by Madeleine KandoIf you think the Tea Party is extreme, just go to YouTube and watch some videos of the British right-wing organization called E.D.L. or English Defense League. It is not for the faint of heart.
It is a far-right movement which opposes the spread of Islamism and Islamic extremism in England. It is like the Dutch Party of Freedom, except more violent and extreme. For a moment there, I thought I was watching a Nazi Party rally.
It seems that pretty much every country in Europe has its own version of an anti-Muslim movement now. Unlike the Tea Party, which is against the current government and its policies, these parties are not trying to throw over the government, they want to force the current government to adopt new anti-Muslim policies.
How on earth did the situation become so polarized? Are those just a bunch of skin heads looking for some fun on a Saturday night? After all, Europe and in particular England, has a long tradition of neo-fascist movements.
It is commonly said that fascist movements feed off poverty and homelessness. But aren't most European countries 'welfare states' who are supposed to take care of their poor and unemployed a lot better than we are here in the US?
Or are these movements and parties a sign that the European policy of 'Multiculturalism', i.e., tolerating many cultures without prejudice, is now beginning to totally fall apart?
Take the Burqa for example. In France there is a ban on wearing one in public. You might say that wearing a Burqa is a matter of personal choice and that the ban is racist, that it infringes on a person's individual and religious freedom.
But to many Europeans the Burqa is a symbol of Radical Islam. I also says 'I am not going to accept your Western values'. I am not tolerant of your society and its customs.
Especially in France, any religious expression in public, which the Burqa is, must be hard to swallow. The French are proud of being a secular nation and they do not look kindly on anyone who ignores this important aspect of French society.
You see, tolerance works only when it is bi-directional. If I tolerate you but you don't tolerate me, then we have a problem. Imposing tolerance ** on an entire population is already hard enough, but being told to tolerate the intolerant in the name of political correctness has created a Frankenstein monster.
Now we see the ugly underbelly of some European countries, as they latch on to a legitimate feeling of trying to preserve important cultural values.
These ‘fright-wing’ groups (to coin a term) are using it to radicalize their country even more. It is a catch twenty-two situation, isn't it? If tolerance in a society allows intolerant cultures to co-exist, it will turn that tolerant society into an intolerant one.
Do I have that right?
** The very expression “Imposing tolerance” is a contradiction in terms. It’s like saying “imposing freedom.” This unmasks the current European dilemma. leave comment here
6 comments:
You have it exactly right professor! Even here in America the founders limited free speach when it reached sedition for the very reasons you mentioned. If we become too tolerant, we sow the seeds of civil war and the anihilation of one group over the other. I forget which sociologist explained it but anything less than full integration whether imposed or self imposed leads too eventual annihilation. Segregation is just a temporary step in the process.
This is an excellent topic for discussion. If intolerant people will not tolerate tolerant people, how tolerant can the tolerant people stay? This is indeed a dilemma. ..however, when the intolerant people harm the tolerant people, then the tolerant people have a morally just right to become intolerant!
Thus it becomes a matter of degree. Some tolerant people accept harm more easily than others.
Virtue is in the middle. In America have we ever all been "in the middle"? Maybe more than many countries. For a while I thought we were moving ahead in this regard. Doesn't look like it now. Words are one thing but actions are another. Unfortunately harsh words often lead to harsh actions. Must not tolerant people learn to educate, inform, tell the intolerant people where the boundaries are and why?
Madeleleine:
I read an article on the EDL and you are correct; they are frightening. What intrigues me is the growing lack of tolerance and the reasons for that intolerance. One might argue that we are seeing the same thing in the U.S. because, as the pie shrinks, or even just stays the same, and inequality increases, you have the makings of populist and reactionary movements. We have lost a sense of the collective good and the idea of sacrificing for the larger collective is regarded with distain. I wonder what Durkheim would have to say about “moral cohesion” and its possible source today.
If I may chime in, Scott:
Durkheim might indeed be appalled by our declining social solidarity -certainly the mechanical kind. He might also see a growth in anomie, with more egoistic suicice here, and altruistic suicide in the Middle East (suicide bombers)...
Assimilation in America is almost inevitable because of the need to survive. In Europe some countries are so stratified that it is harder to assimilate.
And, yes, inequality does create extremism. Although it has always amazed me how tolerant Americans are of inequality.
The poor don't want the rich to be less rich, they want to be like them.
The last time I was in Vienna a man at a coffee shop told me to notice that all the taxis had a medallian and they had all been defaced to remove a christian cross. Most drivers are apparently musslim.
Post a Comment
Please limit your comment to 300 words at the most!