January 22, 2004

• Holy crap. Talk about a big ole can of worms. I love how he defends himself by taking his entire foot and cramming it all the way down his throat.
• No offense Kimberly, but did you even read what he said? What he's talking about is absolutely true. A race battle? No - it's a cultural battle, one that continues to befuddle most Westerners, but one that many Muslims, even mainstream Muslims, are well aware of, and are quite willing to fight. In case you'd like a transcript of the interview in which he explains more fully what he's talking about, go here
• f8mulder: Yes, as a matter of fact I did read what he said. What I was reacting to was this, from the linked article: "I don't think that Western society is opposed to Islamic society at all. I think a very important part of Islamic society is opposed to Western society. It is time that ordinary Muslims stood up to be counted. Most societies can benefit from a good stirring of genes, but most cultures are tolerant of each other. I do not see Buddhists throwing bombs into Christian churches, I do not see Christians blowing up Hindu temples, I do not see those sorts of challenges." Which can be roughly translated to "Muslims, unlike other major religions, are not tolerant of others. They're violent and they don't like us." Which is not only untrue in the fact that it's a gross generalization, but it's also ridiculous to say that members of other religions aren't violent in the name of god. Just because he's talking about culture and not race specifically doesn't make him any less of a bigot.
• Rhys-Davies's claim that "by 2020, 50% of the children in Holland under the age of 18 will be of Muslim descent" shouldn't be allowed to go unchallenged. The Muslim population in Holland has grown very fast in the last thirty years, and if you project the same rate of growth into the future, it's easy to prove that ("if current trends continue") the entire population will be Muslim by the year 2050, or whatever. At present, however, Muslims make up about 5% of the population of Holland, and it is hard to see how this 5% could account for 50% of the school-age population in a mere fifteen years' time. I think it's important to point this out, as a quick Google search shows that the "50% by 2020" statistic is being widely touted by groups on the far right.
• Regardless of how you feel about his comments (and they strike me as ill conceived and disingenuously indignant at best), you HAVE to presume that this is going to make front page news shortly. It is undoubtedly going to be this year's "Big Oscar Scandal." /you heard it on mofi first
• I can't even begin to imagine the reaction of people like this if Turkey are ever admitted to the EU. Will they still claim that Muslims violently hate the West when a Muslim nation is part of it?
• Kimberly, I believe that your "rough translation" is inaccurate, and that you are reacting viscerally to something other than what was written. If all I had to go on was FrontPage magazine, I'd discredit it, too. And I'm neither comfortable nor in agreement with Rhys-Davies' apocalyptic language. Compare the writings of Bernard Lewis for a more nuanced view of the culture war.
• Even if you take a gander at what f8xmulder linked to, Rhys-Davies is quoted as saying that it's the West against Islam and that Islam is a threat to democracy (in part because they're having so many babies and replacing Western culture with theirs). I'll agree that my response is visceral, but I'm not ignoring what he's actually saying. Perhaps he has the best intentions, but I don't know what he expects when he says that Islam is threatening to collapse Western civilization.
• Nice bit of straw-man arguing, Kimberly. You "roughly translated" his comment incorrectly, and then attacked your own translation. Rhys-Davies never said that Muslims are the only violent religion, or that they are inherently violent at all. He gave two examples: Buddhists bombing Christian churches, and Christians bombing Hindu temples. Can you refute his claim that these two acts are not common? Or his claim that there is a larger anti-western segment of Muslim societies than an anti-Muslim segment of Western societies? I happen to agree with Rhys-Davies (not the 50% claim, which is probably a gross exaguration) that our Western values and freedoms would be in jeapordy if fundementalist factions were to become a majority in any previously western society. I wouldn't single out Muslims, however. Fundementalist Christians have already begun the process in the US. The point (I think) he is trying to make is that our cherished values (Gender equality, free speech, freedom of religion, etc) must be protected from this potential danger. On preview, what goetter said.
• Nice spelling. Of course I meant exaggeration.
• ...and jeopardy....damn!
• Woohoo! We've brought out the strawman (Chuck, this is everyone, everyone, this is Chuck). I'm gonna say one more thing and I'm going to drop it because I'm horribly guilty of aruging about arguing when I get going and I really want to avoid that for the sake of monkey-peace, but I have to let this slip through or I'll crack: His comments about Budhists and Hindus committing two specific violent acts were in the context of "most cultures are tolerant of each other" which has more general implications than those two specific acts. Most of the statements by him on this topic that I've read at various sites are generalizations and that's what I find fault with.
