February 14, 2007

"Holland was trying to be tolerant for the sake of consensus, but the consensus was empty."

Writes Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who was the subject of a film and of a note pinned to the murdered body of the film's director, Theo Van Gogh.
“The immigrants’ culture was being preserved at the expense of their women and children and to the detriment of the immigrants’ integration into Holland.”...

Death threats have since driven Ms. Hirsi Ali to the United States....

This is a pity. As a politician, she focused Dutch minds on a subject they steadfastly ignored.
Here is her "brave, inspiring and beautifully written" memoir:

101 comments:

The Drill SGT said...

a real gutsy lady who speaks the truth as she sees it.

Adam L said...

"a real gutsy lady who speaks the truth as she sees it."

Well said, except I don't think you need to qualify it.

The truth as she sees it fortunately happens to be the Truth, like, the actual truth.

Take it away, John:

'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.'

rsb said...

...the Quran is not a holy document. It is a historical record, written by humans. . . . And it is a very tribal and Arab version of events. It spreads a culture that is brutal, bigoted, fixated on controlling women, and harsh in war." ditto for the Bible - replace Arab with Judeo-Christian.

MadisonMan said...

A brave woman.

Is there someone (female) comparable in the States? I don't think so.

Ann Althouse said...

Madison Man: She is in the United States now. That means something.

MadisonMan said...

True. It's noteworthy that freedom protectors come here from overseas.

Simon said...

rsb said...
"...the Quran is not a holy document. It is a historical record, written by humans ... And it is a very tribal and Arab version of events. It spreads a culture that is brutal, bigoted, fixated on controlling women, and harsh in war. ditto for the Bible - replace Arab with Judeo-Christian."

Compare The Koran, Sura 9:5 ("Slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush") with The Bible, Matt. 5:43-45 ("You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven"). Yep, no difference there. Kill your enemies, love your enemies, what's the difference really.

Simon said...

MadisonMan said...
"True. It's noteworthy that freedom protectors come here from overseas."

The reason she came here was under threat of death from people who have no doubt read the passage from the Koran quoted above.

The Drill SGT said...


Adam L said...
"a real gutsy lady who speaks the truth as she sees it."

Well said, except I don't think you need to qualify it.


How about: "a real gutsy lady who speaks the truth when she sees it."

Dewave said...

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a marvellous woman. Incredibly brave and devoted to her cause of revealing the ugly truth about the way women are often treated under Islam.

The fact that supposedly 'free and civilized' nations are letting her basically be run out of the country by death threats from vicious Islamic thugs is an embarassment to us all.

If you ever want an example of someone *actually* willing to 'speak truth to power', she is it.

Jennifer said...

Vogue ran excerpts of her memoirs last month and I was really drawn in. Looking forward to reading the whole thing.

Some said...

I wish she'd run for office HERE.

Fen said...

Agreed.

BTW, have the feminsting-type blogs taken note of her? Is NOW even aware of her existence Hollywood celebs marching down the Washington Mall, fists raised in defiance of Islam?

Molon_Labe_Lamp said...

Dewave said:The fact that supposedly 'free and civilized' nations are letting her basically be run out of the country by death threats from vicious Islamic thugs is an embarassment to us all.

They didn't let her be run out. The Dutch government was actually complicit in it. If I recall she was "creative" with some facts on her orginal visa application to get into the country all those years ago. The weak kneed collaborated with her enemies to attmept to disgrace her on this point. Their loss is our tremendous gain.

Roger said...

In addition to being brave, she is strikingly beautiful as well.

Revenant said...

I'm asking this in all seriousness: when's the last time an American public figure had to flee this country to avoid a genuine risk of being murdered for his or her beliefs?

This is in some ways a violent country, but I can't think of when that has *ever* happened here. Has it?

mcg said...

I don't know if it's fair to exclude people who were murdered for their beliefs---like, say, MLK. After all, they simply suffered the misfortune of not getting out in time.

Sean said...

Fen, I can't speak for feministe, but Crooked Timber, a lefty and, though that's not its focus, feminist blog, was very hostile to Ali. Most leftists, at least in Europe and in academia, are very sympathetic to Islamic extremism, on the grounds that it's the only viable anti-Western movement around, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Michael McNeil said...

MadisonMan wrote:
A brave woman.
Is there someone (female) comparable in the States? I don't think so.


Don't forget Wafa Sultan, or here for a news piece about her and the transcript.  It's better to watch the video (the first link), however.

dougjnn said...

Yes she's brave and yes she's strikingly good looking, in a classically NE African female kind of way.

But lets give her the further respect of taking seriously her message.

Which most centrally is that Holland in particular and Western liberal societies in general need to stop being so tolerant of the intolerance of certain multicultural communities within their midst – especially many Muslim ones.

Her message is that a return to a demand for a large degree of assimilation into the norms and values of the host society, which used to be the classic American demand and bargain, should be what we REQUIRE of other cultures which wish to come as immigrants into our societies.

If they don’t like it and won’t tolerate it then they shouldn’t come and should be barred at the door. In a non trivial number of the worst cases non-citizens should be chucked out.

That’s a combination of what she says and the logical and rather inescapable logical projection of what she said.

Extreme multiculturalism which is pretty much the sort preached by the MSM and certainly academia here and especially Europe has been doing great damage. Moderately liberal appreciation of the good things about different cultures is broadening and refreshing and enriching. Multiculturalists in contrast have got a big problem with anyone outside of a culture agreeing on what the good things (and by implication the not so good things) about another culture even are.

It’s absurd.

Revenant said...

I don't know if it's fair to exclude people who were murdered for their beliefs---like, say, MLK.

*slaps head*

Good point, quite a few Americans were murdered for advocating civil rights. Dunno where my brain was when I asked for examples.

Freder Frederson said...

Her message is that a return to a demand for a large degree of assimilation into the norms and values of the host society, which used to be the classic American demand and bargain, should be what we REQUIRE of other cultures which wish to come as immigrants into our societies.

So who gets to decides the "norms and values of the host society"? Are they written down somewhere? Heck, you and I probably wouldn't even agree on the top five "Christian values" let alone what the norms and values of a host society that is multicultural, multiracial, multiethnic, of different faiths. Where 12% of the population is descended from people who didn't even come here voluntarily and another 2% are the remnants of the original people of this country, of whom up to 95% were killed by imported diseases, and of those who were left, were pushed of their native lands or slaughtered.

Kirby Olson said...

It's #24 at Amazon.com. I wonder if it's being taught at any of our women's studies departments in America.

Freder Frederson said...

And when the Europeans colonized most of the globe, did they feel the need to assimilate to the norms and values of the societies they invaded? Why didn't the British ever assimilate in Africa or India? Or the French in Algeria or North Africa?

Freder Frederson said...

Maybe we just need to recolonize all these countries to teach these wogs manners again.

Seven Machos said...

So who gets to decides the "norms and values of the host society"?

We do, Fred, as individuals, as families, as communities, as towns and cities, as states, and as a nation. This isn't hard to understand.

Go to a typical high school and observe. There you will see an extreme case of the formation of So who gets to decides the "norms and values of the host society" in action.

Seven Machos said...

Fred -- Are you seriously contending that the English did not colonize India to a large extent? Do you know anything about the place?

