None Dare Call It...
"Timing of genocide resolution questioned" is the headline of an article in Time Magazine on the Democratic House resolution about the Armenian genocide. That's a mild way of putting it. Why, you might ask, has this resolution come up now? Time doesn't quite come out and say it - but I will. This is a deliberate attempt to insult Turkey in order to cause a breach between the United States and that nation which will, in turn, undermine the ability of the United States to win in Iraq. As I recall, there used to be a name for acts designed to give aid and comfort to the enemies of a nation.
posted by Adam Yoshida at
1:23 PM
14 Comments:
Yes, but if the "insult" had been peddled by a European nation with the motive of keeping Turkey out of the EU, you'd have backed it to the hilt, almost certainly launching into a rant about how it's imperative for the survival of the free world that a Muslim state be prevented from joining Europe.
And don't try and pretend you wouldn't.
In any case, Turkey has frequently been highlighting the Armenian genocide, most recently by putting one of its most distinguished writers on trial for mentioning it. What was their excuse?
It certainly is imperative for the survival of the "free world" - sorry, here I am accepting the template of liberalism; I should simply say "Europe" - that a Muslim state be kept out of Europe. It will be a bridge through which tens, and even hundreds, of millions of Muslims will march into Europe. That will mean the destruction of every single European nation - just as Coptic Europe, Greek Anatolia, and Berber North Africa were all destroyed by the Muslim invaders - and their replacement with sharia states ruled by Muslims.
But liberals, being liberals, are unable to oppose the destruction of Europe, because they have no concept of "nation" - i.e. a distinctive, racially or ethnically and culturally defined, self-governing people - other than a bundle of worthless "propositions", which have no prospect of lasting once the founding peoples of a nation have been destroyed.
By "liberals" I am of course including Adam, who only differs from left-liberals in that he supports mass-murder and nuclear genocide as some kind of "solution" to the West's INTERNAL crises. Outside of his militarism, Yoshida is actually a liberal.
Sorry, not "coptic Europe". I mean "coptic Egypt". Major oversight there.
Do you have any clue what you're talking about? Turkey is a secular republic; it may not be as open and democratic as we'd like, but it isn't a theocracy ruled by sharia.
Egypt is a secular dictatorship, not a theocratic muslim sharia-state.
Iraq, before we Americans took a hand in things, was also a secular dictatorship.
Iran for much of the 20th century was a fairly progressive and open society, in no way ruled by sharia law, though many parts of the hinterland did follow sharia. We Americans, again, are not altogether responsible for the rise of theocracy, though we did a lot to help the theocrats along, by overthrowing a democratic, secular, nationalist government inthe 1950's, and helping to prop up the Shah for so long that the anger at him boiled over and led to the revolution, and the theocratic government we've had to deal with for the last 28 years.
Afghanistan, before the Russians overran it and turned it into a wasteland, was a progressive and secular republic, one of the most advanced and open in the Middle East. The Russians ravaged it and opened the way for a bunch of radical fundamentalists to take over.
Islam does not necessarily imply sharia law and repressive fundamentalist dictatorship, any more than Christianity automatically means the Spanish Inquisition, witch burning, or oppressive fundamentalist theocracy like the one many American fundamentalists would like to impose on the U.S.
"Turkey is a secular republic; it may not be as open and democratic as we'd like, but it isn't a theocracy ruled by sharia."
Frankly, I don't really care for democracy per se - I'm not an egalitarian, so Turkey's matter of it being "open" is neither here nor there. I'm a classical republican who opposes liberalism root and branch. Unlike Adam, whose main concern is killing people who resist liberalism. (He once famously said he'd support a US invasion of Canada in the cause of "freedom"). Turkey's "democracy" means as much to me as it does in the West Bank.
However, on that point - Turkey's "secularism" is imposed on the masses of Anatolians (who'd happily do away with all that if they ever got a free vote) at gunpoint by a Constantinopolian military elite. It has been since Attaturk (an atheist in all but name) forcefully, and brutally, destroyed anything that smacked of being both anti-secular and anti-Turk.
The rest of your examples are a string of US client states that are utterly despised by their own people, who, whenever they are given a free vote, predictably vote for parties promising some form of sharia law or another.
"Islam does not necessarily imply sharia law and repressive fundamentalist dictatorship"
Ahem! Islam is not simply a "faith" - it's a form of government in itself. It isn't even a religion in the sense you and I might understand it. There has never, at any stage in Islamic history, save their recent period of Western domination and influence, been any separation of politics and religion in Muslim jurisprudence, starting from the death of Mohammad through to the collapse of the Caliphate after World War I. Once freed from the shackles of Western control, Muslims have amply demonstrated that they simply aren't interested in liberalism or secularism. You should ask them their opinion on this someday.
Which brings me to my main point - do you believe that Europe should be inhabited by anyone other than Europeans. Why?
Sure, why not?
