Wednesday, January 24. 2007
Posted by Joerg Wolf in Transatlantic Relations on Wednesday, January 24. 2007
A few, but popular authors and journalists as well as many bloggers write a lot about "Eurabia." An extensive Wikipedia entry with many footnotes describes Eurabia as "a dystopian scenario where Europe merges with the Islamic world, and the alleged process of political and cultural Islamisation of Europe." One of the prominent supporters of this theory is Mark Steyn, who recently publilshed "America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It" (Amazon.com, Amazon.de). (Some have assumed that Mark Steyn is a Jewish American, but he is actually a Canadian, who attends a small rural American Baptist Church.)
The Chicagoboyz' James McCormick has written a detailed book review with many quotes from the book, including this one:
Two forces are facing off on the European continent: on the one side, the modern social-democratic state that the American left thinks should be our model; on the other, the resurgent Islam that the American Left insists is just a scam cooked up by Karl Rove. We now have an excellent opportunity to test both propositions. How bad is it going to get in Europe? As bad as it can get — as in societal collapse, fascistic revivalism, and then the long Eurabian night, not over the entire Continent but over significant parts of it. And those countries that manage to escape the darkness will do so only after violent convulsions of their own.[p.104]The best-selling author Ralph Peters disagrees, but has a distorted view of Europe nonetheless: According to him, Islamic fundamentalists will not conquer Europe. Rather Europeans will practice genocide or ethnic cleansing. Muslims are an "endangered species," he opines:
A quote from his "The Eurabia Myth" article in The NY Post:
A rash of pop prophets tell us that Muslims in Europe are reproducing so fast and European societies are so weak and listless that, before you know it, the continent will become "Eurabia," with all those topless gals on the Riviera wearing veils. Well, maybe not. The notion that continental Europeans, who are world-champion haters, will let the impoverished Muslim immigrants they confine to ghettos take over their societies and extend the caliphate from the Amalfi Coast to Amsterdam has it exactly wrong. The endangered species isn't the "peace loving" European lolling in his or her welfare state, but the continent's Muslims immigrants - and their multi-generation descendents - who were foolish enough to imagine that Europeans would share their toys. In fact, Muslims are hardly welcome to pick up the trash on Europe's playgrounds. Don't let Europe's current round of playing pacifist dress-up fool you: This is the continent that perfected genocide and ethnic cleansing, the happy-go-lucky slice of humanity that brought us such recent hits as the Holocaust and Srebrenica.In an article titled "Europe's End: Not with Bang but a Whimper", the American Thinker writes about the "debate" between Steyn and Peters.
Related post in the Atlantic Review: "US Prophets of Europe's Doom are Half Wrong"
• Discovered via Google Alerts: ShelleyTheRepublican.com blogs about "Germany Today : A cry for help : Nazis on the rise (Gate to Hell / Seeking World Domination : Germany (Part 3))":
We must petition the US-government to include Germany in the war against terror. If you still don’t think that Germany is extremely dangerous, please watch this movie, it might open your eyes (careful it’s very graphic): Click here! There is not difference between German NeoNazis and the taliban in Iraq. We can not allow yourselves to stop before we finally get rid o the Nazi terror. Let’s finish the job, once and for all, for the good of mankind.The above mentioned movie is an old American newsreel about German concentration camps during the Holocaust and World War II. It is definitely worth watching. I just don't understand why this movie is supposed to suggest that today's Germany is "extremely dangerous" and why it indicates that there is not any "difference between German NeoNazis and the taliban in Iraq." (Actually, there are millions of "taliban" in Germany as well, but they are better known as "Studenten," which is the German word for "taliban." The English word for "taliban" is "students.")
I guess, this and parts of the debate on "Eurabia" are the equivalent of Anti-Americanism. How shall we call it? Anti-Europeanism, Eurobashing? Or do I just fail to understand the "humor"?
Shelley's blog has 1000-1800 visits per day according to Sitemeter, i.e. it is too insignificant to be taken seriously. What about the more popular myths regarding "Eurabia" and Peters' exaggerations? Shall I stop writing about it, because there is a lot of Anti-Americanism in Europe?
Let's end on a positive note: Sam Bauman writes in The Nevada Appeal about A Thanksgiving that had a surprising Germanic finale: "We all have memories of Thanksgivings past, and my favorite is of a Thanksgiving we celebrated in Germany in my wife's hometown of Darmstadt." (I had planned to post all this soon after Thanksgiving, but got distracted by more important stories.)
UPDATE: Our reader Wintermute proved that Shelley is a satirical site:
The (now removed) "meaning and purpose" page of Shelley:I need to get better in understanding humor.
Is the talk about "Eurabia" humor, as well? Are Steyn and Peters comedians?
Suddenly, I don't know anymore what is serious and what is satire... :-)
What the Eurabia Myth Might Say About the American Right
British writer Johann Hari reviews Mark Steyn's latest book about the "Eurabia" prediction. Andrew Hammel points out the popularity of the "Eurabia" prediction among American Europe-bashers and ends his post in German Joys with Hari's
Weblog: Atlantic Review
Tracked: Mar 10, 14:25
NYT's Correspondent Mark Landler's Shrill Coverage of Germany
The New York Times' Germany correspondent Mark Landler often exaggerates and is sometimes just wrong. The latest example is his July 11 article "Debate on Terror Threat Stirs Germany," which starts with While the British public reacted to the la
Weblog: Atlantic Review
Tracked: Jul 13, 11:35
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
jolly rogers - #2 - 2007-01-24 16:10 -
Peters has "no difficulty imagining a scenario in which U.S. Navy ships are at anchor and U.S. Marines have gone ashore at Brest, Bremerhaven or Bari to guarantee the safe evacuation of Europe's Muslims. After all, we were the only ones to do anything about the slaughter of Muslims in the Balkans." This guy is an ignorant dumbass. As much as Mark Steyn. Nothing less.
Wintermute - #3 - 2007-01-24 16:26 -
According to this site Shelley is indeed a satirical website: [url]http://www.blick.ch/sonntagsblick/medien/artikel36436[/url] Also, the Internet Archive offers you the chance to find the (now removed) "meaning and purpose" page of Shelley: [url]http://web.archive.org/web/20060513220157/http://shelleytherepublican.com/meaning-and-purpose.html[/url] Quote: ---ShelleyTheRepublican.com is a satirical entertainment web site. "Shelley"* and her friends are fictional characters (*created 1999). Shelley's opinions are an amalgam of many of the right-wing pundits who are frequently featured on conservative TV and talk-radio.---
JW-Atlantic Review - #3.1 - 2007-01-24 17:01 -
Searching the Internet Archive was a great idea. Thanks. I appreciate that. I have written an update.
Don S - #4 - 2007-01-24 19:06 -
Mark Steyn, hmmm. I think Steyn and Peters aren't actually different views but different endings writting to the same tale. Steyn believes that Europeans are surrender-monkeys and will collapse when resurgent Islam gives them the push. Peters views Europeans as wolves in sheep's clothing who will respond carniverously when resurgent Islam gives them the push. Personally I find Peter's vision more convincing because I remember that the pacifists of the 30's who turned into the WWII generation. Soft words are not the same as core values. But..... There is another question the answer to which both Steyn and Peters assume without examining at much depth: Will a resurgent Islam try to give 'Europe' the push? Or wiil 'Europe' attempt (and succeed) in efforts to assimilate the Islamic immigrants - and in turn assimilate to Islamic values to some degree. What I'm talking about is not becoming 'dhimmi' but rather whether Europe will allow itself to learn from the strong moral values of Islam - and emerge the better for the experience? I don't pretend to know the answer. It doesn't appear promising when one views the news, but let's remember that news is heavily tilted to the negative. We hear about the 4 young Muslims from Leeds who killed 50 Londoners on 7/7 and the trial of the 7/21 bombers, but not about the thousands of young Brit Muslims who looked at that vision and seem to have turned away.
Fuchur - #4.1 - 2007-01-24 23:06 -
Zyme - #4.2 - 2007-01-25 11:36 -
Axel - #5 - 2007-01-27 04:22 -
Fuchur - #5.1 - 2007-01-27 14:57 -
The likes of Ralph Peters are a sad reminder that anti-Europeism (and as part of it, anti-Germanism) is alive and kicking in the US, contrary to what some people try to tell us. I'm always again surprised how many people who rightly claim that anti-Americansim is a problem and must be addressed merrily cheer on idiots like Peters. Why the desperate need to find excuses like "It's only a reaction..." ? I don't give a damn what the reason is - whether his hatred is genuine, or he's just "reacting", or he's just plain retarded. Either way there's no reason to take this kind of bullshit.
Don S - #5.1.1 - 2007-01-27 20:23 -
He's no idiot Fuchur - and Europe has earned many Ralph Peter's and Mark Steyns with the actions of the past decade. I even agree with Peters on this partuicular question, although I'm far more hopeful than he seems to be that it won't come to that. I fail to see how saying that if in the European situation push comes to shove the Europeans will win and win big is anti-European? Clue me in on that please? Ummm - one more thing. This assimilation thing? Time to get to work. There is little visible sign of it in France or Germany unless you count car-b-ques in France and lack of Turkish advances in Germany as progress.