Simon said...

Freder Frederson said...
"So who gets to decides the 'norms and values of the host society'"?

It isn't always necessary to define the complete perimeter and precise contours of the norms and values of the host society; I don't have to tell you everything that is acceptable to American cultural norms to determine that certain specific cultural practices are beyond them. You presumably wouldn't disagree that turning a blind eye to the murder of apostates is acceptable.

None-the-less, the simple answer, of course, is that the majority gets to decide what are the norms and values that are enforceable by law, and the First Amendment offers no protection to practices that are beyond the pale.

Simon said...

Eek! I mean unacceptable.

Cedarford said...

Michael McNeil -

Which most centrally is that Holland in particular and Western liberal societies in general need to stop being so tolerant of the intolerance of certain multicultural communities within their midst – especially many Muslim ones.

Her message is that a return to a demand for a large degree of assimilation into the norms and values of the host society, which used to be the classic American demand and bargain, should be what we REQUIRE of other cultures which wish to come as immigrants into our societies.


Well said. Not only this brave Somali lady, but Pope Benedict has said the West has fallen into a great Leftist trap in coming to believe it was under ogligation in the name of "tolerance", to accept and sometimes grovel to intolerant immigrants.
********************
Freder - So who gets to decides the "norms and values of the host society"? Are they written down somewhere?

Spoken as other enablers of an invading enemy, a conquering, intolerant immigrant host have so frequently done.

A Vichy Frenchman - "Where are these French values the Nazis seek to improve upon written down? Who are we native French to say what values and norms are proper?"

Enabler Freder professes confusion as to the existence of ANY American or Western values:

Heck, you and I probably wouldn't even agree on the top five "Christian values" let alone what the norms and values of a host society that is multicultural, multiracial, multiethnic, of different faiths.

Multi-culti idiots like him refuse to acknowledge America is a continuation of 5,000 years of Western culture. That we have in our laws, constitutions, literature, social norms and values some deeply held and cherished beliefs. Sometimes there is room for other, new norms and values....but it is disingenous to pretend that some new values and norms arriving "outsiders" want imposed do not threaten our civilization, society, and family's. If we can accept and accomodate, we generally do - but that which is incompatable and threatens cannot be accomodated and the ultimate choices of those that foist danger on us is to voluntarily leave or be forced to leave our society, Our Western Civilization.

Freder Frederson said...

Fred -- Are you seriously contending that the English did not colonize India to a large extent? Do you know anything about the place?

What I am saying is that the British did not assimilate to the "norms and values of Indian society". Quite the opposite, they slapped a veneer of British Society on the subcontinent. In fact they didn't assimilate to the norms and values of any society they colonized, they either set up a mini-Britain to rule over the "uncivilized" natives or merely displaced or eliminated the natives.

Just like we have not assimilated to the norms and values of American society. We have transplanted a fundamentally English (or at least mostly Western European) society on the American Continent. Disease had already taken care of most of the society, but we either forced whoever was left off the land, and if they didn't leave fast enough, we killed them. That is hardly assimilating to the norms and values of the society.

Seven Machos said...

Fred -- You are moving the goal posts again.

You are also assuming that a culture -- even, say, Amish culture or Saudi culture -- is static.

You are also under the false impression that assimilation is a geographic thing. It's not. Culture moves around. The West, for example, started in Greece, moved eventually to Western Europe, and has now its primary domicile in the United States.

You are also assuming that assimilation is not power-based, or that it is wrong to use social, political, and physical coercion to assimilate. It's not. Assimilation is primarily based on social, political, and physical coercion. You obviously have a problem with that. But it is what it is and either there will be assimilation or there will be terrible social problems. To wit, Europe.

Freder Frederson said...

Multi-culti idiots like him refuse to acknowledge America is a continuation of 5,000 years of Western culture.

5000 years. Give me a freaking break! The Arabs, who you despise so much may have a claim to 5000 years of culture. But the west? The "West" destroyed Rome and then the Church destroyed the cultures that destroyed Rome. At best "Western Culture" is 1200 years or so old, although it was able to steal a lot from the bones of Greece, Rome and the Arabs.

Revenant said...

So who gets to decides the "norms and values of the host society"?

The host society does.

Are they written down somewhere?

They're written down in many places -- including in the laws of the nation in question.

The Muslim behaviors Ali spoke out against are, for the most part, illegal in Holland (e.g. forced marriage and child abuse). What Ali is getting at is that, rather than saying "oh, that's just how they do things in Backwardsistan", the Dutch should be saying "well they should fuck off back to Backwardsistan, then".

Many western societies simply lack the courage of their post-Enlightenment convictions, and are unwilling to say "that is wrong, even if your culture thinks it is right". The legacy of colonialism and racism has made people reluctant to admit that some cultures are, in fact, morally and ethically inferior to our own.

Where 12% of the population is descended from people who didn't even come here voluntarily and another 2% are the remnants of the original people of this country

I can't imagine why it's relevant that most black Americans are descended from people who didn't come here voluntarily. We aren't making them stay. If they'd rather be in Africa they're free to go.

Nor is it clear why it matters that other cultures used to dominate the territory of the United States. There isn't a piece of real estate on the face of the Earth that hasn't changed cultural hands countless times. Heck, the population of the British Isles lives in a culture imposed on their ancestors by invaders from mainland Europe, but you don't hear them pining for the days of the Druids much.

Revenant said...

they slapped a veneer of British Society on the subcontinent. In fact they didn't assimilate to the norms and values of any society they colonized, they either set up a mini-Britain to rule over the "uncivilized" natives or merely displaced or eliminated the natives.

It isn't clear why it would have been good for an evolving democracy to assimilate to a collection of rigidly stratified dictatorial monarchies. It was probably for the best that it worked the other way around.

Nor is it clear why you need scare quotes around the word "uncivilized" when describing people who burn innocent women alive.

Freder Frederson said...

The legacy of colonialism and racism has made people reluctant to admit that some cultures are, in fact, morally and ethically inferior to our own.

Well, perhaps Europeans are more keenly aware than us Americans that Western "culture" has been responsible for more death and destruction over the last 500 years than another culture in the history of mankind (and heck that doesn't even count if you don't believe or accept blame for the mounting evidence that European diseases wiped out up to 95% of the population of the Americas before we made it more than a few miles inland). They can certainly look back on the past one hundred years and the two most destructive wars in human history and the genocides inspired by western thought and wonder what the hell we have to boast about.

Freder Frederson said...

Nor is it clear why you need scare quotes around the word "uncivilized" when describing people who burn innocent women alive.

Oh, and we have never burned innocent women alive. You do realize that the British were burning witches well into the 18th century?

Freder Frederson said...

Sorry, England executed its last witch in 1684 (which means we were still executing witches after England since the Salem Witch trials--where 20 were executed--was in 1691). But Poland executed the last witch in 1792, and witch executions continued in South America until the church banned them in 1830's.

Seven Machos said...

Lefties -- Assimiliation and cultural control are ultimately a political power struggle, and sometimes a military one. What makes this so hard for you to understand?

Also, the implication here is that the West is bad. It's not. At worst, the West is equal to all other cultures. And if all other cultures are the same, then there is only power. In which case, there will be a political power struggle, and sometimes a military one, for what the mores and laws and traditions of a culture are.

