>In a perfect world, that trend would be welcomed as an addition to the rich diversity of cultures and beliefs that make up any pluralistic liberal society. In practice, it will probably increase the strain on countries whose self-image of tolerance has clashed with the reality of lingering prejudice and unease toward people who are different.< A perfect world involves religion?
Plus it ignores the fact that however racist Europeans are, the new immigrants are far, far more racist. I deal with a lot of different ethnicities and I would say that Jews and Chinese are about as racist as Europeans. Americans have this sort of implicit tolerance, as if they aren't even aware of race, and yes I know it's an act. But no American (I know) will refuse to hire someone because of their skin color or religion. Europeans, Chinese and Jews will, but that's pretty much where it stops. No Jew will refuse to sell food to a non-Jew, no matter how "holy" the food is (they may -and will- overcharge, but so will Europeans and Chinese, and why not ? I will generally go there because it's special, so paying double ... meh. I don't necessarily like "the tourist treatment" but ... Just don't get in a cab (because they'll charge you hundreds, not because it's unsafe that's not what I'm trying to say)).
There are -constant- incidents of muslims attacking people over perceived insults, entering a mosque (despite the fact that most look like teahouses), and half of the teahouses/cafes in Brussels make Hell's Angel clubhouses look welcoming. Muslims will attack women who merely pass them on the street merely for dressing provocatively, for being the wrong nationality (Moroccans attack Turkish women, for example, although truth be told, I've never heard of the reverse. Turk men will attack Moroccan men plenty though, I've even once seen a Turkish women participate in said activity). They will attack native Belgians for "stealing their jobs", they will attack European politicians and people working for them.
And of course this has turned Brussels into an extremely non-mixed city. The ghettos are ethnicity based now. It was mixed for a short while, but now the different neighborhoods are very clearly delineated, and the only mixing is old native people - who can't leave - and the very specific group that screws up the place and chases everybody out.
And the worst of it is. It's not the generation that immigrated that's the problem, it's the second and third generations that are doing this. The first generation mostly has at least serious reservations about islam, some actively hate it. I've read an article about a muslim immigrant who "asked" an imam who lived in the same block as him to leave, with a shotgun.
Europe will be a racist hellhole in a decade or so, not a "bastion of tolerance". Europe was a bastion of tolerance at the end of the 80s, beginning of the 90s. Today, it's racist. By necessity, because of the constant violence. And it's getting worse, not better.
> And of course this has turned Brussels into an extremely non-mixed city. The ghettos are ethnicity based now.
I have a feeling that it is not entirely the immigrants' fault for this state of affairs that they self-segregate or exclude natives from their social circles.
I speculate that it's got to do to some degree with racist and nativist Belgian politicians or European politicians in general who benefit enormously from a failure of the multi-culturalism experience and integration/assimilation by immigrants to warrant a xenophobic and hateful reaction like deportations, internment or barring of entry.
Funny not a single one of all these scare-mongering pieces of a Muslim demographic ticking bomb popping up periodically explores the effect of population growth in China or India in the coming years given they have currently the lion's share of humans on the planet and any population tsunami hitting the Earth would probably come from these areas not from the Greater Middle East.
This situation is still perpetuated to this day. All of US and Israeli foreign policy in the Middle-East basically revolves around containing the various states there to keep there from being a unified Middle-Eastern superstate.
Which creates instability & low-level wars, which they'd prefer to having a stronger state that would contain that sort of thing, but which might challenge them on the international scene.
I don't think that the Elite in many ME countries would cherish the idea of sharing their power with any of their peers in neighboring countries let alone people of different countries sharing space with other people from the region. If you're talking about Pan-Arabism or Pan-Islamism, both ideologies are moribund and can't be taken seriously in any meaninful discussion.
The Armenian Genocide was carried out by the Young Turk movement towards the end of the empire. The YTs were distinguished by a stark materialism and secularism, and actually sought to revert the theocratic nature of the empire prior. So, not really Ottoman Islam, per se.
The Millet System brokered by the Ottomans was definitely advanced compared to what Europe had during the Medieval Age under the influence of the Catholic Church esp. when it comes to religious tolerance but make no mistake it's still a backward system where Muslims are favored and other people are discriminated against.
Also, not a single country was under the occupation of the Ottomans had any advancement or progress in quality of life or any other aspect of social or public life because the Turks made sure that most of the generated wealth of Vilayets be transferred to Istanbul/Asitane/High Porte where the Sultan lives and only when people revolted against them and ended their rule, the countries managed to enjoy the fruits of their labor and national wealth like in the case of Egypt in 1800s.
> By October 1898, he had returned to Britain and begun his two-volume work, The River War, an account of the reconquest of the Sudan which was published the following year. In this work, Churchill warned against what he considered to be the dangers of the influence of Islam: "Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step, and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it (Islam) has vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."
- "No stronger retrograde force exists in the world."
Funny that this is coming from a reactionary and status quo aficionado.
- "Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith."
Funny again that this is coming from a colonialist and imperialistic person. Apparently, it's bad for Islam to have expansionist and supremacist ambitions but it's OK for Britain. Hypocrisy much?
- "Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it (Islam) has vainly struggled"
Funny that it was the other way around for Christianity and Islam in Europe's Dark Age and Islam's Golden Age [0]
Muslims embraced science before Christians ever thought about it and Al-Andalus rule in Iberia and the scientific development overseen by Muslims there is a great testament to my viewpoint. Furthermore, Islam had a reformation movement albeit unsuccessful hundreds of years [0] before Christendom is engulfed in reformation debates (wars).
Are we sure we should be getting all our lessons from historical figures?
Churchill on Gandhi:
Gandhi should not be released on the account of a mere threat of
fasting, We should be rid of a bad man and an enemy of the Empire if
he died.
Churchill on using poison gas on uncivilized tribes:
I cannot understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. I am
strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes.
Churchill on white race being superior:
I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the
Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not
admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a
stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it
that way, has come in and taken their place.
Don't confuse a Wikipedia excerpt with an endorsement of the views...
You missed this one:
> By August 1943 Churchill refused to release shipping to send food to India. Initially during the famine he was more concerned with the civilians of Nazi-occupied Greece (who were also suffering from a famine) compared with the Bengalis, noting that the "starvation of anyhow underfed Bengalis is less serious than that of sturdy Greeks".
The way you said it sounded like an endorsement (if you'd said that on Reddit, the way you said it would certainly be taken as an endorsement!). But, my mistake, sorry, carry on.
Churchill did not like a lot of non-Western nations. He had his mind made up at a young age. He was also against Indians and Hindu thought.
Europe does not fall because there has not been an Islam v. Europe war for centuries. It's been a slow integration of North African & Arab cultures with a continued focus on European social values, science and leadership.
Churchill is the equivalent of Saddam Hussein, Hafez Asad or any other ruthless blood thirsty Arab despot and I find it bewildering why he's still admired by certain segments of the population in the west unless they share the same value system and morals (or the lack thereof) and then I find it more bewildering why they dislike militant or radical Islam vehemently since they have a lot in common with the adherents of those ideologies.
> Churchill is the equivalent of Saddam Hussein... I find it bewildering why he's still admired... unless they share the same value system and morals (or the lack thereof)
Just as a friendly pointer, I don't think you're going to change the mind of anyone who respects Churchill by saying that they're amoral & comparing him to Saddam Hussein. Regardless of where the truth may lie it doesn't seem like a winning approach.
I am not after changing anybody's political opinion much less Churchill's followers' because they seem like a lost cause to me but if my comment could be construed as a political speech, it would be more valuable if it was targeted at enlightened people sitting on the fence and not the hardcore ardent crowd.
Sorry, I'm being too indirect. You come across like a zealot. If you want to be heard by anyone who's not already on your side then you need to tone it down.
33 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 75.5 ms ] threadThere are -constant- incidents of muslims attacking people over perceived insults, entering a mosque (despite the fact that most look like teahouses), and half of the teahouses/cafes in Brussels make Hell's Angel clubhouses look welcoming. Muslims will attack women who merely pass them on the street merely for dressing provocatively, for being the wrong nationality (Moroccans attack Turkish women, for example, although truth be told, I've never heard of the reverse. Turk men will attack Moroccan men plenty though, I've even once seen a Turkish women participate in said activity). They will attack native Belgians for "stealing their jobs", they will attack European politicians and people working for them.
And of course this has turned Brussels into an extremely non-mixed city. The ghettos are ethnicity based now. It was mixed for a short while, but now the different neighborhoods are very clearly delineated, and the only mixing is old native people - who can't leave - and the very specific group that screws up the place and chases everybody out.
And the worst of it is. It's not the generation that immigrated that's the problem, it's the second and third generations that are doing this. The first generation mostly has at least serious reservations about islam, some actively hate it. I've read an article about a muslim immigrant who "asked" an imam who lived in the same block as him to leave, with a shotgun.
Europe will be a racist hellhole in a decade or so, not a "bastion of tolerance". Europe was a bastion of tolerance at the end of the 80s, beginning of the 90s. Today, it's racist. By necessity, because of the constant violence. And it's getting worse, not better.
I have a feeling that it is not entirely the immigrants' fault for this state of affairs that they self-segregate or exclude natives from their social circles.
I speculate that it's got to do to some degree with racist and nativist Belgian politicians or European politicians in general who benefit enormously from a failure of the multi-culturalism experience and integration/assimilation by immigrants to warrant a xenophobic and hateful reaction like deportations, internment or barring of entry.
But then the post-ww1 dividing of the empire between the British and the French turned the place into the mess the world is still dealing with today.
Adam Curtis talk about this in part of this blog: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/2989a78a-ee94-...
Which creates instability & low-level wars, which they'd prefer to having a stronger state that would contain that sort of thing, but which might challenge them on the international scene.
Where did you guys come up with this?
I don't think that the Elite in many ME countries would cherish the idea of sharing their power with any of their peers in neighboring countries let alone people of different countries sharing space with other people from the region. If you're talking about Pan-Arabism or Pan-Islamism, both ideologies are moribund and can't be taken seriously in any meaninful discussion.
http://www.amazon.com/Lawrence-Arabia-Deceit-Imperial-Making...
Also, not a single country was under the occupation of the Ottomans had any advancement or progress in quality of life or any other aspect of social or public life because the Turks made sure that most of the generated wealth of Vilayets be transferred to Istanbul/Asitane/High Porte where the Sultan lives and only when people revolted against them and ended their rule, the countries managed to enjoy the fruits of their labor and national wealth like in the case of Egypt in 1800s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill
Funny that this is coming from a reactionary and status quo aficionado.
- "Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith."
Funny again that this is coming from a colonialist and imperialistic person. Apparently, it's bad for Islam to have expansionist and supremacist ambitions but it's OK for Britain. Hypocrisy much?
- "Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it (Islam) has vainly struggled"
Funny that it was the other way around for Christianity and Islam in Europe's Dark Age and Islam's Golden Age [0]
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age
I think this means that Christianity is "tamed" by the doubts science has laid on it. And that science does not seem to reign Islam much.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%CA%BFtazila
Everything was worse after the Siege of Baghdad.
Churchill on Gandhi:
Churchill on using poison gas on uncivilized tribes: Churchill on white race being superior:You missed this one:
> By August 1943 Churchill refused to release shipping to send food to India. Initially during the famine he was more concerned with the civilians of Nazi-occupied Greece (who were also suffering from a famine) compared with the Bengalis, noting that the "starvation of anyhow underfed Bengalis is less serious than that of sturdy Greeks".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943
Europe does not fall because there has not been an Islam v. Europe war for centuries. It's been a slow integration of North African & Arab cultures with a continued focus on European social values, science and leadership.
Just as a friendly pointer, I don't think you're going to change the mind of anyone who respects Churchill by saying that they're amoral & comparing him to Saddam Hussein. Regardless of where the truth may lie it doesn't seem like a winning approach.