Pat Patterson - #184.108.40.206.1 - 2007-01-28 21:38 -
There were 21,000+ cases of arson of vehicles in the US last year according to the United States Firemen's Association. Which resulted in $644 million+ in costs. Now France is interesting because there doesn't seem to be any publicly available source from vehicle arson other than unsourced or quotes from various governemt functinaries in publicly available news sources. Over 8,000+ cars were torched during the 30+ days of rioting in France in 2005, obviously an outlier. However the office of the Mayor of Paris, when asking for calm on the streets in late December, 2005, claimed that the normal toll was 80-90 a night. Which if one takes into account the whole year would result in some 29,000+ cars being deliberately burned in Paris alone. The population discrepancies between the two countries would indicate that vehicle arson in France is some 5 1/2 times greater. If someone can point me toward different statistics it would be greatly appreciated.
Fuchur - #220.127.116.11 - 2007-01-28 01:06 -
"He's no idiot" Well, he's giving a really good impression. "Europe has earned many Ralph Peter's" As I said: I fail to see your point. Maybe I'm not being nuanced enough, but in my unsophisticated black-and-white world view a lie is a lie. Your logic is like this: "2+2=3." "But that's wrong?!" "So what. You deserved it." Apart from that, I don't quite see what exactly I have done to have supposedly "earned" it to be smeared as a Nazi by Mr Peters. "I fail to see how saying that if in the European situation push comes to shove the Europeans will win and win big is anti-European?" Let's keep this above kindergarten level, please. We are both able to read, so what's the point of this nonsense? You know as well as I that what he really writes is that sooner or later, Europeans will tick out again, and commit a huge genocide amongst European muslims. Frankly, if you're not willing to admit that this notion has a somewhat anti-European touch to it, then I don't see much point in a discussion. Bottom line is: Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Whatever we do, we'll either be spineless dhimmis, or genocidal Nazis.
joe - #18.104.22.168.1 - 2007-01-28 12:07 -
JW-Atlantic Review - #22.214.171.124.1.1 - 2007-01-28 14:01 -
"The first is the declining birth rate of Western Europeans. The second is the inability of muslins to integrate and assimilate into the current dominates European culture." Climate change theories are built on similar premises and yet you do not believe in them, if I am not mistaken.
joe - #126.96.36.199.1.1.1 - 2007-01-28 14:25 -
I do not believe I stated whether I thought if either Steyn or Peters were correct in the premises they used. To be honest I am ambivlant as to whether they are correct or not. It would appear by your comment you do not believe Steyn and Peters premises either. At this point, I am not sure if it matters or is even important if they are correct or not. And no I do not happen to believe the models being used to predict climate change.
Fuchur - #188.8.131.52.1.2 - 2007-01-29 00:22 -
joe, if you want to engage in a debate, learn some manners first...
Don S - #184.108.40.206.1.3 - 2007-01-29 17:52 -
"The other observation is the one you posted about returning to Turkey to get a proper wife. Using your point of view it would seem Turkish women are more willing to assimilate than Turkish males. You view that as positive and a rejection of the belief that Turks are not assimilating and integrating into German culture. I would differ with you on that assessment." Not necessarily, joe. The 'traditional' Turkish males may be exceptions rather than the rule, or they may have other problems which interfere with romance. Perhaps the second-generation Turkish f=women are marrying Germans. There is an occasional story in the UK about muslim women raised in the UK forced to go back to the old country (Pakistan often) and marry a cousin or something. Sometimes the goal seems to be to get another family member into the UK, sometimes it is to 'save' the woman from leaving the community. It's a fairly rare happening or so I gather.
Don S - #220.127.116.11.2 - 2007-01-28 15:54 -
Fuchur, There is a strong element of payback in what Peters writes, but I doubt if many of his readers takes it as a prediction of the future. A lot of what Peters writes is simple fact. For all the ragging the US gets about the fate of the American Indian and the negro slave - it's nothing compared to things we can clearly see in European history. Recent European history at that. Post 1945 Europe tried to change history - and succeeded to some degree. I doubt the Holocaust could happen in today's Europe. What Steyn and Peters write about is something different - a potential religious civil war across much of Europe. I think the next big challenge for Europe is not deeper union - it is integrating the Muslims into European life. Now they are mostly outsiders. Partially by their own choice but much more by the choice of the society in many countries. Yet - I don't see that realisation across Europe - not even from the (so-called) best and brightest. They are still blaming the US for their troubles. All their troubles, often enough. Keep this up and you may well prove Messiers Steyn or Peters correct after all.