This isn't difficult.

Freder Frederson said...

"Nor is it clear why you need scare quotes around the word "uncivilized" when describing people who burn innocent women alive."

So should I put scare quotes around a "civilization" that would allow 35,000 women and children (and not even uncivilized African or Asian, but honest to God Europeans) die of disease and starvation in concentration camps in South Africa during the Boer War (where btw the term "concentration camp" was coined).

Simon said...

Freder Frederson said...
"[T]he British did not assimilate to the 'norms and values of Indian society'. Quite the opposite ... they colonized, they either set up a mini-Britain to rule over the 'uncivilized' natives or merely displaced or eliminated the natives."

Hirsi Ali is raising the red flag that this process of colonization is precisely what is happening in Europe today. Psst - d'you think it's only happening in Europe?

Seven Machos said...

Fred -- Fine. There have been terrible, terrible things done in Western societies. Not 70 years ago, 25 million people died as a result of the policies of Stalin and Hitler, both very Western. There was slavery. There was torture. We get it. Great.

The problem with your argument remains that a community owns its own culture. You can't change that. You can bitch about it. You can criticize Western history. You can criticize Guantanamo. But it doesn't change the central fact that a commnity owns its own culture.

I note in passing that you have chosen to make your home in the West, which you abhor, and not in Saudi Arabia or Cuba or North Korea. I'm sure you just haven't been able to get the visa.

Seven Machos said...

Simon makes a great point. What are people who bring their own culture to a new, alien culture doing but attempting to colonize it?

The Drill SGT said...

I swore I would not ever bother to respond to Freder's rants, but I can't let this one drop. Freder doesn't make the correct distinction between immigration, which is what we are willing to allow into the US and colonization, which is what the English did in India. In the case of immigration, the society accepts people from other lands who want to join the prevailing culture and assimilate. Colonization is the transplanting of a culture from the mother country onto new lands with the intent of replicating the mother culture, not assimilating into the Host. England colonized America and India. America accepts immigrants. The Muslim world is colonizing Europe and wants to colonize America. We need to make it clear that we will accept legal immigrants, but send colonists packing.


OT: Revenant said... We aren't making them stay. If they'd rather be in Africa they're free to go.
I loved a line in one of the Clancy novels (Executive Order, I think) that places a black Army officer in Africa as an Attaché. He makes a comment about what a hell hole it is and says something like, "don't tell anybody, but compared to this place, South Alabama is a paradise, I'm glad my ancestors were put on the boat"

Freder Frederson said...

I note in passing that you have chosen to make your home in the West, which you abhor, and not in Saudi Arabia or Cuba or North Korea.

Interesting choice of countries. Let's see, the Saudi Arabian Royal Family was put in place by the British (didn't you see Lawrence of Arabia) and maintains power only because of us. And both Cuba and North Korea base their societies on Western philosophies. Whether you like it or not, Marxism and communism are just as much part of Western Civilization as Adam Smith.

Simon said...

Freder Frederson said...
"England executed its last witch in 1684 (which means we were still executing witches after England since the Salem Witch trials--where 20 were executed--was in 1691)."

It's a good job you're here to remind us just how uncivilized western society once was. Meanwhile, modern islamic societies are paragons of civilization - where they continue to stone to death homosexuals and 13 year old rape victims.

Islamic culture is so stunningly progressive and civilized compared to ours, in fact, that feminist scholar Phyllis Chesler has termed its enlightened treatment of women "gender apartheid" and "femicide." Chesler, The Death of Feminism: What's Next in the Struggle for Women's Freedom (2005). Islamic culture is one in which women are "seen as inferior, contaminated, and dangerous. Human sacrifices are necessary on a regular basis to purge the group's sense of permanent shame ... [and thus a woman] lives her life under [the] communal death threat [of] the honor killing." Chesler, at pp. 142-3; and where female prisoners are routinely "raped on the eve of their executions by guards who alleged that killing a virgin was a sin in Islam ... [while other guards] say that they rape the unmarried virgins so that they will be barred from heaven." Id. at 57.

One of the crimes against humanity Chesler recounts is the sentencing of a fifteen year old girl by a Pakistani judge. The girl was sentenced to be gang raped. Were that not horrific enough, can you imagine what terrible, ghastly crime she must have committed to merit such a sentence? Well, her ten-year-old brother was raped by their tribal elders you see. Obviously, the only way to mitigate the family's shame was for the sister to pay the price of that shame. Tell me again how our culture is equal to such barbarians. Tell me again how we would be wrong to impose our cultural standards on such people. Tell me again how America is not better than such monsters.

Chesler speaks directly to you in the very context of this thread, Freder: "I am not in favor of colonialism [but] I am in favor of feminists learning from history when it comes to women's freedom [and] [w]hether we like it or not, some of the consequences of capitalism, Christianity, and colonialism were very positive for Third World women, just as some consequences were very negative."
Id. at 106.

I for one welcome our new, more civilized, overlords that Freder would consign us to life under.

Seven Machos said...

Cuba was a relatively poor choice.

North Korea is to Communism as a one-wheeled tricycle is to locomotive devices. It is a dynastic slave state, nothing more.

You know nothing about the history of Saudi Arabia is you believe that the House of Saud was not completely indigenous to the area. By your logic, Khomeni and Bin Laden are Western and the Taliban because they have accepted Western aid.

At any rate, I notice you don't live in any hellhole. Also, the distinction between immigration and colonization is one that you should try to get your little head around.

Freder Frederson said...

I for one welcome our new, more civilized, overlords that Freder would consign us to life under.

Well, of course I have been very careful to play Ann Althouse here and have never said any of the horrible things you accuse me of. Just pointed out facts and posited questions. Why on earth would you ever believe that I don't think that Western Civilization is the highest achievement of mankind and is superior to all others on the face of the earth. I never said it wasn't. You must all be lunatics to infer such things from my posts. I'm so misunderstood. I was merely using the socratic method.

Did I do good Ann?

Simon said...

Fred- As if you haven't disagraced yourself enough already, now you add to it by a cheap (and patently false) shot at our hostess. Class act.

Seven Machos said...

Below is Fred's version of the Socratic Method:

Where 12% of the population is descended from people who didn't even come here voluntarily and another 2% are the remnants of the original people of this country, of whom up to 95% were killed by imported diseases, and of those who were left, were pushed of their native lands or slaughtered.

Maybe we just need to recolonize all these countries to teach these wogs manners again.

What I am saying is that the British did not assimilate to the "norms and values of Indian society". Quite the opposite, they slapped a veneer of British Society on the subcontinent. In fact they didn't assimilate to the norms and values of any society they colonized, they either set up a mini-Britain to rule over the "uncivilized" natives or merely displaced or eliminated the natives.

Just like we have not assimilated to the norms and values of American society. We have transplanted a fundamentally English (or at least mostly Western European) society on the American Continent. Disease had already taken care of most of the society, but we either forced whoever was left off the land, and if they didn't leave fast enough, we killed them. That is hardly assimilating to the norms and values of the society.

So should I put scare quotes around a "civilization" that would allow 35,000 women and children (and not even uncivilized African or Asian, but honest to God Europeans) die of disease and starvation in concentration camps in South Africa during the Boer War (where btw the term "concentration camp" was coined).

