Last weekend I read a book that blew me away: While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within. In a nutshell the book is a tale of multiculturalism run amok. Pursuing the same strategy of appeasement that worked so well in Munich the Europeans are seeking accomodation and appeasement of those that wish to destroy them and their civilization -- radical Islamists.
There are plenty of reviews already out there on the book so I am not going to focus on the book as a whole but rather the themes that most struck me. The book particularly resonated with me because it is in large part based on author Bruce Bawer's personal experiences living in both the Netherlands and Norway. These are countries I am somewhat familiar with, having lived in the Netherlands for two years and having a couple of Norwegian friends in high school and visiting the country for two weeks with one of those friends. Bawer's experiences dovetailed sharply with my own, and many of the situations and experiences he describes are ones I have been through myself.
I think in order to understand Europe you have to understand its experience with war. War for Europe has been far from an abstract concept. From the Thirty Years War to World War I to World War II, the continent has appeared to display some disturbing suicidal tendencies. Not surprisingly Europeans (and Western Europeans in particular) display a keen aversion to conflict. The lesson drawn by many Europeans is that war is bad and should be avoided at all costs.
This, however, is incorrect. While war is bad, its alternatives are sometimes worse. Think, for example, of how much misery could have been avoided had the British and French, instead of sending diplomats to Munich in 1938, sent tanks.
The lesson is that when confronted by evil one must not shirk from your duty to act, lest that evil grow even more powerful.
But Europeans hate conflict, and are frequently at a loss of what to do when confronted by it. A prime example is the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Declaring the post-Cold War era to be Europe's time to shine, Europeans took ownership of the issue. Their reaction was to both place an arms embargo on the region (really this is the ultimate in gun control, and the results were similar with ill-equipped Bosnians gunned down by better-equipped Serbs) and send peacekeepers. The policy was completely ineffectual. It wasn't until the U.S. showed up and dropped a few bombs did matters head for a resolution.
The European distaste for any kind of confrontation was especially glaring in what may be the absolute lowest point of a brutal conflict when Dutch peacekeepers allowed Serbs to butcher the inhabitants of the Srebrenica "safe haven." Peace at any cost.
Now, when confronted by radical Islam in their midst the Europeans have to a disturbing extent resorted to a tried and true tactic: bending over. Instead of condemning the oppression of Muslim women it's overlooked as the practises of a different but equally valid culture. Cartoons deemed offensive to Muslims are condemned. Terrorist leaders collect welfare checks from the state.
And when it all blows up in their face, sometimes literally, the Yurpeans do what they do best -- whine about the U.S. If the U.S. would just behave itself the Muslims radicals wouldn't be so...radical.
Indeed, I have found Europeans to be oftentimes obsessed with the U.S. to an extent that borders on freakish and pathological. It wouldn't be so bad if they had good information, but time after time I have found that their knowledge of the country consists of little more than cheap stereotypes or something they saw on TV.
In this regard they're like Canadians but even more misinformed.
When I was in high school my Norwegian friend Petter would ask me why the U.S. was so messed up with its widespread poverty and crime. When I asked Petter where he was getting this information he said they learned about the U.S. in this special Norwegian class he had to attend once a week that was run by the Norwegian government. I have no doubt that the Norwegian teacher, on the Norwegian taxpayer's dime, tried to instill such haunting images in the minds of the students. After all, if the U.S. isn't demonized as a horrible place to live wracked with various social ills then its calls into question the legitimacy of the European welfare state. High taxes and unemployment can perhaps be stomached if it means avoiding the pitfalls that have befallen the U.S. But if the U.S. isn't really such a bad place, it calls the bargain into question.
I've had Dutch people ask me about the alleged endemic racism that exists here in the U.S. Coming from them it's pretty rich. While race problems certainly exist here, I think they pale in comparison to the situation on the other side of the Atlantic. In the Netherlands there exists a term that really has no equivalent here in the U.S. -- allochtoon. While you can click on the link for the more official definition, in reality it refers to a non-Western immigrant. And the children of those immigrants. If you're from Africa, Asia, or anywhere outside of Europe (and, really, Northwest Europe) you will be regarded as an allochtoon no matter how good your Dutch is or how long you have lived in the country. Or even if you were born in the country. You will never be fully Dutch.
Why, then, is it any surprise that the Dutch along with so many other European countries have failed so spectacularly at integrating their Muslim minorities? A good argument can be made that these countries never wanted these immigrants to integrate. Instead they would prefer to keep them at arms length, living in the country but distinctly separate from the mainstream.
Yesterday I had a drink with a Dutch guy I know who is an allochtoon. His father is Egyptian while his mother is native Dutch. Even though he was born and raised in Holland and considers himself fully Dutch he said that he will always be considered an outsider. In fact he said that other Dutch people have made comments to him such as "Wow, you are such a great example for your people" (since he is a well-educated and well-spoken guy). His response is "What people is that? I'm Dutch." He added that he was impressed with how well integrated American society appears to be.
While I do not subscribe to the mantra that diversity is the most wonderful thing in the world -- its impact in my opinion is rather ambiguous -- I am thrilled that there is no one way to look to be authentically American.
In any case the book is well worth a read and raises some quite disturbing questions about Europe's future. What's funny/ironic to me is that, given Europe's unwillingness or inability to confront radical Islam, it may be dependent on the success of the U.S.-led effort to export democracy to the Muslim world -- which so many Europeans have vigorously opposed -- to quell its own home-grown radicalism.