Fuchur - #18.104.22.168.2.1 - 2007-01-29 00:17 -
(Sorry, my internet provider was down... Hm, this thread is getting rather chaotic...) I'd like to point out that I don't consider Steyn anti-German, although I'm not a particular fan of him. In any case, I don't know much of his writings. The reason why I characterize Peters as anti-German/European is not so much his theory. In fact, if history teaches us anything, then it is that humans are capable of unbelievable cruelty. So, clearly, we cannot rule out the possibility of a future genocide in Europe (or anywhere else in this world). My characterization of Peters is based upon the old WaPo article that Axel linked to above (basically saying that Germans opposing to the Iraq war reveals that they're still Nazis), and the phony argumentation he uses in the NY Post article. I don't want to start fisking it (because it would become way too long), but there are so many factual errors that I don't know where to start. For example, Le Pen is right wing, but to even liken him to the KKK is just idiotic (how many Muslims have been lynched recently in France?). What's just as bad: he constantly presents opinions and assumptions as facts, without providing even a shred of evidence. Actually, the only instances where he relies on facts are his history musings. But I guess we agree that anybody who cites Jerusalem 1099 and Spain 1492 as sure signs for an upcoming genocide against Muslims simply is not eligible for serious debate?! And the gall to present Yugoslavija as "proof" for the barbarous nature of "Europeans"! Conveniently ignoring the fact that to this day, also German and other European soldiers are down there, PREVENTING a new genocide. To sum it up: If somebody claims that he sees the danger of an upcoming genocide in Europe, then I have no problem with that, and I'll listen to his arguments very interestedly. HOWEVER: If somebody, as Peters does, merely claims that there will be a genocide, because that's just European nature - than that reveals a degree of vileness and prejudice that I haven't witnessed in a long time.
Don S - #22.214.171.124.2.1.1 - 2007-01-29 17:36 -
"For example, Le Pen is right wing, but to even liken him to the KKK is just idiotic (how many Muslims have been lynched recently in France?)." How many anyones have been lynched recently in the US? None since 1945 I believe - or perhaps the early 50's. I'm not quite sure. Comparing Le Pen to David Duke (ex KKK I believe) is closer to the mark.
influx - #126.96.36.199.188.8.131.52 - 2007-01-29 19:01 -
Don, there have been very few lynchings since WW II, but they have happened. James Byrd, Jr. comes to mind, or Michael Donald.
Don S - #184.108.40.206.220.127.116.11.1 - 2007-01-30 10:45 -
"Don, there have been very few lynchings since WW II, but they have happened. James Byrd, Jr. comes to mind, or Michael Donald." If you count James Byrd as a lynching then Europe has them also. There were two 'lynchings' of that kind in Telford in the UK earlier this decade. Literal lynchings, not a dragging like James Byrd was. An Uncle and a nephew were the victims about a year apart. The case still isn't resolved, BTW. Seems to me I've heard about a case or two in France over the past 15 years, not counting the occasional kidnap/torture/murder of a jew....
influx - #18.104.22.168.22.214.171.124.1.1 - 2007-01-30 11:07 -
"If you count James Byrd as a lynching then Europe has them also." Sure, who claimed that Europe doesn't have problems with racists?
Fuchur - #126.96.36.199.2.1.2 - 2007-01-30 12:38 -
Don, your whole point is off the mark. The Klan is dead. The few weirdos that attempt to revive it today are irrelevant. So, when Peters claims that Le Pen's party "makes the Ku Klux Klan seem like Human Rights Watch", then it's obvious that he refers to the [b]original[/b] Klan. And I stand by what I've said: Comparing Le Pen's party with [b]the[/b] Klan is ludicrous. One is a political party that's still within the bounds of the democratic process - the other one was a murderous criminal association.
Don S - #188.8.131.52.184.108.40.206 - 2007-01-30 13:34 -
Which original Klan, Fuchur? There actually have been two organisations calling themselves the Ku Klux Klan, if not three. The fist was founded in 1867 as a reaction to the loss of political power among the South's former elites after the Civil War. It was disbanded by it's founder in 1871 or 72. The second organisation was founded during the 1920's as a nativist organisation more reminescent of the Know-Nothings than the original Klan. T%at organisation has a kind of continuity with the present. I think that Le Pen can legitimately compared with David Duke - save that Le Pen seems a lot more dangerous than Duke does.
