Francis Fukuyama discusses new Bruce Bawer book on Europe and its Muslims

[unschooler]

From Slate

The riots that consumed the French suburbs last November, and now the uproar over the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, have underlined for all to see that the ongoing struggle with radical Islamism (aka the "war on terrorism") is if anything more of a problem for Europe than it is for America. For the United States, with a Muslim population of less than 1 percent of the total, radical Islam is an issue to be dealt with "over there," in dysfunctional areas of the Middle East like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. For Europe, however, it is a much more immediate and threatening crisis because it is domestic. In the Netherlands, 6 percent to 7 percent of the population, and as much as half the population of large cities like Amsterdam and Rotterdam, are Muslim. In France, the percentage may reach to 12 or 13 percent. Many of the organizers of recent terrorist incidents—including Mohammed Atta, the Sept. 11 ringleader; the March 7 Madrid bombers; Mohammed Bouyeri, assassin of the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh; and the July 7 London bombers—were radicalized not in the Middle East, but in Western Europe. Many, like Bouyeri and the London bombers, were second-generation citizens who spoke their adopted country's language fluently.

(snip)

So far, shrill voices have dominated the field, with Pat Buchanan taking the lead several years ago with The Death of the West, and Tony Blankley, the op-ed page editor at The Washington Times, recently following up with The West's Last Chance. Bruce Bawer now offers a more balanced, if still highly gloomy, prognosis as he surveys the European predicament in While Europe Slept. A writer and critic formerly living in New York (he got his start at The New Criterion), Bawer happens to be gay. By his own account, he moved to Europe with his partner in the late 1990s because he found the atmosphere of conservative Christianity in the United States increasingly stifling. Living in both the Netherlands and Norway and learning to speak Dutch and Norwegian, he found that the real threat to his personal freedom came not from fundamentalist Christians, but from the intolerant Muslims who were both homophobic and increasingly vocal throughout the Continent.

(snip)

There is no question that what has come to be called "Eurabia" constitutes a major problem for democracy there, a problem that European elites have been inexcusably slow to recognize and address. They operated for too long under a false understanding that liberal pluralism meant respecting the rights of communities rather than individuals, and they were not willing to step in when, for example, a Moroccan family forced their daughter into a marriage or shipped her back to Morocco against her will. Trendy multiculturalism dovetailed with traditional European corporatism and left Muslim communities in isolated ghettos, which then became fertile grounds for the growth of a highly intolerant version of Islam.

Yet the deeper source of Europe's failure to integrate Muslim immigrants, as Bawer recognizes, is not trendy multiculturalist ideas embraced by the left, but precisely Buchanan's blood-and-soil understanding of identity—a mind-set that until five years ago prevented a German-speaking third-generation Turk from acquiring citizenship because he didn't have a German mother. According to Bawer, "Europeans … will allow immigrants into their country; they'll pay high taxes so that their government can dole out (forever, if necessary) rent support, child benefits. … But they won't really think of them as being Norwegian or Dutch. And they'll rebel mightily against the idea of immigrants living among them as respected, fully equal professionals." American identity, by contrast, has from the beginning been more creedal and political than based on religion or ethnicity. Newly naturalized Guatemalans or Koreans in America can proudly say they are Americans. Pat Buchanan may not like it, but that is precisely what rescues us from the trap the Europeans are in.

(continued)

http://www.slate.com/id/2136964/?nav=ais

[funflower]

1. Bawer wrote "Stealing Jesus." Excellent anti-fundy book.

[Roland99]

2. I thought the riots in France were more from poverty than fundamentalism.

[Terran1212]

11. They were; the clash of civilisations is as false as...

Rumors of vietcong bombing new york during that war.

[patcox2]

3. Interesting, I love Bawer and Fukuyama seems to have grown up.

But here is a question perhaps some from europe could help me with.

According to Fukuyama, Bawer's theory is that Muslims in europe have been radicalized by a conservative european quasi-racist tradition which denies them true integration into the identity and society of the various european nations. He says that the french will never see immigrants as truly french, for example. And thats why the muslim french are ghetto-ized, unemployed, and radicalized.

So here is the big question: is this true, that european nations resist ever seeing an immigrant as a part of their nation?

I have to ask because, from the great distance I am seeing from, It looks to me as if, to choose one example, hindu indians, and even muslim indians, are indeed accepted members of British society, some seem more british than the british. Likewise, asian immigrants seem to do well in france, for example.

I still have to say, are all immigrants treated this way, or are muslims singled out? Do muslims fail to prosper because they are not allowed to assimilate, or because they resist assimilation?

Because one has to observe that muslims, although no more foreign than say chinese, vietnamese, or other asians, seem to cling more tightly to their muslim customs which mark them apart. And flame me if you will, the one thing I cannot tolerate is intolerance, and muslims appear more intolerant than other immigrant groups, it seems, more resistant to the changes required to assimilate. Its a fundamentalist religion, it does not get along well in multicultural societies.

[DemExpat]

5. That is the big question.

So here is the big question: is this true, that european nations resist ever seeing an immigrant as a part of their nation?
I have to ask because, from the great distance I am seeing from, It looks to me as if, to choose one example, hindu indians, and even muslim indians, are indeed accepted members of British society, some seem more british than the british. Likewise, asian immigrants seem to do well in france, for example.
I still have to say, are all immigrants treated this way, or are muslims singled out? Do muslims fail to prosper because they are not allowed to assimilate, or because they resist assimilation?
Because one has to observe that muslims, although no more foreign than say chinese, vietnamese, or other asians, seem to cling more tightly to their muslim customs which mark them apart. And flame me if you will, the one thing I cannot tolerate is intolerance, and muslims appear more intolerant than other immigrant groups, it seems, more resistant to the changes required to assimilate. Its a fundamentalist religion, it does not get along well in multicultural societies.


My view from The Netherlands is that it is true that the Dutch have assimilated other ethnic groups (Indonesians, Chinese, others from former colonies) quite well, while many Muslims here, most from very conservative origins in their homelands, seem to me to resist assmimilation because partly, of the excesses they see in social freedoms here - secularism, gay marriage, women's freedoms, drugs, immodesty in dress in public, regulated prostitution, etc. Up to now many Imams here were imported from Saudi Arabia, Morocco and elsewhere, not familiar or friendly to Dutch society, but this has been addressed by requiring Mosques to have more Dutch educated/trained and Dutch speaking Imams.

I do not at all see where the Dutch will "resist mightily" educated and professional immigrants working by their side, but do agree that Europeans as a whole have trouble with the large numbers (in the big cities) of so many "foreigners". I agree with you that the Islam generally practiced and lived here in Holland seems not very liberal, tolerant or open to others, and this is what increasingly alarms/repells most of the liberal Dutch here as well as the more liberal Muslim groups.

What I see here in the cities of Holland are generally quite conservative Muslims keeping basically to themselves, with the unemployed youngsters causing problems in society, and the Dutch with their growing fears of/anger at any conservative encroachment on hard-fought and won policy/rights/freedoms of freedom of expression, gay rights, women's rights, etc.
This does pose problems for democracy here, for as they gain political influence, what changes will this bring?
For, as crazy as it sounds, even the rather conservative, center-right political parties here are far more progressive in social ideals than many a US Democrat IMO......so the secular Dutch are not used to (in modern history!) very conservative religious ideals!

DemEx

[patcox2]

7. Thank you, good post.

It tends to confirm the possibility, politically incorrect as it may be, that fundamentalist muslims have a self-created problem assimilating. Their fundamentalist beliefs are at core incompatible with free pluralistic societies, just as american home grown fundamentalist beliefs do.

[unschooler]

13. Do they try to wield influence politically? Vote? Run for office?

This does pose problems for democracy here, for as they gain political influence, what changes will this bring?