If somebody from Asia or Africa or North or South America want to go live in Europe, I see nothing wrong with that. The Hungarians originally came from Asia, as did the Finns and Estonians. The Bulgarians are really slavicized Turks. What we now know as "English" people came from Germany, "Spanish" people are a mixture of European, African and Arab, "Russians" are a mishmash of all kinds of people and "Iranians" and "Indians" originally came from Europe.
People have been moving all around the world since there were people, mixing blood and culture. If people in Africa or Asia want to live in Europe today, then who are you to tell them they can't do it?
And by the way, church and state were one and the same in most Christian countries until a few hundred years ago.
"If somebody from Asia or Africa or North or South America want to go live in Europe, I see nothing wrong with that. The Hungarians originally came from Asia, as did the Finns and Estonians. The Bulgarians are really slavicized Turks. What we now know as "English" people came from Germany, "Spanish" people are a mixture of European, African and Arab, "Russians" are a mishmash of all kinds of people and "Iranians" and "Indians" originally came from Europe."
I'm well aware of this, and every single population movement that you have listed was accompanied by a brutal displacement, and even extermination, of the native, indigenous people. That is to say, there HAVE indeed been MANY population movements, and precisely NONE were in the interests of the host population (the colonised, subjugated, oppressed, etc).
So if it wasn't in the interests of, for example, the Celts to be subjugated and displaced by the Saxons, by what right do you agitate for the race-replacement of the French with the Arabs? What, exactly, merits the destruction of the French?
"People have been moving all around the world since there were people, mixing blood and culture. If people in Africa or Asia want to live in Europe today, then who are you to tell them they can't do it?"
Obviously, it's not really my practical choice to be made, but the mass migration of Africans and Middle Easterners, the granting of citizenship, voting rights, and therefore the right to expropriate property (in a democracy this is called "taxation"), is essentially a licence to displace the native populations. There is no moral justification for accepting mass immigration into Britain, France, or Holland, and certainly no argument against banning migrants on whatever arbitrary grounds you want. And what is particularly disgraceful has been the rise of laws against "incitement to hate" that have been introduced to effectively rule out public debate on these matters.
"And by the way, church and state were one and the same in most Christian countries until a few hundred years ago."
That's not strictly true, and it's against Christian doctrine in any case - Catholicism has always accounted for the vast majority of Christianity and there wasn't a complete merger of church and state (even if both did interfere with one another) in the same manner as Islam, otherwise you'd have seen the positions of Pope and Emperor being merged into a single executive, just as with the "Caliph".
It's hard to know where to begin.
Yes, in years past, most big migrations were violent, and not welcomed by those living there to begin with.
But big migrations today are peaceful. Muslims are not immigrating into Europe as armies, torching the homes, businesses and churches of those they find living there, but as people moving in for work and a better way of life.
In the U.S., Hispanic immigrants are not violent hordes, bent on raviging, raping and killing every Anglo they come across, but hardworking and decent people, also looking for a better way of life.
I have a special soft spot for Hispanic immigrants, and am not particularly bothered by illegal immigration. I know some illegals, and find them to be quite decent people. I'd like to see illegal immigration dwindle, but I think that's unlikely to happen until living standards in Latin American countries get somewhere reasonably near ours. For that to happen, I think we (the U.S.) will have to help in a big way; obviously, I don't think that's too likely if we're talking about the government, which I think is a shame (no doubt you wouldn't see it that way). In the meanwhile, Americans will have to help in small ways, in small groups. (I lived for 2 years in Honduras and have a non-profit I've started to help a small school in the town where I lived.)
I guess what I believe is that people ought to be free to live where they want to live, and how they live, as long as they recognize that others have those same rights. I don't mind my own American culture being "diluted" by immigrants from other countries and cultures. I think it's great. There's a lot that Honduran culture, for example, could teach us and make us better people; likewise, I think Hondurans might have a few things to learn from Americans...
And if it's worth anything, I feel about taxes the way Oliver Wendell Holmes did: he once said he liked paying taxes because it made him feel like he was "buying civilization."
"Yes, in years past, most big migrations were violent, and not welcomed by those living there to begin with.
But big migrations today are peaceful. Muslims are not immigrating into Europe as armies, torching the homes, businesses and churches of those they find living there, but as people moving in for work and a better way of life."
The big migrations STILL aren't particularly welcomed by the native peoples, for the obvious reason that Muslims have utterly incompatible interests with Westerners. Their laws are customs are fundamentally opposed to anything that the West is familiar with, and for that reason (and many other, including that there is no economic benefit from accepting Muslim immigrants, who are net tax recipients), there is no case for accepting them as immigrants.
That their passage has been accompanied (indeed enabled) by legislative prohibitions on freedom of association (anti-discrimination laws), anti-free speech statutes, and a systematic transfer of resources from natives to Muslims, suggests that their passage isn't particuarly "non-violent" (i.e. it is state-enforced) either. It's done at government gunpoint.
"In the U.S., Hispanic immigrants are not violent hordes, bent on raviging, raping and killing every Anglo they come across, but hardworking and decent people, also looking for a better way of life."