Fuchur - #220.127.116.11.18.104.22.168.1 - 2007-01-30 14:52 -
Mhm, you're right of course, but again: I think that's not really the point. My statement "the Klan is dead" was based on this statistic of estimated members (from Wikipedia): year membership 1920 4,000,000 1924 6,000,000 1930 30,000 1970 2,000 2000 3,000 I would argue that there is no real continuity. Ever since the 30s, the Klan simply isn't any more what it once was. Anyway, my point is: If you mention the KKK, then people think of guys in white with funny masks who harass and kill black people, i.e. they think of the first or second Klan, a powerful and dangerous organization that's responsible for all kinds of disgusting crimes up to murder. That's what "the KKK" stands for. You cannot wiggle out by saying: Oh, Peters surely didn't mean [i]that[/i] - he probably was talking about people like David Duke. I agree: a comparison between Duke and Le Pen I deem adequate. But this is NOT what Peters did, and actually this is exemplary for his dishonest and misleading style. By that standard, one could also say something like "Le Pen's party makes the Nazis seem like Humans' Rights Watch" - and then claim: "No, no, I didn't mean the Holocaust and WWII - I was just talking about people like Horst Mahler..."
Don S - #22.214.171.124.126.96.36.199.1.1 - 2007-01-30 16:00 -
I'm sort of torn between things, Fuchur. I think Europe has it's bright side and it's dark side. Actually humanity has it's bright side and it's dark side, but we're talking about Ralph Peters essays here - so Europe it is. I sorta agree with him in that I think the dark side hasn't been completely banished. It could happen. But economic and social conditions would have to change so much for it to become possible.... Can conditions change that much? Clearly yes. WWI provided those conditions once already. Was the situation in (say) 1934 a reasonable extrapolation from the situation viewed in 1880 or 1900? I would strongly argue not. Yet it happened. Again we come to the element of payback however. I've heard and read any number of strongly-phrased essays from European (particularly German) sources arguing that George Bush's America is the next incarnation of the Third Reich (or is liekly to develop into such). Ralph Peters has obviously read those same essays and taken them even more to heart than I have - and responded in kind. I'd say that his essay was and is better-reasoned than most such idiocies. But (in my view) no more likely to come to fruition. It was in fact an attack aimed particularly at Germany I would agree. But understand that it is return fire. Peters isn't anti-German in the same way that many Germans seem to be anti-American. No. Peters is exasperated and what we call 'pissed-off'.
Fuchur - #188.8.131.52.184.108.40.206.1.1.1 - 2007-01-30 21:13 -
As I said before, I'm pretty much with you: I don't think that the possibility of a future genodice in Europe can be completely ruled out, and I don't think that discussing the possibility is "out of bounds". What I criticize about Peters is that the [b]premise[/b] of his article basically is that Europeans are a particularly mean breed of human beings that will turn into genocidal monsters when they would have to share their toys. If you do not consider that notion anti-European, then I guess we'll just have to disagree ;-) ... Concerning "payback", I've already said above that I don't really understand the whole idea. When somebody writes nonsense, then I'll call him an idiot - regardless of any possible underlying reasons that might have compelled him to do so. Apart from that, it shows a strange monolithic view of Europe: The amount of vicious criticism and "anti-Americanism" coming from Europe is hardly worse than the one coming from America itself - but somehow, America is granted the "right" to have a loony left. On the other hand, all of Europe seems to be responsible whenever one deranged article appears. And it's always "payback" for something. Isn't much of the anti-Americanism just a "response" to Bush's "terrible" politics? Don't these people have the same right as Peters to be "pissed off"? These kind of chicken-egg discussions lead nowhere. In any case, I don't feel any moral responsibility at all to simply accept to be called a Nazi by Peters. I regularly speak up against anti-Americanism - and when I myself am attacked, I should just sit back and think "Oh, poor guy, he's probably just angry"? I don't think so.
