i'm not sure the european response to muslim immigrants is equitable with the american response to muslim immigrants...i don't know enough about canada to venture an opinion...
the european response to muslim immigration is better compared with the american response to mexican immigration...both europe and the united states seem to say "oh god, no, no! damn, here they are, and just look at what they're doing"...

"Europeans have thought of immigrants solely as cheap temporary labor, and have been less successful in attracting skilled and highly educated immigrants largely due to their reluctance to accept newcomers as full citizens."

the same can be said of the states with respect to mexicans...
the best way to size a person up is to take them out to dinner and see how that person treat the waitress and the busboy...if they're mean and ill-mannered to what they view as lesser people, it's a good bet they're mean and ill-mannered to everyone -- eventually...
europe and the united states both get low marks in this analogy...they both treat the busboy like dirt and feign manners for those they perceive as more deserving...in reality, manners (and good diplomatic relations) are part of the base of one's personality (or nation) and thus cannot be turned on and off at will...
if you want to know who someone (or some nation) really is, impose upon them and see what they do...
we've seen what europe and the united states do...they open the door to one group to appease another group...once the other group is appeased, they try to slam the door shut and get all bent out of shape when people on both sides of the door take issue with it...
here's an idea: don't wait until gift-giving season to send our world leaders copies of "codependent no more" or "overcoming passive-aggression"...

The most important aspec tof this, which you neglect to mention is that because US society is built on immigration and therefore more accepting of immigrants, one of the results has been that immigrants - who feel more accepted - have also been more willing to take part in the general society, adapt to the culture and leave behind some of their more extreme cultural baggage. The result is a happy middle ground where cultural identity is preserved, but it becomes a subset of the larger national culture rather than being ghettoized and treated as a stygma.

Dave

I agree. I read several articles in Hungarian labelling Muslims as barbarian community, and even the PM was once forced to apologize for calling Saudi Arabia's soccer team as terrorists. I then asked my husband (a native Hungarian) why is it that Hungarians hate Muslims? His answer was, "Do you think they ever like the others?"

He was right. People demonstrated against Chinese migrants, for there are too many of them already. In soccer matches, people still shout hatred speech against Jews--which is not outlawed, as far as I know. A recent survey said that people don't like tourists/expats mainly because they're afraid that these people would occupy their jobs, and that they could live better.

I can not agree. I have lived in Europe, the US, Africa and New Zealand. I am returning to Europe shortly to live. I think most these arguments are wrong. The primary issue is assimilation into a culture. And the major reason for relatively rapid assimilation in the US is a lack of welfare benefits for most immigrants. This forces the immigrants into the work force and they end up learning the language and dealing with the culture.

In Europe the welfare states insulate people from such necessities. So they arrive and sit on welfare. They live in their own communities, don't assimilate at all. They don't have to do for the same reason immigrants need to assimiliate in the US.

Another difference is that Europe is facing a far higher percentage of Islamic immigrants than the US has ever faced. And there have been a constant stream of incidents of violence from numerous bombings to murders to violent protests. There are several European citizens who live under constant police protection due to the murder threats of Islamic nutters there. No one in the US is in the same situation.

And I consider myself a libertarian. When it comes to "live and let live" for different cultures the Europeans are far more tolerant than my fellow Americans. This idea that the US is some sort of tolerant country is false on many fronts. And when it comes to immigrants it is very false. I have lived in numerous countries and most are far more tolerant than the US.

I regret saying I thought the piece was thoroughly misinformed and expressing what the author wishes were the case not what is the case.

HLM, there's a difference between 'tolerant' and 'indulgent' and I'm not sure you get it. The US as a nation is tolerant of foreigners coming here and working and becoming part of the society, but we are not indulgent of them being too extreme or non-conformist or unamerican. We make them wait a long time before becoming citizens and as you point out we don't encourage them to immeidately go on the dole. We expect them to come here and work and fit in like the rest of us, so that's what they do.

European cultures may be more tolerant, but they are also indulgent. They don't expect much from immigrants, so they get exactly that. No pressure to fit in or work means they essentially endorse the worst inclinations of these minorities to be offensive and disruptive. It's all part and parcel of the culture of mediocrity and complacency which is Eurosocialism.

Dave

Crusader, crusader, please take me with you
The battle lies far to the east
Crusader, crusader, don't leave me alone
I want to ride out on your quest
I'm waiting, I'm waiting, to stand by your side
To fight with you over the sea
They're calling, they're calling, I have to be there
The holy land has to be free

Fight the good fight
Believe what is right
Crusader, the Lord of the Realm
Fight the good fight
With all your might
Crusader, the Lord of the Realm

We're marching, we're marching, to a land far from home
No one can say who'll return
For Christendom's sake, we'll take our revenge
On the pagans from out of the east
We Christians are coming, with swords held on high
United by faith and the cause
The Saracen heathen will soon taste our steel
Our standards will rise 'cross the land

Fight the good fight
Believe what is right
Crusader, the Lord of the Realm
Fight the good fight
With all your might
Crusader, the Lord of the Realm

To battle, to battle, the Saracen hordes
We follow the warrior king
Onward, ride onward, into the fight
We carry the sign of the cross
Warlords of England, Knights of the Realm
Spilling their blood in the sand
Crusader, crusader, the legend is born
The future will honour your deeds

Fight the good fight
Believe what is right
Crusader, the Lord of the Realm
Fight the good fight
With all your might
Crusader, the Lord of the Realm

http://metalartwork.free.fr/images/pochettes2/tailleoriginale2/big1/Saxon_-_Crusader.jpg

Excellent post. In fourteen clearly written paragraphs, you explained why Europe is a mere peninsula of Asia.

