Sunday, November 7, 2004

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry

Which program are you refering to? Lagerhuis?
"Rondom 10" was just the same thing.

At www.gunzilla.net is a great column, "wie is er nou eigenlijk het slachtoffer", about the victimization of muslims.

Arjan (ip:80.89.236.78) 7 November 2004 - 1:07 uur

NOVA. I've read the column you're referring to, it compounds what my essay states, although the column is more casuistic, mine more fundamental (I'm not arrogant, and I'm being treated for being in denial about it ;-)).

Arjan (ip:82.161.93.35) 7 November 2004 - 1:11 uur

America gets accused of 'unilateralism', but that is just because we are ahead of the curve on the WoT. Eventually 'Old Europe' will come to the same conclusion. Fighting is inevitable and it's better to fight there then here. I realize this is a novel idea( sort of, it is no coincidence that the longest periods of non-war in Europe happened during the colonial periods) to the mini-continent that has hosted a whole bunch of wars, but I think once you euros get a firm grip on the concept, you will grow to like it. We will wait, I just hope time doesn't run out. If Old Europe goes Islamic, don't waste your time scanning the horizon for Americans coming to your rescue.
BTW, will the election results put to rest the quaint notion that there is a difference between the Bush administration and the American body politic? You're self annointed elite has mistaken our internal quibling for a lack of resolve. They need to re-think that, assuming they can think.

Stehpinkeln (ip:152.163.100.6) 7 November 2004 - 17:59 uur

The left-wing in Holland talking about this incident remind me of this much-laughed-at man:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6396422/

Guess who the lions represent?

"If only he was more convincing... if only he had been more accommodating of the lion's needs, he might have converted them to Christianity... don't you see?" ;-)

Keith (ip:69.68.114.120) 7 November 2004 - 18:19 uur

I'm an American, so take my opinion for what it's worth.

First, let me congratulate you on your excellent English. I wish my Dutch was 1/10th as good. Living in America though, we seldom get to use foreign languages once we leave our high school or college classes on the subject.

I have an idea, which is a biggish-sized idea, and one that will take a certain amount of change on the part of the Dutch populace, but it might help on the immigrant issue. Zacht Ei can perhaps in some small way start a debate on it.

I imagine the Netherlands is like most Western European societies, in that it has become very secular, with a pretty small proportion of the "native" Dutch population who attend church or are actually "christian". (I've been to the UK, France and Germany, but I've managed to miss the Netherlands) I would submit that this makes the assimilation of muslims more difficult, because it pits them against a secular society where their values are simply not present.

Furthermore, you have a secular society that defines it's predominant immigrant population in a religious manner--"muslims". Which constantly reinforces not only their immigrant status (which is hard to avoid) in Dutch society, but also their "outsider" religious status in a secular society. Also I notice that in discussing this part of Dutch society, nobody uses American-style "hypenation", (e.g. German-American, Italian-American, Arab-American, Pakistani-American, Muslim-American).

So basically, to use an Americanism, you are laying a "triple whammy" on them. They are religious outsiders in a very secular society, that makes them implicitly unwelcome by withholding a "Muslim-Dutch" or "Arab-Dutch" identity. In fact, they are instead identified as "muslim", which of course tends to actually push them TOWARDS a non-secular identity, out of a very human defensive response.

If 1,000,000 Dutch were suddenly parachuted into, let's say, Morocco, and these Dutch were referred to as "seculars" and not "secular-Moroccan" or "Dutch-Moroccan", I bet they would start herding too. Opposing the closure of "fundamentalist secular" schools, and promoting their "secular" identity with a kind of defensive pride.

I say this, because I live in the San Francisco Bay Area in California. This is as close to a godless society as you can get in the U.S. Still, but there are functioning churches/mosques/temples everywhere, 2-3 christian radio stations on the FM dial, and several christian television channels. (There are also a pile of various "ethnic" media outlets, many of which carry "ethnic" religious programming)

I live about 10 miles from Fremont, which has come to contain the largest Afghan community in the world, outside of Asia. I have known Afghan-Americans here for about 20 years now. Based on my occasional conversations with them, they have said that being around so much "open" religiousity, christian-centric that it is, has actually helped them feel at home. First, because nobody has made any efforts at prosyletizing them (the odd mormom or Jehovah's Witness door-knocking squad aside). Second, because their religious background has not been used against them economically or politically. Third, because they find they share many of the values of the "christian" community, and that religiousity is usually appreciated, and often encouraged, even here in the Bay Area.