Don S - #6 - 2007-01-28 00:49 -
Joerg, This fellow doesn't count? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Abourezk
joe - #7 - 2007-01-28 08:52 -
joe - #7.1.1 - 2007-01-28 15:59 -
JW-Atlantic Review - #220.127.116.11 - 2007-01-28 16:31 -
@ Joe "It is interesting that you now classify Peters and Steyn as nutcases. Would you share with us why you believe that other than you might disagree with their theory? Did you consider Ried, Rifkin, and Ash to also be nut cases?" I don't understand your second sentence. There seems to be a grammatical mistake in your question and I can't guess what you mean. I don't understand why you ask this question about Ried, Rifkin and Ash. Confront me with some statements from them and will give you my opinion.
joe - #18.104.22.168.1 - 2007-01-28 17:34 -
joe - #22.214.171.124.2 - 2007-01-28 17:49 -
Jorg, You are correct about the sentence structure. Let me try again. Why do you consider Peters and Steyn to be nutcases? The second question, which I think you understood. Did you consider Reid, Rifkin and Ash to be nutcases also? Since you did a threat on these three authors, go back and search your comments.
JW-Atlantic Review - #126.96.36.199.2.1 - 2007-01-28 17:57 -
"Why do you consider Peters and Steyn to be nutcases?" See second point here: [url]http://atlanticreview.org/archives/501-Eurabia-and-German-NeoNazis-and-the-Taliban-in-Iraq.html#c6344[/url] "Did you consider Reid, Rifkin and Ash to be nutcases also?" What do they have to do with Peters and Steyn? "Since you did a threat on these three authors, go back and search your comments." Then you will find my answer to your questions there as well.
joe - #188.8.131.52.2.1.1 - 2007-01-28 19:50 -
Jorg, Do you actually consider that to be a response? If you do that is fine. The common percentage thrown around about the number of muslins in france is 12% and over 6% in the Netherlands. This is much greater than 3% which you consider to be significant. How would you describe these percentages? And while you might look at Europe as whole, I do not think you will get a unified response. I believe you are seeing pockets of immigration both within European nations and within regions within individual nations. Because how fragmented Europe is I do not see collective action. You seem to think there will be. What happens in france is a french problem. What happens in Denmark is a problem for the Danes, etc. with the general attitude of being glad that it is not happening here. The eastern Europeans do not seem to be as affected as much at this time. When a nation wants to address the influx of immigrates it cannot because its actions conflict with the positions of the EU. And when individuals or groups want to they are immediately labeled as fascists. But since you have deemed both Steyn and Peters to be nutcases, then this thread has been a lot of bandwidth about nothing. A very much wasted morning.
Don S - #7.1.2 - 2007-01-28 16:06 -
Joerg, Muslims are about 1% of the US population. One percent minorities typically do not elect many representatives anywhere. Jews are about 2% of the population and there are fairly few Jews elected to high office in the US either. ANother quirk of the US is the nature of the Muslim population. I think they are mostly so-called 'Black Muslims'. Followers of the late Elijah Mohammed, who was fond of raving about 'white devils' in his communications. Under his sons things have calmed down, although Loius Farrakhan is (was?) a Black Muslim in the old style. Another notable Black Muslim was Malcolm X, who was assasinated.
JW-Atlantic Review - #184.108.40.206 - 2007-01-28 16:35 -
What exactly are you accusing the Muslim population of?
Don S - #220.127.116.11.1 - 2007-01-28 17:33 -
Accusing? Moi? I'm 'accusing' them of nothing more damning than being a very small part of the US population. And those that are Muslims are mostly from a variant sect which emerged more or less spontaneously within US negros bitterly rejecting christianity because it condoned slavery and Jim Crow. It wasn't until Malcolm X that Black Muslims seem to have really studied what Islam is.
David - #18.104.22.168 - 2007-01-28 16:54 -
"Jews are about 2% of the population and there are fairly few Jews elected to high office in the US either." You are wrong: there are 13 Jewish US senators in Congress at the moment.
joe - #22.214.171.124.1 - 2007-01-28 17:37 -
David, Since you keep up with those type things. How many of the 13 are democrats and how many are republicans?
David - #126.96.36.199.1.1 - 2007-01-28 19:25 -
Joe, Only one -Arlen Specter - is a Republican. But then there is also one Neo-con: Joe Lieberman. BTW, I noted your plug earlier for Jean Marie Le Pen, one of the worst racists in Europe. Can't say I was in the least surprised.
joe - #188.8.131.52.1.1.1 - 2007-01-28 20:15 -
David, I believe the republicans actually have a second one Senator Coleman (Mn). But really David your demos are the party of diversity. You have 85% of the Jewish Senators, all the black members of Congress, the only open homosexual, the only muslin, the only Grand Wizard of the KKK, the only impeached judge and the only socialist. The poor republicans can only claim a Mormon and a Cuban. They also probably have a homosexual or two who lack the courage of Barney. As for the Le Pen reference it was not a plug but to illustrate the third group with someone people might actually know or have heard of before. Do you happen to know another European political leader who has the same stance on immigration as he does and the National Front.? I did not. Who would you have used? Today his party is polling 13%. You might not consider that worrisome but since Jorg considers 3% to be significant then this seems to be something to watch. It would also seem to add some creditability to the third group Steyn was referencing. BTW did you notice I gave Ellison a plug too.
