Ents and Trolls

Some people, apparently, quite literally live in fantasy world.

It’s unfortunate, though, that the Ents’ lack of concern with Sauron isn’t explored. But surely Gand… Rumsfeld is on it.

Also, whatever would the Ents think of Kyoto? Better not send any hobbits to Europe…

Also, is there any way you could post a trackback URL? I had to look at the embedded RDF to find out where to ping.

Here we have Victor Davis Hansen, one of those Goldbergian scholars that National Review publishes…

There is a joke in there about Dutch Ent Disease…

That second population… has served as an arm for Islamofascism and terrorism in Europe

Excuse me? How many have actually been involved in terrorism? 0.00001%?

But why am I bothering.
“Overreaction”. Setting fire to mosques and beating up people, “overreaction”. Oh yes, the neofascis are acting out of fear now, poor things. Because they have been provoked. We shouldn’t praise them, no, only try and be a little more sympathetic. Ugh.

I second Henry’s conclusion. This kind of “praise” is really disturbing.

If only it was just a matter of people talking nonsense about situations and countries they have no clue about. Sadly it’s not just that.

There are two Hispanic cultures in the US. One community is very much like the Jews, in that they have become integrated into the population. Another refuses to, cannot, or isn’t being allowed to assimilate (depending on who you ask). That second population is poor, suffers high unemployment, is prone to extremism, and has served as an arm for crime and violence in the US, both in carrying out attacks and in fund-raising for groups back home.

And for the longest time, much of the US has refused to even acknowledge the problem this second Hispanic community creates. I think it’s to their credit, really – they have tried in every possible way to be tolerant; to sympathize with Salvadorns and others who are being oppressed; to try to attone for their own nations’ colonialist pasts in South America.

I think they are finally realizing that no matter how tolerant they try to be, the US and radical Hispancis are fundamentally incompatible. Further, they are coming to terms with the scope of the demographics – the sheer number of young, radical, and potentially violent Hispanics living right under their very noses. The natural reaction in people who experience this type of epiphany is to become frightened; to lash out; to overreact.

I honestly can’t see how your post is related to Hanson’s article. This is the paragraph where Hanson mentions Demosthenes:

“The real question is whether there is any Demosthenes left in Europe, who will soberly but firmly demand assimilation and integration of all immigrants, an end to mosque radicalism, even-handedness in the Middle East, no more subsidies to terrorists like Hamas, a toughness rather than opportunist profiteering with the likes of Assad and the Iranian theocracy — and make it clear that states that aid and abet terrorists in Europe due so to their great peril.”

How exactly is this a call for an end to multiculturalism?

Next, you make a point that you acknowledge is unfair, as if acknowledging it somehow removes from you the responsibility of making it anyway. And then you speak of matters that Hanson glides over, which is a cute way of saying that he doesn’t mention them at all. Why should he? His point is not to praise the Dutch for how they are waking up to the threat of radical Islam, but to note that the wake-up is happening. You have a weak stomach if you find this disgusting.

Rather than trying to tar Hanson by associating him with some far right nationalists, perhaps it would be good to realize that it is the refusal of the liberals to confront the problem of assimilation that gives those far right groups a greater legitimacy by leaving the problem for them to take up. If we don’t find “sober but firm” ways of responding, we might be handing the situation over to the intoxicated.

I do not think you are being fair to Hanson.

Specifically, you have re-worded his call to action re: Demosthenes.

He wrote:”The real question is whether there is any Demosthenes left in Europe, who will soberly but firmly demand assimilation and integration of all immigrants, an end to mosque radicalism, even-handedness in the Middle East…”

You wrote:

“…finishes by calling for a European Demosthenes who will ‘soberly but firmly’ demand an end to multiculturalism and the internal threat from radical Islam.”

On second thought, yours is close-enough. You substituted “multicultralism” for “assimilation and integration” and maybe that is fair.

And so what is wrong with his call?

It seems to me that the saving grace of the USA is that we have the tradition, the useful myth, of the melting pot which makes us all — to the limits of human snobbery — Americans whether our ancestors came here in 1619, 1621 or 1975.

The continuation of separate communities –unless explicitly subsumed to some larger national identity — is a recipe for disaster. Moslems must become Europeans if Europe is to survive. In this regard Europe must learn from America.

Why do you object? It seems to me that that is the gist of his article. And quite reasonable. (He could have cut quite a bit.)

“They” of course was ever single Muslim in the Netherlands. So you can see why action must be taken.

Rob, I’m not sure what point you are making by replacing Muslim with Hispanic in my previous comment… Are you attempting to show that my analysis is reasonable or that it is unreasonable?

