January 24, 2005 13:34 Permalink


The benefit of the doubt? - The immigration controversy in Malta