How Widespread is this Point of View?

[Occhidiangela]

A Brit buddy of mine sent this to me. It raised an eyebrow or two for this rogue.

I worked three years for two different Turks. I have been watching the too and fro of Turkey - EU issues since then, and the osmotic saturation of European nations by Islamic nations' immigrants with some concern. One of the acknowledged strategic security threats to NATO, officially recognized by NATO as far back as 1993, was "population growth and immigration pressure on NATO's Southern Region." I used to brief it to high level visitors once or twice a month, as part of our standard, approved, politically correct and incredibly annotated and edited by-everyone-who-breathed-air-from-15-different-nations briefing package. (Yes, I was a slave to Powerpoint . . . booooo!)

Could I get some comments on this article from our European Lurkers? The discussion on the EU Constitution vote was very enlightening a few months back, I learned quite a bit.

If you please, this is meant as an opener to shed some enlightenment on this side of the pond, not some set up for Occhi to pull out a sling shot and fire rocks at folks from Europe. My admiration for Europe comes from having lived there for 9 years, and my concern for Europe's future is rooted there as well. (Plus the beer!)

Warning: The author is not squeaky clean. In an aid to critical reading of this article, know up front, I looked this lad up, that Wolfgang Bruno appears to be someone following in the footsteps of Enlightenment logicians and philosophers, and some modern logicians and philosophers, who take Christianity to task for being, if nothing else, internally inconsistent and based on less that sound, reasonable grounds.

He does the same with Islam, and of course draws conisderable fire for doing so. This article, and for my money anything he writes, should be considered with that viewpoint in mind. I did not know that about him when I read this in the original email, and feel that his critique is not leveled at Muslims and Islam, but rather at Europeans who are ashamed of their varied and colorful cultural heritage. (Its peaks and its valleys.) So, with that softball - sized grain of salt taken . . . consider.

Europe -The Manic-Depressive Continent by Wolfgang Bruno

Everybody experiences their ups and downs.  The unhealthy mood swings of people suffering from manic depression are far more extreme than those experienced by average people.  Europe is probably the only case where an entire continent suffers from this condition.

At the beginning of the 20th century, Europe was the most influential civilization in human history.  It had the most dynamic economies on the planet, and had self-confidence sometimes reaching levels of extreme arrogance.  At the beginning of the 21st century, Europe is in serious economic decline, its populations being replaced in its own major cities, it is the most pessimistic region in the world and its media, its universities and its intellectuals keep reminding their countrymen that their culture is worthless and evil.  In part, this reads like the story of the rise and fall of any civilization, but there is something special about Europe, something almost pathological.  Europe is a continent of extremes, sometimes changing in rapid succession.  Unless this pattern is changed, the pendulum could soon swing back towards aggressive Fascism, partly triggered by Muslim immigration.

Anthony Browne asks why Britain became "the first country in the developed world to produce its own suicide bombers."  The answer is that Britain hates itself.  Schools refuse to teach history that risks making pupils proud, and use it instead as a means of instilling liberal guilt.  London's internationalism is the only thing Brits are licensed to be proud of -- in other words, a characteristic of which there is little British left about it.

We need to find a middle way, and regain some of our cultural confidence.  Being arrogant is definitely a character flaw, but self-loathing doesn’t make you good, it just makes you look weak and pathetic.  A certain amount of self-confidence is a necessary precondition to achieve anything in life.  That goes for nations as well as individuals.  If you don’t respect yourself, then nobody else is going to respect you either.  Those who do not have some pride in their own culture will sooner or later end up being proud of somebody else’s.  Yes, Europe has a sometimes dark and violent history, but that is hardly unique to us.  Yes, Europe was engaged in slavery, as have been most other cultures throughout human history.  However, Europe also gave rise to the abolitionist movement, pushing to end slavery on an international basis, not the least in the Islamic world.  Move on! Our culture is worth keeping, despite the incessant claims to the contrary from parts of our intelligentsia.  Non-Europeans who visit our lands come to visit our great cathedrals, see our arts and enjoy some of the quaint little quirks and bad habits we have acquired over the centuries.  If they want to see burkas and sharia they go to Baghdad or Karachi, not to Rome, Amsterdam or Dublin.  Should Europe be reduced to an appendix of the Arab world, this would be a tragedy for world cultural heritage, not just for Europe.