Because – other than the threat of international terrorism, which isn’t necessarily a problem among Hispanic immigrants – the U.S. is struggling with a similar problem in terms of unassimilated immigrants. Uncontrolled, illegal immigration into the U.S. creates a permanent underclass of people who are not offered the same legal protections as citizens, and whose communities provide a breeding ground for drug and crime problems.

The situation is bad for both the U.S. and its “undocumented” residents. Moreso for the immigrants, since at least the U.S. benefits from the cheap labor – which is probably why the problem isn’t addressed. In Europe, on the other hand, people are realizing that the negatives, including an ideology that preaches the destruction of their very society, far outweigh the positives.

There are a number of ways to solve these problems. In the U.S., a combination of accelerated citizenship or amnesty programs and tighter border security could ease the situation. In Europe, a balance must be struck between creating an atmosphere where Muslims can assimilate and one where radical Islam cannot propagate. Ignoring or denying the problem in either case will only lead to worse problems down the road.

“it is the refusal of the liberals to confront the problem of assimilation that gives those far right groups a greater legitimacy by leaving the problem for them to take up”

Ok, then, let’s take that a bit further, and realise that it was communists and Jews who were responsible for the Holocaust.

A failure to assimilate can be the fault of either the society, the group in question, or both. It may be the root cause of a host of problems, including poverty, unemployment, and radicalization, but it is not in and of itself something that must absolutely be addressed.

The problem in both of these posts is that the real issues are radicalization, violence, and terrorism, not the presence of a culturally-isolated group. Pre-WWII, German Jews weren’t blowing up buildings or assassinating public figures in the name of Judaism. (And even if they were, my point is that it would then be necessary to isolate the groups responsible without alienating law-abiding German Jews.)

Dave,
…the real issues are radicalization, violence, and terrorism, not the presence of a culturally-isolated group…

True, but aside from murdering one Dutch asshole, what ‘radical Islam’ kind of violence are we talking about?

I understand there is a lot anti-semitism there, but that not ‘radical Islam’, it’s more of an ethnic quarrel, sorta like Irish-Italian hostilities in the US years ago. I know there were some arrests in the UK recently, but can’t recall any actual ‘radical Islam’ violence.

Could you list some recent ‘radical Islam’ incidents in Europe, please?

Why do you think Europe and radical Islam are more fundamentally incompatible than, say Europe and radical Catholicism?

Thanks.

I’m also pretty depressed and the sanguine attitude of right-wing Americans towards anti-Muslim hatred in Europe. But reading this partiuclar VDH peice in isolation, one could be more genewrous tot he man.

VDH wrote:

soberly but firmly demand assimilation and integration of all immigrants,

This could be read to mean that VDH is demanding that European bigotry agaisnt Muslims end. That affirmative action and postive discrimination be used to integrate marginalized minorities. That media, government, the judiciary, academai and business make an effort to reflect the Muslim presence in the country. That, in short, Europe reconginze that the Msulim ‘problem’ is similar to the ‘negro problem’ of the bad old days — that is, a problem in the attitudes of the majority.

I know this runs contrary to most of what VDH, author of Mexifornia, has written. But you didn’t cite or link to other VDH peices to provide the proper context.

I’m reading this comments thread with growing amazement and dismay.

Some reasons for my dismay.

The generally very sensible and reasonable David Sucher, who writes intelligently about cities, holds up the United States as a model of integration compared to segregated Europe.

David, perhaps you’d like to take a look at how residentially segregrated US cities are by race, as compared to British cities, and then reconsider your comment.

“aeon skoble” writes “They murdered Van Gogh….” No _they_ didn’t. Someone did, but Muslims, collectively, did nothing of the sort.

“Dave” writes “Pre-WWII, German Jews weren’t blowing up buildings or assassinating public figures in the name of Judaism.” No, that’s right, they weren’t. But in the eyes of the radical right they were responsible for the Russian Revolution, the failed German Revolution and the defeat of German y in WW1. No doubt the “aeon skobles” of the time were writing, at length about what “they” did.

Pre-WWII, German Jews weren’t blowing up buildings or assassinating public figures in the name of Judaism.

As I said earlier, the Nazis attributed a different but equally negative set of characteristics to the Jews.

(And even if they were, my point is that it would then be necessary to isolate the groups responsible without alienating law-abiding German Jews.)

Right. So why are you attacking not a group or groups, but the entire population of “unassimilated” Muslims?

A problem is that there are many fans in the Netherlands, and probably in the rest of Europe too, of those neocon type anti-muslim authors.

They might not lecture about the laws of anti-semitism, like the likudnik “you can’t say that” conspiracists, but in other aspects these Europeans worship the same ideology.

In fact, having read a few of those neocon rants about Europe, their information is mostly second hand, and probably ripped from some European anti-muslim author.

To quote Hansen

And yet we learn not just that the Netherlands has fostered a radical sect of Muslims who will kill and bomb, but, far more importantly, that they will do so after years of residency among, and indeed in utter contempt of, their Western hosts.

This is the core of the Muslim hate in the Netherlands. Some still don’t consider people born and educated here as part of their society. “They” still are guests “in utter contempt of, their Western hosts.”

You can frame this argument in many ways, from religious issues to human rights, but they all tend to converge on the us vs. them idiom.

So why was there massive, majority support for the French head-scarf ban, and why was Pim Fortuyn recently voted the greatest Dutchman ever? Are large majorities of Europe’s population far-right, jackbooted Nazis?

Excuse me? How many have actually been involved in terrorism? 0.00001%?

The above comment by Nic is typical of the naïve of many so-called progressives – I
say so call-called as real progressives oppose religious fundamentalists who oppress women etc and not make excuses for them.

The reality as shown in recent surveys is that over 10% of Muslims in the UK and France would welcome another Sept 11 in their own country and about 50 percent or more view the US and their allies Australia, the UK etc more negatively than they view the likes of the Taliban and al Qaeda. The rush to defend Islam also covers up a host of other inconvenient facts. Muslims with about 20 percent of the worlds population have produced, I think, only 5 Nobel prize winners while Jews with something like 0.02 of the worlds population have I think received over a hundred Nobel prizes.

The reality is that as Muslim writer Irshad Manji notes the extreme is very much the mainstream in Islam unlike other religions. She also courageously notes that until Muslims accept their own faults and stop blaming Jews and the US for their problems nothing much will change.

ermm, that should read:

“placing the blame for the lack of integration“

David Sucher wrote:

You substituted “multicultralism” for “assimilation and integration” and maybe that is fair.

As Novakant explained above, it isn’t fair. Assimilation and multiculturalism aren’t the same things at all. The problem in many European countries has been that they have demanded that Muslim immigrants assimilate, without ever being willing to recognize the difficult cultural issues involved in such integration.

Novakant’s description of Germany is so good that I’ll limit my comments on that country to a statistic I’ve mentioned somewhere else. I taught at the university level in Germany last year (American studies), and out of about 150 students I met, only two had plausibly muslim names (only about five had non-German or Eastern European names), one of whom dropped out after a week.

In France, which I know better, the situation of immigrants is similarly grave. The official position of the government has been that immigrants are to assimilate to the dominant secular French culture, a position that has been expressed in logical if extreme form in the banning of the veil. This by the way is not a new idea, but the new law is by far the most aggressive.

The fact of the matter is that the official assimilationist policy has made it so that the government has been completely unable to deal with the foreign cultures it has admitted. So, as Novakant points out, it’s only been the most progressive elements of French society to point out that multiculturalism might mitigate some of the problems that a largely unassimilated immigrant population might–and in fact does–pose.

Let me stipulate, however, that sometimes the assimilationist plan works. I have met many well-assimilated French Muslims and Carribbean Blacks, although I can’t say for sure what they’ve been through. There’s a stunning museum of Arabic culture in Paris; it’s fashionable for white French people to go for tea at the Mosque; white women wear turbans, and most French people at least intellectually sympathecize with the formally colonized people of Algeria.

But there’s a real problem. Young North African men harrassing women on the streets, no-go ghettoes, total lack of representation for the Muslim and Arab immigrants, technocratic limits in education and hiring: the purely assimilationist, even elitist, model of getting-on in French society has neglected to address the difference in culture that its more open borders has invited.

Maybe the technocratic elites of Europes have behaved entishly, but the immigrant populations don’t or didn’t have to be trolls.

Oh, this has gone on too long, and I don’t know what I’m trying to say. I’m disgusted by the American triumphalism at any reaction against or towards European Muslim communities. Still, I’ve thought for years that American multiculturalism is a good step towards enabling the kind of assimilationism that European governments wanted to presume. As I said to my French friends, “Vous n’avez que commencer a adresser vos problemes de race, tandis qu’aux Etats-Unis, l’on ne peut jamais y echapper.” There. I’m done.

Jack and Novakant
–Those were both useful posts- thanks. Most of the talk about “intigration” or “multiculturalism” here, and elsewhere, is a huge muddle- it’s not clear if people mean “fit in or get out!” like when “why can’t we all just be Americans?” means “why can’t those people act white!” or if people actually mean working to absorb the other group in a way that’s respectful of all. So, thanks for the first-hand and reasonable perspective (even w/ the bit of showing off in French at the end.)

