Is a Western Civilization-Islam confrontation inevitable?

[Kimstu]

@Sam Stone

I’m specifically talking about countries that are not the US, where accomodations are made such as allowing Sharia law in some form, providing government services in the immigrant’s language, changing laws to accomodate other cultures […]

Yes, and my point is that you’re wrong in assuming that the US did not make many similar accomodations for immigrants in earlier eras. Take the case of
bilingual education in American public schools:

Bilingual education, though sometimes controversial, was found nationwide. […]

In 1866, succumbing to pressure from politically powerful German immigrants, the Chicago Board of Education decided to establish a German-language school in each area of the city where 150 parents asked for it. By 1892 the board had hired 242 German-language teachers to teach 35,000 German-speaking children, one-fourth of Chicago’s total public school enrollment. In 1870, a public school established in Denver, Colorado, was taught entirely in German. An 1872 Oregon law permitted German-language public schools to be established in Portland whenever 100 voters petitioned for such a school. Maryland, Iowa, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, and Minnesota also had bilingual education laws, either statewide or applying only to cities with large immigrant populations. In Nebraska, enabling legislation for bilingual education was enacted for the benefit of German immigrant children as late as 1913.

Or take the widespread “Bible Law”—the standard practice of daily readings from Protestant Bible versions in American public schools—which was discontinued in many cases due to protests from Catholic immigrants, and provoked tremendous amounts of controversy and even violence:

Alderman Hugh Clark introduced before the [Philadelphia] city legislature a resolution to ban Bible reading in the public schools. Again, the nativists united to defend the old state law.

Their victory so angered Clark that he walked into Kensington School one morning during devotional, grabbed the Protestant Bible from the teacher’s hands and proceeded to tear it page from page.

Hoooooo-EEE! How’s that for attempts at multicultural “accomodation”? Started the 1844 Bible Riots, that did.

Heck, English-language competency wasn’t even a requirement for US citizenship until 1906.

No, dude, you’re kidding yourself if you imagine that the current controversies over “making accomodations” and “changing laws to accomodate other cultures” are somehow new or exclusive to non-US societies.

@Sam Stone

Which is why it’s so sad that so many of them [liberals] reflexively make common cause with the very people who are totally antithetical to everything they believe in. Look at the love-fest George Galloway gets from some members of the left. The man’s a thug who supports the other side. Or the roses thrown at Hugo Chavez, despite the fact that he’s allied himself with freaking theocratic Iran against the best interests of the United States, Canada, and other western countries.

More strawmen and unsupported vague assertions. “So many of them”? How many? Where? Who?

And if you’re claiming that any liberal who praises Chavez’ share-the-wealth policies* is thereby supporting Iranian theocracy, you’re really pissing into the wind. By that logic, you have to conclude that Bush supporters are also aligning themselves with Islamic theocracy because the Administration regards “freaking theocratic” Saudi Arabia as a close ally.

@Sam Stone

The ‘it’s all our fault’ crowd is loud and well established. There are lots of people in our society who, when attacked, immediately and reflexively look at what we might have done to warrant the attack. And there are lots of people who, when confronted with a barbaric attack by the other side, reflexively seek a moral equivalence by bringing up things we might have done in the past that were even remotely similar. There are also plenty of moral relativists who are completely unwilling to say that our culture is better than any other. […]

Just more generalized zeitgeist-moaning that doesn’t provide any actual evidence that “liberalism” is really a significant contributing factor to problems with violent Islamic extremism. Okay as a rant, inadequate in a debate.

@Sam Stone

In fact, Rachel Corrie herself is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. She was supposedly a modern liberal activist, yet she was the champion of people who supported Hitler, the Soviet Union, Saddam, and who were ruled by a series of thugs.

Like I said above, that line of reasoning is a two-edged sword; plenty of conservatives have also made common cause with groups that were involved in various ways with thuggery and despotism. How about the conservatives that supported Saddam against Iran, or the ones who supported the fundamentalist Afghan mujahideen that gave rise to the Taliban?

There’s enough tar on your broad brush for people of all ideological stripes.

*A category of liberals that would not include me, btw. I like antipoverty measures and economic democracy as much as the next lib, but I do not trust Chavez.

[Themenin]

@Tomndebb

all of them have absorbed immigrants–with attendant changes to local culture–within living memory. The last Vandals shuffled out of France around 1500 years ago…
…Europe is going through something for which they have no memory or tradition. (I find it ironic to watch much of the upheaval in Europe, today, after reading any number of contemptuous observations from Europeans during the civil rights movement and racial conflicts of the 1960s.)

Although a country like France’s national identity isn’t tied up with immigration in the same way that the US’s is, I’m not sure I agree with this.
France has had a first generation immigrant population of 5 to 10% for more than a 100 years. The main recognized waves were Belgian (XIX century), Italians (early XX) followed by Portuguese, and most recently Algerian and Morrocan. As regards the difficulties, there have always been conflicts during large waves of immigration, but the early 1960s may have been the most violent period, France and Algeria at war, extensive rioting, terrorist bombings (by both sides, in both countries, FLN and OAS), assasinations etc.

@Sam Stone

Frankly, I believe multiculturalism has been a big part of the problem. The U.S. has been spared much of the trouble Europe has because the U.S. has traditionally been a melting pot - If you emigrated to the U.S., you were expected to become an American first. That meant learning English, it meant your first loyalty was to the American constitution and its principles. You could still retain your ethnicity - the Italians, Chinese, Germans, and other ethnic groups still have a strong ethnic presence in areas of the U.S. But first and foremost, you were American, and accepted all that America stood for.

I don’t know that the US has had more success integrating immigrant populations than other countries. I’ve found that ‘ghetto-ization’ is more extensive in the US than in western Europe. In fact France is probably more strict than the US about assimilation (remember the ban on headscarves in state schools). Currently the only truly non-assimilated immigrant group in France is the Chinese, who are the most recent arrivals. Until recently Switzerland was the country I would have cited for successfully absorbing massive immigration (on their own scale), but recent events seem to show that the Swiss would disagree.
Getting back to the ‘clash of civilizations’ - Although there’s clearly a cultural conflict between Islam and liberal western societies, I haven’t seen any strong proof that Islamist terrorism has established a serious foothold amongst European Muslims, and I have seen no indication that any of the Middle Eastern nations want to see large scale conflict with the US or Europe. Even in the worst-case scenario where the US extends the ground war to Iraq’s neighbors in the Middle East, I see no reason to believe that Pakistan, Indonesia, or Europe’s Muslim populations would rise up and join in the fray.

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

[QUOTE=ralph124c]
The issue seems more to be: will muslim immigrants to the West assimilate?
I would say, in most cases yes. What we are seeing in muslim lands is the death throes of traditional Islam. As modern comminications become widspread, the reactionary component of islam is trying to assert itself. The reactionary side of islam thrives in areas with low literacy, limited eductaion, suppression of women, etc. Simply put: does anybody REALLY want to life life in the 13th century? I think not.
[/QUOTE]

I hope you’re right.

Did you read where the editorial talked about imposing new modesty restrictions on women’s bathing suits, and setting up female-only bathing periods, during this summer’s Paris beach party? I tend to draw the line here, and truly believe that if you want to emigrate to another country, you should adapt yourself to the host country rather than having the host country change to suit you.

It seems to me it’s an act of appeasement, as was the Berlin opera cancellation.

[tomndebb]

France has had a first generation immigrant population of 5 to 10% for more than a 100 years. The main recognized waves were Belgian (XIX century), Italians (early XX) followed by Portuguese, and most recently Algerian and Morrocan.

Well, the Belgian immigrants were French, being mostly the population of Wallony that had been carved away from France and given to the Netherlands, (then breaking free to create the artifical nation of Belgium), following the unpleasantness with Napoleon. Then the Italians and Portuguese were very much part of the same basic culture–Catholic traditions, Romance languages, etc. And when we do find immigrants coming from North Africa, they initially came from areas in which France had a serious colonial presence (and many of the initial immigrants were originally “returning” French colonists’ grandchildren). It is only when the later immigration waves began to include more people who had much less cultural connection that serious problems began.
Now, it is also true that France has had a pretty long tradition of being nearly the most cosmopolitan of nations and that it did absorb more immigrants (generally from its colonies) than much of Europe, (although the Dutch and British can make good claims to those attitudes, as well). However, most French immigration appeaers to have been limited to Paris and a few coastal cities. I do not recall stories of xenophobic outbreaks in Aquitaine, Brittany, or the Loire (particularly prior to the early 1970s).

[tagos]

[QUOTE=Kimstu]
The latter, IMO.
[/QUOTE]

The trouble is that these are ‘isolated incidents’ not because only a few people have those opinions. It is because everyone else won’t take the risk. It is the chilling effect of the threat of Islamic fundie violence on free speech.

After Rushide and after Van Gogh it takes a brave artist to write a book or make a film that is anything other than craven towards Islam. As this story proves.

[Themenin]

Responding to Tomndebb Obviously it’s a big part of the ongoing political debate over here - the extreme right tend to define past immigration out of existence by citing cultural similarities (such as the Italian immigrants shared religion, or the Wallon’s possibly shared language) in order to bolster their position that the current immigration wave is unprecedented and threatening.

Fact is that the previous waves also led to social upheaval and conflicts - the Wallon’s arrival in the mining areas was met with rioting and ghetto-ization, similarly with the Italian arrival in the industrial regions. The cultural similarities argument is something of an anachronism - in 1900, an Italian peasant probably had less in common with his new French neighbors than a present day Chinese immigrant to the US has to his new neighbors - distances and cultural differences were considerably more marked a hundred years ago.

I’m not sure what your point is regarding the geographical distribution of immigration, but it is fairly even, though primarily urban (as in the US) - I think you’re overlooking Lyon and Marseille (and historically the northern mining regions around Lille, and industrial centers like Clermont-Ferrandand St Etienne).

I think some of the confusion regarding Eoro-immigration vs US immigration is due to the role that immigration plays in the US ‘identity-myth’, and the huge absolute numbers of immigrants that the US welcomed around the turn of the last century (can we still use that expression ?). In terms of numbers, Germany, France and UK all have a larger percentage of foreign born in their populations than the US (Canada is probably at the front of the pack).

For over a hundred years (and probably back to pre-historic times…) there has always been a segment of the native population who fear immigrants, and believe that they are monolithic and are going to somehow swamp the culture - so far this hasn’t happened. While it’s true that the most recent wave of immigrants are overwhelmingly Muslim, this may be changing now, as immigration from China and from Eastern Europe (Poland in particular) is growing exponentially. Immigrants are not monolithic,and for the most part conflicts between immigrants and natives have nothing to do with religion.

@Tagos

It is because everyone else won’t take the risk.

While this may be true of the mainstream press (although I should point out that Figaro did publish this piece, even though they chickened afterwards) there are any number of smaller publications, artists etc who are prepared to stand up against the intimidation attempts. The French weekly Charlie Hebdo boosted their circulation from an average of ~100,000 to a record ~400,000 for the issue where they published the infamous ‘caricatures’. There’s an upcoming court battle about this early next year.

[tagos]

[QUOTE=Themenin]
While this may be true of the mainstream press (although I should point out that Figaro did publish this piece, even though they chickened afterwards) there are any number of smaller publications, artists etc who are prepared to stand up against the intimidation attempts. The French weekly Charlie Hebdo boosted their circulation from an average of ~100,000 to a record ~400,000 for the issue where they published the infamous ‘caricatures’. There’s an upcoming court battle about this early next year.
[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the info. Kudos to them for their courage. Of course the act of publishing cartoons or creating works of art should not be one of courage in the first place.

[Bridget_Burke]

[QUOTE=Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor]
Bridget Burke–you obviously didn’t read the linked article.

The teacher being threaten by Radical Islamics is living in France. And France isn’t invading anybody.

The radicals’ actions are utterly unjustified. Murder in response to criticism?
[/QUOTE]

Sorry for this late response. Yes, I read the article. The high school philosophy teacher got the reaction he wanted. He wasn’t just criticizing “Radical Islamics”–he’s totally against the religion. {“Islamics”?)

But Redeker expanded his critique from these examples to a broadside against Islam as a religion. He acknowledged that violence was commonly committed in the name of Christianity, but claimed that “it is always possible to turn back to evangelical values, to the mild personage of Jesus, from the excesses of the Church.” Muhammad, he claimed, offered no such recourse: “Jesus is a master of love, Muhammad is a master of hate.”

I hear that Michelle Malkin is also outraged.

Not that I agree with the reaction to his screed–but it’s short-sighted to claim that Islam & Christianity might have a confrontation. Read a history book. Or two.

[Rune]

[QUOTE=Bridget Burke]
The high school philosophy teacher got the reaction he wanted.
[/QUOTE]
So you think he wanted the death threats against himself, his wife and children and to be hounded from his job and home? And even, should we believe for a second that that is exactly what he wanted, why should we ever agree to oblige him? Even when someone is clearly taunting extremists for a response, we should never accept or make weak apologies for the extremists response.

