Recently, Paul commented on, and criticized, something I said in our August 4 post, “We are at War!”
I said that Europe was being “overrun by Muslim immigrants.” I sounded like Geert Wilders, the outspoken, controversial and popular nativist Dutch politician known for his hostility to immigrants, especially Muslim immigrants. Okay, I’ll backtrack. Let’s forget “Muslim.”
I only singled out this one religion, I suppose irrelevantly, because it is numerically by far the largest group of immigrants to Europe.
Let’s just ask (1) whether Europe is being overrun, period, (2) if so, by whom, and (3) whether this is good or bad.
My answer to my own questions is this:
1) Maybe “overrun” is an exaggeration. But there is no doubt that many millions of immigrants have been moving to Europe for decades.
2) They come largely from Third World countries, obviously in search of a better life - North Africans, Turks, Pakistanis, Afghans, Senegalese, Congolese, Serbs, Bosnians, Somalians, Surinamese, and many others.
3) Obviously moving is good for the immigrants. It is also good for Europe in some ways. It helps the labor market. It helps demographically, as the birthrate of many European countries is below replacement level.
In a cosmic/planetary sense, the mass migration of poor Third World populations to the affluent West is “moral,” and “just.” Why should Europeans be rich and Africans starve?
But surely it is inconvenient for Europeans, no? The quality of life in Europe declines as a result. There is more crime. There is more inter-cultural conflict. There is economic cost. There are vast new slums (Bijlmermeer in Amsterdam, L’Ile St-Denis in Paris, etc.). Algerians periodically burn several thousand cars in Paris.
There is a difference between the current mass migration to Europe and the largely Latin mass migration to the United States: The people who cross the Rio Grande come entirely for jobs and for a better life, with very little political or revolutionary baggage. But some/many of the “allochtones” (the Dutch word for such largely ethnic immigrants) in Europe have, in addition, a cultural and political agenda that aims to “change” (= subvert) the European status quo. Their economic grievances may be justified, but the difference of which I speak is very real.
We could look back at Ancient Rome, and say that they, too, admitted “allochtones” to their midst.
Applying this word to ancient Rome instead of speaking of “Visigoths,” and “Lombards” is funny, and it puts things in an interesting context.
Back then, the arrival of those populations into the Roman Empire can also be seen as “just.” After all, they only wanted to share in the wealth and the amenities of Roman life. But it didn’t work out very well, did it?
Did I say that Third World immigrants to Europe are barbarians? No
But does Europe have a problem? Yes
Am I speaking in cliches and generalities? Yes
Is what I wrote probably true? Yes leave comment here
10 comments:
About Muslims (in general, not just in Europe): the problem is, in my view, not that they immigrate to other parts of the world, but that their culture inherently requires them to ‘islamize’ their environment. If the majority of immigrants would be buddhists, I don’t think we would speak of a ‘buddhisimation of Europe’. Islamisation means replacing the current culture with Islam (when I use the word ‘culture’ I really mean religion, but in the muslim culture there is no difference, unfortunately).
Yes, it is just that the poor should partake in the wealth of the rich. It would be better if they could assimilate, because, between you an me, there are cultures that are superior to others (very politically incorrect), i.e.: ‘secularism’ (good), Islam (bad).
Amen!
I will definitely back to comment on this post soon.
[3rd turn, my 2nd]
I think you still overstate 'the problem', I think.
And you generalize.
The Bijlmermeer is not like the Paris Banlieu's. The Dutch approach is (still) different from the French. Like the various US states. I'll send you an article by Han Entzinger, a sociologist specializing in immigration and related subjects, to the effect that 'the problem' is in reality, quantitatively, rather insignificant.
Futhermore, returning to the Islam aspect, in the Netherlands to the extent that there are serious problems with 'immigrants', these are mostly second generation younsters of Maroccan descent, probably with little relation to Islam as a religion. With the Turkish community, on the other hand, there are hardly any problems that can be related to their culture, religion, etc.
The real issue is that problems with immigrants are being 'used' by right-wing politicians, and the discussion about them 'covers' the economic-political issues of severe budget cuts (as was suggested by another sociologist, Willem Schinkel, recently.
More Afterthoughts about Immigration into Europe:
Paul Ten Have has sent me a couple of informative articles regarding immigration in the Netherlands, and Geert Wilders. Here is the gist of it:
1. According to data by Rotterdam sociologist Han Entzinger, the notion that Holland is being deluged by poor Third World immigrants is a myth. In recent years, their number has declined sharply, and it is immigrants from other EU countries (e.g. Poland) whose numbers have increased
substantially (although this has not resulted in an enormous burden on social services).
2. According to Willem Schinkel, also a Rotterdam sociologist, the Geert Wilders phenomenon must be seen for what it is: a distraction, a lightning rod handily used by the neo-liberal parties, while they dismantle the welfare state, deregulate big business and cut back the social safety net by billions of Euros.
I want to thank Paul for these articles. I suppose journalism or a blog don’t nuance things very well. You are right, that there are major differences between the European countries, regarding the immigrant situation. As you state, in Holland we hear about some unruly young (Dutch-born) Moroccans. France seems to have both disorderly conduct AND cultural assimilation issues.
I don’t know to what extent such events are sensationalized by the media. I suppose Europe’s “immigrant problems” may be comparable to those experienced by the US throughout our history, e.g. when Irish and German immigrants were being absorbed during the 19th century, Italians in the early 20th century, etc. The absorption of immigrants by host countries is not a new story. That it goes along with some friction, hopefully temporary, is hardly news.
I am not clear as to why Prof. Schinkel still thinks that it was a good idea to try Geert Wilders in criminal court, making him into a martyr and increasing his popularity. In some ways, the Wilders phenomenon in Holland reminds me of our own Tea Party. Angry backlash among white folks, lots of pseudo-issues, while the economic plunder by the plutocracy continues.
Returning to our main topic - immigration: I already said it - with immigration, some friction is inescapable. The question is how much, how is it handled, etc.
Also, with one of the world’s densest populations (nearly 1100 people per square mile, i.e. 13 times greater than that of the US, at 86 per square mile), I admire but also question the wisdom of Holland’s generous hospitality to immigrants.
Furthermore, looking at things ecologically can help explain some of the backlash against immigrants and the Wilders phenomenon: After all, when organisms compete for limited space and resources, surely one can expect the “autochtone” organism to resist an invading organism, no?
Many so called Muslims from Turkey, Marocco, Tunesia, etc. were in fact often only Muslim by name. Most of them 'discovered' Islam in Europe. Do not forget that the so called Immigrants came from the little villages, not from cities like Maracesh, Casablanca or Instanbul.
Ans... stronger than (organized) religion is secularism. Right now very few (Mulsim) younsters still go te Mosque. Sorry to say: but in my opinion it's the same with Buddhism and with the so called New Religious Movements (NRM).
CV in Antwerp
If France had not suffered from delusions of grandeur after the Second World War, i.e. trying to become the counterweight for American power, immigration policy in Western Europe would have looked quite different.
There is some evidence that shows that Muslim immigrants have contributed to the anti-Israel, anti-American policy in Europe. This is a sad state of affairs. America, in the near future, might no longer have the support of Western Europe in the ‘clash of civilizations’. A typical case of ‘devide and conquer’.
You mean that the West is being split.
I am sure that there is more anti-Zionism (and anti-Semitism) in Europe that in the US.
Maybe this is the ebb and flow of Islam and the Western World, which has been going on since the 7th century. Back then, Islam controlled all of Spain for a while, all the way into the South of France. Then it was pushed back. With the crusades, it was the West that took the offensive, trying to reconquer the "Holy Land." Then the Ottomans, another Muslim power, reached all the way to the walls of Vienna, holding on to Hungary for 150 years, before being pushed back. In the 19th and 20th centuries, the Europeans pretty much took over most of the Islamic world. Ebb and flow, and always at each other's throat.
If there is a clash of civilizations, then geography is destiny, and the US will be less affected than Europe, since we are further away.
Then again, everything I just wrote is probably bs. Today, there are no invading armies, like in the days of El Cid and the Crusades. Wars and power struggles are economic, terroristic and electronic.
According to most professors, there is no clash of civilizations. And professors know things, don't they? (haha).
Beyond immigration, Muslims (unlike Western women) are still having more than 1-2 children. So Europe will be theirs one way or another.
Dear Tom,
I hate anything that is too aggressive, and the push by some of the primitive Muslims is one of them.
Muslim religion is especially pushed by Arabs.
Educated Turks know that it is a form of Arab imperialism so they have nothing to do with it practically.
In a general sense, all religions are man-made anyways!... Islam by Mohamed. Christianity by Paul of Tarsus after he return his Jerusalem trip 150 years later after the Christ. Get my drift?...
Regards,
Post a Comment
Please limit your comment to 300 words at the most!