Sorry, England executed its last witch in 1684 (which means we were still executing witches after England since the Salem Witch trials--where 20 were executed--was in 1691). But Poland executed the last witch in 1792, and witch executions continued in South America until the church banned them in 1830's.

5000 years. Give me a freaking break! The Arabs, who you despise so much may have a claim to 5000 years of culture. But the west? The "West" destroyed Rome and then the Church destroyed the cultures that destroyed Rome. At best "Western Culture" is 1200 years or so old, although it was able to steal a lot from the bones of Greece, Rome and the Arabs.

Freder Frederson said...

You know nothing about the history of Saudi Arabia is you believe that the House of Saud was not completely indigenous to the area. By your logic, Khomeni and Bin Laden are Western and the Taliban because they have accepted Western aid.

Give me a freaking break, of course the House of Saud is from the area, but they owe their kingdom and their wealth to being put on the throne by the British after World War I to secure the oil supplies (as were the governments in Iraq and Iran).

Seven Machos said...

"The emergence of a Saudi state began in central Arabia in 1744. A regional ruler, Muhammad bin Saud, joined forces with an Islamic cleric and reformer, Muhammad Abd Al-Wahhab, to create a new political entity. This alliance formed in the 18th Century remains the basis of Saudi Arabian dynastic rule today."

In Fred's World -- which is all very sophisticated and Socratic -- the place called the Middle East didn't actually exist until the British came along. It was all just dirt and water. There were no politics there. Nothing.

And people from there who come here today ought to be able to come with their culture and society right along with them. This is exercising rights. However, we should not be able to take our culture and society there, because that would be colonizing.

I wish I was a leftist. I wouldn't have to worry about logic or consistency.

Freder Frederson said...

Below is Fred's version of the Socratic Method:

And where in the quoted sections is there a statement of tolerance for the things Ms. Ali is criticizing or statements that are untrue?

All I see is provocative statements about western civilization. Some indisputable facts and some other points but are open to debate (like exactly how devastating, but not the fact of, the waves of plagues that swept through the Americas from 1500--1700 were), but are well supported by current research.

Where did I say we should embrace multi-culturalism? Where did I say I was not appalled by honor killings or stonings or using rape as punishment or revenge? So many of you are all for using torture, summary execution, collective punishment and the tactics of so-called less civilized people against our enemies. But if the people whose tactics you are so eager to adapt want to live among us, you are suddenly appalled by their behavior. What gives?

Freder Frederson said...

It was all just dirt and water. There were no politics there. Nothing.

What on earth are you going on about? The British were aces at exploiting local politics and picking the right horse to back. Of course they chose the House of Saud as the faction to back when it came time to deal the final blow to the hated Ottomans. How you got from what I wrote that the British magically created the House of Saud out of the sand of the desert is beyond me.

Naked Lunch said...

Simon said..
Tell me again how our culture is equal to such barbarians. Tell me again how we would be wrong to impose our cultural standards on such people.

This makes no sense! How can we impose our culture on barbarians?

Freder Frederson said...

now you add to it by a cheap (and patently false) shot at our hostess.

Yeah, find me an instance where she actually states an opinion on anything of substance. Usually she just makes snide insulting remarks about Democrats and fawns over Republicans--but usually just about peripheral issues (e.g., apparently she likes Mitt Romney because his wife's name is Ann and he speaks in short sentences). But she'll sure let us know exactly what she thinks about American Idol or some other pointless reality show.

Seven Machos said...

Fred -- Why are you here? Do you realize that you are having fun by insulting and baiting people? That's perverse and wrong.

Good riddance.

Simon said...

Freder Frederson said...
"Yeah, find me an instance where she actually states an opinion on anything of substance."

http://bloggingheads.tv/video.php?id=174&cid=836

Simon said...

NL - I don't follow. By "barbarian", one usually understands "a person in a savage, primitive state; [an] uncivilized person." That is, without civility, not incapable of it.

Seven Machos said...

The House of Saud was fundamentally not put in place by the British. To say such a thing is to evince an utter lack of historical understanding. It's a lot like saying the Maoists were put in place by the Soviet Union.

Cedarford said...

Machos - Simon makes a great point. What are people who bring their own culture to a new, alien culture doing but attempting to colonize it?

Similarly, Freder and other dolts who argue that multi-culti works and the West can be transformed into a patchwork quilt of different cultures and harmony will prevail as long as the dominant one is willing to accomodate what minority cultures want are making a dangerous and stupid advocacy.

What multi-culti is, is nothing but lobbying for tribalism going under a brand new name.

Tribalism is inherently dangerous. Until the Left gloried in it as a sign of "toleration" and "not being racist/discriminatory/bigoted" societies absolutely knew that diversity sowed the seeds for future conflict or a profound lost of the basic trust and harmony that must exist in a smoothly functioning, low crime and social friction society.

Diversity means the 100 civil wars of Africa and Europe. Only full assimilation works to safeguard society from dividing in warring camps.

Sulejman Talovic, an 18-year old Muslim refugee, was identified as the Utah Mall shooter. Before an off duty cop shopping for a Valentine's Day present dropped him, he shot and killed 6 people. 4 others shot are still hospitalized, two in very serious condition. Talovic was wearing a backpack full of shotgun ammo and a copy of the Holy Qur'an. His Bosnian mother described him as a good boy who had grown disaffected with American ways....

Freder Frederson said...

Do you realize that you are having fun by insulting and baiting people? That's perverse and wrong.

I thought that was the whole point of this blog.

Seven Machos said...

Fred -- Go back to the kiddie pool. You are an idiot. I really enjoy the discussion here but when you come around, it ruins it.

Internet Ronin said...

In case no one has noticed, the problem with acknowledging anything Freder says is that the conversation immediately becomes all about Freder. And Freder likes that - it ruins whatever slim hope there was for a rational conversation. (It is also why Freder is not welcome at many blogs like Volokh.)

Sure, his comments are outrageous. They are intended to provoke and are quite successful. If you like playing his game according to his rules, by all means play, but realize that almost everyone else has stopped looking and don't give a rat's a** what Freder did or didn't say.

This should have been an interesting subject, but it is far too late for that now. How sad, because Sean pointed towards an interesting aspect of this fascinating, heroic woman's story. People like Freder would prefer you not know about it. Thus, the successful diversion of the topic.

Revenant said...

Well, perhaps Europeans are more keenly aware than us Americans that Western "culture" has been responsible for more death and destruction over the last 500 years than another culture in the history of mankind

Western society has been responsible for basically everything important that's happened to the world for the last few centuries, so small wonder that a lot of death and destruction makes the mix. But your claim is still highly questionable, as this page makes clear. The record-holding regional culture for death and destruction during the last 500 years is, in fact, Asia.

Furthermore you're ignoring the fact that I said "are inferior", not "have always been inferior". That Western societies used to engage in regular bouts of mass murder is interesting, but not relevant to the present. In the present, virtually all of the butchery and savagery is carried out by non-Western cultures. Genocides by Western cultures account for less than 20% of 20th century fatalities and less than 1% of the fatalities of the last 50 years.