Splendid reply! :)

HLM,

the major reason for relatively rapid assimilation in the US is a lack of welfare benefits for most immigrants. This forces the immigrants into the work force and they end up learning the language and dealing with the culture.
In Europe the welfare states insulate people from such necessities. So they arrive and sit on welfare. They live in their own communities, don't assimilate at all.

I agree with that point actually, and I think it's in line with my argument that North Americans are more libertarian. A libertarian attitude naturally leads to a free market approach and less emphasis on economic welfare. Another reason these immigrants wind up on welfare is because of the difficult time they have finding adequate employment. It is partially a product of their economic policy slowing down the economy, but it is also due to European culture. The lack of dynamism in their economy is a consequence of their rigid and static culture. The stifling levels of regulation is a product of their unwillingness to change. Their attitude towards avoiding the change the free market brings parallels the resistance their resistance to any sort of change an immigrant might bring.


Another difference is that Europe is facing a far higher percentage of Islamic immigrants than the US has ever faced.

This is somewhat true. The estimates on the the proportion of the US population that's Muslim seem to vary widly but it is lower than the majority of European countries. On the other hand, I believe Canada has Muslim immigration levels comparable to United Kingdoms. Why is there far less tension with Muslims in Canada than the UK? (And believe there is, and it isn't just a product of UK support for the Iraq war) There is only one country with a strikingly higher Muslim populaton and that's France. While they certainly have their race problems, in many respects tensions seem to be worse in places like Denmark and Netherlands. Why is that? I suspect the difference is cultural and has a lot to do with relative ethnic/racial homogeniety of those Germanic countries compared to France.

Many of you will probably think I'm off my rocker for saying this, but it's my sincere belief that higher Muslim immigration in North America and a healthier pattern of immigration in Europe (i.e. more skilled immigrants truly accepted as full citizens), would go a long way in defusing the tensions between the 'West' and the 'Muslim world'. Why? Simply because there would be a lot more people of Muslim background who would have a positive experience with 'Western' culture and feel like they can participate in it fully. Muslims with a positive experience of democracy, individual rights and freedoms, and the free market would naturally spread those ideas to the 'Muslim world'. The corollary of that is there would be a lot more 'Westerners' who have positive experiences with Muslims.
One thing that I think people really don't put enough weight on in situations like the present one, is how readily a lack of trust between different groups feeds the conflict. It destroys any chance of a meaningful dialogue. Having people who have some understanding of both cultures certainly in building that. My apologies if I sound too much like an Oprah guest, but I think it's true.

I really went off on a tangent there :)

Where would the west be had Islam given you a robust numeric symbol system? Do you think that God has only given us that? Do you really think you can force us to do anything you want?

When you look up from the ashes of your waste and ruin, remember where your civilisation began as your life flows from your broken carcass.

Ah, A Muslim: you talk ril purty-like. You had me at "the ashes of your waste and ruin." The "broken carcass" part wasn't bad, either.

Muslim:

Wake up to the facts. We do not need Arabic numbers to get by. Five thousand years ago, the Sumerians used a base sixty system, combining within it a base ten system. That, by the way is why there are 60 seconds to a minute, and 3,600 seconds to an hour. In a base 60 system, the number 3,600 is written "100."

Christians, in their holy stupididty, destroyed the bases of knowledge available to their civilzation. What the Arab culture did was to preserve a vast treasure trove of ancient knowledge, and allow other concepts to enter, like the Indian mumeric system that is the basis for Arabic numbers.

And do me a favor - give credit where credit is due. You guys may have had the khalifs - but we Jews provided the doctors and scientists.

I cannot help but wonder what might have become of the pacifist Buddhist society of northern India had Muslims - representatives of the 'religion of peace' - not invaded...burned its universities...plundered its towns...and driven its surviving unconverted population into Tibet and Burma

the history of Islam's manifest destiny is vile

troll

Troll,

Indian history is something I generally know little of - thanks for the thumnail overview. It could be that many of the ideas that wandered into Arab and Persian culture from India did so due to the rape of the Buddhist civilization in northern India. I guess some of our Indian friends might wish to comment.

Shabbat Shalom,

Well written !

You have some good points, however in my opinion you don´t to see the main reason.

In my opinion the kind of muslims we get in Denmark are totally different from the muslims you get in North America.