• Good communications with others will be essential to this type of Monkey. Monkeys can play nicely, even when they disagree.
• I propose the banning of "straw-man" from Monkeyfilter, as whenever I hear it, the crappy face of the scarecrow from 'the wizard of oz' gets implanted in my retinas for days. and that guy was creepy. tsk tsk.
• This was a comment when the John Rhys-Davies interview was first published. If you want an antidote to Viggo Mortensen on the meaning of Tolkien, check out this interview with John Rhys-Davis, who plays Gimli. I saw Mortensen on TV the other night saying that the "Lord of The Rings" was all about bringing people together, eschewing violence, promoting peace, etc etc. Poor guy. Cute, but dumb as a post. Rhys-Davies is smarter: Davis: "I'm burying my career so substantially in these interviews that it's painful. But I think that there are some questions that demand honest answers. I think that Tolkien says that some generations will be challenged. And if they do not rise to meet that challenge, they will lose their civilization. That does have a real resonance with me... What is unconscionable is that too many of your fellow journalists do not understand how precarious Western civilization is and what a jewel it is. How did we get the sort of real democracy, how did we get the level of tolerance that allows me to propound something that may be completely alien to you around this table, and yet you will take it and you will think about it and you
• As a European historian, I have some sympathy for Rhys-Davies - I've been put into the situation of having to explain to people why Europe is not an intrisically evil place that conquered the rest of the world and then were all racist about it. But frankly, just as I don't have any silly notions about the evil of European civlization, neither do I have silly valorization of it. Some examples of what Rhys-Davies says - From the second link "the abolition of slavery comes from Western democracy" - The truth is that the European-Atlantic slavery took something that had existed for millenia to its most dehumanising and disgusting height. In Africa, slaves were like indentured servants; in the Carribean the Europeans treated them like cattle. They also created systems of racism to justify it that continue to plague us. That the abolitionists happened to be very influenced by religion had a lot more to with the fact that maybe getting religion made them reflect on how insanely immoral slavery was, especially as practiced in the United States and the Carribean colonies. (continued in next comment)
• "True Democracy comes from our Greco-Judeo- Christian-Western experience" Now this is a load of ahistorical horse-blewy. I don't know where "democracy" was really invented - was it ever invented, or did it develop very slowly in different places, and in fact still has a bunch of problems? It's appeared in very restricted forms among the greeks, briefly. Again, among the Romans, before they decided imperial was the way to go. Iceland is the longest continuous democracy, but that predates any "greco-judeo-christian" influence. The most widespread democracy after that was revolutionary France, a decidely pro-secular, anti-Christian place. Not that women were included though. And none of that vaunted wonderful liberal democracy included most people in the US until the civil right wars of the 1960's, if it in fact does now at all. The very fact that Rhys-Davis has to put in "Greco-Roman-Judeo-Christian" shows he has no idea where it comes from. AND he's not given any thought to the incrediably important influences that Arabic, ISLAMIC culture had on Europe throughout the middle ages and early modern period, back when the Middle east was teh centre of "civilization" and the British were running around with Wode on their heads. Not that there's anything wrong with that, I like wode myself. But puts things in perspective when you realise how terribly peripheral all of Northwestern Europe was, until they found cod off the Grand Banks, and started abusing people to produce sugar, etc. Finally, from the first link "I do not want to see a society where, should I ever have any, my granddaughters have their fingernails pulled out because they are wearing nail varnish." Yup, because we all know that extremely fundamentalist Christians never have rules like women aren't suposed to wear trousers on the Brigham Young University Campus, or justified wife abuse in law because the bible says "a man and his wife are one" and how can you hit yourself? Naw, that never happened. The christian bible has nothing about women having to wear veils or staying quiet in church. Point is that there are a lot of problems with fundamentalism no matter what its flavour. Fundamentalist muslims, fundie christians, fundie republicans and fundie liberals. Anyone who takes anything extremely is dangerous. That's my extreme belief. But perpetuating stereotypes that Islam automatically means fundamentalism just undermines the efforts of those would would like to liberalise it, and gives power to those who do not.