So yeah, 500 years ago there wasn't a lot of difference between a western nation and a Muslim one or African one. Today, on the other hand, the former are generally enlightened democracies and the latter are largely the same backwards mass-murdering dictatorships they were 500 years ago -- only with better technology and more money, thanks to Western advances.

They can certainly look back on the past one hundred years and the two most destructive wars in human history and the genocides inspired by western thought and wonder what the hell we have to boast about.

First of all, those were the "two most destructive wars in history" solely in absolute numbers -- small wonder, given how populous and advanced Europe was compared to the rest of human society throughout history. In terms of percentage of population killed they didn't even come close to being the most destructive wars of the *century*, let alone human history. World War II killed around 3% of the population of Europe at the time. The historical rate of death by violence for humanity is roughly an order of magnitude greater than that.

Secondly, Communist China killed more people during the 50s and 60s than were killed by all Western nations in both World Wars combined. So if, as you suggest, Europeans are wracked with self-hatred over how murderous their forefathers were, they really ought to wake the hell up and realize that, as murderous as their forefathers were, the rest of the world is worse.

Seven Machos said...

I promise to ignore the trolls.

Revenant said...

of course the House of Saud is from the area, but they owe their kingdom and their wealth to being put on the throne by the British after World War I

Meanwhile, back in reality, King Al-Saud conquered the country himself. The British had been supporters of the Hashemites, but the Hashemite dynasty lost the war with the Saudis. The British were doing nothing more than recognizing the reality on the ground when they acknowledged the rule of the Saud family.

In other words, you might as well say that the United States "put Mao on the throne" when we recognized Communist China. The war was over, and the victor was clear. Pretending otherwise would simply have been silly. I suppose you could argue that the British failed to wage war on Ibn Saud in order to keep their guy in power, but that'd kind of clash with your anti-colonialist message, now wouldn't it. :)

Naked Lunch said...

Simon-
We should always be trying to export our Bill of Rights, and our justice system everywhere, I just don't think you can impose our culture on people that don't want it, or are at least open to it.

Internet Ronin said...

NL: I wholeheartedly agree with that idea about the Bill of Rights, but there definitely days when I'm not convinced exporting our justice system is a bright idea ;-)

Revenant said...

This makes no sense! How can we impose our culture on barbarians?

The Romans managed it, and they didn't even have TV. :)

rsb said...

I surely learn a lot by reading these comments.

Simon said...

NL - in the abstract, I'd agree, but when you have a culture so rotten to the core, so thoroughly and pervasively misogynist, I'm not much worried about excessive delicacy in breaking the back of that culture.

Freder Frederson said...

You want to know what I really think? As someone who has lived in England (and whose parents and brother live there now) and Germany and this country, Ms. Ali's assessment of the situation (and there is no doubt that what happened to her is terrible and that she is an extremely brave young woman) is wrong. She is wrong about the tolerance of the Dutch--it is a false tolerance. And you, especially Cedarford, are wrong about what ails Europe and how to prevent it here.

Europe has a problem with its minorities because it refuses to assimilate them, while in this country, we do a pretty darn good job of it, eventhough you lament the impending Islamification of the U.S. Every generation we complain that the most recent immigrant group isn't assimilating. The Italians, Poles, Chinese, Irish are all living in their own neighborhoods and won't adopt the norms and values of our society. I live in Louisiana, there are parts of this state where people who had in this country for generations spoke only Spanish or French until very recently. Lawrence Welk, born in North Dakota, spoke German as a youth and did not even learn to speak English until he was 17.

European societies, for all their feigned tolerance, are still extremely xenophobic and insular. Their immigrant communities by and large are steered into concentrated ghettos where they are denied full participation in society. There are generally no or very weak laws prohibiting discrimination in housing, employment and certainly no attempts at anything akin to affirmative action.

What Cedarford is actually recommending is we be more like Europe, not less.

Freder Frederson said...

It is also why Freder is not welcome at many blogs like Volokh.

I got banned from Volokh once when I disagreed with Kopel, their most thin-skinned and least honest commentor. I appealed to Eugene and he reinstated me. By that time I was already posting under a different pseudonym from another IP address and continue to use that one over at Volokh. Can you guess who it is? The only other site I have ever been banned at is RedState, and that doesn't even count. They ban everyone who doesn't toe the party line.

dougjnn said...

First, what Simon said above.

And what cedarford said, and seven machos. Allow me to associate myself with all three on this topic. I agree whole hartedly.

Freder said—

5000 years. Give me a freaking break! The Arabs, who you despise so much may have a claim to 5000 years of culture.

What an ignoramus.

In one sense Western civilization goes back further than that, to the first rise of agriculture among Caucasians of the fertile crescent some 8 to 10Kbp, and then the first rise of cities, considerable social stratification and specialization, and soon the birth of written language, along the Tigris and Euphrates – and then the first rise of an alphabet, which in representing the sounds of instinctually easy to learn oral language rather than far more numerous ideas or whole words, was vastly easier to learn and master. Yes the Arabs share this part of our heritage with us. But Africans, for example did not, or not much.

Distinctly separate European society traces back to Greece, where the first great systems of rational thought free from (but not necessarily hostile to but rather parallel) any guiding mandates of myth or religion, arose. Rome is of course the first fully separate progenitor of Western Europe.

The continued influence of Greco-Roman society is all around us. Take our Senate for example. Or much of our architecture. Or monogamy, a Greco-Roman bedrock social form, and very unusual (virtually unique) in the world as a requirement for the elite as well, as opposed to being all that most men can manage to achieve, if that. Virtually unique that is until the incredible success of Western societies at an every accelerating pace since 1500 has lead a good lot of the world to emulate our Western practice. (China for example. And India.)

dougjnn said...

There are generally no or very weak laws prohibiting discrimination in housing, employment and certainly no attempts at anything akin to affirmative action.

Why on earth should any society offer affirmative action to immigrants, or their progeny. Only someone in the absurdly leaning over backwards West would come up with something like that.

If prospective immigrants don’t like the prospects for themselves and or their children within a particular Western society then they shouldn’t go there. It never was the immigrant bargain in America until the last few decades, and it should stop being so again.

If a particular society thinks some ethnicities are so uncompetitive that they will need affirmative action to do acceptably well, then don’t let that group in, or only a thin higher IQ and more committed to rational Western education slice in.

dougjnn said...

Freder—

while in this country, we do a pretty darn good job of it, eventhough you lament the impending Islamification of the U.S.

We used to. Until the rise of radical multiculturalism, which is the mantra taught in most schools of education these days, where school teachers get their training finished up.

The mechanisms were many and included the media. Especially popular entertainment. Movies and then also television. Before that popular novels. American norms used to be pushed all the time. Now transgression of those norms is far more often the message. I like the excitement too often enough but it’s so pervasive as to be corrosive.

The principal mechanism though was public school. That is now multiculturalism central, especially in most places where immigrants are thick on the ground. Texas may be a partial exception, and guess what, Texas has far less separatist and gang type problems with it’s heavily Latino population than the world leading “multiculturalism is wonderful and to say otherwise is racist and hence unspeakably horrid” California.