Muslims who move to American have a lot to contribute with, fx. a usefull education or economic input. In other words they come to America/North America with a different luggage.
This means that they are much more likely to be integrated in the american society in the first place. The american society also basically leaves people to their own devises. This also means that integrating in America is different than integrating in Europe. In Denmark fx we have a long history of participatory democracy, in all areas of life especially politically. But also culturally, in organisations of many sorts. If you dont participate in this you are likely to be outcasted. In America you can easily function in your own little subgroup - without voting or anything.

The muslims who come here are often refugees, with serious psycological damage as luggage. On top of that alot come here without a usable education as part of joining their families, and therefore they are very costly to the welfare state(s). Medical is free in Denmark as well as schooling, housing (if you are poor) and university education. In fact you get paid to study.

Furthermore they dont even learn the language, and its not like they speak english either. At least 90% of them dont.

With regards to the media, i think it is fair to say that European media is generally more tolerant (liberal) than american. Fx. Fox news, we laugh at here in Denmark. I think it is seen by quite a few americans. Also dont forget the internet. The cartoons are already spread across america. Not by newsstations, but still. The newsstations only chose not to publish the cartoons out of fear. Fear of terror, and - maybe even more important - fear of losing viewers.

Hyprocrisy in my opinion.

Excellent article, and some very good comments & responses.

Free europeans feel justified in their racism at home.

Norteamericanos feel justified in their racism abroad.

No one else cares to justify - themselves.

These are simplifications.

But let's note that that segregation exists in the US today, as does poverty - the word 'Black' has not been mentioned - neither the civil rights struggle.

Are make muslims in europe, the new jews of europe, or are they the new 'blacks' of america. It must be claustrophobic in europe.

Tariq Ali in the Guardian [This is the real outrage writes:

French philosophers did take humanity forward by recognising no external authority of any kind, but there was a darker side. Voltaire: "Blacks are inferior to Europeans, but superior to apes." Hume: "The black might develop certain attributes of human beings, the way the parrot manages to speak a few words." There is much more in a similar vein from their colleagues. It is this aspect of the Enlightenment that appears to be more in tune with some of the generalised anti-Muslim ravings in the media.

Europeans on the other hand, have much more aggressively challenged what they view as 'backward' or 'unacceptable' cultural practices among their Muslim immigrants.

You mean practices like: honor killing, raping non-hijab-wearing white women, executing film producers, calling for death to cartoonists, sporting placards like "Freedom to hell", "Your 9/11 is coming", etc.?

Let's be very clear about what you're suggesting: that Europeans need to adopt a more "libertarian" "live and let live" attitude of acceptance toward these practices which they intolerantly and "xenophobically" view as " 'backward' or 'unacceptable' ."

Boy is your thinkin' ever fucked up!

It's just a question of numbers. It is a documented fact that trouble with islamaniacs starts at around 4 to 5% of population, with serious terrorism being at around 25% at 45% you have a civil war, and at 60% you have ethnic cleansing of "infidels", which eventually degenerates to the 3% solution, that is 3% of the christians after the cleansing (Kosovo,Egypt, SaudiArabia)sectarian violence, and civil war under military tyranny. The reason US islamaniacs are so "well integrated" is because they are so few in numbers. Yet even at 2% you have a significant increase in crime rate. Just look at areas of high islamic areas, there you find unemployment, rape, pimping gang and drug activites, and other typically islamic problems that are common to all European muslim areas.

I was wondering about the assumption this post is based on. Why would Europe be less succesfull? AFAIK more Americans have been killed by extremists than Europeans. And I just saw a post here at Blogcritics about a Muslim terror camp in the US. I'm not saying that it's wrong, just wondering where this idea comes from?

personally, I think the us, canada, and australia and new zealand have done a great job for the most part at assimilation, and that's because these countries are a nation of immigratns, and so more accpeting of their traditions. if europeans want better ealtions with muslims, they must learn to accept them for what they are, as long as they don't cause harm unto others, and let them be, so then there will be fewer problems, guaranteed. leave the muslims alone, as long as they don't do anything bad to you, and leave them alone. you have to respect the muslims traditions. besides, not everyone wants to adopt the europeans outlook on life and their lifestyles, for everyone's different, and entitled to hi own opinion and way of being. europeans shouldn't force anyone to assimilate when they don't want to assimilate. integration is okay, but assimilation isn't. europeans boast on the outside of being one of the most tolerant people on this earth, but that's pure propaganda, if you went there and saw the racism directed towards non-whites, you'd understand why. not everyone wants to mix with euroepans and they must accept that.

one more thing: if europeans are attacking muslims, like in hungary or something, that's totally wrong. i'm not a muslim, i'm actually a buddhist girl, but i think europe's handling of the situation is wrong, for i wouldn't like it if they put a picture of our buddha with a bomb on his head? that's not right, is it? there's a fine line to be drawn between free speech and insulting another's religion. there are attacks on buddhists by muslims in thailand, and even thai people don't do that. what denmark did was despicable.