“has served as an arm for Islamofascism and terrorism in Europe, both in carrying out attacks and in fund-raising for groups back home”

If true, is it significant? I’ll bet more innocent people died in one day from violent homicides in inner cities in America in the early 90’s than from Islamofascist terrorist attacks in all of Europe in any given year. Boo!

I guess we all have our projects. You know what really scares me? Undercooked chicken. There oughta be a war.

recent surveys is that over 10% of Muslims in the UK and France would welcome another Sept 11 in their own country and about 50 percent or more view the US and their allies more negatively than they view the Taliban and al Qaeda. Muslims with 20 percent of the worlds population have produced only 5 Nobel prize winners while Jews with 0.02 of the worlds population have received over a hundred Nobel prizes.

I wish to formally register a giggle. And now Satan must eat.

“Sparked” is an inappropriate word there; “used to justify” would be better.

There are two separate issues being conflated (unwittingly, I suspect). There is the time-honoured traditional European pastime of bashing the great unwashed masses of ignorant immigrants, and there is the danger from radical activist islam.

The problem, approached from a realist perspective, is that the most dangerous elements of current radical islam in Europe are all too often well-educated, sometimes highly educated, smart, and well-integrated. They are not ignorant of Western society, they know exactly what it is and they have rejected it.

Fortuitously, from the bigot perspective (and there is no shortage of bigots in Europe) the problems caused by these same elements can be used to bash black-clad, headscarf-wearing, functionally illiterate Turkish women absolutely incapable of defending themselves from such multi-frontal assaults in the media and from politicians.

In the Netherlands the minister of Immigration Affairs and Integration has proposed that all migrants with less than 8 years of schooling in the Netherlands should follow a compulsory course in integration.

Van Gogh’s killer was raised and educated in the Netherlands. (A former teacher of his described him as a quiet, well-behaved, exemplary student). Fortuyn’s killer was a Dutch Green activist. Imam Abdul-Jabbar van de Ven, whose name has been all over the Dutch papers in connection with his ‘death wish’ for right-populist politician Geert Wilders, is a Dutch convert to Islam à la Cat Stevens.

All of these gentlemen would have been exempted from the compulsory integration programs.

The black-clad ‘pinguins’ (as Turkish women are denigratingly called) waddling along the street with three children in tow, will however faithfully attend such programs. (For as long as they last, until the next cabinet decides they are an expensive waste of time and pull the plug). After all, they do what they’re told, don’t they?

There is a near-complete lack of critical examination of the real (and largely separate) problems of integration and radical islam here in the Netherlands. Largely because the danger posed by radical Islam to Western society is on the one hand serious enough to be spicy, and allow genuine displays of self-righteous anger and immigrant bashing. On the other hand radical Islam is apparently not dangerous enough to be taken seriously, since no attempt is being made in the Netherlands to address or redress its root causes – everyone is using it to further his/her pet agendas.

George: I’ve heard this one before: For instance, IIRC, the FAA used to prohibit an airline from questioning more than two Arab males from a single flight, presumably as a safeguard against racial profiling.

Fortunately, it’s totally false.

Plus, it’s sensible to prohibit questioning more than zero people of any ethnicity on the grounds of that ethnicity.

abb1-
I’m sorry, but doesn’t that put far too little responsibility on anyone but the Israeli’s? Your claim appears to be that Israel’s occuptation of the West Bank and Gaza are at least the plurality cause of Islamic terrorism everywhere in the world. Is that really what you believe? I’ve seen your comments here and at Yglesias’s for something like half a year now, and that view doesn’t seem in accord with previous comments, but maybe I’ve misread those.

They murdered Van Gogh…

For your information, it’s *he* murdered Van Gogh. One person committed the murder. One murderer, one victim.

Interestingly, the racist attacks that have more than once culminated in killing rarely get a mention these days. Not that anyone would remember in the 80’s (or was it early 90’s) when some naziskin in Germany burned down an entire hostel full of predominantly Muslim immigrants. The other more “ordinary” attacks in the past two decades never got to the front pages outside of local or national press. It was no one famous, after all.

dave – A failure to assimilate can be the fault of either the society, the group in question, or both. It may be the root cause of a host of problems, including poverty, unemployment, and radicalization, but it is not in and of itself something that must absolutely be addressed.

“Address” does not equal finding excuses for racist pricks who attack people and set fire to buildings.

There are a lot of local instances of efforts at “addressing” the issue. People like VDH only want to see the “overreaction” as proof that indeed, nothing is being done and so “overreaction” should be somehow understood. His interest, or anyone’s with that mentality, is not real integration. Some people just want to bash. VDH is only selling propaganda to support the ideology behind the Bush administration idea of war on terrorism. He couldn’t care less about Europe or Muslims.

The problem in both of these posts is that the real issues are radicalization, violence, and terrorism, not the presence of a culturally-isolated group. Pre-WWII, German Jews weren’t blowing up buildings or assassinating public figures in the name of Judaism. (And even if they were, my point is that it would then be necessary to isolate the groups responsible without alienating law-abiding German Jews.)

Muslims who live and work and go to school in Europe are *not* blowing up buildings or assassinating public figures. When Amsterdam and London become like Ramallah and Gaza, then maybe it’ll make sense to use “they”. In the 70’s, Europe had a serious strain of internal terrorism. Far left and far right groups, very active, with lots of political connections, often thriving in environments that excused and apologised for those acts. It was a steady presence and not just a matter of a few exceptional acts, but an ongoing climate of unrest and near civil war especially in some countries. Then the IRA, the ETA… Hundreds of people were killed. When and where have European Muslims who live in Europe even come close to anything like that?

Washer,
all extremism is dangerous – Islamic, Jewish, Christian, Left and Right, but some are more dangerous and consequential than others at times.

Without a parallel universe we will never know what the Muslim culture would look like today had some form of humanistic Zionism emerged in Palestine 50 years ago instead of what they have there now, but is there any doubt that I/P conflict is a huge factor in this clash of cultures? Not 100%, but 60% maybe?

And it’s not necessarily responsibility of the Israelis, the westerners created the state, drew the maps in 1948, the Europeans were heavily involved in the 1956 conflict, Americans in post-1967 situation and so on.

60 year after the WWII ended, there is still a fair amount of animosity towards the Germans in France and other countries. I mean, imagine a militaristic nuclear-armed ultra-nationalist Muslim state in Alsace with its capital in Strasburg, Alsace refugees scatter around Europe for 50 years and so on – how would it affect the western culture vis-a-vis the Muslims?

Chris and Nic and Rob seem to have interpreted my use of “they” in a comment post to imply that I hold some notion of collective responsibility. I don’t. I’ll cop to having expressed myself somewhat infelicitously if you guys will lighten up a tad. My use of the plural was meant only to imply that the murder of Van Gogh by a fundamentalist fanatic was of a piece with other attempts by fundamentalist fanatics to intimidate liberal culture going back at least as far as the death sentence on Salman Rushdie. Was that sentence pronounced by a “he” or a “they”? Obviously one person issued the fatwa, but it only had effect because of many thousands of others endorsing it. In the Van Gogh case, interviews with other Dutch Muslims showed large amounts of support for the killing, on the grounds that the film was indeed blasphemous. Even on NPR, interviewees were agreeing that he deserved to be killed for making this film. So my perhaps imprecise use of “they” referred to “fanatical fundamentalist Muslims,” not to all Muslims, ok?

Okay, I’m coming into this discussion a little late, but I wanted to point out that the really sucessful immigrants to America have done so because they haven’t assimilated. For example, Italian immigrants to the southern United states in the early 20th century were able to advance economically by opening small grocery stores in black neighborhoods. They lost all claims to respectability, but many, like the Bruno family, made a good bit of money.

Today, there are Vietnamese immigrants in the suburbs of Atlanta who make up for their lack of capital or English language skills by having several families live together in a house that one of them purchases. Wages are pooled. Expenses are shared. They are sucessful because they reject American individualism and much of American culture.

” There is a (much larger, but still minority) portion of the European Muslim population that pose a very serious problem because they have “not integrated”—meaning, specifically, that they have embraced as part of their cultural identity a rejection of the most basic elements of modern European life, such as earning a living and refraining from criminal activity.”

I’m amazed this hasn’t received more comment, because it’s utterly outrageous. In what possible way is “earning a living and refraining from criminal activity” a basic element of “modern European life”, as opposed to modern Asian life or historical European life, for example? What a ludicrous thing to say.

Aeon, the murder of Van Gogh was not decreed by a fatwa. It was done by a single individual who had a rather particular history. As for the interviews and polls you mention, well, let me tale a kilo of salt before I swallow the belief in one single collective voice that unanymously spoke in support of the murder. The Muslim religious authorities and community representatives in Holland condemned it. Liars?

Look, it’s not complicated. Most people among European Muslims, including in Holland are neither terrorist or crazed fanatics. Most people in Europe, including in Holland, are not racists. The problems are caused by the nutcases in both areas. It only takes a tiny minority to make bad things happen, but it takes an enormous amount of bias to focus only on that and to identify one group – Muslims – with a tiny fraction of it, while on the other hand finding all sorts of excuses for the fraction (possibly larger) of racist nutjobs among whitey white non-Muslim Europeans.