When we were doing assimilation best, we didn’t offer immigrants or their progeny affirmative action. We didn’t tell them that if they or their children failed to make it it was probably mostly our (the host society’s) fault due to all that pernicious “racism” structural or otherwise. We had our frequent prejudices and stereotypes about different groups and unlike now talked openly about them but we also were pretty flexible about that and most recognized that there were so many individual exceptions that it made more sense to take people as individuals. And our stereotypes were pretty flexible and they adjusted pretty quickly. Attitudes towards Jews for example. Or Poles (whom Jews often lead the way in ridiculing, due to European homeland tensions and then the Holocaust no doubt). Or the Irish. A significant part of many immigrant children’s drive to succeed, which could be quite a lot greater than the average long here American’s, was to prove to other Americans what those of their group could do and how far they could go.

As groups did better, some far more quickly on average than others, American views always adjusted. Always. Jews went from being widely disliked to widely admired. The Irish went from being fight prone dunken louts to being part of the only rarely differentiated in any very important way white majority, and an often uncommonly good looking part at that. And so on.

dougjnn said...

Revenant said...

What Ali is getting at is that, rather than saying "oh, that's just how they do things in Backwardsistan", the Dutch should be saying "well they should fuck off back to Backwardsistan, then".

Many western societies simply lack the courage of their post-Enlightenment convictions, and are unwilling to say "that is wrong, even if your culture thinks it is right".

Well said and right on bro!! ;- )

The legacy of colonialism and racism has made people reluctant to admit that some cultures are, in fact, morally and ethically inferior to our own.

Well I don’t think it’s necessary to go that far. We can simply stop at saying we prefer our culture and if you come here, though you can retain aspects of your home norms and preferences, there are aspects that you cannot. So bear that in mind in your decision to move here for economic and perhaps other reasons, because it isn’t going to be a free ride and you’re going to have to give things up. Like polygamy, open or otherwise. And preaching jihad against the West.
As well we don’t have to say that everything is better about ours, just that we prefer the package, while continuing to be open to certain borrowings from others.

I think we would make a lot of progress in the West if the word “racist” was simply banned from all public utterance. For cases that legitimately do involve irrational prejudice or applying supposed (or actual) average group characteristics to all members of the group without individual examination when dealing with individuals, we can retain “bigot” or “bigoted”. No doubt many would attempt a simple substitution but it wouldn’t so easily facilitate massive overuse.

That is bigoted implies “inaccurate and ill founded prejudice”, particularly when applied to individuals. That used to be what “racist” was also usually limited to (except among doctrinaire Marxists of whatever flavor). Now it’s applied to even noticing any group differences, at least in any way that is unflattering or disapproving of lagging groups – which was always the Marxist application.

Similarly, “blaming the victim” is axiomatically wrong. Using the word “victim” for the badly performing individual or group has already dictated the correct moral and ideological view of where the responsibility lies. With the unequally successful group or groups of course. Neat bit of Marxist language ju-jitsu, that.

PatCA said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
PatCA said...

Freder,
You sound like someone who just got an A in World History 101 and 102, the Chomsky and Zinn version, where all the problems of the world started when the West invaded all those primitive, yet morally superior tribal lands populated by childlike, Gaia-loving creatures, soon to be killed by smallpox-infested blankets; and all the problems of the ME started in 1917, when the British divied up the primitive, yet morally superior...

Conquering and reconquering have gone on since the beginning of time--but only Western cultures have done anything to assuage their sins and elevate the dignity of the human being. And one of the reasons that the US and India are doing well is because they adopted wholesale British law and institutions, not just their "veneer." Iraq hopefully will one day do the same. So until your side can come up with a better alternative (Communism is a failure, BTW, and not just because the US thwarted its development) your argument has no credibility.

Sorry for feeding the troll...

Freder Frederson said...

Caucasians of the fertile crescent some 8 to 10Kbp, and then the first rise of cities, considerable social stratification and specialization, and soon the birth of written language, along the Tigris and Euphrates – and then the first rise of an alphabet, which in representing the sounds of instinctually easy to learn oral language rather than far more numerous ideas or whole words, was vastly easier to learn and master. Yes the Arabs share this part of our heritage with us. But Africans, for example did not, or not much.

Man, where did you learn your ancient history. The people of the fertile crescent are basically the same people who live there today, a mix of Assyrians and Persians. True, many "Arabs" are descended from nomadic tribes that lived around the great civilizations of Assyria and Babylon, one of several (including India, South America, China) areas where agriculture and civilization independently evolved. But to claim that they were "caucasian" is true only if you are lumping man into the three meaninglessly broad racial classifications of old. The Egyptians were as "African" as the Zulus and their Empire often included the darker skinned Nubians and sometimes the Nubians even became the predominant faction.

As for Western Civilization being the progeny of Greece and Rome, that is simply untrue. Rome most certainly built its empire on and owed its greatness to Greece. But Rome collapsed, both from internal strife and from barbarian tribes from the north and east. Most of the achievements of the Roman Empire were lost for years (e.g., we didn't rediscover the secret of concrete until the 18th century). The religion of Rome and Greece, and of the northern Europeans who brought the Roman Empire down were brutally suppressed by the Christian Church. Only after all vestiges of Rome and Greek culture were eliminated did we revive the parts about it we liked (e.g., the architecture, the militarism, and the nice myths). Certainly, even today we don't want to follow Greek or Roman sexual mores.

Dewave said...

So who gets to decides the "norms and values of the host society"? Are they written down somewhere? Heck, you and I probably wouldn't even agree on the top five "Christian values" let alone what the norms and values of a host society that is multicultural, multiracial, multiethnic, of different faiths.

Don't act so foolish. They aren't written down anywhere. Nevertheless, this hasn't prevented immigrants to the US from assimilating comfortably for hundreds of years.

The issue is that a very large portion of Muslim society living in 'western' nations wants to completely reject their countries laws and instead live under Sharia law.

They aren't interested in adopting & influencing the norms and values of their new country, unlike all other immigrants. That's the problem.

And when the Europeans colonized most of the globe, did they feel the need to assimilate to the norms and values of the societies they invaded? Why didn't the British ever assimilate in Africa or India? Or the French in Algeria or North Africa?

Are you unable understand the difference between invading armies looking to establish colongy and immigrants looking to establish a new life?

Of course, if you are suggesting we treat all Islamic immigrants as invading armies and send our soldiers to kill them as soon as they step off the ship, maybe your analogy would make some sense.

Otherwise, you bringing up invading European armies is pointless and foolish.

As for Western Civilization being the progeny of Greece and Rome, that is simply untrue.

If you are unable to comprehend the very real and important ways that western civilization has been founded upon ideas and concepts from Rome and Greece, you simply fail at history.

Where do you think our very system of governance, adopted by virtually every other country in the western world, comes from? Perhaps the Roman Republic or Grecian Democracy?

Dewave said...

Let's see, the Saudi Arabian Royal Family was put in place by the British (didn't you see Lawrence of Arabia)

Suddenly Feder's poor grasp of history makes complete sense.

Freder Frederson said...

The mechanisms were many and included the media. Especially popular entertainment. Movies and then also television. Before that popular novels.

Yep, black people were all maids, porters, and janitors (and they were happy, always smiln' and singn' and dancn'). Italians and Irish were all mobsters. Businessmen were all white. Women stayed home and raised the kids. Nobody had sex and even married couples slept in twin beds. Everyone smoked and had a couple of martinis before dinner.

Life was perfect.

Daryl Herbert said...

even married couples slept in twin beds.

Freder you ignorant slut.

A twin bed is not two beds.

You've distorted facts before, and made arguments in bad faith, but this time you've gone too far.

I demand an apology, a retraction, and an admission that your post was satirical in nature.

Freder Frederson said...

Where do you think our very system of governance, adopted by virtually every other country in the western world, comes from? Perhaps the Roman Republic or Grecian Democracy?

Umm, aside from the fact that you are giving our founders way too little credit, our democracy, other than the terms we use to describe it and the buildings we tend to use to house it (and not even always, check out the Louisiana State Capitol--it departs from the typical neo-classic architecture and is instead art deco), has very little in common with either Greek democracy (which tended toward true direct democracy) or the Roman Republic (which was more representative but where very few people were actual "citizens" of Rome). Even our system of law, which is mostly based on the English common law is not based on Roman law. Again Louisiana is the exception since its law is based on the Napoleonic Code which did try to emulate and revive the Roman concept of law (which had indeed somewhat survived in Europe, although by Napoleon's time it was a hopeless muddle).

Freder Frederson said...

A twin bed is not two beds.

True, but "twin beds" is plural and I guess I should have said "twin twin beds" or "two twin beds" but I thought the point was obvious.

I remember as a child watching Get Smart. Before Max married 99, I distinctly remember that he had a double or queen bed in his bedroom. After he and 99 married, they had another scene of his bedroom (nobody was in bed mind you) and suddenly there were twin beds. Even at the age of 7 or 8, I thought that was incredibly lame.

Freder Frederson said...

Where do you think our very system of governance, adopted by virtually every other country in the western world, comes from? Perhaps the Roman Republic or Grecian Democracy?

And at the same time you are giving our founders too little credit, you are giving our system of governance too much credit. Most other democracies have adopted a parliamentary system of government, not our Republican form. Look it up.

Seven Machos said...

Fred is a riot. He gets half of what he says factually wrong and then just moves on blithely to the next distorted set of facts. I have vowed not to engage him. I urge other insightful posters to do the same.

Freder Frederson said...

He gets half of what he says factually wrong and then just moves on blithely to the next distorted set of facts.

But of course statements like this are just accepted without question:

"The issue is that a very large portion of Muslim society living in 'western' nations wants to completely reject their countries laws and instead live under Sharia law."

And dewave is completely wrong about our system of governance. It is not adopted by "virtually" every other western country. Far from it. Yet if I weren't here to correct him, who would?

There is a definite double standard. Some of you can make outrageous claims and completely distort history and facts and never get called on it. I miss one fact or go overboard a little and suddenly I am factually wrong "half" the time and distorting facts while you blithely claim that the English, Romans, Greeks and the Assyrians are really the same people sharing an uninterrupted legacy of ever advancing civilization.

Freder Frederson said...

Maybe dewave can give us a short explanation how our democracy is like those of Greece and Rome and which other countries use our system of governance.

dougjnn said...

Freder frederson—

But to claim that they were "caucasian" is true only if you are lumping man into the three meaninglessly broad racial classifications of old.

Ah a race denier as well. Why am I not surprised. You really are just a parroted of the left and far left party line shallow dogmatism, aren’t you?

Race is unquestionably a valid biological concept. It only doesn’t exist if one used a straw man definition and then refutes it, such as that there are entirely distinct racial groups which do not overlap on many characteristics and which are not characterized by clines, or areas of much admixture and melding different. Learn the realities of modern genetic science. And see if you can get beyond the squid ink that such researchers as Luigi Cavalli Sforza use to shelter his exquisitely detailed map of population subdivisions and their correlation (never total) with language divisions, in his case focusing on marker areas of the genome which don’t do anything but which are reliable indicators of how long ago most interbreeding between various populations ended or was greatly reduced.

Human populations can be divided into racial categories at the level of three or 5 or 7 or so on to the hundreds or perhaps low thousands. (E.g. different castes in India as groups which have been largely inbreeding among themselves can be considered micro races. The existence of some out breeding does change this. It’s a matter of degree and statistics.)

At the level of three, five or 7 major geographic races then yes indeed Arabs and Assyrians and Persians were all Caucasians. As are the Jews of course. As were most Egyptians although like other North Africans this is an admixed area with a fair amount of sub-Saharan blood (genes), but notably less than a majority. Yes the NE African Nubians did rule Egypt briefly for a short period but that was long after their globe leading golden age periods.

were as "African" as the Zulus

Complete hogwash of the sort taught by worst African American studies “scholars”. Yeah they’re both on the same continent but the principal geographic barrier between Africa versus Europe and the Middle East was the Saharan desert. North Africa was part of a frequently intimately interacting Mediterranean world.

Dewave said...

And dewave is completely wrong about our system of governance. It is not adopted by "virtually" every other western country.

Please list the non-democratic western nations. Demonstrate that they comprise a significant proportion of the west.

Also, since you seem adamant in denying the democracy of greece or the roman republic as the source of the founding fathers inspirations, please point to the democracies and republics they were *actually* inspired by. Zimbabwe perhaps? Maybe Mongolia?

Dewave said...

Freder appears to take issue with my statement that

The issue is that a very large portion of Muslim society living in 'western' nations wants to completely reject their countries laws and instead live under Sharia law.

Are you not aware of the poll of Mulsims in Britain showing that 37 per cent of those aged 16 to 24 would prefer to live under Sharia law? Wouldn't you agree that's a very significant portion of the population?

And Britain is supposed to be a bastion of acceptance and tolerance and multiculturalism, so I would expect Muslims there to feel far more welcome and accepted than say other places.

Unless of course, the whole multicultural model doesn't work?

Freder Frederson said...

Please list the non-democratic western nations.

Sorry, I thought you meant a Republican democracy, not the vague concept of democracy in general.

If all you meant is that the founders were inspired by Greek and Roman "democracy" and that virtually every other Western nation is some form of representative democracy, well then, duhh.

I thought you were making a more substantive point about the actual structure and workings of government, not just broad brush concepts.

Complete hogwash of the sort taught by worst African American studies “scholars”. Yeah they’re both on the same continent but the principal geographic barrier between Africa versus Europe and the Middle East was the Saharan desert. North Africa was part of a frequently intimately interacting Mediterranean world.

Not really, more like the rift mountains. Of course the Alps isolated Northern Europe just as effectively. During Roman times the Druids, Goths, or Picts were just as uncivililized as the tribes of Southern Africa. The point is that those of us of Northern European stock have no more claim to the the achievements of ancient Egypt or Babylon than the Zulus do. When they were inventing writing, both our ancestors were still chasing game with stone tools.

Dewave said...

If all you meant is that the founders were inspired by Greek and Roman "democracy" and that virtually every other Western nation is some form of representative democracy, well then, duhh.


It no doubt seems obvious and natural to you now in hindsight, but I don't think you're crediting how unusual it was at the time. There were no representative democracies in the west at that time. None.

What do you think led the founding fathers to look to greece and rome to model their new form of government on? Why not some other nation? Why greece and rome particularly if they didn't view themselves as consciously carrying on some of the traditions of representation from those civilizations?

