Reasonable Europeans Should Read This Objectively...It Makes Sense

[MarkDel]

 Bicultural Europe is doomed
By Mark Steyn
(Filed: 15/11/2005)

Three years ago -December 2002 - I was asked to take part in a symposium on Europe and began with the observation: "I find it easier to be optimistic about the futures of Iraq and Pakistan than, say, Holland or Denmark."

At the time, this was taken as confirmation of my descent into insanity. I can't see why. Compare, for example, the Iraqi and the European constitutions: which would you say reflected a shrewder grasp of the realities on the ground?

Or take last week's attacks in Jordan by a quartet of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's finest suicide bombers. The day after the carnage, Jordanians took to the streets in their thousands to shout "Death to Zarqawi!" and "Burn in hell, Zarqawi!" King Abdullah denounced terrorism as "sick" and called for a "global fight" against it. "These people are insane," he said of the husband-and-wife couple dispatched to blow up a wedding reception.

For purposes of comparison, consider the Madrid bombing from March last year. The day after that, Spaniards also took to the streets, for their feebly tasteful vigil. Instead of righteous anger, they were "united in sorrow" - i.e. enervated in passivity. Instead of wishing death on the perpetrators, the preferred slogan was "Basta!" - "Enough!" - which was directed less at the killers than at Aznar and Bush. Instead of a leader who calls for a "global fight", they elected a government pledged to withdraw from any meaningful role in the global fight.

My point in that symposium was a simple one: whatever their problems, most Islamic countries have the advantage of beginning any evolution into free states from the starting point of relative societal cohesion. By contrast, most European nations face the trickier task of trying to hold on to their freedom at a time of increasing societal incoherence.

True, America and Australia grew the institutions of their democracy with relatively homogeneous populations, and then evolved into successful "multicultural" societies. But that's not what's happening in Europe right now. If you want to know what a multicultural society looks like, read the names of America's dead on September 11: Arestegui, Bolourchi, Carstanjen, Droz, Elseth, Foti, Gronlund, Hannafin, Iskyan, Kuge, Laychak, Mojica, Nguyen, Ong, Pappalardo, Quigley, Retic, Shuyin, Tarrou, Vamsikrishna, Warchola, Yuguang, Zarba. Black, white, Hispanic, Arab, Indian, Chinese - in a word, American.

Whether or not one believes in "celebrating diversity", that's a lot of diversity to celebrate. But the Continent isn't multicultural so much as bicultural. There are ageing native populations, and young Muslim populations, and that's it: "two solitudes", as they say in my beloved Quebec. If there's three, four or more cultures, you can all hold hands and sing We are the World. But if there's just two - you and the other - that's generally more fractious. Bicultural societies are among the least stable in the world, especially once it's no longer quite clear who is the majority and who is the minority - a situation that much of Europe is fast approaching, as you can see by visiting any French, Austrian, Belgian or Dutch maternity ward.

Take Fiji - not a comparison France would be flattered by, though until 1987 the Fijians enjoyed a century of peaceful stable constitutional evolution the French were never able to muster. At any rate, Fiji comprises native Fijians and ethnic Indians brought in as indentured workers by the British. If memory serves, 46.2 per cent are Fijians and 48.6 per cent are Indo-Fijians; 50-50, give or take, with no intermarrying. In 1987, the first Indian-majority government came to power. A month later, Col Sitiveni Rabuka staged the first of his two coups, resulting in the Queen's removal as head of state and Fiji being expelled from the Commonwealth.

Is it that difficult to sketch a similar situation for France? Even in relatively peaceful bicultural societies, politics becomes tribal: loyalists vs nationalists in Northern Ireland, separatists vs federalists in Quebec. Picture a French election circa 2020, 2025: the Islamic Republican Coalition wins the most seats in the National Assembly. The Chiraquiste crowd give a fatalistic shrug and Mr de Villepin starts including crowd-pleasing suras from the Koran at his poetry recitals. But would Mr Le Pen or (by then) his daughter take it so well? Or would the temptation to be France's Col Rabuka prove too much?

And the Fijian scenario - a succession of bloodless coups - is the optimistic one. After all, the differences between Fijian natives and Indians are as nothing compared with those between the French and les beurs. I love the way those naysayers predicting doom and gloom in Baghdad scoff that Iraq's a totally artificial entity and that, without some Saddamite strongman, Kurds, Sunnis and Shias can't co-exist in the same state. Oh, really? If Iraq's an entirely artificial entity, what do you call a state split between gay drugged-up red-light whatever's-your-bag Dutchmen and anti-gay anti-whoring anti-everything-you-dig Muslims? If Kurdistan doesn't belong in Iraq, does Pornostan belong in the Islamic Republic of Holland?

In a democratic age, you can't buck demography - except through civil war. The Yugoslavs figured that out. In the 30 years before the meltdown, Bosnian Serbs had declined from 43 per cent to 31 per cent of the population, while Bosnian Muslims had increased from 26 per cent to 44 per cent.

So Europe's present biculturalism makes disaster a certainty. One way to avoid it would be to go genuinely multicultural, to broaden the Continent's sources of immigration beyond the Muslim world. But a talented ambitious Chinese or Indian or Chilean has zero reason to emigrate to France, unless he is consumed by a perverse fantasy of living in a segregated society that artificially constrains his economic opportunities yet imposes confiscatory taxation on him in order to support an ancien regime of indolent geriatrics.

France faces tough choices and, unlike Baghdad, in Paris you can't even talk about them honestly. As Jean-Claude Dassier, director-general of the French news station LCI, told a broadcasters' conference in Amsterdam, he has been playing down the riots on the following grounds: "Politics in France is heading to the Right and I don't want Right-wing politicians back in second or even first place because we showed burning cars on television."

Oh, well. You can understand why the Quai d'Orsay is relaxed about Iran becoming the second Muslim nuclear power. As things stand, France is on course to be the third. You heard it here first. You probably won't hear it on Mr Dassier's station at all.

[MarkDel]

Mark,

A common misconception is look at a hundful of european countries and then extrapolate for the rest of europe.

While much of western europe is in decline (economically, socially, militarily, politically and morally) much of eastern europe is in varying stages of recovery from communism.

Carl,

No, no, I totally agree with you about Eastern Europe. To be accurate, I should have said Western Europe, or what we right wingers derisively refer to as Old Europe.

[MarkDel]

Pretty much what I expected from the poster Old Europe...

Al, I give you a lot of credit for breaking down each statement point by point, but quite frankly I expected a more objective analysis from a person of your intellect. It seems that when a European criticizes Europe you have no problem with it, but if an American or someone else does so, you immediately put up the defensive forcefield. No, Europe will not be predominantly Muslim in the next few years, but take a look at birth rates among native Europeans and immigrant Muslims and then project those numbers to drop (non-Muslim) and rise (Muslim) even higher over time. Plus, there is the beginnings of an unholy alliance between the Far Left and Islamics in Europe, which will increase their numbers and influence. Also, the Far Right will gain strength and credibility as average citizens see the predictions of the Far Right starting to come true on certain levels. It is a very dangerous short term problem and a potentially catastrophic long term problem.

[MarkDel]

Al and Michael Z,

I think you both know that I have a great deal of respect for both of you, and I certainly understand what you're both saying, however, I really think you are making a major mistake by dismissing what Steyn is saying here. You may not like the messenger, but the message is what's important.

As for Michael's main point, I would tend to agree, many or even most Americans would react more negatively to foreign criticism than they would to domestic criticism. I myself am guilty of doing this from time to time, though it's a fairly recent development for me over the past 10 years or so. And the reason I now over-react to European criticism is that my entire view of the continent changed dramatically after my extended visit there. Prior to that, I felt a great love and respect for Europe, but became quite disillusioned by the covert and sometimes overt hatred of Americans I encountered...even in England which was truly shocking. And before any of you come on here and tell me "We don't hate Americans, we just hate Bush and his policies..." well this trip took place when Clinton was President, long before Bush even was running for President the first time. That visit to Europe was a real eye opener for me and made me realize that the Western Europe was in crisis on some intricate societal, and perhaps even spiritual levels, and the long term future was not a bright picture unless they came to grips with their unexplained anger and sense of intellectual/moral superiority.

Now, despite my problems with Europe, as I have explained in the past, I am a strong, strong believer in the fact that a US/European alliance is critical to the continued prosperity of both regions. There is too much history and culture which bind the two together, plus Europe will continue to need U.S. protection since they have chosen to essentially eliminate military strength from their diplomatic arsenal, and the U.S. will need Europe on an economic level as new powers like China and India emerge in the 21st Century. We need each other, so I don't care to sit back and watch in bemusement as the uppity French get what they deserve, because what happens today in France will eventually threaten the entire continent...sadly even the U.K. once Tony Blair is gone and the real Labour Party takes power.

[MarkDel]

Old Europe,

I have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to Steyn's comments on Bosnian Serbs and/or Muslims. He is merely trying to point the dangers of widely disparate birth rates in a bi-cultural society. It was that simple. Somehow you and your seemingly paranoid mind turned that into an analogy of Holocaust denial...that's an interesting leap...makes no sense at all of course, but very interesting...

[MarkDel]

Somehow you and your seemingly paranoid mind turned that into an analogy of Holocaust denial...that's an interesting leap...makes no sense at all of course, but very interesting...

And I thought discrediting political opponents as mentally ill was primarily an attribute of Stalinism... aside from this that's a pretty insulting and immature comment.

Oh, that's rich...you imply that Mark Steyn, and thus indirectly my position, is racist, anti-semitic and generally ridiculous, and you have the nerve to get upset when I claim your position (which WAS bizarre) might be indicative of a paranoid mind.

As for your Stalinism comment...no, that's your side of the political aisle, not mine.

[MarkDel]

Old Europe,

You're right, I did implement a double standard. I cut Al slack...because I LIKE him and generally respect his views.

[MarkDel]

Another really good article about Europe's Muslim issues...



Not all Muslims want to integrate
By Bruce Bawer
OSLO – The recent rioting in Paris suburbs and elsewhere in Europe should not have surprised anyone. Europe's Muslim communities are powder kegs, brimming with an alienation born of both an assiduously inculcated antagonism toward infidel society and an infidel society whose integration policies - which should actually be called segregation policies - have perversely encouraged this ire.

I first noticed the problem when I lived in Amsterdam in 1999. A visitor to that city might imagine that not one Muslim lived there. But to venture just a few blocks beyond the tourist-crowded streets was to learn otherwise. In my neighborhood, the sidewalks were crowded with hijab-clad women pushing baby carriages. There were as many signs in Arabic as in Dutch. Outside the "neighborhood center" waved a large Turkish flag.

Such districts, I learned, could be found across Europe. Muslims were a huge, rapidly growing - and highly segregated - minority. In city after city, downtown areas were almost 100 percent European, the outskirts increasingly Muslim.

Americans know about ghettos. For many of our families, they've been a stage in the transition from immigrant to native. Many ghetto residents are still, essentially, foreigners; integration takes place largely in the next generation, as the children of immigrants go to school, find jobs, and leave the ghetto behind.

Not in Europe. Officially, to be sure, France is less multicultural than most European countries - witness its rejection of religious labels in public documents and its ban on hijabs in schools. But enduring segregation is a fact of life in France as it is elsewhere on the continent. Millions of "French Muslims" don't consider themselves French. A government report leaked last March depicted an increasingly two-track educational system: More and more Muslim students refuse to sing, dance, participate in sports, sketch a face, or play an instrument. They won't draw a right angle (it looks like part of the Christian cross). They won't read Voltaire and Rousseau (too antireligion), Cyrano de Bergerac (too racy), Madame Bovary (too pro-women), or Chrétien de Troyes (too chrétien). One school has separate toilets for "Muslims" and "Frenchmen"; another obeyed a Muslim leader's call for separate locker rooms because "the circumcised should not have to undress alongside the impure."

Many Muslims, wanting to enjoy Western prosperity but repelled by Western ways, travel regularly back to their homelands. From Oslo, where I live, there are more direct flights every week to Islamabad than to the US. A recent Norwegian report noted that among young Norwegians of Pakistani descent, family honor depends largely on "not being perceived as Norwegian - as integrated."

For many Muslims in Europe, self-segregation has come naturally. What's tragic is that European authorities have supported it. Rejecting the American approach - namely, encouraging immigrants to work and integrate - they've instead helped newcomers to maintain distinct communities and provided benefits that have made it easy for them to stay unemployed. Why did these authorities prefer segregation? Supposedly they were enlightened "multiculturalists" who respected differences; for many, the real reason was a profound discomfort with the idea of "them" becoming "us." Naively, they imagined they could preserve their nations' cultural homogeneity while letting in millions of foreigners and smiling on their preservation and perpetuation of values drastically different from their own.

What they've reaped, alas, is a generation of Muslims, many of whom view their neighborhoods as colonies amid enemy territory - and who demand this autonomy be recognized. In Britain, imams have pressed the government to designate part of Bradford as being under Muslim law. In Belgium, Muslims in the Brussels neighborhood of Sint-Jans-Molenbeek consider it to be under Islamic jurisdiction. In Denmark, Muslim leaders have sought similar control over parts of Copenhagen. In France, an official met with an imam at the edge of Roubaix's Muslim district out of respect for his declaration that it was Islamic territory. In many cities, police have stopped patrolling certain enclaves, the authorities having effectively ceded control to local religious leaders.

No surprise, then, that a Muslim rioter in Århus, Denmark, the other day cried out: "This area belongs to us!" Amir Taheri, editor of Politique Internationale, noted that the main reason for the French riots is not that two youths died hiding from cops in a transformer station; it's that the state responded to the initial unrest by sending police into an area that many locals saw as their own inviolate domain. These riots, in short, are early battles in a continent-wide turf war.

It's a war authorities can't afford to lose. By accepting separatism, Europe is becoming a house divided against itself. Governments must take a firm, aggressive, integration- oriented line - must, among other things, end separate treatment in schools and turn welfare recipients into workers. Above all, they must stand alongside Muslims who wish to integrate - not those who seek to colonize. And they must hope - and pray - that it isn't already too late.

• Bruce Bawer's book, "While Europe Slept," will be published by Doubleday in February. A native New Yorker, he now lives in Oslo.