DISQUS

Tanner · 3 years ago

immigrants, particularly those of the Muslim persuasion.

Rogel · 3 years ago

I don't think so Taner. Both of them agreed that Europe has a problem with its immigrants mostly because of its own calture and because the immigrants might shake the social comfort they got use too.

Tanner · 3 years ago

. . .conflict is the method in which [immigrants] will resolve their very different and entrenched conceptions about the way life should be lived. This is particularly true when immigrants are in possession, as they believe, of a unique and universal truth, such as Islam in its various forms often claims to be.

Rogel · 3 years ago

"This loss of cultural confidence is particularly important at a time of mass immigration from very alien cultures, an immigration that can be successfully negotiated (as it has been in the past, or in the United States up to the era of multiculturalism) only if the host nations believe themselves to be the bearers of cultures into which immigrants wish, or ought to wish, to integrate, assimilate, and make their own."

Tanner · 3 years ago

treated. To me, that’s a significant difference. My sympathies are with Smith’s viewpoint.

I just think it's funny that in an essay by (I suppose) a libertarian about the decline of Old Europe, Dalrymple feels the need to say (at length), "and we've got to start proudly asserting our own, distinctly European culture, or these Muslims are just going to keep on becoming a bigger and bigger problem." (I'm paraphrasing now, mind you.)

I really don't think there's any other way to read Dalrymple's thought on the matter.

And it doesn't strike me as a very liberal way of looking at things. My feeling is rather that there is no reason Muslim culture can't contribute to Europe in its own right - undiluted, proud, and vibrant. No assimilation programs necessary. No need for bleach-blonding. Just Muslim culture, as it is. (Pardon the sweeping generalities.)

Rogel · 3 years ago

These are good points Tanner, however I think that they are semantic because both of them recognize the problem with the immigrants (would they have been integrated/assimilated they would have been part of the Eropean society).
More to your later point this is why i'm not a liberterian but an objectivist. When immigrated too Different country it was obvious too me that the least that required from me in the "Deal" is to accept the "rules of the game", it is so happened that the rules in my new country are easy for me to accept, but if they were not i would come here. The western culture embracing freedom, pluralism and tolarance. recent news demonstrate that the muslim culture isn't yet up to these values. You cannot ignore the problem of a large group of people that moving into your house and demand you to change your values. What Dalrymple did was to recognise that the weekness of the Eropean society is dangerouse when engage with different culture which doesn't accept the liberal values of the west. I don't think that Smith didn't agree with this conclusion.

Tanner · 3 years ago

their right to free religious expression (witness the controversy over Muslim girls’ head scarves in French schools.)

I think you're right that our different perspectives on Smith and Dalrymple's articles stems from the fact that you are an Objectivist. Your hunch about me, by the same token, is correct: politically, I'm a libertarian. I really wouldn't mind seeing thriving, vibrant "Muslim" culture in Europe for the next 1,000 years. In fact, I think they have every right to it. Head scarves, demonstrations (peaceful ones) against Denmark and all.

Rogel · 3 years ago

We have here materials for several discussions, which I would be happy to have.
1. The immigration "problem" (mind you I'm an immigrant myself)
2. The differences between objetivism and Libertarianism (and why objectivism is the better approach :))

I think that both issues "deserve" to be posted seperetly, do you agree?