Which, if it succeeds, would make it about the 4th time we've saved that continent.
There are plenty of reviews already out there on the book so I am not going to focus on the book as a whole but rather the themes that most struck me. The book particularly resonated with me because it is in large part based on author Bruce Bawer's personal experiences living in both the Netherlands and Norway. These are countries I am somewhat familiar with, having lived in the Netherlands for two years and having a couple of Norwegian friends in high school and visiting the country for two weeks with one of those friends. Bawer's experiences dovetailed sharply with my own, and many of the situations and experiences he describes are ones I have been through myself.
I think in order to understand Europe you have to understand its experience with war. War for Europe has been far from an abstract concept. From the Thirty Years War to World War I to World War II, the continent has appeared to display some disturbing suicidal tendencies. Not surprisingly Europeans (and Western Europeans in particular) display a keen aversion to conflict. The lesson drawn by many Europeans is that war is bad and should be avoided at all costs.
This, however, is incorrect. While war is bad, its alternatives are sometimes worse. Think, for example, of how much misery could have been avoided had the British and French, instead of sending diplomats to Munich in 1938, sent tanks.
The lesson is that when confronted by evil one must not shirk from your duty to act, lest that evil grow even more powerful.
But Europeans hate conflict, and are frequently at a loss of what to do when confronted by it. A prime example is the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Declaring the post-Cold War era to be Europe's time to shine, Europeans took ownership of the issue. Their reaction was to both place an arms embargo on the region (really this is the ultimate in gun control, and the results were similar with ill-equipped Bosnians gunned down by better-equipped Serbs) and send peacekeepers. The policy was completely ineffectual. It wasn't until the U.S. showed up and dropped a few bombs did matters head for a resolution.
The European distaste for any kind of confrontation was especially glaring in what may be the absolute lowest point of a brutal conflict when Dutch peacekeepers allowed Serbs to butcher the inhabitants of the Srebrenica "safe haven." Peace at any cost.
Now, when confronted by radical Islam in their midst the Europeans have to a disturbing extent resorted to a tried and true tactic: bending over. Instead of condemning the oppression of Muslim women it's overlooked as the practises of a different but equally valid culture. Cartoons deemed offensive to Muslims are condemned. Terrorist leaders collect welfare checks from the state.
And when it all blows up in their face, sometimes literally, the Yurpeans do what they do best -- whine about the U.S. If the U.S. would just behave itself the Muslims radicals wouldn't be so...radical.
Indeed, I have found Europeans to be oftentimes obsessed with the U.S. to an extent that borders on freakish and pathological. It wouldn't be so bad if they had good information, but time after time I have found that their knowledge of the country consists of little more than cheap stereotypes or something they saw on TV.
In this regard they're like Canadians but even more misinformed.
When I was in high school my Norwegian friend Petter would ask me why the U.S. was so messed up with its widespread poverty and crime. When I asked Petter where he was getting this information he said they learned about the U.S. in this special Norwegian class he had to attend once a week that was run by the Norwegian government. I have no doubt that the Norwegian teacher, on the Norwegian taxpayer's dime, tried to instill such haunting images in the minds of the students. After all, if the U.S. isn't demonized as a horrible place to live wracked with various social ills then its calls into question the legitimacy of the European welfare state. High taxes and unemployment can perhaps be stomached if it means avoiding the pitfalls that have befallen the U.S. But if the U.S. isn't really such a bad place, it calls the bargain into question.
I've had Dutch people ask me about the alleged endemic racism that exists here in the U.S. Coming from them it's pretty rich. While race problems certainly exist here, I think they pale in comparison to the situation on the other side of the Atlantic. In the Netherlands there exists a term that really has no equivalent here in the U.S. -- allochtoon. While you can click on the link for the more official definition, in reality it refers to a non-Western immigrant. And the children of those immigrants. If you're from Africa, Asia, or anywhere outside of Europe (and, really, Northwest Europe) you will be regarded as an allochtoon no matter how good your Dutch is or how long you have lived in the country. Or even if you were born in the country. You will never be fully Dutch.
Why, then, is it any surprise that the Dutch along with so many other European countries have failed so spectacularly at integrating their Muslim minorities? A good argument can be made that these countries never wanted these immigrants to integrate. Instead they would prefer to keep them at arms length, living in the country but distinctly separate from the mainstream.
Yesterday I had a drink with a Dutch guy I know who is an allochtoon. His father is Egyptian while his mother is native Dutch. Even though he was born and raised in Holland and considers himself fully Dutch he said that he will always be considered an outsider. In fact he said that other Dutch people have made comments to him such as "Wow, you are such a great example for your people" (since he is a well-educated and well-spoken guy). His response is "What people is that? I'm Dutch." He added that he was impressed with how well integrated American society appears to be.
While I do not subscribe to the mantra that diversity is the most wonderful thing in the world -- its impact in my opinion is rather ambiguous -- I am thrilled that there is no one way to look to be authentically American.
In any case the book is well worth a read and raises some quite disturbing questions about Europe's future. What's funny/ironic to me is that, given Europe's unwillingness or inability to confront radical Islam, it may be dependent on the success of the U.S.-led effort to export democracy to the Muslim world -- which so many Europeans have vigorously opposed -- to quell its own home-grown radicalism.
Which, if it succeeds, would make it about the 4th time we've saved that continent.
No comments:
Post a Comment