Your use of “they” instead of “he” is very typical in that respect.

I’d only like to add one thing about people making comparisons with the US – “immigration” is not an abstract unchangeable category, or something that exists in a sphere of its own, in one single kind. It’s always, always relative to where and when it happens. So there’s just no point in comparing immigrants to the US especially in past decades to recent immigration in Europe. It’s impossible, and useless, whatever point you’re trying to make.

Catfish, I simply don’t see the evidence for your statement that “…the really sucessful immigrants to America have done so because they haven’t assimilated.”

Could you please offer some examples?

(Btw, “assimilation” to my mind does not mean that one forgets, ignores or denies one’s ethnic heritage but simply that the majority culture — WASP, to put it simply — is acknowledged as the predominant one. One becomes a Hyphenated-American.)

Of course it does depend on what you mean by assimilation and what you think is the “essence” of American culture. I was not trying to romanitcize the Vietnamese immigrants or their cultural choices. From an economic standpoint, their immigration to America was probably their best bet. I was simply saying that assimilation was simply not an option for most of these first generation immigrants. The education and skills that they possessed before immigration are pretty useless because of a lack of English language skills and educational credentials that are not recognized in America. Thus, the only way for them to get ahead is to “stick together” by sharing expenses, pooling the wages from low paying, unskilled jobs, and participating in an informal economy of electronic repair or other such things. Now, you could argue that this is the essense of America, but many Americans disagree. Zoning ordinances that limit the number of unrelated people who can live in a house as well as attempts to keep people from doing things like handing their laundry outside (see Dale Maharidge’s _The Coming White Minority_ for examples) demonstrate that many Americans see assimilation as adopting the outward cultural practices of middle class Americans.

Historically, Jewish and Asian immigrants have been the most successful of the immigrant populations. In both cases this success is in part tracable to a bit of cultural separatism. This is particularly true because Jewish and Asian cultures have traditionally put a higher premium on education and entrepreneurship than native born Americans. Orthodox Jews are an extreme example of a group that values cultural seperatism that have suceeded economically.

The only immigrants who really have a hope of assimilating are middle class immigrants who have a good command of English.

Admittedly, this has little to do with the situation of Muslims in Europe, but I just wanted to point out that “assimilation” is not necessarily a requirement for economic sucess or peaceful coexistence.

david Sucher:
” One becomes a Hyphenated-American”,
then your not a real american.
Either your with us or not. Pick one.

In response to ‘fundamentalist Islam is busy violating women’s rights every day’ Abbi states that

‘Do you mean in Europe or in the Middle East? How do they do it in Europe?’

How about sending kids off to Pakistan etc to be married against their wishes and being brought up as second class citizens.

The EU cultures are, in general, dying. Fertility rates have fallen far below replacement. Please have some sympathy for them as they fade from the stream of history. Don’t expect them to go quietly into the night, however rational that might be. Minimizing unpleasantness for us — or for the Islamic peoples who seem likely to replace them — might not rank as a high priority for them.

And don’t miss
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/15/international/15letter.html?oref=login&hp
for (seems to me) conflation of issues.

aeon: the difference is not just that the ayatollahs declaring the fatwa against Rushdie and the murderer of Van Gogh are not literally the same people, the difference is there was no fatwa against Van Gogh. It was one individual murdering another individual. The fatwa on Rushdie was declared by leading religious authorities in Islam and was made applicable worldwide. Yes, in both cases the targets were chosen because of the belief they had blasphemed Islam, but if you can’t see the difference between one psychopath making that decision all by himself and an official religious declaration, I don’t know what to add. Also, the idea is certainly not that a blasphemere is “anyone who says anything that might be construed as critical of Islam”. That may apply to Rushdie, whose attack was on theological grounds, but Van Gogh? Needless to say, but just in case someone misunderstands, obviously no one deserves to be made a target for killing for any opinions, obviously it’s a crazy idea, whether it’s held by religious authorities or an individual, but Van Gogh went far beyond mere “criticism” or a literary-theological attack. Neither Van Gogh or Fortuyn were other Rushdies. Cases more similar to Rushdie’s are those involving Muslim writers attacking Islamic fundamentalists. Van Gogh’s and Fortuyn’s murder happened in a differnet context altogether. There’s both ordinary criticism and outright racism being poured out in public debate in the European press, politics, etc. and no one gets routinely murdered or fatwaed. It’s ridiculous to take those murders as proof that in Europe you can’t say boo about Islam without getting killed. We’d have mass graves already if it was so.

Right, but no one is defending the latter, whereas there is a tendency to give a free pass to the former in the name of cultural diversity.

Absolutely not true. Racism and bigotry _do_ get a free pass by those so inclined to excuse that mentality, it even gets into parliament, not just tabloids or far right groups. The BNP in Britain. Le Pen in France. Haider in Austria. The Northern League in Italy, which is in the government coalition. If you’ve never heard their pronouncements and campaigns and don’t have a clue what they say, well lucky you.

The murder of a filmmaker gets international press of course, but fundamentalist Islam is busy violating women’s rights every day. As commenter dr. mic noted above, the proper liberal response should be to condemn this, not make excuses for it. The murder victim, Van Gogh, was not one of the ugly racist bigots you mention. But he was drawing attention to the extreme illiberalism of the fundamentalists.

No one is making excuses for anything. Van Gogh went beyond “drawing attention”, again if you are not familiar with his pronouncements… That doesn’t change anything because the murder was a horrendous crazy thing, but we’re seeing right here in this thread the kind of apologism for racism that followed it. Mosques were set fire to, people were attacked, calls for bans on immigration and all the sort of religious/ethnic war talk that followed, yet that was “overreaction” to a crime? Please. Then, exploiting the “women’s rights” issue, or even gay rights, as if it was a concern for that kind of people who “ovverreacted”. It’s pathetic. Real fundamentalists and real racist bigots deserve each other, they’re just using the cover of legitimate issues for which they don’t care, as a tool for their bigotry. Meanwhile, the real debate over those issues is taking place elsewhere, in much more civilised tones and by drawing Muslim voices into it, but we don’t want to see civilised, we just want to see the barbarism (of the Muslim nutcases only, of course) so we can continue to talk of immigration itself as if it was a threat and an evil (and “the left”, the mythical left, as a proxy threat and evil for supposedly being in looove with fundamentalists). You really are not familiar with the context of this sort of thing in Europe. It’s all a projection game, like for Victor David Hanson, Europeans, European Muslims, just a tool to carry on with the usual tiresome refrain.

lk:
Check out Table 3.
Compare Row 1205 to Row 1404.
Foreign Born women are more likely to have children and there the reason for the positive fertility rate.
Why don’t american women want to have children?

If Senator Graham is sincerely worried about our lethal oversights and mistakes, he should examine the orthodoxies and policies that have precluded the according of special scrutiny to radical Islamists in mosques and religious schools across America. Most operated with impunity for decades under the exemptions provided by the false gods of “diversity” and “multiculturalism.”

Political correctness was the main cause of 9/11??? It’s a rather extraordinary claim.
________________________________________

I expect Senator Graham has already “examinin[ed] the orthodoxies and policies that have precluded the according of special scrutiny to radical Islamists in mosques and religious schools across America” although he may not at the time thought of them in such terms, or realized he was communing with “false gods of ‘diversity’ and ‘multiculturalism.’ “

The “orthodoxies and policies” are located in the US constitution, most specifically in the first and fourteenth amendments. There also a supreme court case the history and nature of which is directly (and ironically) related to the subjects discussed on this thread.

“Pierce v. Society of Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary, 268 U.S. 510 (1925) was an important early 20th century United States Supreme Court decision recognizing a right to privacy… Under the influence of the Ku Klux Klan, the voters of Oregon passed a ballot measure in November 1922 which required all children between the ages of 8 and 16 to attend public schools… In a 9-0 decision, the Court declared the law violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” (1)

“Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

“Society of Sisters… has long devoted its property and effort to the secular and religious education and care of children, and has acquired the valuable good will of many parents and guardians. … In its primary schools many children between those ages are taught the subjects usually pursued in Oregon public schools during the first eight years. Systematic religious instruction and moral training according to the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church are also regularly provided.

[…]

“No question is raised concerning the power of the state reasonably to regulate all schools, to inspect, supervise and examine them, their teachers and pupils; to require that all children of proper age attend some school, that teachers shall be of good moral character and patriotic disposition, that certain studies plainly essential to good citizenship must be taught, and that nothing be taught which is manifestly inimical to the public welfare.

“The inevitable practical result of enforcing the act under consideration would be destruction of [Society of Sisters] … primary schools, and perhaps all other private primary schools …within the state of Oregon. [The Society of Sisters] are engaged in a kind of undertaking not inherently harmful, but long regarded as useful and meritorious. Certainly there is nothing in the present records to indicate that they have failed to discharge their obligations to patrons, students, or the state. And there are no peculiar circumstances or present emergencies which demand extraordinary measures relative to primary education.

“[W]e think it entirely plain that the Act …unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children …under their control. As often heretofore pointed out, rights guaranteed by the Constitution may not be abridged by legislation which has no reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the state. The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.” (2)

“The case has been cited as a precedent in over 100 Supreme Court cases, including Roe v. Wade.” (3)

1. Pierce v. Society of Sisters, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia accessed December 15, 2004 at URL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierce_v._Society_of_Sisters

2. Pierce V. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary , 268 U.S. 510 (1925), Findlaw for Legal Professionals, accessed December 15, 2004 at URL http://laws.findlaw.com/us/268/510.html

3. Pierce, Wikipedia, supra note 1.

There is a fundamental difference between the US and Europe in the application of the word “assimilation”. In the US it implies that both the new members of society and the existing society change. This idea is the fundamental source of the “melting pot” myth. The amount of change on each side is largely left up to the people and not regulated at the government level. The major exception is that of the default language being English. Europe seems to use the word to imply only the new members change.

should immigrants be allowed to maintain a parallel cultural core with schools taught in their language, special courts for domestic issues

Like where? What specifically are you referring to?

I don’t know what you guys in the US read about Europe, I don’t know of any country where people immigrating from different nations just build entire separate provinces with separate legal and schooling systems. If anything, in education there is a heavier role of government and state institutions than private ones, so the system is even more the same for everyone than in the US. Among private schools, there are very very few religious schools in Europe that aren’t Christian and Catholic or Jewish. Muslims don’t have their own school system and don’t have their own legal system so there’s no such “allowed or not allowed” debate there. What people of any nationality and religion should always be allowed to do, in whatever country they choose to live, is to live according to any culture and beliefs they prefer. Why should I, if I move to the US, be forced to give up my native language, traditions, culture? By whom? The cultural police? Appointed by…. the National Review? I don’t know of anyone who had that experience when moving to America. In fact, because there are so many more immigrants or second and third-generation people with origins from all sorts of places, there are a lot more opportunities than in most of current Europe of being able to maintain your own background and, if you want (not everybody does), strong ties with a local community of people with your same background and native language, even when you move from your native country. The only thing that’s demanded of any citizen and any immigrant, whether they are citizens already or not yet, is compliance with the laws of that country they reside in. There’s nothing in a modern legal system that requires one culture, one religion, one ethnicity. I thought _that_ is what the US example can offer in positive terms.

rob:
If you go to belfast and meet a friend, are you the londoner and the belfastian of the same people. You are both British, right? I don’t know, that’s for the both of you to decide, but traditionally the answer is no. Your english, s/he’s irish.

I’m not arguing something is right or wrong. Rather, that this is the default standard that you have to work with. That “WE” define ourselves by our traditions and blood. Just because you live nearby doesn’t mean we’re of the same people.
If you want to change that, then look up consent of the governed and all that.
However, the idea that the US is this paradise of civic virtue is nonsense. People have always defined americanness by the language and traditions. The myth of the melting pot is just that, a myth.

nic:
“ladder: defining yourself by your tradition, as a group or individual, is not “ethnic nationalism”.”
Definition please.

That’s the real world.

I didn’t say I was for it but there it is.
Why don’t we all have a one-world goverment, afterall we’re all the same right?

As to the BNP (i assume British National Party), that’s actually a good example. What is British?
They try to make seem that they care but ultimately there just a bunch of racists/racialists.

To be British,you’d have to have something which was unique to british culture. Otherwise how are you different from a norwegian.

There policies seem to be just a form of darky-go-home and get out of our land. A nation is based on an affirmative position. We are this, we act like this; Not we are not this, we don’t act like that.
That’s just being against someone, that’s not nationbuilding.

Why are Everton fans so happy now?
Because there second in the table or because liverpool is many places
below them. If it’s the former, they might be everton supporters, if it’s the latter, they’re just liverpool-haters.

nic:
Why doesn’t czechoslovakia exist anymore?
No one wanted to be a citizen or something?

Pols are Pols in Poland because of there ethnicity not civics.

In case anyone still paying attention.
Apparently to be an american you must be able to read, write, and speak basic English.

By this logic, someone living in london with a british passport, speaking only spanish, eating only spanish food, following only spanish traditions is what?British?

British passport means British citizenship. So yeah, this theoretical person would be British, as well as unemployed and homeless and penniless. How the hell could anyone survive in London without speaking a word of English and yet have enough money to buy only Spanish food and eat at Spanish restaurants and manage to get citizenship in the first place? It’s impossible. Even if it was only for the paperwork.

No one is arguing against the requirement to speak the language for acquiring _citizenship_ anyway. What does that have to do with ethnic _nationalism_, I have no idea.

Your comments are so incoherent I don’t even know what or who you are arguing with by now.