Results 1 to 20 of 31

Thread: Columnist-Europe's Identity Crisis Fuels Rising Anti-Muslim Sentiment

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,366

    Default The intolerance of the tolerant

    A good analysis of the situation in some European nations IMHO:http://www.opendemocracy.net/cas-mud...ce-of-tolerant

    Opens with:
    The advance of populist anti-Islamic forces in the liberal bastions of northern Europe - Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden - appears to reflect a betrayal of these societies’ renowned social tolerance. But there is a more subtle logic at work, says Cas Mudde.
    Ends with and can be read as a summary:
    The implication is that the recent rise of anti-Islam sentiment in northern Europe is proof neither of the end of tolerance in Europe nor the Europeanisation of ethnic nationalism. It is instead an outpouring of the intolerance of the tolerant, long (self-)censored by a political culture of anti-nationalism and conformity. The fact that (orthodox) Muslims can be opposed with a liberal-democratic discourse - rather than an ethnic-nationalist one - makes it at last politically acceptable (and increasingly politically correct) to express ethnic prejudice in these countries.
    davidbfpo

  2. #2
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    589

    Default The summary posted above sounds differnet when...

    Quote Originally Posted by davidbfpo View Post
    A good analysis of the situation in some European nations IMHO:http://www.opendemocracy.net/cas-mud...ce-of-tolerant

    Opens with:

    Ends with and can be read as a summary:
    accompanied by the preceding paragraph...
    The argument is twofold. First, after decades of secularisation, Islam is a (rapidly) growing religion that threatens the secular consensus by bringing religious issues back onto the public agenda. Second, (orthodox) Islam - and vocal Muslims - openly challenge local beliefs on gender equality and gay rights, which are regarded as fundamental aspects of liberal democracy in these countries. Hence, it is the tolerant liberal democrats who oppose the intolerant Muslims.
    There is so much wrong with that article that I don't know where to start.

    1. Is Islam and being a Muslim an "ethnicity" as it is understood today? (That particular question is a sore/sensitive point with me in particular given most people in my own country would classify me as a foreigner).

    2. Does the article's final summarising paragrpah therefore propose that ethnci-nationalists and not liberals, should be opposing Islam?

    3. Is being anti-Islamic tantamount to racism? What about Nazism? (In which case I'm a racist)

    1 & 3. The problem with the descriptor "ethnicity" is that is has been appropriated by the Left, Liberals and other fifth columnists who use it in a manner that apporahces epsitemological "essentialism". When I was taught about Nationalism at University we used Anthony D. Smith's definition which descirbes ethnicity as a set of shared beliefs, cultural mores, language, symbols (mythomoteur) and a territory (not the supposed "race" one apparently belongs to). It has nothing to do with race. In fact Race itself is logically, epistemologically & scientifically false ( the UK police force or government now use "ethnicity" as a PC replacement for "race" but don't, for the life of you, try and tell them how wrong they are). One of the earliest uses of the word race was spanish wherein it denoted (and here's a something compatarive linguists and linguistic anthropologists will recognise) breeding (like its French cognate) and one could change ones race by changin one's religion. It was not an essentialist attribute. What the hell does that have to do with Islam? Are they born genetically predisposed to violence and domination or is it their system of belief? The same question was asked by people about Nazism (i.e., whether it was specifically a German disease). The attempt to muzzle any and all opposition to Islam/ism by labelling it racist merely helps our opponents cause. Why is it that we have to pussy foot around Muslims (which of course simply reinforces their own sense of superiority and infallibility).

    2. Following from the above the fact that liberals rather than "nationalists" (another politically loaded term and in which camp I situate myself) have taken up the cause is precisely to undermine the banner being rasied by racist groups. Lets make it clear at the outset, Islam/ism is something that concerns a lot of people (and for very good reasons). The fact that politicians are tackling it should not detract from that fact. By that standard the "peace party" was more liberal than Churchill's war party (or course the analogy doesn't hold if you don't equate Nazism and Islam/ism as identical ...and you play the fiddle). Let me phrase it differently...is being anti-Nazi being anti-German/racist (assuming that Germans comprise a "race")? Is being anti-BNP racism against my fellow fairer skinned compatriots? Is being anti-Islamic the equivalent of racism against people with tan complexions (like myself) or dark skin? (notice how the descriptors "tan" and "dark" refer to aesthetic qualities rather than supposed racial/ethnic-as used by UK gov- essenntialist attributes). It is? Well, now then, how does one go about applying for political asylum?! (Where is another question altogether!
    Last edited by Tukhachevskii; 10-22-2010 at 08:53 AM. Reason: had to rearrange all five? links, still maybe out of sync added further clarification

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •