[lit-ideas] Re: The de-islamization of Europe
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Lit-Ideas " <Lit-Ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 15:33:40 -0800
Joerg,
You're new; so you aren't used to the way we do things here. There is of
course that Lawrence who reads all those tedious books and writes about them
more than anyone ought to, so let's get him off on a tangent and talk about
what we want to. The discussion you object to isn't one I initiated or even
one I'm particularly interested in. I sympathize with Paul Stone who wrote
"Technically, still subscribed, emotionally, mmmm not so much."
What I am most interested in is political theory. The two major paradigms
confronting us are Fukuyama's and Huntington's. Fukuyama's has been most
discussed because it gave rise to the Neocons and what probably seemed a
fortuitous opportunity for them to apply their beliefs. The Fukuyama
paradigm vs. the Neocon interpretation became even more interesting when
Fukuyama declared that the political Neocons had gotten it all wrong. I
have read Fukuyama's The End of History and the Last Man twice and while
Fukuyama is technically an Hegelian, implying that what he is describing is
implacable law and not political programs, it is difficult, if one
subscribes to Fukuyama's thesis, to read it and remain passive. Not even
Fukuyama wants to remain utterly passive, but he does not wish to be
associated with the sort of exporting of Liberal Democracy which he fancies
the Neocons have become identified with, and so he renounced his Neocon
association and began a new movement with a name something like Wilsonian
Realism (I suspect that's not quite right; however I have a headache --
perhaps due to being emotionally unsubscribed -- and am working on my first
cup of coffee and don't wish to).
The paradigm that is much more interesting at the present time is Samuel P.
Huntington's, described in his The Clash of Civilizations. Interestingly,
and I don't know if I mentioned this before, Huntington is quite popular in
the Middle East. Many there like his paradigm. It fits right into their
thinking, or rather gives form to it. So, did Huntington capture the
Islamic situation as it exists, or has he become part of the problem? I
think the former but I squirm a little at his popularity over there. And
here we approach the point of Andreas tangent, for Huntington referred to
their civilization as the Islamic. He wasn't being original using this
term. He used existing anthropological terminology. There are nine major
civilizations, Western, Latin American, African, Islamic, Sinic, Hindu,
Orthodox, Buddhist, and Japanese. He argues that the nations within each of
these civilizations (although this is moot in regard to the Japanese) will
band together and support each other when confronted by nations of another
Civilization. That's an over-simplification and perhaps most colored by
what we see in our own Western Civilization, but it seems also to be true of
the Islamic, and we do seem to be having one of the Clashes Huntington
described.
In my own view, and in view of the fact that we've spent considerable time
on Lit-Ideas considering the plight of the so-called Moderate Muslims, I am
not willing to categorize all of the Islamic Civilization as a threat.
Actually, Huntington wouldn't say quite that either, but he hasn't provided
a more useful term in his book. So in my own references I don't go so far
as Huntington and assume we are "Clashing" with the Islamic Civilization,
but merely that part of it that is "Militant" toward us or our allies.
Others are gravitating toward this term as well. And it may be due to the
work of certain others who while they haven't precisely created a paradigm,
have influenced Fukuyama and present a theory about the nature of the
Islamic threat.
These others haven't created the term "Militant Islam." What they have done
is create the need for another term since they have weakened the idea that
we are at war with Islamism (the term many preferred for awhile). They are
Gilles Kepel and Olivier Roy. Their books are, respectively, The War for
Muslim Minds, Islam and the West and Globalized Islam, the Search for a new
Ummah. These two books seem to have been crucial in causing Fukuyama to
abandon the Neocons. To oversimplify again, they argue that the Islamic
threat isn't as serious as other writers have suggested. What we have are
some alienated Europeanized Muslims who got caught up in the intellectual
ideas of Sayyid Qutb and his popularizers and want to engage in Jihad
against the West. Roy and Fukuyama after him prefer calling those that pose
this threat, the "Jihadists." If it is only the Jihadist we have to worry
about, if the bulk of Islam is moderate at heart, then we are over-reacting
Is it possible that Kepel, Roy & Fukuyama are right? I've read their books
and think it possible - perhaps not at the moment, but as time goes on.
Oriana Fallaci and others have painted a picture of the inevitable
Islamisation of Europe. Since Muslims breed more prolifically than
Europeans the demise of the latter is inescapable unless, we understand
implicitly, Europeans resort to violent means. But Roy has statistics to
show that once Muslims become part of Europe, their birth rate drops to the
same percentage as the ambient society. Also, European Muslims more and
more accept their new societies. They do not retain loyalty to the nations
that were so unpleasant that they chose to leave. Yes, they find common
cause when some event strikes them in a particular way, but that will soon
disappear as their inevitable integration occurs. As to the Islamic nations
themselves, yes they are backward, but no more so than some of those in
Africa or South America. Their problems will disappear as they become
integrated more fully into the world economy - as their Ummah becomes
globalized.
While it would be nice if Kepel and Roy were correct, it would not be
acceptable foreign policy to assume that they are. As in aerospace, we must
plan for the worst-case scenario. Militant Islam may continue on, growing
in strength until it has a "Core State," (Core State being like the US is in
the Western Civilization and Russia is in the Orthodox) and establishes
itself as it wishes to be; which because of the Jihadist element in their
religion is more inherently militant than any other civilization.
Thus, when I consider the Balkans, I wonder how readily Fukuyama's Liberal
Democracy is working there. They are far down the lists that rank nations
according to GDP. The Balkan nations are in amongst the Islamic nations in
this list. No Islamic nation is near the top. We scroll down the list
until we come to the first major Balkan nation, Greece which has a GDP per
capita of $21,300. The next Balkan nation is Croatia ($11,200), and then
Bulgaria ($8,200), Macedonia, ($7,100), Bosnia and Herzegovina ($6,500),
Albania ($4,900), and last of all is Serbia and Montenegro ($2,400). But
note that even Serbia is above Pakistan ($2,200) and Bangladesh ($2,000) and
the Sudan ($1,900). The first major Islamic nation we encounter on the list
is Saudi Arabia ($12,000). Iran is $7,700, Tunisia $7,100, Algeria $6,600.
Some of the Arab Oil-rich principalities have higher GDPs per capita, The
United Arab Emirates ($25,200), Qatar ($23,200), and Kuwait ($21,300).
When we look at the top of the list we see mostly Western nations (skipping
the smaller nations) we see. The US ($40,100), Norway ($40,000),
Switzerland ($33,800), Denmark ($32,200), Ireland ($31,900), Canada
($31,500), Austria ($30,300) [it is interesting to note that the other half
of the "dual empire" is way down the list at $14,900], Australia ($30,700),
Belgium ($30,600), UK ($29,600), Netherlands ($29,500), Japan ($29,400),
Finland ($29,000), France ($28,700), Germany ($28,700), Sweden ($28,400),
Italy ($27,700), the European Union ($26,9000, and Taiwan ($25,300).
That's not the entire list but indicative of the economic contrast between
the Western and Islamic Civilizations. It also indicates that the Islamized
European nations we briefly discussed haven't risen to the standard of the
rest of the Western Civilization. Presumably the EU is working on that.
My goal in writing isn't to be short and pithy but to be thorough; so this
note wouldn't be complete without mentioning Thomas Barnett. He took
Fukuyama's theory and described practical measures for implementing it. He
redefines everything calling the economically successful nations part of a
"functioning core," and the unsuccessful nations as the "non-integrated
gap." A nation is either integrated and part of the functioning core or it
is in the non-integrated and in the non-functioning gap. Barnett's provides
means for bringing the non-functioning gap, nation by nation over time into
the integrated core. His means are not military. He sees the military as
primarily providing security so nations won't have to worry about being
attacked and can set up viable non-aggressive governments. If these nations
are secure and have viable governments, then investment will be attracted
and then it is only a matter of time before the nation becomes integrated.
This is a vast oversimplification of Barnett's arguments. He has a web site
and one can listen to him being interviewed if one likes.
So perhaps you can see from the above that I have very little interest in
the tangent Andreas got me off on. I do not like tangents, but if one picks
something out and says something like (trying to capture the usual Lit-Ideas
pugnacity) "hey, you didn't mention Luxembourg which has a GDP per capita
much higher than the US, $58,900 to the US's mere $40,100. What's the
matter? Don't you like the idea of a European nation having a higher GDP
per capita than the US? What's the matter, can't you take it?"
And so I would get drawn into this insignificant and puerile tangent and
perhaps feel impelled to point out that I was "skipping the smaller nation"
and that I skipped Guernsey, the British Virgin Islands and Bermuda as well
as others. But by then others would have piled on, and perhaps some new
member would pop up and wonder why Lawrence is so Xenophobic as to hate the
thought that any part of Europe might in any way be better than something in
the All-Mighty Marvelous (In Lawrence's eyes but no one else's) United
barfing States of America.
And then I would do some soul searching, perhaps even as I'm doing now. Why
am I wasting my time here on these unedifying tangents? Does no one read my
notes? For if no one does then perhaps I could do just as well writing a
journal. But then some lurker will write me privately to assure me that he
is reading my notes with great interest and hopes I will not disappear, and
so I don't.
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: joerg benesch
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 5:39 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The de-islamization of Europe
"Logical miracle transubstantiates Baathist into Islamist" - [Bell
klingeling, a voice from the off shrieking "illogical! imposing on me what I
never ..."; distant clatter of at least one hoof]
Hopefully, our Grand Logician, whose dialetics smell of Torquemada rather
than of Aristotle, may want to mildly take into account that this is not a
matter of inference, but of simple definition, which has its set of very
basic, yet often neglected, rules.
If "Islamic militant" were defined as "a militant person more or less
closely connected to Islam", both OBL and Saddam Hussein would qualify
If, however, "Islamic militant" were defined as "a militant person fighting
for what he considers to be the aims of Islam", OBL still would qualify, but
Saddam wouldn't.
Even if I'm but an irrational gravitator, I dare remark that to me, only the
latter definition seems to qualify as a definitio essentialis.
So what we actually do have here are two different definitions, which, by a
strange coincidence, were termed alike so that novices to the trivium may
easily mix them up. If it were not a sacrilege to criticize the Grand
Logician, I'd humbly suggest that he treated such trifles with a tad more of
his precious care, thus sparing us poor burnables a lot of confusion &
despair.
Barely disentagled,
joerg
featherless on his two legs in Suebia
p. s. if a rabbit emerges from the hat, the question is always, who put
it there...
Lawrence Helm schrieb:
> (...) The same is true of what you wrote. Two of Saddam's attributes
> were Islamic and Militant. In other words, he was an Islamic Militant
> or a Militant Islamic. (...)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Other related posts:
