This is another case of false equivalency. Saudi Arabia does not allow bibles to be imported, women can’t drive, and adult women need permission of male family members to travel. In many Islamic countries it is punishable by death to convert to another religion. In Iran women are beaten with sticks if the religious police don’t think they are dressed modestly enough.
This isn’t “black people do it like this and white people do it like that”, it’s a clash of cultures between countries that are hundreds of years apart in social progress.
In the 70s college students protested against South African apartheid but for some reason we give these fucked up counties that discriminate against half their citizens a break because it’s just part of their culture. Having whites only bathrooms was part of white culture in the American south, but it didn’t excuse them.
Hell, if I were Sweden I don’t think I’d allow American’s from Alabama in without some assurance that they aren’t going to import creationist, racist, anti-gay, and other attitudes that have no place in modern society.
Clearly, there are lots of Muslim immigrants in Sweden who assimilate just fine, and lots of others who don’t. I don’t think we can evaluate how many fall into which category based on rioting by some hundreds of the most non-assimilated.
The question is will Sweden continue to import thousands of low skilled people with few prospects of employment, sometimes from radically different cultures? If so, it seems likely there will be more segregation, poverty, alienation & similar problems to those seen in France.
I predict they will continue to do so for strong ideological reasons, even if economically and socially it costs them.
You made the original assertion that Islamic culture was just as much part of the west as any other Abrahamic religion. So, no, you explain it. But first, please explain what you mean by Islamic culture.
? Really? We know that there are about half a million Muslims in Sweden, some hundreds of whom are rioting, and you figure we can effectively evaluate how many Swedish Muslims are assimilated and how many are not?
Well, if you think so, by all means have at it. I will be interested to see your methodology, your data sources, and your results.
The riots occur in areas where there are a concentration of Muslims. The rioters represent a sample of a shared mindset. Not all of that mindset will riot but the viewpoint exists and is at odds with Swedish culture.
Conclusion, there is a problem with immigrants assimilating into Swedish culture. If this is consistent with other immigrants then the problem is with the Swedes. If not, the problem is with the immigrants rioting.
Yes, the problem is with the Swedes. The ones who decided there was something wrong with Sweden and that it required large numbers of people who lack skills and are culturally very different. Historians in future years will no doubt ponder what madness gripped them.
Not yet. It generally takes a few decades for new groups to assimilate. Note that the Irish, the Italians, the Chinese, and several other large groups were involved in rioting, at one time or another, when they landed in cities in large groups in the U.S. while other groups were associated with high levels of crime during the period of the highest immigration rates.
Such rioting and criminal activity is most often seen among the young and unemployed. Even they tend to absorb and share the basic attitudes of the country in which they live, but their frustration at being unable to make their own way evokes antisocial behavior. (This is the same cross-cultural demographic that engages in rioting after major sporting events, whether it be baseball, football, or futbol, but those riots get blamed on “sports” and not “immigration.”)
There are problems on both sides. There are things that may be done on either side that will exacerbate or ameliorate the situation. I would guess that as long as neither side hardens their position into one that claims the other side’s culture is evil (stupid/lazy/stand-offish/closed/whatever), the situation will run its course and there will eventually be a peaceful blending. Until then, the typical problems of mass immigration will occur.
We may be getting our wires crossed, Ibn Warraq. I’m not really sure what you mean by Islam being “part of the west.” Nor have you defined what you mean by Islamic culture. I took Islamic culture to mean the cultures in places like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Syria, Egypt, Libya, etc., etc. which are not considered to be part of the western world.
Are there Islamic people in the western world? Sure. Does that make Islam a western religion? No more than Shinto, Buddhism or Hinduism. But if you’re asking me if Muslims can be western? Well, yeah.
I’m reminded of the great Jewish immigration to the U.S. over the last century or so. Jews in America today cover a vast range of religousness, from the totally secular to the ultra-orthodox Hassids, with every level in betweeen. And I think they’ve contributed tremendously to the country.
And they accept the country’s liberal values. I bet if 1 million Texans wanted to move to Sweden, Sweden would seriously think about that one before saying “yes”.
Sweden is certainly a progressive country, but a lot of people from the outside tend to really overemphasize such qualities and overlook others.
For example, it’s a country where journalists can and are thrown in jail for “libel” and which practiced eugenics up until the 1980s.
I suspect quite a few Swedes, like the late Stieg Larsson, would be fairly shocked by the way many Americans talk about their native country.
I’m reminded of being in Costa Rica and listening to people talk about America who’s views were clearly influenced by many viewings of Dallas and The Bold and the Beautiful.
I still don’t know what you mean by Islamic culture nor am I sure what you mean by Islam being part of the west. Muslims living in Saudi Arabia, Libya, Syria and Egypt don’t think of themselves as being part of the western world.
IMHO, mainstream Christianity and Judaism count as mostly “western” nowadays in that their current identities have been largely shaped as part of the culture of Western Europe during the very distinctive (though not uniform or unique) development that we call “modernity”.
That’s what is generally meant by “western” culturally speaking, AFAICT: some identification with aspects of classical cultures, adherence to early modern and modern science and technology, and a bunch of neoclassical ideas in political/philosophical/religious thought emerging in the 18th century.
By these criteria, there are versions of Christianity and Judaism that are not particularly “western” at all, such as the Beta Israel or ancient Ethiopian Judaism and some Eastern Christian traditions. Moreover, there are or have been some cultural forms of Islam that are arguably more “western” than not, such as 19th-century Ottomanism.
Ibn Warraq is right that there’s nothing inherently “western” in a political, historical or philosophical sense about the roots of Judaism or Christianity, any more than those of Islam. Had Christianity not essentially taken over the Western Roman Empire and carried much of Judaism along with it, the three Abrahamic religions would probably look a lot more culturally similar than they do now.
As things are, though, Judaism and Christianity are largely lumped in as part of “western culture”, while Islam is not.
except that we have fundamental Jews and Christians that are willing to exist within “Western Culture” and thrive independent of it. There is no acclimation of fundamental Muslims into Western society and this is the elephant in the room.