There was a very real sense in Europe of continuing on the legacy of Roman Civilization, and I'm not *just* referring to the Catholic church, though one could argue that if the dominant religion in an area saw itself as 'carrying on the torch' from Roman times then so did the rest of the area.

The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy nor roman nor empire, but the choice of name was not simply some bizarre coincidence

Just like we have not assimilated to the norms and values of American society. We have transplanted a fundamentally English (or at least mostly Western European) society on the American Continent. Disease had already taken care of most of the society, but we either forced whoever was left off the land, and if they didn't leave fast enough, we killed them. That is hardly assimilating to the norms and values of the society.

I agree with this completely, by the way. The colonists had zero interest in assimilating into the American Indians culture. They basically destroyed that culture and replaced it with their own, and now the European norms and values are American norms and values.

However, the colonists were not immigrants: they were invaders. The fact that the colonists did not assimilate into the already existing culture applies to the Islamic situation in Europe only if you think the Islamic peoples moving into European countries are also invaders: and as such, should not be welcomed, but repelled with deadly force (as the Indians tried to do, but did not have the strength for).

I don't think that's a particularly helpful viewpoint.

Freder Frederson said...

There was a very real sense in Europe of continuing on the legacy of Roman Civilization, and I'm not *just* referring to the Catholic church, though one could argue that if the dominant religion in an area saw itself as 'carrying on the torch' from Roman times then so did the rest of the area.

But the Church--out of which Western Civilization really evolved--has always had a love-hate relationship with the Roman Empire. It loved its technological achievements and its final adoption of Christianity. But Rome was kind of harsh on Christians early on and even today Christians don't like the decadence of Rome and Greece and love to point to them as examples as what happens to societies that accept sexual promiscuity and homosexuality.

dougjnn said...

Freder Frederson--
But the Church--out of which Western Civilization really evolved--has always had a love-hate relationship with the Roman Empire.

Wrong as usual. Greco-Roman culture was much more important in the long run. In part that culture greatly influenced the Catholic Church. But also really importantly because once Western Europe rediscovered the full richness of Greco-Roman forms, institutions and especially styles of rational thinking unencumbered by the authority of myth or religion, what was truly unique and world leading about Western society once again took off. That period is called the Renaissance, when Greco-Roman scholarship was rediscovered usually by was of the iintermediearies of Islam who had been previously influenced. Perhaps you’ve heard of it.

Thus began avid studying of other civilizations more generally and especially systematic science. It’s not entirely dissimilar to an immigrant to the United States from say India deciding he favors not only the amount of Anglo Saxon civilization that rubbed off on higher SES sectors there, but as well much of the American flavor of it. Such a person can become an ardent believer in the Bill of Rights and the western originated scientific method.

Revenant said...

But to claim that they were "caucasian" is true only if you are lumping man into the three meaninglessly broad racial classifications of old. The Egyptians were as "African" as the Zulus

Taken together, those are two really funny sentences. Lumping them into an overbroad group of light-skinned people would be wrong... so let's lump them into an overbroad group of dark-skinned people instead. The statement "Egyptians were as African as the Zulus" is no more accurate than the statement "Egyptians were as Caucasian as the Swedes".

Unless you meant "African" in the sense of "living in Africa"... in which case the Boers are also "as African as the Zulus".

Cedarford said...

But to claim that they were "caucasian" is true only if you are lumping man into the three meaninglessly broad racial classifications of old. The Egyptians were as "African" as the Zulus and their Empire often included the darker skinned Nubians

Wrong. The Persians and occupants of N Indian subcontinent are Aryans, as are the Afghans. The Egyptians are a mixture of Hamitic caucasion stock that admixed with all the white ethnics of the Mediterranean Basin with a significantly lesser admixture of Semite, Niholtic African, and Black Sudanese stock.

Freders racial theories come right out of some Far Left black studies professor's ass. Which is just more of his self-loathing anti-American, anti-West belief system.

Machos warns folks not to engage Freder. I'm pretty convinced he is right, because Freder appears to be brainwashed enough by "angry Lefty studies" to reveal himself as a traitor to his country and civilization.

You don't argue with traitors. You simply note them as part of a 5th Column that may one day have to be quashed for the good of our culture and nation.
************************
Do you realize that you are having fun by insulting and baiting people? That's perverse and wrong.

Freder - I thought that was the whole point of this blog.

It would be somewhat exculpatory if you were only posing as a traitor vs. actually being one, but deep down, I think you believe it and delight in the harm the enemies of America and the West are causing. If you believe as you appear to that the history of America and the West is one of unmitigated evil against the pure, noble morally upright "oppressed peoples of the planet", you can't claim loyalty...and really can't claim "1st Amendment! Free Speech! protections when your ilk try imposing PC on others...
*****************************
What Cedarford is actually recommending is we be more like Europe, not less.

No, while various European countries make it harder to assimilate, they appreciate the citizens of foreign origin that worked hard and succeeded to become true Frenchmen, true Brits, and so on. A look at the names in Parliament and the French General Assembly shows the extent of foreigners arriving and assimilating.
Opposed to others, a significant portion of the Muslims and now arriving subsaharan Africans have not even tried.
The rising nativist message is now becoming...try hard to assimilate or get out. "The onus is on you to become more like us since you voluntarily came here, not for us to be colonized and be told we have to sacrifice our native culture and values to accomodate you." Multi-Culti is another name for tribalism, and tribalism is a dead end for the future of Europe.

Any American or European the emigrates to a land like Brazil, Costa Rica, now even a land like India is expected to assimilate. A woman marrying a Saudi and moving there had best realize she is committing to all the glories of KSA ways for herself and her kids.

What I am proposing for Europe is recognition that the clock is ticking....The Muslims and other 3rd-worlders who refuse to assimilate must do so unless Europe is to re-tribalize, If they refuse, then Europe has only two choices (1)Become Eurabia; (2)In an ugly, awful but existentially necessary process to ensure the survival of Western Civ, perform a mass cleansing of ethnics who fail to assimilate back to the lands of their Ummah and replace them with the Latin Americans, Hindi Indians, and East Asians eager to become Europeans and assimilate in a new culture..

Freder Frederson said...

The Egyptians are a mixture of Hamitic caucasion stock that admixed with all the white ethnics of the Mediterranean Basin with a significantly lesser admixture of Semite, Niholtic African, and Black Sudanese stock.

The Egyptians are or were? Because the people who live in Egypt today are quite different than the Egyptians that built the pyramids.

Regardless of who or what their genetic heritage is or was, my point was and is that Northern Europeans have no closer a genetic heritage with the people of ancient Egypt or Assyria than the native peoples of Southern Africa. And since I am 1/4 Indian with a grandfather from Bombay, I am sure I have a greater genetic claim to the great ancient civilizations of both the Tigris and Indus Valleys than your lily-white ass.

I'm pretty convinced he is right, because Freder appears to be brainwashed enough by "angry Lefty studies" to reveal himself as a traitor to his country and civilization.

I'm a traitor to my country and civilization? Do you even know what the Constitution says? Just the other day you were advocating the use of torture, summary execution, and collective punishment. If any of these are values of a civilization you country you hold dear, then you're right, I want no part of it. But you know what, it sounds more like the kinds of things that Ms. Ali was objecting to.