There are of course some problems for the Afghan-American community here. They do not have the technical skills of the even larger Indian-American community, many of which came over from India already highly educated specifically so they could use those skills in "Silicon Valley". So they do not have the best jobs. Many Afghans are therefore laborers, and small retail business owners.

The Indian-American community is another example of successful muslim integration. Probably a good 10%+ of the very large Indian community around here are muslims, but they are not identified as such, instead their "Indian-American" background is their public identity.

I can't say that we have all the answers here. There are still problems with economic inequality for immigrant communities like the Afhghans, which did not arrive as a highly-educated group. Also, the 9/11 aftermath has increased tensions, what with much stricter immigration screening from most countries with large muslim populations, and a lot more deportations and detentions of previously largely ignored muslims who had overstayed visas and such.

But I have to say, that if you look at the local Afghan community, their biggest concern vis-a-vis U.S. society from a "belonging" standpoint is what their duty is to their native homeland. There is a debate going on within that community as to who should return to rebuild and rejoin Afghan society, and who should stay here in the U.S., and what the duty of people who are staying in the U.S. is towards Afghanistan.

One more thing, we have a small Arab-American community here in the Bay Area. And nationally, Arab-Americans have a reputation for being more "militant" than the many Pakistanis, Indian muslims, and Afghanis that we do have here in the Bay Area. Perhaps if their are some Arab-Americans around this blog, or non-Arab-Americans (double hyphenation, baby!) who know lots of Arab-Americans, they might provide a different perspective on what the Arab-American experience is like.

So getting to my real point, perhaps there is too much "dancing around" the core issue--are muslims part of Dutch society or not? On one hand, Dutch society seems to be keeping them and the issue of their presence at arm's length. But on the other hand, "political correctness" forces a debate on whether Mr. Van Gogh was partly responsible for his own death (he wasn't) or whether "Thou shalt not kill" (Which by the way, is not a "christian" tenet. Islam largely incoporates judaism and christianity into it's theology, and recognizes most of the major biblical figures, including Moses, as prophets.) should be scrubbed from walls.

I would submit that the current discussion in Holland (can I use that name, or does it get scrubbed from the wall as well?) disguises the point. The real question "Should the Netherlands be an immigrant society?" is not being answered. There are many demographic reasons why it should become one. If the decision is yes, then the Netherlands has to learn how to truly embrace immigrants. You can't just hand them a piece of paper at the port of entry saying "Welcome to Holland! Please forget your past customs and religious beliefs, and start tolerating people who say stuff that would have driven you into a rage yesterday! Thanks for your interest in living in our country!" The American experience is that the society changes the immigrant, but the immigrant also changes the society. (There are influential locals in upstate New York who are still affectionately and jokingly called "the local patroon".)

The American experience is that to pull it off, you need to develop a true "live and let live" ethos towards ALL non-violent religious and ethnic backgrounds. You can't tell people to not "vote their values" or not "be themselves" unless you want a negative reaction. Also, you need a compelling "national story" that the newcomers can buy into and feel that they have a stake in continuing. This is what you see in the successful westernised immigrant societies, such as America, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Canada is becoming a "multi-cultural" society, in the politically correct sense of the word, and it will be interesting to see if they can pull that off and still remain a successful immigrant society, or whether that will cause their society to fragment.

Then again, the Dutch people decide that becoming an immigrant society is just too much for them to adjust to, after centuries (millenia really) of not being one, that is a valid response as well. Not every country in the world is an immigrant society, and it is not required to be one. Going down the non-immigrant path will require a very candid discussion of Holland's demographic situation, and whether or not something should be done about increasing the size of "Dutch" families.

If there is a decision against becoming an immigrant society, then you face two stark choices. The first is that the Dutch start having more children and increasing the importance of "family values" in Dutch culture. Your only other option is becoming an antiquarian society with a shrinking population, a collapsing welfare state, and with the sad prospect in the far future of "would the last Dutchmen left alive please turn off the lights".