• Good comments jb.
• Goetter - that Wood Monkey description is terrific, and perfect for Monkeyfilter. You ought to put that on the front page.
• Excellent find, goetter. John Rhys-Davies was born in May, 1944, which makes him a Wood Monkey!
• Good idea, jb. Will do.
• jb = My hero! I couldn't have said it better old bean! /slavish praise As for buddhists, hindus, christians, and the rest persecuting each other take a look at Sri Lanka. More importantly I think we're missing one of the key aspects of immigration, which is assimilation. While the past few decades have brought a lot of new muslim immigrants to Europe, hold your bets on Belgium being the new Saudia Arabia. The children of those immigrants will grow up in that western democractic society and will tend to take on the characteristics of that society. Afterall, Arnold Schwaznegger may be Gov of CA but I don't see an upswing in lederhosen and schnitzel happening over there.
• Just so we're all on the same page, banishment-wise, this is what a straw man argument is: "Straw Man | Definition: The author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument. Examples: (i) People who opposed the Charlottown Accord probably just wanted Quebec to separate. But we want Quebec to stay in Canada. (ii) We should have conscription. People don't want to enter the military because they find it an inconvenience. But they should realize that there are more important things than convenience. Proof: Show that the opposition's argument has been misrepresented by showing that the opposition has a stronger argument. Describe the stronger argument." [from the wonderfully clarifying Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies, a must read for arguers of all stripes, which means YOU, tough guy!]
• Thanks, Fes. Now if someone can explain ad hominem to me, I'll feel like I'm finally starting to understand internet speak.
• dng, I believe I can help you there. You smell, so therefore your argument sucks. ;)
• Its almost like you know me, coriolisdave.
• ad hominem is when the speaker attacks the person making the argument rather than the argument being made. An extreme example of this from the Gropenator. on preview, coriolisdave beat me to it.
• What can I say, dng? Your qualities just shine through even a text-based medium ;) To actually comment on the FPP, though, I think that the point J R-D's was trying to make was: It is time that ordinary Muslims stood up to be counted.. This is the key to all of his other statements - he's not accusing ALL of the Muslim world of being extremeists, bombing churches left and right... to me, I think he's really calling for the MODERATE muslims to stand up and be counted. It'd certainly be nice to be able to say the middle-east is "just a bunch of Muslim people, lets make them a pie when we go over for Sunday dinner", rather than having to write off an entire region of this planet as CrazyNutJob* land. *Note: I also tend to write the USA off as CrazyNutJob Land, too, but for different reasons ;)
• jb: You are my hero! Thanks for that post! Dave: Thanks for clearing up the whole smell issue, I was wondering. ;) Also, it's really hard for people who are going about their every day lives doing some good stuff, doing some bad stuff, but just getting along and being moderate to get the same kind of press as people who are blowing stuff up. I'm guessing that moderate muslims by far outnumber the fundamentalists and that's the point of this whole bruhaha (broughaha? I have no idea how that's spelled). There is an undertone of force and numbers when one is talking about a civilization in peril. And although it doesn't feel like it sometimes, I'm pretty sure the moderate to fundamentalist ratio is fairly accurate in general.
• accurate = similar, you know, more moderates than fundamentalists. That thing. The thing with the ham. That's what I meant.
• I agree, Kimberly, and I think that's what the gimlet-eyed one was attempting to say - the moderates need to stand up and say "ENOUGH!". Because at the moment, it seems that the driving force behind most of the "muslim nations" are the fundamentalists. Obviously, this is not the case in all regions, but I think that's what he's trying to say. In a thoroughly ham-fisted* fashion, of course, but still. *There's that bloody pig again!
• Wait, Gimli is played by John Rhys-Davies? Gimli the dwarf?
• It is undoubtedly going to be this year's "Big Oscar Scandal." I was surprised that Ian McKellen's habbit of ripping Leviticus out of Bibles (which I applaud) never became a scandal.