If we could use a little more confidence in the cultural field, we need a bit more humility in the economic field.  Europe had dynamic economies once, but we didn’t have six hour work days and five weeks holidays when we did.  We’ve grown lazy and complacent, and get our collective behinds kicked every day by Chinese, Americans, Indians and pretty much everybody else.  The welfare state is dead, long live the welfare state!  Our demographic challenges, on the other hand, cannot be solved by immigration alone, but by a change of our cultural and religious values.  The problems created by declining birth rates are not nearly as big as the problems created by the cure, Muslim immigration.

As Melanie Phillips says, the great mistake the EU makes is to confuse attachments to nation with isolationism.  The desire for self-government is not isolationist.  It is simply the precondition for democracy.  The elements of the transnational Utopia, such as the EU, European Court of Human Rights, the UN and the International Criminal Court, are therefore nothing less than an assault on democracy, freedom and the attachments that make us into functioning communities founded on a shared sense of identity and interests.  And the only way to defend ourselves against this new threat is for nations to have a strong sense of and belief in themselves.  Yet it is that sense of national identification that the EU has been busily destroying, thus dangerously weakening the ability of European nations to fight in their own defence.

The political class thinks that the problem with the people is that they do not know what's in their best interest.  This sentiment is particularly widespread among liberal and left-wing activists and thinkers.  In Brussels, a demagogue is anyone who is critical of the EU project.  The word “populism” used to mean democracy: that is, the readiness of politicians to recognise the wishes of their constituents.  To many Eurocrats, however, public opposition is merely an obstacle to be overcome – a bump on the road to European integration.  And the response of our elite is not to affirm national identity but to repudiate it.  The loyalty that people need in their daily lives is constantly ridiculed or even demonised by the dominant media.

As Roger Scruton points out, Western civilization depends on an idea of citizenship that is not global at all, but rooted in territorial jurisdiction and national loyalty. People in the West live in a public space in which each person is surrounded and protected by his rights, and where all behavior that poses no obvious physical threat is permitted.  But people in Muslim countries live in a space that is shared but private, where nobody is shielded by his rights from communal judgment, and where communal judgment is experienced as the judgment of God.

Europe seems so scared of its own real or perceived demons that it doesn’t understand that demons can come from the outside, too.  From the Islamic world, for instance.  There is no particular reason why nationalism should be dangerous.  It might be or it might not be.  Communism was transnational, and responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people.  It is true that aggressive nationalism has been a problem for Europe in the past, but that does not mean that any allegiance to the nation state by itself has to be bad.  What threatens to plunge the continent into war now is not nationalism but rather anti-nationalism, the deliberate weakening of the nation state.  The sense of belonging to a shared community, a nation, is undermined both at the micro-level, through massive immigration, and at the macro-level, through faceless bureaucrats in Brussels.  Many of Europe’s problems predate the EU and are not caused by it, but the EU has reinforced some of them and added a few more.  We may need some kind of European solidarity and cultural alliance faced with the ongoing Islamic aggression, but it has to be based on the cooperation between independent nations that are defensible both from an identity and from a practical point of view.  Perhaps the question of Turkey’s membership in the EU can be resolved by getting rid of the EU altogether.  If so, Eurabia would be buried together with the institution that created it in the first place.

Note: Populism also seems to scare the pee out of both the Democratic and Republican parties in America these days, which makes a Ross Perot or a John McCain (If he really is a populist) a bigger danger than anyone in an opposing political party.

Occhi

[NiteFox]

Without getting into too much detail (My dentist says I should stop gnashing my teeth, and discussions regarding the European Union and British Government is a guaranteed enamel ruiner in my case) he seems to be on the money with that. Probably a little too much Muslim-bashing for most tastes, but the heart of his opinion is justified.

[eppie]

I find it indeed a bit populist. This guy is britisch and anti europe I guess?

Indeed a bit too much muslim bashing, I agree with Nitefox.

The part about the economic malaise in europe.. well I guess this is not because we are europe but just because we are richer then most other countries...of course the balance can go only one way from there. Even when we work 7 days per week, don't take holidays and dump social welfare systems, then the chinese, indians etc. are still a lot cheaper.
eppie

[Occhidiangela]

I find it indeed a bit populist. This guy is  britisch and anti europe I guess?

Indeed a bit too much muslim bashing, I agree with Nitefox.

The part about the economic malaise in  europe.. well I guess this is not because we are europe but just because we are richer then most other countries...of course the balance can go only one way from there.  Even when we work 7 days per week, don't take holidays and dump social welfare systems, then the chinese, indians etc. are still a lot cheaper.
eppie
[right][snapback]93896[/snapback][/right]

OK, macro economic forces, Globalism's influence, rather than something wholly in the control of any given government, or the EU "authorities."

Your reply illustrates rather than answers my puzzlement on why some Europeans appear to happy to bash "European culture," (a rather loose term, don't you think?) while decrying a slight at, for example, Muslim culture as you have just done.

Seems inconsistent. What common cultural assumption is at work here?

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

OK, macro economic forces, Globalism's influence, rather than something wholly in the control of any given government, or the EU "authorities." 

Your reply illustrates rather than answers my puzzlement on why some Europeans appear to happy to bash "European culture," (a rather loose term, don't you think?)  while decrying a slight at, for example, Muslim culture as you have just done.

Seems inconsistent.  What common cultural assumption is at work here?

Occhi
[right][snapback]93923[/snapback][/right]

PS: Sorry eppie, I missed a point.

I don't think he's anti-European. He is pro Europe and anti-Eurabia, as he calls it. What he represents is an anti EU growth sentiment that bases its belief in the distrust of EU tyranny by bureaucrats, which is NOT the same thing as being anti-European. He sees the retention of difference as "vive la difference" and I think he advocates the various states retain their sovereignty and various unique characters.

Plenty of Dutch folks were apparently anti- the new EU Constitution, but that did not make them anti-European.

Does that make sense to you?

[eppie]

PS:  Sorry eppie, I missed a point.

I don't think he's anti-European.  He is pro Europe and anti-Eurabia, as he calls it.  What he represents is an anti EU growth sentiment that bases its belief in the distrust of EU tyranny by bureaucrats, which is NOT the same thing as being anti-European.  He sees the retention of difference as "vive la difference" and I think he advocates the various states retain their sovereignty and various unique characters.

Plenty of Dutch folks were apparently anti- the new EU Constitution, but that did not make them anti-European.

Does that make sense to you?
[right][snapback]93939[/snapback][/right]

Yes it does. Many dutch people voted "against" (the european constitution) because they didn't like the possibility that turkey could become a member of the EU. This has of course nothing to do with the EU constitution, but he, it was the first time that we could vote directly about a EU related subject.

Anyway, I'm not very scared that we (the EU countries) will lose our own cultures. Even in the US there are still a lot of differences between people from different states. The EU is of course much more diverse. The only real impact (and that is why politicians are pushing so much) is economic, and for that reason I personally welcome Turkey. I have just as much in common with a turk than with somebody from lithuania so to say.

It is however true that a lot of people think different about that and are especially scared and against more arabians in our country. But thus is a point that is not related to europe whatsoever. Most of the immigration of turks and morocans happened in the 70s and 80s and is becoming less and less.

[Ashock]

I have just as much in common with a turk than with somebody from lithuania so to say.
[right][snapback]93972[/snapback][/right]

You are mistaken. The cultural differences are huge. While Turks are westernized being in Europe and all, as a country they are a whole lot different from you. Lithuanians might also be different at least at this point, but the difference is that they will fit in eventually, and the Turks won't. Don't kid yourself.


-A

[Occhidiangela]

It is however true that a lot of people think different about that and are especially scared and against more arabians in our country. But thus is a point that is not related to europe whatsoever. Most of the immigration of turks and morocans happened in the 70s and 80s and is becoming less and less.
[right][snapback]93972[/snapback][/right]

EDITED for further development. Sorry to re do the post.

But it does. Those immigrants breed, and inculcate in their children either their native culture, a mandate to assimilate (as my grandmother did when she emigrated to the US) or a slight fusion of the two. It seems that the usual approach is not assimilationist, but I wonder if that generalization is a function of view point. Why is this important? Religion still, whether we like it or not, has an effect on the common cultural assumptions people carry about within themselves from day to day. If you come from a culture where religion is prominent, you may be very uncomfortable assimilating into a scarcely religious, or non religious, culture. Likewise, the less similar two base religions are, the harder it is to transition from one to another unless the appeal to transition is compelling.

The reluctance to assimilate has a profound cultural impact on Europe (for better and worse) since demographically, the immigrants tend to breed at a higher rate. (In the American Southwest, this simple fact of birth rate gives LaRaza and others a vision of winning what they call "the battle of the cradle" within the next two generations.)

You may not see how that moves the NL to a place in Eurabia, but I think some Frenchmen and some Italians might see things differently, as well as some Spaniards, based on their demographic breakdowns.

Which takes me to the question, again, of why an immigrant culture becomes "protected" by policy (even if not in the hearts and minds of many average citizens) while the native "culture" (again, a very loose term, as we both seem to agree) is either condemned, or presented as flawed. Why no emhpasis or encouragement on assimilation? Or, is it there and just hard to see?

Occhi

[Jester]

"Lithuanians might also be different at least at this point, but the difference is that they will fit in eventually, and the Turks won't."

You see this looking through your crystal ball? Or is there some argument behind this assertion?

-Jester

[Ashock]

"Lithuanians might also be different at least at this point, but the difference is that they will fit in eventually, and the Turks won't."

You see this looking through your crystal ball? Or is there some argument behind this assertion?

-Jester
[right][snapback]94033[/snapback][/right]

I've lived in Turkey for a few months and in all of the Baltic states for close to a year combined. Where have you lived..... outside of your ivory tower?



-A

[Occhidiangela]

"Lithuanians might also be different at least at this point, but the difference is that they will fit in eventually, and the Turks won't."

You see this looking through your crystal ball? Or is there some argument behind this assertion?

-Jester
[right][snapback]94033[/snapback][/right]

If Ashock won't, I'll offer a modest argument, based on my modest exposure in Europe to this topic. I was involved in considerable detail with NATO expansion 1995-1998, and the Partnership for Peace program.

Lithuanians have enough related "common cultural assumptions" that don't include the heritage of the Caliphate, nor Islam, (which the Turks have in their history and cultural weave) to the rest of Europe North of the Alps to make the reasonable assumption that they'll be a closer cultural fit than Turkey. There are also plenty of unique Lituanianisms to make their addition to the European weave bumpy at first.

Whether or not the cultural affinity is a good criterion related to EU membership depends on what one's goals for the EU are. Is the focus on Europe and things uniquely European, or on Union, which harkens back to an economic Union, and hence connotes to many a purely economic motif. The euro, for example, is a mechanical, economic, not a cultural thread. As some wag once said:

Gold knows no culture.

Occhi

[Assur]

Hi

For me personally the "problem" is that neither Turkey, nor the Turks, are part of Europe!

The ethnic, religious and historical differences are, IMHO, just to big to make a success of Turkey joining the EU (aside from the problem that at the moment Turkey is illegally occupying a part of an EU member, Cyprus)

A lesser-known fact is that the US has been exerting considerable pressure on decisionmakers in the EU to accept Turkey, so as to stabilize/encourage an important NATO ally.

good karma

[Occhidiangela]

A lesser-known fact is that the US has been exerting considerable pressure on decisionmakers in the EU to accept Turkey, so as to stabilize/encourage an important NATO ally.

good karma
[right][snapback]94053[/snapback][/right]

Yes, I saw a bit of that in NATO, however, the Greeks are not alone in their objections, I promise you that. :D

Occhi

[eppie]

You are mistaken. The cultural differences are huge. While Turks are westernized being in Europe and all, as a country they are a whole lot different from you. Lithuanians might also be different at least at this point, but the difference is that they will fit in eventually, and the Turks won't. Don't kid yourself.
-A
[right][snapback]93987[/snapback][/right]

I don't know if I should be happier with the baltic states who are known to be violently aggresive to any minority group they can find or the Turks.

Most of the "at least moderately intelligent" turks or marocans fit in very well here. They lose there religion in the same way as we in the west also do, so this is not a problem in my opinion.
Letting turkey be part of the EU will not bring more arabs to my country, I will not have to become muslim and will only affect me economically (hopefully).
But turkey in the EU was not the topic of this discussion, so I will stop here.

I have not the idea that we are losing our culture and "favouring" the arab culture in politics. The large arab communities with "rules" which ar almost the same as in their countries of birth, if they are here they will be in the poorest parts of big cities. And if these people will not start behaving according to dutch standards they will never be able to get a reasonable good job or havy any influence in out society. The countryside which preserves most of our culture is still very much as it has always been. I don't mean this in a politically incorrect way, but this is how society is. IF you are in the a train or metro in the big cities you might have the idea that "we are being taken over" by the arabs, but as I said, because they do not integrate they will never be able to be a normal part of society...so they also don't have a (political) voice. The "arabs" I known with higher education, which are studying or have a nice job, never are the oldfashioned type. Those people are exactly like us in the way they think, work and behave.

[Flymo]

Could I get some comments on this article from our European Lurkers?

If they want to see burkas and sharia they go to Baghdad or Karachi, not to Rome, Amsterdam or Dublin

He is a xenophobic racist. He quotes Roger Scruton who is a well known neofascist. Unfortunately we have plenty of these in Britain; most are simply too stupid or take the newspapers they read too uncritically to know better, but there are a few pseudointellectuals like this who think prejudice can be justified. Nearly all of them believe not only that Europe should exclude Turkey but that Britain should leave the EU.

[Ashock]

If Ashock won't, I'll offer a modest argument, based on my modest exposure in Europe to this topic.  [right][snapback]94037[/snapback][/right]

To be honest with you, I simply did not feel like getting into the whole muslim argument with him at this time. I have more patience for some people and less for others.



-A

[Occhidiangela]

He is a xenophobic racist.  He quotes Roger Scruton who is a well known neofascist.  Unfortunately we have plenty of these in Britain; most are simply too stupid or take the newspapers they read too uncritically to know better, but there are a few pseudointellectuals like this who think prejudice can be justified.  Nearly all of them believe not only that Europe should exclude Turkey but that Britain should leave the EU.
[right][snapback]94075[/snapback][/right]

Your review of the author's character is zero value added. I believe I covered his bias in my opening remarks. What are your feelings on the issue he addresses, that of Europeans indulging in cultural self hate, or self deprecation?

The article is not one I'd write. We would both agree that he is unsympathetic to Muslims in his outlook, and he has little time for Muslim apologists. For purposes of this discussion, I would ask you to limit your remarks to this article.

From a cultural point of view, I am personally unsympathetic to Islam as it exists in the modern world, and how it has shaped various societies and cultures that exist in the present. I've been dealing on and off with the so called "war on terror," or rather, the Modern/Western civilizations attempts to deal with Muslim terrorists since 1983. The issue has been of significance since 1972, Munich, Black September, slaughter of Olympic athletes for political purposes.

I do not blieve that Islam has had its Rennaisance, as Christianity has, that opened a pathway for it to integrate into the modern world. FWIW, Christianity still has its hands full in dealing with The Modern World. Cultures based in Muslim cultural norms and habits are to some extent trapped in a medeival paradigm. This handicaps their ability to fit into the modern world, which so far has been formulated under an olio of Western European Enlightenment thought. Any culture with Islam so embedded is going to have a similar handicap.

That in and of itself is an interesting socialogical point, and hardly "a problem" except for the matter of where cultures intersect. That dynamic often leads to conflict. Read again my opening remarks about NATO strategic concerns, dating back to 1993.