[happyslug]

6. First Europe and the US are heading for a service economy.

One of the problem with Welfare reform was who was on welfare. The people on Welfare tend to be the last hired and the first fired. They have the worse "working skills" (i.e. the ability to work with others, to work in a group, to perform tasks etc NOT education). One of the "working skills" in demand is the ability to work and perform in the dominate language of the country you are in (For example English in the US). This is being made worse by the switch to a service economy, you need less muscle to do work but more "Working Skills" including the ability to speak English is a manner people can understand.

While immigrants can work within their immigrant communities, they really can work outside of it at a PREFERRED Job. Their "accent" or lack of command of the dominate language (English in the US) means employers would prefer to hire someone who speaks natively the dominate language of the area. Customers prefer such native speakers. Thus what jobs do Immigrants do? This depends. In northern Mexico many Mexicans speak English as a Second language for it is the Language of BUSINESS along the Border. The Irish speak English with an Irish brogue but it is understandable to most Americans. Other immigrants who tend to pick up the Dominate language do better than immigrants that do not (and one of the reason Women do better than male immigrants is that it is generally easier for women to pick a new language then it is for men to pick up a new language).

Now what jobs do such Immigrants do? The same types of jobs welfare people get in the US, jobs that exist only when the economy is booming and employers are willing to take any worker just to keep up with their orders. The problem is when the economy goes down, these same workers are the less productive in the eyes of management and are the first fired. They lack of "Working Skills" is NOT a problem during a Labor Shortage, but because a huge problem when you have a labor surplus.

Thus why did the US permit in all of its Immigrants? For the same reason Europe left in most of their Immigrants, to suppress the demand of labor for higher wages. While a native Language Speaker is preferred over a Non-Native Speaker, if the native Speaker is willing to work for a lot less the native Speaker has to match that price or face unemployment.

Thus the mere fact someone can speak the dominate language enhances his or hers ability to demand higher wages but only so far. Depending on the type of work many employers will hire non-native speakers just to save a few dollars (But this can only go so far, the employer still has to have his employees interact with people who speak the dominate language, and thus has to pay extra to those few workers who can speak the Native Language and even more to the few who can speak both languages).

Thus the problem is NOT Culture so much as Language and the higher value people put on hearing someone who speaks like they do. This is affected by the desire of employers to keep wages down even if that mean hiring "inferior" workers. A third factor is most countries wanting a surplus population to be hired during booms to keep the booms up (and to disappear when the boom is gone).

One last factor is that most people get their jobs through Friends and Relatives (US Department of Labor Statistics says this is up to 92%, which is why employment agencies are booming in the US, they use their former clients to place new clients and thus the employment agencies are the new "Family and Friend" Connections for finding work)).

Thus the problem of the Muslims and other immigrants in Europe. They Family and Friends are all from the same neighborhood (and thus a limited source for finding a good job). Since they exist in Europe to keep wages low, they are the last hired and the first fired (Employers prefers Native Speakers over non-native speakers with all other factors are equal). Thus thee immigrants have a huge job insecurity situation (i.e. don't know how long they will take to find a job and how long it will last). Given they lack of job experience they have inferior "Working Skills" then natives who have worked all their lives. They see natives getting hired on jobs they applied for (hired do to superior command of the Native Language but the immigrant does not see that). Worse in most Immigrant societies their women get hired before their men (Do to women's easier time to learn the native language AND to lose their accent over men).

Thus the young men of the Ghettos (Both in the US and Europe) see themselves at a dead-end. They are frustrated and they do NOT know how to solve their problem.

So what is the solution? You have several, some nice some not so nice. For example if the migrant can NOT learn to speak the Native Language as good as a Native he should seriously think about going back home (Where ever that is). How much worse can it be back "home" compared to being held as surplus labor to be called on when needed and discarded when not? A worse solution would be to force such people out of the Country.

If the immigrant can learn to speak the dominate language like a native, he should try to use that ability to advance himself, but part of that means accepting the "norms" of his new country (whatever those "norms" are). If he can not he is doomed to continue to be a failure. A worse solution would be to force such migrants to become the same as the native giving up his native roots.

Either way the migrant STOPS being a "Surplus" worker and starts being a worker worth more money. He breaks out of the cycle of impoverishment that the Ghettos of the world have become.

The biggest problem is our Corporate elite WANT these migrants into every Country to force down or keep down wages. For example the GOP may rage against immigration, they have failed to do anything about it. Why? If you stop immigrantion, the lower birth rates that kick in for "Natives" o the West will slowly over time reduce the number of workers AND FORCE UP WAGES (Even immigrants have children at the same rate as "natives" after 2-3 generations). The only way to keep wages low is to let in more and more immigrants, thus immigration is wide open in almost all western Countries.

How long will this last? That is a good question. Sooner or later this constant attacks on immigrants will lead to serious efforts to stop immigration. Until that happens the new immigrants Ghettos of Europe and the US will continue to expand with more and more people having less and less hope. Sooner or later you will see these people break and join radical groups (like Al Queda) who at least offer them the HOPE of doing better for themselves. This is what is happening in Europe, most immigrants to Europe has been from Africa and the Mid-East and thus tend to be Muslim. As things go to hell in these immigrant ghettos you will see more and more radicals committed to installing Islam on Europe as the solution to their problems. As these radicals do more and more Europe will crack down on immigration and lead to the lost to Corporation of the Corporation's ability to use the immigrants to keep down wages. As the wages go up (even for the older immigrants in the Ghettos) the call of these Radicals will die down for a generation or two.

As to the US, I see the Mexican/Central American immigrants (Most recent immigrants into the US are NOT from Northern Mexico but Southern Mexico and the Central American Countries). I see the same problem occurring but given the US greater tendency to put its immigrants in rural areas or among native speakers, less of a problem than Europe (and given such groups tend to be Catholic NOT Muslim) less of a possibility of Violent revolt. I foresee Riots for such Latin immigrants will be undergoing the same economic dynamics that are hitting Europe's Muslim population, but Catholicism is less a Religion for Revolution then evolution and thus I foresee problem but not the radical problems Europe may see (and one reason I see Europe Cracking down on its immigrants years before the US, Europe becoming more afraid of their Immigrants do to Radical Islam while the US just ignores its Ghettos and watch them burn on TV for years before the US does something about Immigration).

[Yupster]

8. Just a few comments on your post happyslug

First you asked how long the problems in Europe will continue. "How long will this last," was your question.

I would answer "demographics is destiny". Even if immigration in countries like France were stopped cold today, the problem is still going to get worse until a solution is worked out because the traditional "French" birthrate is so small and the Muslim birthrate is so high. That's not going to change anytime soon.

I'd also like to make a comment about the Mexican minority in the USA.

I live in Texas so I see this up close.

I coach Little League and the number of Mexican-American kids who come out for Little League is wonderful. Some have been here for generations and speak english well. Others are new and barely speak at all. But they come out and play. And their dads are right there with them. The leadership of the league is also heavily Mexican-American. They are coaches and league officials. If a dad is at practice and doesn't speak hardly any english at all, all it takes is a request and he's on the field leading an infield drill or hitting pop flies. It is a wonderful thing to see and says much for America.

I'm also involved in cub scouts, and I see the exact same thing there. The Mexican-American kids are right there with the Anglo kids and their dads are troop leaders and everything else. Any kid in Texas involved in a father-son activity will completely expect his mates to be hispanics and the group leaders to be too. It's very nice to see.

It's the same in the adult basketball church league.

And it's the same among the small businesses all over the state.

To the people of the north who have yet to see Mexican immigration reach them in large numbers, a warning from Texas. On the whole you are about to meet some of the nicest people you have ever met. The Mexican-American immigrants are on the whole hard-working family people who accept American culture and want to become part of it as quickly as they can. You may have to ask twice, but you are soon going to have a whole lot of new Little League coaches,PTA officers, room mothers, and every other kind of volunteer that keeps our communities working together.

[happyslug]

9. I Spent two years in the mid 1980s in South Texas.

I had to transfer my National Guard membership to Texas at the same time. My Unit was overwhelming Mexican-Americans. Great people to work with they only "real" problem was switching from Spanish to English depending on who they were talking to (and leaving us non-Spanish speakers out).

As I said immigrants are not a real problem. It is NOT the people that are the problem, it is the use of such immigrants to keep labor costs down (and thus wages down). Europe is more tied in with local groups and nationality than is the US, thus more instances where people will prefer one of their "owe" to an outsider unless that outsider is bringing something into the mix (For example language skills in a luggage of a Country they are shipping to). This is the heart of the European problem (and looks like they are going to solve it by importing immigrants from Eastern Europe while they slowly cut off immigrants from muslim countries).

As to the prospect of being "Overrun" by descendent's of immigrants, this is more hogwash. First after a generation or two immigrants tend to have the same number of Children as the dominant nationality of the country they are in. To get the number cited by the writers this phenomenon has to stop AND IT WILL NOT. Thus in 1900 the English-German majority in the US were "scared" by the immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe. By 1972 the country was still over 50% English or German decent (With another 15% Irish, 10% other whites, 7-8% "Hispanic" about 10% Afro-American and about 3% Oriental). WHY no lost of English-German Majority? The immigrants within a generation or two stop having so many children and had the 2-3 English-German Families had. Furthermore most immigrants did NOT stay, they went home after making some money (Just like today's immigrants often go back home after making some money).

As I said the problem is NOT the immigrants themselves, they often will work themselves into our society (or Europe's society). The problem is that such immigration brings down the price of labor AND THAT WILL CAUSE PROBLEMS.

[unschooler]

14. We also have a growing number of very nice south-of-the-border immigrants

here in Oregon. As soon as they have an extra dollar in their pocket, their kids are playing in the local soccer league. :)

I still see a lot of unfounded bigotry toward from dumb white bubbas (and bubbettas), though.

[unschooler]

10. And if this is the problem, is it primarily about religion or is there

something else about Muslim culture that encourages these non-assimilating "enclaves"? And, if Muslims immigrants won't assimilate, what is the solution?

One thing I'd say is that Euro/American law has to be the same and enforced regardless of the background of the immigrants. The article gives the example of non-intervention when European Muslims treat their daughters in ways that are contrary to European law. ANYONE who chooses to immigrate to Europe must understand that girls in Europe have rights that girls do not have everywhere, and that their tribal or family traditions will not be respected when they conflict with the core principals and rights of western society. If you want the right to have a clitorectomy performed on your underage daughter, you should stay in a country that gives you that power. Europe should not "tolerate" that kind of primitive nonsense.

I still have to say, are all immigrants treated this way, or are muslims singled out? Do muslims fail to prosper because they are not allowed to assimilate, or because they resist assimilation?

[Orangeone]

12. about your observations

People used to say that about the Jews too, that they didn't want to assimilate. People live in groups together because sometimes they feel safer. Plus I'm sure that the Muslims that have been in Europe for a couple of generations are not distinguishable from other people.

[patcox2]

15. Jews are not intolerant.

Thats why I said "the one thing I cannot stand is intolerance." Fundamentalist muslims have strongly held beliefs that are antithetical to the bedrock principles of a modern democratic pluralistic society.

Its not racism, as I said, fundamentalist christians present the same problems. Its not what they believe, its that they insist all must believe as they do. Any religion which encourages an active and open disdain for people of other faiths is going to have problems in modern society.

[DemExpat]

4. An excellent read

and basically a clear view of the situation IMO.

DemEx