It seems that most Dutch have made the decision that they cannot afford to have a "Dutch" society alongside "Cairo on the Rhine". If you choose the immigration route, the only way you can avoid that is by doing something that has never been done before--transition from being an ethnically-based society, to an immigrant society.

All the successful immigrant societies are "New World" societies for lack of a better term. People arrived, found a wilderness, displaced or assimilated the weakened native population, and re-ordered society based on social models that were brought from the homeland(s) modified with local customs and affected by the presence of a wilderness "frontier" experience. They were never ethnically-based societies without surplus land where you can park a lot of the newcomers while they assimilate. In fact, most of the successful immigrant societies were were used as a kind of intentional dumping ground for criminals, "wierd" religious sects, political refugees/prisoners and the indigent poor. The people who were doing well back in the homeland didn't have much of an incentive to leave. :)

Either way, I wish the people of the Netherlands good luck! I hope that as this debate really starts in the Netherlands and Western Europe, as it will have to, it will provide for more understanding between my immigrant society, and your societies, which are now beginning having to rationally debate a process which we kind of stumbled into some 350 years ago.

All this is a tremendous amount to think about, but the Netherlands will have to face it, if you really do want to maintain "Dutch" social values. Somberly, I wish you great luck in the endeavor.

P.S.-Thanks for your support and troops in Iraq. Even Bush voters do not embrace war. So we understand that the Dutch people feel that it is time to bring the boys back home. For us, we are doing what we think is right in order to shake up the obviously dangerous status quo in the Middle East. Let's all hope it works.

Steven Kraft (ip:24.6.97.177) 7 November 2004 - 21:30 uur

Yikes! What happened to my paragraphs?!

It was long and tough enough to read with the formatting.

Oh well!

Steven Kraft (ip:24.6.97.177) 7 November 2004 - 21:31 uur

@Steven. Thank you for taking the time to respond. I am sorry about the lack of paragraphs. We're looking into it. Before the Van Gogh murder, I had > 600 unique visitors, none of whom ever used the comments section. Now, all of a sudden, a lot of Americans have discovered this site and, as Americans do, they actually voice their opinions ;-)

Arjan (ip:82.161.93.35) 7 November 2004 - 21:39 uur

Arjan:

Thanks for responding. Americans are a garrulous lot!

Is there some way that we can support the blog? (besides the jelly beans, that is...)

Steven Kraft (ip:24.6.97.177) 7 November 2004 - 14:14 uur

Well, since they actually charge 12-13 dollars (10 euros) for a box of jelly beans in the Netherlands, that would be my best bet ;-) I'm flattered by your offer. If you would like to support this site, feel free to make a donation through the PayPal button in the menu on the upper left-hand side of the screen. However, this blog is a hobby, so don't feel obligated in the least.

Arjan (ip:82.161.93.35) 7 November 2004 - 15:27 uur

Something we Americans do to determine if an argument is moral is to reverse the players in an argument.

If I understand correctly Dutch PBS has argued that Mr. Van Gogh went to far with his free speech and therefore deserved what he got. Thus, it's OK for Muslims to go around severing heads of anyone who critizes Islamic practice.

Let's flip that around. Every day Mullahs around the world inform their followers that non-Muslim beliefs are not merely mistaken but evil. As can be expected many non-muslim find this deeply offensive. The Mullahs are claiming that our heritage and beliefs are dirty and unworthy of existence.

Now the question arises, does this give non-Muslims the right to decapitate the heads of the Mullahs? Surely it does if one is going to use the standard of offensive language to justify killing.

That was the end of that point let me go further to the question of should Muslims be given the same freedoms as those shared by other westerners. You seemed to think this was a obviously silly question. I don't think so. It depends on how you think morality arises.

The fact is that Mullahs offenses are far worse than offending others. The Mullahs do not merely preach that our beliefs are wrong and leave it at that. They preach that it is a moral duty to convert or kill the infidel. Every day in their Mosques the Mullahs preach that non-muslims are dogs that need to be converted, killed or turned into Dhimmis.