• I would make an insightful comment here, probably suggesting that gimli son of gloin overstepped the mark here with several of his comments and should be justly criticised for those specific statements, but that too ignore and repress more rational and calmer versions of his arguments simply because they remind us of racism, rather than actaully being it, is a genuine problem, and that as a passionate supporter of multiculturalism it pains me to see otherwise intelligent people who've got it so badly wrong and haven't realised that there's nothing wrong with standing up and a) demanding that multiculturalism has to work both ways, and that acceptance and inclusion of other cultural mores isn't just reserved for the one set of cultures which are (guiltily) felt to be the traditionally hegemonic and imperialistic ones (for example, indiepop) and b) demanding that moderate religious people of all faiths must, absolutely must, stand up and shout as loudly as they can that religious extremism is utter bullshit and that they must act upon these principles, with no excuses or exceptions or get-out clauses, otherwise they can have no complaints should they all get lumped together as being "a problem" - which would lead to all manner of headscarf-banning illiberal shenanigans that nobody in a civilised society would desire. However, I'm drunk, tired, and going to bed, so instead I'll just say that "Ripping Leviticus" is a damn fine name for a band.
• Can we all agree that Gimli swings a real mean battle ax?
• Did Gimli not learn that different kinds of people can be friends? Can not the Elves of Mirkwood befriend the Dwarves of Somewhereorother? Can they not share the joys of Fangorn Forest and the Glittering Caves? /half-accurate geeking
• "Ripping Leviticus" is a damn fine name for a band. Wow, you're right, it is!
• The cultures of the west have significantly less population than those of the rest of the world. Therefore, there is a potential for various cultures to disappear. We are reaching the time, in the history of this planet, where decisions must be reached about cultural value: how much do we want to keep of our societies of origin? Does culture really have any affect on the organization of groups? These are serious questions that are not investigated due to the fact that as soon as one group of humanity is cut and divided from another the natural result will be the extermination of one of the groups. In a world of limited resources, our lives are a constant fight for survival. Consequently, it is of no surprise that genocide occurs: distinct groups always will aim to survive and be more successful. At present, the world is balanced through treaties, the United Nations, and generally accepted behavior that allows humans to coexist without war. One of the reasons why President Bush's attack on Iraq is so dangerous: he is breaking the rules in international conflict and setting a precedent for future destabilization. If the world is destabilized, humans will form into groups and fight for survival. Muslims know their culture is a majority - this is an irrefutable fact - they may not face it, they may not communicate it, but it is obvious to them, just as any statistical fact. Muslims always make jokes about the proliferation of doctors from their culture in the West: is this true? Not significantly, but they want it to be true: there is a huge quantity of pressure to dominate the West. Again, this is controversial, it is unspoken, but it is true. However, what is to be done? Is there strength in diversity? I think the answer lies in countries such as Canada, which was founded by the West, but is heading in its own direction. In 2000 years Canada will be a new culture - a combination of earlier societies, working together to build something new. Consequently, I believe that as long as any misdirected cultural group does not dominate Canada, it will be a good place to be. The example that is raised in the interview is Holland. Can you imagine a Muslim Holland? To understand the changes that are taking place in Europe I believe the best example is France: currently there are a significant number of immigrants in France, but they are not becoming integrated into French culture, and are forming their own communities. This will cause erosion in French culture as these populations increase, which is rapidly occuring. Nevertheless, what of Judaism – did it not suffer the blame for this same erosion effect? Yes, it did, however it is far from the same case. Judaism did not enter nations to make changes; they moved to fill niches, to use their skills, to benefit the countries at large. The Lord of the Rings is a work very deeply rooted in Western culture: my Muslim friends do not understand it. They do not understand the story, why the characters act the way they do and even question why a fantasy should exist. Perhaps this is not a very representative sample, but I think it indicates that there is a distinct interpretation of the world that is established by Western upbringing and by corollary; it is acceptable to create Western themed works, as the culture must exercise its perception. The culture of the West should not be an embarrassment, but something to build upon. [continued]
• [post continued] John Rhys-Davies mentions that Western society is responsible for democracy. Is it possible for other cultures can generate democracy? Is it safe to allow these cultures to hold powerful positions in the world? We simply cannot answer these questions because there are no experimental results – there has been no sudden emergence of democracy outside of the West. As John Rhys-Davies says - it is dangerous to dispose of something that has created such successful and important values. Western culture must find a way to progress in order to survive and I think The Lord of the Rings is an excellent example. It reinforces the values of the West, whilst asking more questions, and creating great artistic and technological achievement. Other cultures are creating their own creations, and new cultures are being founded. There is space on the Earth for us all – or if not, maybe it is time we expanded. I think it is wonderful that different societies produce things in different ways, but I believe it is also important to remember that we live in a world balanced by law and order, and it must stay that way. Everyone everywhere is fighting to survive. If a culture dominates, it will start to self-destruct, by focusing on its own regional differences, getting more and more specific as populations increase. Balance must be maintained – yes, we should help others and follow standards of behavior, but we should equally help ourselves: adopting a policy of respect and selfishness will encourage competition, but free us from war and terror. This is quite probably the most controversial post I have ever made. I could be wrong on many accounts here, however I wanted to establish a set of ideas that can be utilized to understand, but not forget cultural background.