The importation of Muslim norms into Europe is not particularly welcome to many, is welcomed by some, and of course treated with "ho hum" by others. Did you miss the news about the hubub in Paris last week?

I appreciate that you don't care for the author's background: could you please, without resort to "discredit the author and thus relieve myself from thinking about the issue involved" replies, comment on the article for its own sake?

Thanks.

Occhi

[Kylearan]

Hi,

a difficult and complex subject indeed. My apologies if this post is more a collection of random thoughts and free mental associations than a cohesive argument, but Im a bit busy with other things at the moment...

I really wonder what this "European culture" we should be proud of is. Do we have a common culture, or do we just consist of several different nations, each with their own culture? Heck, we have nations which are not sure if they even have something like a "national culture" at all! We in Germany have a regular discussion about that (the dreaded "Leitkultur" discussion). What is it that Germans connect with each other, do we have any common cultural roots we all share? While France for example has had its revolution, we Germans are just a bunch of old principalities put inside artificial borders rather late in history. Sure, we call ourselves to be the land of the poets and thinkers (Land der Dichter und Denker), meaning Goethe, Schiller et al., but that is a bit silly really and won't serve as a theme to identify with - other nations had their fair share of great poets and thinkers themselves, so nothing special there. What is it that defines us to be "German"? What exactly is it that we should be proud of? And how can we be proud to be Germans if all our actions still get eyed suspiciously by our neighbours? I remember the time of our reunion, when severe reservations of most of Europe had to be overcome who feared a new "super Germany", given our history. And if Nazis burn down an immigrant home in Germany, it immediately makes it to the headlines in foreign newspapers. The fact that there seem to be stronger anti-Semite movements in Poland or France won't be mentioned, though.

So if the biggest and economically strongest nation in Europe has problems with this, how should a whole continent full of historically old differences, rivalries etc. develop a feeling for a common culture? This seems to be the underlying problem with the question of the constitution as well. What kind of Europe is it that we want, a Europe focussing on becoming an economic superpower alone, as the Brits seem to favor, or a United States of Europe like the USA, where the citizens call themselves "Europeans" instead of "Germans", "Dutch" etc. as Fischer, our ex secretary of foreign affairs favored? It's a yet unsolved question and discussions about it have been delayed for too long, and this also plays a major role in the discussion about Turkey, muslim immigration etc.

Ironically, the author claims that nationalism would strengthen us against the dangers of muslim immigration, and yet France, which I believe to be the European country most proud of itself (and bordering arrogance in my view) seems to have the biggest problems with that, as the events in the French suburbs during this last weeks show.

What can we do to assimilate Muslims in our countries? Not much I guess. Do we have to do something? I don't know - as I understand it, there exist a lot of parallel cultures in the US as well (although I don't know how many Muslims there are?), and it seems to work - not perfectly, but it works. Why this does not work here I don't know, but I don't think the lack of nationalism is the problem, or maybe I misunderstand the author here. And we *need* immigration, given the declining birth rates, only maybe we should see to it that we get a broader mix of social classes in the future, not only the poor and the desperate.

Integrating Turkey into the EU could have its advantages besides the obvious strategical ones. It could become a mediator between Europe and the "Muslim World" (whatever that is), making Europe perhaps a trusted partner to talk with, a role which America unfortunately has lost for generations to come. Integrating Turkey *could* work because they are not a Muslim state but a laizist state - a fact which also could mean that it won't ever have the weight in the Muslim world as we hope. Of course, events like what happens in France right now won't be helpful to persuade the European population to accept Turkey as an EU state...

-Kylearan

[eppie]

From a cultural point of view, I am personally unsympathetic to Islam as it exists in the modern world, and how it has shaped various societies and cultures that exist in the present.  I've been dealing on and off with the so called "war on terror," or rather, the Modern/Western civilizations attempts to deal with Muslim terrorists since 1983.  The issue has been of significance since 1972, Munich, Black September, slaughter of Olympic athletes for political purposes. 