No such claim can be made against Theo Van Gogh. Was he advocating the murder of Muslims merely for being Muslims? Surely not. He was merely trying to help those being oppressed by Muslims.

Western values here in the US presuppose certain values in those who are a part of the society. Underlying those individual rights is the understanding that, however we may disagree, we can at least agree that we are equals and that each does not bear an intent to defraud or destroy the other.

We use the actions of the individual to determine whether we trust an individual to respect these rights. When the cross certain boundaries we no longer feel obligated to respect the rights of that person. Murderers do not have the right to walk free regardless of how universal that right may be. It is not universal in the sense that everyone gets the right no matter what. It is universal in the sense that everyone has a equal chance of others repecting their rights if only they will respect others.

This is why our government is limited. It is never up to the vote whether an individuals rights may be violated. We cannot choose by vote to separate a man from his property or his life so long as he respects others rights.

Without such understanding the system cannot work. Apes do not have such understandings and thus cannot organize socially to the degree men can. Imagine you are a ape and you have discovered the fact that if only each ape would respect the property of the others then each could have more. Thus you expect that you can save labor by climbing the tree once, dislodging the fruit you need for the day, then decending and collecting the results of your labor. To your dispare you discover upon decending a horde of apes living off your largess. Thus you are forced to dislodge one fruit at a time and decend rapidly to defend and claim the fruit. Your expectations are dashed because there is no way to communicate this understanding with the other apes. Likewise there is no need for you to be consent in the other direction. Why should you refrain from taking a fruit dislodged by another when he would surely take yours.

In short there is no morality where there is no grounds for reciprocity.

The same goes for violence. If the another ape has it out for you and would kill you the minute he had the advantage then there is no reason for you to refrain from the same. Why should you wait for him to kill you in your sleep if that is his intent.

In man this becomes more complex because there is an ability to communicate. Never-the-less it is possible for there to be a breakdown in moral receprocity that allows an individual to take actions with a clean conscience that would under different circumstances be considered immoral.

Thus there is a concept of "fighting words", a line which when crossed causes the breakdown of moral agreement. If another has privately informed you that he was going to kill you when he had the opportunity there is no need for you to wait till he had the advantage. You are no longer operating in a moral framework.

How you go about defending yourself is a matter that is up to you. Since you are in a social setting where others are likely to retaliate the first thing to do is to make clear to others that reprocity has broken down. You need to publicize the fact that the other man has told you he wishes to kill you, and you then need to arm yourself.

Making it public serves to purposes. 1) It prevents the appearance the you are the agressor. 2) It acts as a deterrent since: a) if the offender trys to get away with your murder he is likely to be retaliated against in turn by your friends. b) It prevents him from making a habit of it, for if he successfully kills you the next fellow surely need not wait to see if his threats are hollow.

Surely the Muslim Mullahs have crossed the line of using fighting words. In fact, they have instigated the deaths of many with their Fatwahs. The mere issuance of a Fatwah should be considered the equivalent of drawing a gun. Likewise any followers who do not abandon such a Mullah are surely as guilty as he. They act as backup, keeping their guns holstered but acting as an implicit force that can be called upon by the Mullah.

Furthermore, I would say that Islam, unlike Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Atheism, and other religions is not compatible with the concept of reprocity. There is no sense in which a Islam is willing to operate on equal footing with the other belief systems. They are only operating within the western framework to the extent that they can gain enough strenght to wipe out the rest by force.

They are eating with you around the campfire, resting in peace as you take your watch against common enemies, but only waiting till it is your turn to sleep to put the bullet in your head.

BTW. I used the metaphor of cowboys to poke fun at europeans. We don't actually think in terms of cowboys over here.

Atheist American (ip:141.202.248.11) 7 November 2004 - 22:13 uur

The heart of America cries with the Dutch people this weeks as we mourn the passing of one of your prominent citizens and as we share with you in the horror wrought by militant jihadist islam. We pray for the peace and comfort of God Almighty upon the Dutch people and we stand side-by-side with you in firm resolve to rid the free world of the new black plague this fanatical islamic hatred represents.

Ed in America (ip:204.89.226.65) 7 November 2004 - 22:56 uur

Comment