• I don't want to rain on your parade, but any global analysis that doesn't include the Chinese seems to me a little deficient.
• I don't mean that as a snark, btw.
• I am for dead, (traditional) white male culture," said Rhys-Davies Personally I like my culture with a liberal dressing of living, black women, even - gasp! - Muslim ones.
• Niccolo: That was an awesome post. It helped me think about a lot of things.
• Wolof, thanks to you for always pointing out that others left someone unmentioned, and therefore what they said is subpar. (/kidding snark) By the way, also are missing the japanese, the hindus and latinoamericans. Best comment of the week, niccolo.
• Niccolo: Interesting that you mentioned Canada, because many of the points raised in this discussion made me think of the Mountie issue: Most everyone here knows of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police dress uniform, with it's red tunic and brown Stetson hat. It's a Canadian icon and a big part of Canadian culture. Well, in 1988, a Sikh officer won the right to wear a turban, instead of the Stetson. This was a major issue in Canada at the time, and many who were opposed to the decision were branded as racist. (I'm sure some were, but most were simply trying to preserve a part of their culture). "Racist" is a very easy term to throw around, and it's done far too often. I think what many of my Canadian friends were doing in 1988, and what Rhys-Davies is doing now, is not racist. Wanting to preserve a culture is admirable and understandable. Sometimes in a democracy the rights of the majority supersede the rights of a minority. It's not always fair to everyone, but it's a result of the system we have chosen. Off topic...the red tunic is for ceremonial purposes only, the regular RCMP uniform looks like this.
• Niccolo - thanks for a very well thought out post. I think you are right to note that Western culture has as much right of preservation as any culture, but there was one issue I wanted to pick up upon. "Is it possible for other cultures can generate democracy?" I think this is the heart of many of the "West vs the rest" debates - the assumption, concious or not, that democracy is something inherently western. Considering that for most of its history, the west has not fostered democracies, and at times has in fact pioneered some of the most illiberal, antidemocratic systems of government in human history (i.e. fascisim and totalitarianism), I don't think we can believe that. Democracies in the West, as I noted, developed slowly and by piecemeal, and none were close to democractic (among adult citizens) until recently and may in fact be loosing their democracy (*cough*Florida*cough*). History is something whose points are made over millenia, not decades; let's wait to see if this democracy thing is lasting, or (as they thought in the 1930s) a passing fad. Moreover, before we can say that no non-western democracies developed without influence from the West, (and I again plead my ignorance of non-western history, so if someone has examples, please shout them out), we have to ask ourselves whether they were allowed to. Colonization began long before most European countries themselves had become democratic, and even those which had embrionic parliaments excluded colonials (whether native or colonists) from any form of representation in their own governance. (I do believe there was a little bitty war about this, somewhere). Any indiginous forms of governance were either discontinued or co-opted. Since 1945, the suposedly liberal West has in fact suppressed or disrupted many emerging democracies (Greece, Iran, countless others I know less about) in the name of supressing communism. (I mean, like they were surprised that people at an economic disadvantage might not vote for the global capitalism that has made them poor?) The US and other countries supported tyrants and dictators - like the Shah of Iran - because they were preferrable to the legally elected and liberal, but socialist government. That said, there are currently numerous non-Western democracies, which may have been influenced by, but were certainly not created by, the West. In fact, some, like India, were a reaction against colonialism. No, they are not cookie cutter images of Western democracy, but neither are all Western democracies similar. (I, for one, find the two party system in the US one of the strangest features of its politics - how is this a democracy with online tweedle dee or tweedle dum to choose from? :) Some more interesting things on democracy in this article from the New Republic - I don't know the magazine at all, but it reads sensibly. (continued in next post)
• Okay - so the point of this long, long digress into democracy is to say yes, European culture is a very valuable thing. After all, I have dedicated my life to understanding European history (or at least, a small slice of it). But it's no more valuable than any other culture. Nor is it static. The West that exists today, with it's values of liberalism but also heartless capitalism, is not the Western culture of the early modern period I study (c 1500 - 1800 AD), which was very illiberal and heirarchial but also valued community and caring for each other much more (and I think we westerns have a great deal to learn from our ancestors). So we should make wonderful epic films based on tolkien novels, tell fairy tales, enjoy shakespeare - none of which have been in the least bit of danger of stopping. But we should not walk around prophesising the end of all things good because the face of Europe is changing. Change is good - Europe will change its immigrants, and the immigrants will change Europe. I know the Europeans haven't adjusted yet - Canada, the US, Aust and NZ haven't adjusted either, and we've all had a century or so longer. Part of me understands the fear of change, though considering that the Euros happily flung settlers at the rest of the world, the rest of me thinks it's pay back time. But we have to approach it with an open mind - not assimilation (unless you are the Borg) but integration. One of the reasons that countries like France have had problems with growing enclaves of immigrants is that they have not made an effort to accept immigrants for what they are, and they have encouraged ethnic ghettos. If you insist that people loose all their culture and adopt yours wholeheartedly or else be ostracised, it will backlash. It's not easy - for instance, how can you tell if a woman has chosen to wear a headscarf or has been forced to by her family? The former should always be allowed and respected, the latter stopped. But if you try to push liberalism by being illiberal, that's just hypocrtical. ** use of the word liberal in this post has been entirely in the older sense - hard to define, but related to the word liber, "free", and generally meaning priciples of freedom and toleration.
• On turbans- I remember the RCMP turban debate, and I think that is an excellent example of tensions that can develop between one tradition and another in a multicultural country. But in that case, it was a matter of weighing the significance of the traditions. The uniform hat, while a part of Canadian history, is only a hat. Beloved, made popular by Hollywood, but just a hat; the officers don't even wear it most of the time. A turban, however, is a lot more than a traditional hat. It is a sacred religious symbol. For those who choose to wear it, it is a part of their commitment to their religion. Basically it comes down to "whose nose will loose more skin" - For me, turbans are an open and shut case. They do me no harm, they do someone else great good and, from the picture you linked, he looks great. The turban is way more impressive than the Stetson. Other issues, which are only beginning to come to attention, will be much much more serious. What will Canada do about growing incidents of female genital mutilation, which is an important part of many traditional African cultures. But it goes well beyond what is acceptable in our country. Unlike turbans, it is not a personal choice, and it causes great harm to children (in fact, many people in Africa are trying to stop the practice themselves). But we have to choose our battles - fight for what we really believe is right, and not just for what we are familier with. (really shutting up now)
• Agreed: a fine, thoughful post, niccolo. (on preview: lordy, what a terrific new set of extremely long posts. I think I agree with all of you. Although I wouldn't perhaps be as quick as rocket88 to deny the presence of any racism in those issues. And jb, I do agree, even if in this post it may sound like I'm taking nearly the opposite perspective... Right, on with what I already wrote.) Gimli son of Gloin's specific comments aside, my worry is that a knee-jerk dismissal of concerns like this as being necessarily racist may result in only racist solutions being offered - when the concerns may often be based on liberal thought. To take two recent examples, the success of Pim Fortuyn's anti-immigration platform in the Netherlands, and the banning of 'religious symbols' (i.e. headscarves) in French schools have both been discussed as examples of the rise of intolerance and far-right thought throughout Europe. And while the measures proposed in both cases were crude, offensive and horrifyingly counter-productive, they were based upon analyses that were founded on principles of tolerance. (In the Dutch case, fears that the rise of fundamentalist Islam was undermining Holland's tradition of tolerance and progressive social policies; in the French case, the constitutionally enshrined need for a secular state.) It's nothing about Islam in particular; it's simply that in Europe right now, fundamentalist readings of that religion are most significant and most rapidly spreading form of intolerant religion we've got. I'd have exactly the same fears if we started developing a Christian Right of the same form and potency as in America. We've been fighting the battle against the old bigotries, and (on the whole) we're winning. It would be a shame the tolerance that's now a defining element of our society was, through over-zealous application, to give cover and comfort to an active and agressive intolerance. The policy