I do not blieve that Islam has had its Rennaisance, as Christianity has, that opened a pathway for it to integrate into the modern world.  FWIW, Christianity still has its hands full in dealing with The Modern World.  Cultures based in Muslim cultural norms and habits are to some extent trapped in a medeival paradigm.  This handicaps their ability to fit into the modern world, which so far has been formulated under an olio of Western European Enlightenment thought.  Any culture with Islam so embedded is going to have a similar handicap.

Occhi
[right][snapback]94146[/snapback][/right]

From a cultural point of view you are "personally unsympathetic to Islam as it exists in the modern world". OK, me to, I don't like the role of the woman in Islam and many other things. But you say "cultural"... my opinion is that society shapes a religion and not the other way around (I know this is not the general opinion in the world). If you would look at the world a 1000 years ago you would see completely different things. Most muslims in arabia have very oldfashioned ideas about their religion, but look at for example christians is central afrika...they also have a very different view on christianity than christians in europe.

That is the whole thing about religion....it are the powerful people that just decide what is good and what is bad in religion (that and the fact that I cannot find absolutely any evidence of there being a God is the reason that I'm atheist btw. which is of course not the topic of this discussion). e.g. henry VIII that just invented his own religion.....and still most of england is anglican... (and everybody knows the history)

So I think that throwing words at one specific religion is not a very fair thing to do. In our world there are a lot of different levels of wealth and development....and those things are more important for the way people behave than that religion is

[Flymo]

Your review of the author's character is zero value added.  I believe I covered his bias in my opening remarks.  What are your feelings on the issue he addresses, that of Europeans indulging in cultural self hate, or self deprecation?

The article is not one I'd write.  We would both agree that he is unsympathetic to Muslims in his outlook, and he has little time for Muslim apologists.  For purposes of this discussion, I would ask you to limit your remarks to this article.

From a cultural point of view, I am personally unsympathetic to Islam as it exists in the modern world, and how it has shaped various societies and cultures that exist in the present.  I've been dealing on and off with the so called "war on terror," or rather, the Modern/Western civilizations attempts to deal with Muslim terrorists since 1983.  The issue has been of significance since 1972, Munich, Black September, slaughter of Olympic athletes for political purposes. 

I do not blieve that Islam has had its Rennaisance, as Christianity has, that opened a pathway for it to integrate into the modern world.  FWIW, Christianity still has its hands full in dealing with The Modern World.  Cultures based in Muslim cultural norms and habits are to some extent trapped in a medeival paradigm.  This handicaps their ability to fit into the modern world, which so far has been formulated under an olio of Western European Enlightenment thought.  Any culture with Islam so embedded is going to have a similar handicap.

That in and of itself is an interesting socialogical point, and hardly "a problem" except for the matter of where cultures intersect.  That dynamic often leads to conflict.  Read again my opening remarks about NATO strategic concerns, dating back to 1993.

The importation of Muslim norms into Europe is not particularly welcome to many, is welcomed by some, and of course treated with "ho hum" by others.  Did you miss the news about the hubub in Paris last week?

I appreciate that you don't care for the author's background: could you please, without resort to "discredit the author and thus relieve myself from thinking about the issue involved" replies, comment on the article for its own sake?

Thanks.

Occhi
[right][snapback]94146[/snapback][/right]

Europe is what it is because of millennia of invasion and immigration. It has absorbed, been absorbed by, and integrated with countless other cultures. If it hadn't been Europeans would still be sacrificing virgins in stone circles; Christianity is itself an import from the middle east. Spain was under Islamic rule for centuries.

Each time a new wave of migration comes it is faced with the fear and prejudice that Wolfgang Bruno disguises as "nationalism", and often this leads to pogroms, race riots, or other violence. Ultimately the migrants are accepted and integrated and European culture is the stronger for it.

My part of London has had strong Turkish Cypriot immigration for some years but the only outward sign is the three Turkish restaurants in the high street. You cannot tell who is Turkish because they look, talk, and act like everyone else (and Turkish women do not wear the burka as Bruno seems to think they do). Turkey is no threat.

It is also not right to blame the recent tube bombings on a lack of British chauvinism. The bombers were indoctrinated in Pakistan, not Britain, and their terrorism was motivated by religion, not nationality.