Are 900-1000 years enough to assimilate a culture?

Very true. Like how in the past 10 years Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Baltics, etc. have finally started breaking free from the "Eastern Europe" category pressed on them by the Soviet Union's influence.

It really depends on how you're going about assimilation. If you take a "live and let live" approach and let it happen "naturally" then it should be done within a few generations. But of course it depends on who you are trying to assimilate and how many of them they are, certain cultures would be harder to assimilate and larger numbers slow any process down.

A more aggressive approach can obviously get things done quicker but then you have all the human rights arguments.

Just do the Australian 'Stolen Generation' rout. Take the preferred children and raise them amongst your own why hoping for or assisting the dying out of the others, displacement and religious conversion is useful in many cases.

And we would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for you meddling SJWs

You should have taken the SJW children first then. Big tactical mistake there on your part.

>900-1000 years enough to assimilate a culture?
in that amount of time numerous civilizations can rise and fall.

>I already don't like where this thread is inevitably heading.
look shit posters gotta shit just as much as Veeky Forums needs to bite bait. just let it happen and try and enjoy the inevitable train wreck.

A generation or two is enough time to change a culture, it all depends on the ammount of information being exchanged. So a culture today will certainly change due to how much information we share and in the past a military occupation should be aggressive enough to at least split a culture in two or change it completely.

A thousand years is too long, you end having several different cultures that just share a common history and certain elements.

Depends. Some cultures are stronger than others.

IE, after the Arab conquests the Egyptians adopted Arab culture because they didn't have a strong sense of identity after centuries under the Greeks. The Persians remained a distinct culture, other than adopting the Arabic alphabet and turning away from the true God Ahura Mazda.

Sorbs are already almost all gone

MUSLIMS IN THE EU

>MUSLIMS IN THE EU

Lol, let's try assimilating a different culture by giving them free apartments and stipends! That won't lead to them just hunkering down in their neighborhoods, having hordes of children, and pretending they're still in their old countries.

Also, we don't have the resources to track former genocidal ISIS maniacs in the EU or clear up the backlog of FGM cases, but we always have cops free to kick in your door for "hate speech" on Twitter!

calm down /pol/.

There are many different "muslim cultures". Some of them are assimilated already, others not so much.

900-1000 years is long enough for both cultures to utterly disappear from living experience.

Unless the Byzantine Empire is still trying to assimilate us.

Know what's funny? The first post was stupid because this is a valid world building question.

But then the second post completely gave the stupid post a whole lot of validity.

/pol/ isn't just bad for it's shitty politics, it's also bad because it brings out the worst of the left.

All the eunucks and castrated people in GoT made me think of old byzantine culture.

More then enough. All you need is one generation and a culture is gone.

Deflecting. No one is bothered by, say, secular Persians. What we're worried about is hordes of Somalis and Pashtuns who have zero plans to assimilate and actively detract from our countries.

Know what's funny?

A muffin that looks like a dog, and Swedish women being raped and murdered in record numbers after demanding more future doctors and lawyers from the congo.

/pol/ still using "sweden" as a buzzword?

Not everyone who disagrees with you about immigration is from /pol/.

It was just a question. And I didn't agree or disagree with anything.
Real world Sweden adopted a closed border policy about two years ago. That was basically why I asked.

Yeah, there's absolutely nothing wrong with Sweden. It was totally normal for children to be dismembered by terrorists before mass-migration.

Tell me more about Sweden. Is it true roving rape gangs hunt white women in the streets and drag them back to poorly lit dens to be fucked for days by hard African cock?

Look up the Prussian partition. Poland was divided between 3 countries and all 3 of them had different ways of adapting their new citizens and the results speak for themselves.

Of course, much faster even, you just need the power of wololo

Exactly, they used to call it "bloodeagle".

It's obvious you have zero knowledge of actual swedish politics. So just a buzzword it is then.

>All cultures are equal Goy, Europeans did pretty horrible stuff back in the Dark Ages

> how the Chinese & Japanese mocked the dirty, smelly, starving groups of Christian sailors rambling about their zombie god who clearly offered zero prosperity or fortune. In contrast to the benevolent Buddha & Spirits who actually cared for them
Do you mean "mocked" as in "persecuted them with zeal and eventually a lot of success" like Japanese did? Because the christian mission did make a headway until goverment of japa stomped down on them very hard

Also
> "Budda actually caring for them"
Wew, how can one miss the point of buddhism completely so hard? Also, China's main ideology actors always were daosism and confucian teachings, not some fancy religions

Yes unless we are talking about Nignogs or Arabs or Gypsies.

>>MUSLIMS IN THE EU
>>THE EU

I think it's actually interesting from both a political and a worldbuilding perspective to think about how come America has been so much more successful at integrating and assimilating Muslims than Europe has been. There's the odd douchebag here or there but nothing like what's in Europe.

Is it because of America's self-conception as a "land of immigrants" with freedom of religion laws making it friendly, while Europe's more muslim-hostile populace and hijab bans lead to a cycle of recriminations?

Is it because America is harder to get to from the Middle East, so Muslim immigrants are generally wealthier, better educated, and more willing to assimilate?

Is it because America's culture is just uniquely easy to assimilate into?

I don't honestly know, but it's probably an important question.

You honestly think it is that different? I assume you are living in the United States.

How about Russia's successes in the same endeavour?

Don't they just kill the ones they don't like and don't give a shit what anyone else thinks?

Russia is a leftist muslim-loving liberal place.
Otherwise there wouldn't be terror attacks.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Saint_Petersburg_Metro_bombing

Oh fuck off! Swede here with political islam minor and history+economy major. The "muslims" who assimilate are the ones whom are already turning away from islam. A good muslim in Sweden is a non muslim, no joke. When people here talk about a the nice immigrants or the good muslims they mean the ones whom do not practice their faith or socialise within their former group.

Sure, Norman are full french since a way shorter time.

You are correct. Hence my quotation marks.
And the reason why real life Sweden isn't the smoking ruin that /pol/ thinks it is is because most muslims are just "muslims".

Well, it is somewhat much more nuanced then that
I can give you a historical rundown if you want

Just a guess, but lower unemployment helps. People can get into the rat race instead of sitting in government housing and stewing.

There's also fewer Muslim ghettos (though certainly there are some), where everybody just moves there and propagates the culture as if they'd never left.

So, in order to be assimilated, a culture needs to be integrated and made to feel like they belong?

That makes sense

>A single response is enough to have you spouting memes
You need to train more, newfag.

Give me seven years.

There are ghettos of other sorts in the USA.

Mechanisms are the same. People who are ambitious work hard and get out of the ghetto. People who are not ambitious but instead often rather stupid stay behind in the ghetto.

It's not so touchy feely. I don't think it has anything to do with a "welcoming environment". There's less options for living off the dole, and more jobs cleaning toilets.

Americans are also naive enough to still believe that "people are just people". I imagine that Europeans had more of a chance to experience just how vibrant diversity makes their cities when immigrants can outnumber natives in some neighborhoods.

>Mechanisms are the same. People who are ambitious work hard and get out of the ghetto. People who are not ambitious but instead often rather stupid stay behind in the ghetto.

>"have you tried not being poor?"

>>I imagine that Europeans had more of a chance to experience just how vibrant diversity makes their cities when immigrants can outnumber natives in some neighborhoods.

This seems to be the exact opposite of correct. Most American cities are comprised almost entirely of immigrants and the descendants of immigrants. Most American rural areas, too. Except for Native Americans, hardly anyone's been living here for over 400 years, let alone 900, and most people moved far more recently

Even if you're using "immigrant" as a code for "not white", Los Angeles, Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, Charlotte, Dallas, Houston, and all sorts of cities are majority nonwhite or immigrant populations, and it's working out pretty well for them.

I live in Boston, and crime rates here plummeted over the 90s (the murder rate dropped 80s%!) as it become a majority-minority city.

I find this to be a pretty common way of thinking. People have this idea of clear differences between USA and EU but those differences are quite exaggerated.
There are toilets in Europe too, and there are people who clean them. In Western Europe the vast majority of these toilet cleaners will be immigrants.

I have noticed that some TV networks in America have developed an interest in reporting about immigrant crime in Europe while European networks have no interest in talking about immigrant crime in the US.
But border control and migration issues seemed to be an important issue in the latest American election.

You are basing your entire argument on the assumption that things are not "working out pretty well" for major cities in Europe.

I think you need to rewind the tape a bit.

Muslims aren't immigrating to America on the same scale as Europe, which is being swamped by people fleeing ruined and war-torn states in the middle east.

That's literally all it is. There's just as much anti-immigrant sentiment in America, but you get relatively few Muslims and they're more likely to be educated, liberal and secular *(ie, middle class).

It's more likely to happen within 100 years. You just need to accept that one culture isn't going to absorb another without being changed itself.

200 years is enough.
Just look at vikangz becoming champions of jeezus.

It hasn't even been a thousand years since the invasion, but I think the Saxons are starting to come around to the idea of living with Normans.

I'm actually interested, please do if you are willing.

What happens to the ones who are both ambitious AND stupid?

>swamped
>a couple percentage points

Stop reading Breitbart dude

Those are the local politicians.

My parents used to live in Sweden and work with lots of Muslims, very few problems in their day.

I think the current problem is about young Muslims being infected with Arab chauvinism and generally being young. I mean, which of "heir to Ahmed's Kebab Emporium" and "hero of the Islamic world with hot slave girls on the side" sounds better to a young man?

Daesh is just their Foreign Legion-equivalent.

No culture is going to resemble in any way what it looked like a thousand years ago, insamuch as you can even point at such an example of total continuity of any population over that much time.

The question isn't whether hundreds of years is enough time to change a culture; the question is whether you can keep enough of some primitive culture static that you can recognize it at all in a more modern era.

It depends on the cultures.

Look at the mongols. Within a generation or two of conquering some place they had pretty much adopted all local customs.

That's what happens when the reason you conquered other cultures to begin with was that your own kinda sucked at everything except producing excellent mounted archers. They looked at people who had silks and proper houses and scenery other than endless plains and said.
>you know what, fuck riding around drinking fermented mare's milk, I want me some of that.

On the other hand, if you look at the modern world, you have some cultures propping another one up artificially, like how Europe is giving live support to people living the same retarded clan-warfare/sectarian lifestyles that they themselves grew out of hundreds of years ago.

The British isles may hold some answers here. How many romans, Cymri or Picts live there now a days?

They are not though. Every country that experienced heavy immigration of MENA immigrants now have some amount of trouble with clan-related crime networks and a rise in certain types of crime.

There are places in Germany where you simply can't arrest someone without 120 lebanese guys showing up and saying "nope" and Sweden is getting there. Not as many no-go zones as Germany, but still pretty fucking bad.