They are significantly more violent than European Americans, and far more likely to be in jail.
http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/050213_mapping.htm
Plus, as they tend to be in the lower socio-economic strata of society, they will obviously be net tax-consumers. I'm struggling to find ANY grounds by which the continuing Hispanicisation of America can be justified. It simply isn't in the interests of the founding peoples of America.
"I guess what I believe is that people ought to be free to live where they want to live, and how they live, as long as they recognize that others have those same rights."
Really? Is it alright if I move into your house, whether or not you invited me, and bring my entire extended family? When did Americans get to choose whether they wanted to overthrow their entire nation?
"I don't mind my own American culture being "diluted" by immigrants from other countries and cultures. I think it's great. There's a lot that Honduran culture, for example, could teach us and make us better people; likewise, I think Hondurans might have a few things to learn from Americans..."
If you love Honduran culture so much, why don't you go live in Honduras? Why can't you simply leave Americans alone, and satisfy your own personal preferences by residing in Honduras? More importantly - why ON EARTH do the people who built a great nation from scratch, devised some of the most astonishing technological advances of the 19th and 20th Centuries, and put a man on the MOON for Pete's sake, need to be "diluted" by...Honduras??!!
I, personally, really like Vietnam. I'm reasonably fluent in Vietnamese (enough to read the paper, but not enough to understand the news broadcast), and I find their culture and civilisation fascinating. For the same reason, the notion of "diluting" Vietnamese culture, on some ridiculous liberal abstraction, would be anathema to me and, more importantly, to all of my Vietnamese friends and associates. If someone said "let's bring 10 million Africans/Turks/Arabs/Russians (insert ethny here) into Vietnam" I'd dismiss them as a lunatic - the Vietnamese would be disgusted by their obviously malevolent intentions.
Equally, if someone proposed uprooting all 84 million Vietnamese and planting them in, say, the US, I'd be utterly against the idea. It would portend the destruction of America, and for exactly what? What good is supposed to come of this?
The logical denouement of what you have argued for is essentially the destruction of every single independent ethnic group and culture on earth (you said that everyone should be free to move anywhere they like, and do whatever they want), and the transformation of the planet into a Brave New World nightmare where no distinctive cultures exist, having been wiped off the face of the planet, and where all peoples have been merged into a bland, tasteless whole. That is to say, you begin with "celebrating diversity", and you conclude by agitating for global homogeneity.
' And if it's worth anything, I feel about taxes the way Oliver Wendell Holmes did: he once said he liked paying taxes because it made him feel like he was "buying civilization." '
But you aren't "buying civilisation" in many cases. You are simply bribing unassimilable aliens. On what moral grounds do you justify importing net tax-recipients into Europe or the United States? What, exactly, is in it for the hosts?
I do particularly like this quote, including the unfortunate use of the word "torch".
"Muslims are not immigrating into Europe as armies, torching the homes, businesses and churches of those they find living there, but as people moving in for work and a better way of life."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article607860.ece
Who's proposing that we uproot 84 million people? I'm not. I'm not arguing for any governments forcing the mass displacement of whole countries.
But I believe people should be free to choose where to live; it seems you don't.
As for Honduras, I would love to live there full time, but I can't do that right now. I'm hoping that someday I can split my time between here and there. I'd like to bring my new daughter up in both cultures, even though she's not ethnically Honduran.
I don't really get your hangup about nationality or ethnicity or race or however you might put it. I don't think of myself as an English-American or an Anglo-American or an Anglo-Saxon American; my family has been here too long (going on 400 years) for me to have any ties at all to Britain. I'm just an American, and Americans have forebears from all kinds of places.
And I don't pay taxes because something's "in it" for me. I don't like having immigrants come to the U.S. because I think there's something "in it" for me. I pay taxes because it's my civic duty, though, as a benefit, I do get to "buy civilization." And I think immigrants add something to my country. As I said before, we aren't going to agree on this. I think you're as wrong as anybody could be, and living in a country run along the lines that you would run it would scare the hell out of me. I'd be forever worried that some group was about to be herded off to concentration camps, deported or even rounded up and shot. That would be intolerable to me, as I respect people regardless of their race or religion or ethnicity. If Hispanics ended up being physically or legally abused, I would feel like I was being abused, too, though it would be moral abuse. And I WOULD be abused. It would be abusive to me for my country to mistreat people because of where they came from or where their forebears came from. It's wrong, and I would have a duty to do something about it.
Anyway, I like the "social safety net". I look at somebody struggling and think, "there but for the grace of God go I." Someday I might need help, too. Any of us could. But that's not why I support it in the end: it's because I really believe we're all in this together. We're all brothes and sisters in the end, and if any one of us suffers, it chips away a little bit at all of our souls.
You, no doubt, think this is laughable and soft-headed and pathetic, and that is your right. So go ahead and mock me if you want, but I'll keep on believing what I believe and living my life the way I think I should and I'll keep doing what I can to prod my country and my society to respect people.
And since we're never going to agree, I don't really see what point there is in arguing about it any more. For your own sake, I hope you can come to have a lttle more empathy and show a little more respect for others sometime.
Good luck.
Post a Comment
<< Home