[QUOTE=Bridget Burke]
He wasn’t just criticizing “Radical Islamics”–he’s totally against the religion.
[/quote]
Perhaps. And what of it? Is that bad or good and why should we even care. Nothing wrong with being against a religion or religion in general.

[QUOTE=Bridget Burke]
Read a history book. Or two.
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes:

[Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor]

[QUOTE=Bridget Burke]
Sorry for this late response. Yes, I read the article. The high school philosophy teacher got the reaction he wanted. He wasn’t just criticizing “Radical Islamics”–he’s totally against the religion. {“Islamics”?)

I hear that Michelle Malkin is also outraged.

Not that I agree with the reaction to his screed–but it’s short-sighted to claim that Islam & Christianity might have a confrontation. Read a history book. Or two.
[/QUOTE]

But what the heck does this response have to do with your first post?

How does “invading countries” fit in? The French are invading anything! They are merely appeasers to extremists, as usual.

[Bridget_Burke]

[QUOTE=Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor]
But what the heck does this response have to do with your first post?

How does “invading countries” fit in? The French are invading anything! They are merely appeasers to extremists, as usual.
[/QUOTE]

Don’t most of France’s Muslms have roots in Algeria or Morroco? France ruled Algeria once & had great “influence” over parts of Morocco. Imperialsim sucks–even for the descendants of the imperialists. It’s justn NOT FAIR!

Again–invasions have been going on a long time. In both directions, of course.

Having Freedom Fries with your burger today?

[Themenin]

[QUOTE=Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor]
But what the heck does this response have to do with your first post?

How does “invading countries” fit in? The French are invading anything! They are merely appeasers to extremists, as usual.
[/QUOTE]
I agree with your basic point that we should defend this school teacher’s (and anybody else’s) right to his opinion, and freedom from death threats. The people making these threats are criminals, end of story.

However - how do you get to the French being “appeasers to extremists” ? You are aware that France backed the Algerian military against the Islamic Salvation Front in Algeria, and was subjected to a bombing campaign in the mid 1990s as a result - do you think the French government backed down ? Do you think the French government “appeased” the GIA terrorists ? You are aware that Algeria, in avoiding an Islamist takeover was plunged into a civil war which claimed over 100,000 lives ? It could be claimed that the Algerian government has gone over to the “appeasers” side now, as they have since adopted a policy of reconciliation, and have extended an amnesty for civil war killings. They may, of course have simply made the best choice for national unity and peace…

At the time I wasn’t sure I agreed with the initial choice of the French government to support the Algerian military dictatorship, as the FIS had won the popular election, but it’s safe to say that France has made a major contribution to stemming the rise of Islamist terrorism, at great cost to French citizens. Paris was eerily deserted for a short time in the mid 90s, you could go to a movie theater or a restaurant and be practically alone - I guess people got tired of looking under their seats for suspicious packages. Although we suddenly had soldiers with machine-guns patrolling the city (I found this more un-nerving than the bomb threat) and a ban on garbage cans, we got through the whole thing with no suspension of civil liberties. Although security was substantially increased, there was no change in legal procedures, and the handful of police officers who stepped out of bounds in interrogation techniques were prosecuted for it. The terrorists were pursued and prosecuted as criminals.

You might also want to take a look at the hi-jacking of Flight 8969 which GIA terrorists had planned to crash on Paris, but was ultimately taken back by the GIGN with minimum loss of life - all of the hi-jackers were killed, and no passengers or Gendarmes died in the assault, although the hi-jackers had previously killed some of the passengers in order to be cleared for take-off. (Oliver Stone should make a movie about this)

What France is trying to do, is negotiate the complicated terrain of cracking down hard on terrorists, while maintaining civil liberties and freedom of worship, and not falling into the trap of racism and right-wing extremism -

In many ways (though we don’t always admit it) I believe the rest of the ‘free-world’ counts on the US to be an anchor in keeping our values alive, and to see many of you behaving in such a fearful and ignorant manner is making a lot of people pretty nervous.

[Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor]

[QUOTE=Bridget Burke]
Don’t most of France’s Muslms have roots in Algeria or Morroco? France ruled Algeria once & had great “influence” over parts of Morocco. Imperialsim sucks–even for the descendants of the imperialists. It’s justn NOT FAIR!

Again–invasions have been going on a long time. In both directions, of course.

Having Freedom Fries with your burger today?
[/QUOTE]

Well then, as an Oppressed American I am well within my right to throw bricks at passing Englishment, because more than 200 years ago, we were a colony of the British Empire.

And the British have a right to throw bricks at passing Swedes, because 1000+ years ago, the Vikings invaded England.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Grow up.

[LonesomePolecat]

[QUOTE=Themenin]
In many ways (though we don’t always admit it) I believe the rest of the ‘free-world’ counts on the US to be an anchor in keeping our values alive, and to see many of you behaving in such a fearful and ignorant manner is making a lot of people pretty nervous.
[/QUOTE]

Well, maybe if they took up more of the burden of keeping our values alive,we wouldn’t be so stressed out. As for our “fearful and ignorant” manner, they should remember that many of us consider their manner cowardly and two-faced.

[Bridget_Burke]

[QUOTE=Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor]
Well then, as an Oppressed American I am well within my right to throw bricks at passing Englishment, because more than 200 years ago, we were a colony of the British Empire.

And the British have a right to throw bricks at passing Swedes, because 1000+ years ago, the Vikings invaded England.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Grow up.
[/QUOTE]

France was kicked out of Algeria in 1962–hardly ancient history. More recent than the events that inspired your “appeasement” canard. (You got that from Michelle Malkin, too, didn’t you?) I’m not saying anybody has a right to hold grudges–but they do. (Unless they’re Amish.)

I’m mostly appalled by this “oh, look, there’s Ay-rabs!” hysteria. The “confrontation” has been going on a long time.

But thanks for your admonition to “grow up.” Makes me feel young.

[Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor]

[QUOTE=Bridget Burke]
France was kicked out of Algeria in 1962–hardly ancient history. More recent than the events that inspired your “appeasement” canard. (You got that from Michelle Malkin, too, didn’t you?) I’m not saying anybody has a right to hold grudges–but they do. (Unless they’re Amish.)

I’m mostly appalled by this “oh, look, there’s Ay-rabs!” hysteria. The “confrontation” has been going on a long time.

But thanks for your admonition to “grow up.” Makes me feel young.
[/QUOTE]

[ol]
[li]I am not familiar with Ms. Malkin.[/li][li]France was kicked out of Algerian before I was born.[/li][li]Your use of the term “ay-rab” seems to be implying something. Care to expand on that?[/li][li]If they, the “ay-rabs”, do not have the right to hold grudges–but they do, then their grudges are wrong. And if this is a culturally-encouraged response, rather than a few louts with grudges, then we can expect more violence on a regular basis. Hence the “confrontation” concept.[/li][li]The admonition “grow up” was indeed misplaced. Perhaps “get a clue” might be closer to the mark.[/li][/ol]

[rjung]

[QUOTE=Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor]
I am not familiar with Ms. Malkin.
[/quote]

She’s the Ann Coulter wanna-be who doesn’t look like a transvestite.

[Bridget_Burke]

[QUOTE=Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor]

France was kicked out of Algerian before I was born.

Your use of the term “ay-rab” seems to be implying something. Care to expand on that?

[/QUOTE]

“Ay-rab” is the pronunciation often used by the more ignorant of my fellow Texans. Not that there aren’t ignorant folks all over.

The French high school teacher was a fool. Those who responded with threats are worse fools. Please expand on this story–although little hard news is available.

Perhaps you ought to read up on things that happened before you were born. We’ve been “confronting” Islam for a long time. This is not Late Breaking News.

[tomndebb]

TWEEEET!

Everyone back off. Neither the personal attacks (or innuendo) against other posters nor the stupid broad brush claims against peoples based on culture or nationality are carrying forward this discussion.

If you folks can’t bring this around to a debate instead of a volley of bumper sticker claims, I’m shutting it down.

[ /Moderator ]

[chowder]

[QUOTE=Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor]
Well then, as an Oppressed American I am well within my right to throw bricks at passing Englishment, because more than 200 years ago, we were a colony of the British Empire.

And the British have a right to throw bricks at passing Swedes, because 1000+ years ago, the Vikings invaded England.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Grow up.
[/QUOTE]

…and the Danes, don’t forget the Danes oh and some Norwegians.

Right I’m off to throw bricks at some French 'cos they invaded us in 1066