JW-Atlantic Review - #184.108.40.206 - 2007-01-28 17:08 -
@ Don "One percent minorities typically do not elect many representatives anywhere." In a perfect world a candidate's religion should not influence his chances to get elected. I know, nobody lives in a perfect world. "Jews are about 2% of the population and there are fairly few Jews elected to high office in the US either." According to Wikipedia, 13 of the 100 Senators are Jewish. And 30 of the 435 members of the House of Representatives are Jewish. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_110th_United_States_Congress_by_religion[/url] With all due respect, I think these numbers contradict your statement: "Muslims are about 1% of the US population. One percent minorities typically do not elect many representatives anywhere. Jews are about 2% of the population and there are fairly few Jews elected to high office in the US either." Yes, I do realize that ethnic background plays a role. There are not many white Muslim Americans. Keith Ellison was the first Muslim who got elected into the House in 2006. No Muslim yet in the Senate. And only one black American in the Senate currently. If Wikipedia is correct: "The first Jewish person in the House was Lewis Charles Levin, elected in 1844. The first Jewish person in the Senate was David Levy Yulee, elected in 1845." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States_Congress#See_also I am not saying that Germany is doing any better. I am just wondering why it is so difficult for Muslims to get elected in the US. This post was about "Eurabia" and the frequent accusations by some Americans that Europeans fail to integrate their Muslim immigrants and that the Muslims don't assimilate/integrate and that this is leading to a conflict. Therefore I think it is worthwhile to look how well America integrates Muslims and to ask why it is difficult for Muslims to get elected. And how well Muslims integrate themselves. What you write about Muslim Americans suggests that you see some problems in that regard... As I said, I think in the business world, Muslim have much better chances to advance in the US than in Germany. Moreover, are the same folks, who write gloomy articles about "Eurabia," concerned about "Americrabia"? Virgil Goode is afraid of Muslim immigration for some reason. Don has some concern about the "nature of the Muslim population." Thus, is there a US debate about "Americrabia" or just about "Eurabia"?
Don S - #220.127.116.11.1 - 2007-01-31 14:43 -
"Moreover, are the same folks, who write gloomy articles about "Eurabia," concerned about "Americrabia"? Virgil Goode is afraid of Muslim immigration for some reason. Don has some concern about the "nature of the Muslim population." Thus, is there a US debate about "Americrabia" or just about "Eurabia"?" I think there is some concern in the US, but not as much as in Europe. As I wrote earlier muslims are only about 1% of the US population, and the makeup of that population differs. I'm not actually 'concerned' about that makeup, Jorg, just explaining it. 'Muslim' in the US context is decidedly not the same as Americarbia, because so many of US muslims are the before mentioned Black Muslims, who mostly come from the same roots as the rest of the US black population and thus aren't arabs at all. Or Persians, Indonesian, or from any other kind of middle eastern muslim background. In a sense we in the US have already had that debate about Black Muslims back in the 50's and 60's when Malcolm X was such a central and provocative figure. Louis Farrakan is a pale modern version of Malcolm X in some ways, although Farrakan has been accused of having something to do with X's assasination. There is a seperate debate about immigrant and near-immigrant muslim populations in the US, but they appear to be much smaller in proportion to their numbers in many European countries. And (to date) much less troublesome.
Pat Patterson - #8 - 2007-01-28 15:51 -
Rep. Goode may be an idiot but what he mainly objected to was Rep. Ellison's attempt to violate protocol. Ellison wanted to use the Koran at the official swearing in on the House floor where by tradition no Bibles, Korans, etc., are used as the congressmen simply raise their right hand and swear to uphold the Constitution. Rep. Ellison, also not being too swift, didn't realize that the members take a mock the oath in the Rotunda, using Bibles, Korans, or DIY books for public consumption, ie., photos, interviews, balloons etc. Rep. Ellison also didn't realize that Jefferson's Koran was a translation and thus not a "real" Koran. When asked why he picked the book of a slave owner and the first president to attack a Muslim nation the new representative was painfully tongue-tied. The US uses the primary system where any eligible candidate can self-identify himself a member of a party. Often there is an official candidate endorsed not picked by the local party group but no guarantee of election. The candidate must represent local issues or to often the local race, ethnicity or religion. An example here could be the reelection of Sen. Lieberman because he was not the official Democratic Party candidate yet is still considered a Democrat for purposes of determing who controls Congress. Rep. Ellison was elected from an inner-city area in Minnesota that was primarily black and with a large Muslim immigrant community. My understanding of the Parliamentary system it is the party that determines the local candidate, without the free-for-all of a local primary and can make a percentage of seats available to different minorities or none at all. If the parties, in Germany, want more Muslims then they can simply make more eligible and also can use their seats via proportionality to appoint some candidates whereas in the US that candidate will probably be from a district with like-minded people in it where he can only be elected directly. Safe seats come about because of the uniformity of the electorate. As an aside just look to see how hard it was for Republicans in Louisiana to expel David Duke from the party after he ran in the primaries and general election as a Republican. Even though the Party endorsed and supported the Democratic candidate. This could simply never happen in a parliamentary system. Gen. Colin Powell was asked what were the consequences of his father not using his Commonwealth passport to easily immigate to Great Britain vs. waiting for years to immigrate legally to the US. His paraphrased reply was that if his family had gone to England this son of a Jamaican immigrant might have risen to the rank of a senior NCO but in the US he became the Chair of the Joint Chiefs and a possible candidate for President.
Axel - #9 - 2007-01-29 01:47 -
ADMIN - #10 - 2007-01-29 09:51 -
Thanks for the great comments Please note that by default the comments in this blog are threaded rather than linear, i.e. some of the latest responses to comments are not at the bottom, but in the middle of the thread right behind the comment they respond to. At the top of the comments section you have the option to change the view from threaded to linear (=chronological), which enables you to see the latest comments at the end of the thread.
James - #11 - 2007-02-01 11:16 -
[img]http://oldbluejacket.com/images/Islam-Marchers.jpg[/img] Honestly, I think you guys are being too short-sited here. The increasing tide of concern about muslim immigration is less about any host nation as it is about what motivates these populations. We can all agree that the threat of islamic terror is a difficult problem. Its enemy is ostensibly the west. It is unbridled by any sense of morality or sanctity of life. Murdering innocents is encouraged. It carries a mission of conquest far beyond the communist threat of the cold war. A mission well documented in its religious texts. Its fanatics are not subject to reason in any sense of the word. Negotiation is out of the question with the unbeliever. It has the potential to be far more widespread than any national movement could ever hope to be. Potential recruits can hail from an astounding one third of the worlds population in dozens of countries. Surely, our new muslim citizens can offer us insight and leadership in our struggle to avert future disaster in this increasingly dangerous world. However, the silence from the muslim community, particularly in the west has been deafening. And if that isn't enough, enterprising investigative journalists of late have uncovered evidence of complicity amid many in this silent minority boldly on display for all to see. At the same time, the west appears to be in denial. Historical guilt about past injustices have paralized us. Rationally, what does german national socialism or american institutionalized racism in the last century have to do with today. I understand and commend the need to remind our young people about the dangers of hate; but historical guilt threatens to destroy us. We have been exceedingly polite and patient over the past half dozen years. My motivation is simple. I encourage westerners to be more curious and critical about the compatibility of islam with western republicanism. Read the Qu'ran. Learn about what the mission of local muslim groups in your community. Dialog is sorely needed to resolve this critical paradox. I fear that the increasing isolatation of these groups, coupled with our newfound "hear no evil, see no evil" attitude are a recipe of disaster. Honestly, we could really benefit from the contribution of americans and european muslims in this struggle. We need to understand how the countless references to the unbeliever in the Qu'ran do not legitimize terrorism. We need conclude whether or not "western muslim" is an oxymoron.
JW-Atlantic Review - #11.1 - 2007-02-01 14:27 -
Thanks for your comment, James. It seems that the picture is from a demonstration in London, which was crashed by some extremists. The big question is: How many Muslims share these views? It might just be a vocal minority... Extremists of all political walks of life are always more vocal and get more media coverage than the moderates. You write: "enterprising investigative journalists of late have uncovered evidence of complicity amid many in this silent minority boldly on display for all to see." If you got some interesting links on these matters, please post them. You write: "However, the silence from the muslim community, particularly in the west has been deafening." Really? A friend has just emailed me these links that tell a different story: [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4676524.stm[/url] [url]http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/4/1351/103/[/url] [url]http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/mt.php/2006/02/03/extremists_crash_the_party_aga[/url] [url]http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/1467/39/[/url] [url]http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/1454/39/[/url]
Google the Site