of "the enemy of my enemy being my friend" has never been a terribly good one. Let's not leave the field open to genuine racists, just because we're too busy smothering discussions that simply remind us of racism. A personal anecdote. A few months ago, an old muslim man - respectable looking, possibly an imam, in fact - passed me on the escalators at King's Cross station. As he approached me, he looked at me and shouted "You little gay!". Then shouted it again. And kept on shouting it as we passed by each other, maybe eight or nine times, shockingly loud, as my escalator went up and his went down. I didn't say anything; I was pretty scared, for one thing. But I wanted to. I wanted to scream at him, "Don't you fucking get it? You're not allowed to say that! Because if you're allowed to say that, then the racist bloke over there's allowed to call you a Paki, and he's allowed to tell you to go home, to get out of our country. And I don't want that - it would be horrific - but why on earth should you be protected by the beliefs of my set of cultures, when I am afforded no protection from the more intolerant beliefs of your set of cultures?" I'd probably have been less coherent than that, admittedly... I don't know. Perhaps all these concerns are unjustified - I mean, I find the more extreme versions, the Daily Mail-esque "Will Muslims kill our culture?" utterly laughable - but it's hard to deny that there's something truly depressing about one victim of hate turning around and then doing nothing but preach a fresh new hate all of their very own.
• I most certainly do not deny the presence of any racism in the "preserving white western culture" viewpoints, as flashboy suggests. I have been involved in countless RCMP turban debates over the years (For the record, I'm in favour of them), and many times the opposition has been racially motivated. More often, though, the opposition has been rational and well thought-out, from people who are most definitely not racist (one was a Sikh!). In Canada, I have the right to hold and voice my opinions, and even to lobby my government to bring about or prevent change (not all change is good, jb). Non-western immigrants have the same right. If these immigrants desire a change that benefits them, does my opposition make me a racist? If a Muslim individual or group lobbies to restrict women's rights, I oppose it out of support for women's rights, not because I don't like Muslims. Similarly, I give Rhys-Davies the benefit of the doubt, and assume that his comments are in support of traditional European culture, and not an opposition to Muslim immigration.
• Great posts by everyone. I would say the importance of multiculturalism lies in how easy it is to forget how little we have in common with non-westerners we meet and who are having an ever-increasing influence on western society. (even if it is only reciprocative of our own influence) Different cultures are conducive to wildly differently worldviews and without understanding there is of course a lot of potential for conflict. I have to wonder though, if cultural clashes will ever be eliminated. And if so, is it not likely to be due to some gross homogenization of our current diversity? Ideally we could retain many of our cultural perspectives while replacing less compatible ones such as the many different manifestations of ethnocentrism. With MacDonalds taking over the world, however, it is somewhat hard to see this happening. Currently many of the evils of Western culture are being forced on others in the name of the good parts. Maybe if we had a few hundred years of benevolent world dictatorship in which we could interact but had no chance to fight our biases could be ironed out, but that's probably wishful thinking. And maybe this theoretical view I'm using is too abstract to really make any sense or really analyze things like Welsh actors making comments about Islam.
• Compare the writings of Bernard Lewis for a more nuanced view of the culture war. More nuanced, perhaps, but no better. Lewis is notorious (among people who know anything about the range and variation of Islam as practiced worldwide) for reducing Islam to a single, ahistorical stereotype and then criticizing his own straw man for alleged failings vis-a-vis supposedly superior "Western" culture (also presented as an ahistorical whole). And anyone who says "It is time that ordinary Muslims stood up to be counted" had better think long and hard about exactly why they think "ordinary Muslims" have any obligation to do anything other than live their lives as best they can. It's like all those demands for black politicians to "repudiate" some stupid statement made by some stupid extremist. Do whites and/or Christians go around repudiating every dumb thing said and done by whites and/or Christians? I used to know a Shi'ite Muslim from Lebanon. When I met him I had all the stereotyped thoughts: "Lebanese Shi'ite... bombing... intolerance... sectarian extremism..." Then he told me he was sending his daughter to a Catholic school so she could get a good education. Huh. How 'bout that. Stereotyping dumb. People different. Even Muslims.
• Lewis is notorious [....] That's the Edward Said critique, isn't it? I don't remember any of that ahistorical reductionism from when I read WHAT WENT WRONG? a couple of years ago, but I'll try to keep it in mind if I get another chance.
• Ahistorical reductionism is a pandemic disease.
• woops. apologies rocket88. that was a rushed comment, made on preview after a confusingly large number of new, very long posts from a variety of interesting, intelligent people. in my haste to clarify my position in the light of all the new posts, i substantially misrepresented your views. very sorry, and i'd like to make it clear that i agree with just about everything you said in your most recent post. languagehat, I appreciate and substantially agree with your point of view. However, you appear to suggest that being white/black/whatever is exactly analogous to being muslim/christian/whatever. It's not. One chooses what religion, if any, to be a part of (with external influence being brought to bear, obviously). And there isn't, for any religion, any rigidly defined set of rules; being a 'muslim' or a 'christian' is a largely self-defined state. And if you self-define as a msulim/christian/whatever, you surely have some sort of societal responsibility to at least acknowledge, and account for, others who self-define as m/c/whatever? Don't you? Look at my deliberate use of the phrse "set of cultures", as opposed to suggesting that there is one monolithic culture for any particular (ho ho) 'race'. To take an analogous (and admittedly hyper-British) example, when football in our country was on the verge of collapse due to hooliganism, there was a vast majority of people who insisted, "These people aren't really football fans, they're thugs. They're nothing to do with the game." Bollocks. And it was only once people started admitting that, yes, our game had a severe problem and it was up to the fans themselves to speak out against it and stop it bloody happening, that the game was able to reinvent itself and become the successful, vastly more inclusive institution that it is today. maybe this theoretical view I'm using is too abstract to really make any sense or really analyze things like Welsh actors making comments about Islam. yup. stripe wins.
• This is a decent article from today's guardian about secularism, religion and tolerance. When racism and anti-semitism are on the rise, religion can be a key part of an ethnic identity under assault...So when British cabinet ministers and commentators question the loyalty of Muslims to the country in which they live and Jews are held responsible for Israel's actions, the tectonic plates of racial discourse are clearly sliding from race to religion and colour to creed.
• Jeez. I go out for a weekend and I completely lost track of this thread. Excellent comments, everyone. Best thread ever. languagehat- Do whites and/or Christians go around repudiating every dumb thing said and done by whites and/or Christians? Yes, some we do (well, I'm non-christian now but I used to be a self-critic white christian). And I personally expect educated people of any culture or faith to be critic of themselves and their mates. stripe, I really hope that culture clashes never end. Although I also hope the aggresions are reduced to mere criticisms, jokes, and healthy debates. Global homogenization not only would make life dull. I probably would endanger our civilization as a whole as no societal variations arise and one single blow could wipe us all. Well, not exactly a blow, but we could die simply via stagnation. Diversity is the drive of evolution, both natural and cultural. One more thing, western civilization has died several times. Greeks, romans, bizantines, visigoths, etc... But as long as we keep our history, and we should thank muslims for preserving our greek past, there's nothing to fear about the western culture being displaced. Besides, democracy is so strong a concept now in any culture that it can no longer be displaced fully by any fundamentalist or dictatorial force for long enough. So, it really doesn't matter where it started first. As for tolerance, equity, and free speech, well, those are the only things that are worth fighting to preserve, and we should not claim them as part of our western culture since we didn't have those until recently and, if we can somewhat handle them, any culture can do it too without too much sacrifice.
• Here's a link to the grauniad article dng speaks of. 'Tis a good article, by and large. I often don't agree with Gary Younge, but he's on the mon(k)ey here. This is not a competition to see who is most oppressed - sadly there is enough misery to go around.
• Thanks flashboy - I don't really know what happened to my link. I feel like quite the fool. Clam out.
• Having looked at the source code, I opened and closed the link around nothing. that was mighty sensible. Note for self: USE PREVIEW
• Woo hoo! Woo hoo! woo-- Damn, I wandered into a serious link. Well, I suppose this link comes back to the present issue with the cartoons of the prophet and the clash of civilizations. I recently read What Went Wrong and although it seems far too brief to be satisfying or to give concrete answers (can any book do that), it was good in pointing out the very different ways people in the Muslim world can look at the same history.