Assimilation vs Integration

This is another fascinating column appearing in the Turkish Press, this one by Gunduz Aktan. It begins:

Germanic Europe, from which Western civilization evolved contrary to the Mediterranean basin, was never multi-cultural in the sense of being multi-religious.

Hehehe. The first sentence alone would probably incite a wave of Gallic high blood pressure. There are gems all through this article, which discusses the lack of real multi-culturalism in the EU:

In reaction to these developments, opinions on assimilating, instead of integrating the Muslims, are gaining ground in the EU. The influence of the extreme rightist and racist parties is increasing. Otto Schily is trying to include the Muslims into German culture, which he calls “leitkultur.” Nicolas Sarkozy says it would be better to introduce the Anglo-Saxon version of secularism to replace the French Laicism. Both are talking about desperate projects like creating a German and French version of Islam.(emphasis added)

This is completely true. The author continues:

Turkey’s membership sits on top of this quagmire. Additionally, Turkey is Europe’s historical other. Their prejudices against us have become pathological. The grave symptoms of this psychology can be seen everywhere. They are exaggerating our shortcomings and deflect their own deficiencies onto us.

The same could really be said of the EU's relationship to the US. But neither Mr. Aktan or the US probably really recognize how much of a strain the EU countries are enduring in their attempt to create a free and peaceful confederation in Europe. We should not be surprised at their isolationism and sense of stress as they embark on this historical experiment. We should also recognize it was begun with the best of intentions and will necessarily involve decades in which their primary energies are focused within to create a functional government and society. The US struggled for almost two centuries to develop a society not dominated by ethnic or regional tensions - why should we expect the EU members to have an easy time of it?

I wonder if most of Europe even recognizes the real issues it must now face, which are economic and cultural. France, for instance, wants to retain its claim to world power - which is most clearly exemplified by its seat in the UN Security Council. But France simply cannot, at this time, afford to maintain an independent military and project its power around the world as the US can. So France reacts quite strongly to any country which acts outside of the UN umbrella; Chirac seems to view such actions as an implicit challenge to France's privileged position on the world stage. Proposals to create EU military units that are capable of striking around the world independently of NATO are afoot, but I have to question how much money and resolve the EU can summon to fund such an effort.

Mr. Aktan is disturbed by the EU's demand that Turkey recognize Cyprus (the Greek half), without demanding that Cyprus reach some sort of internal settlement between the Greek and Turkish halves (the Greek half voted down the UN solution). He concludes the column on an ominous note:

Are we going to create harmony by assimilating the Muslims in Europe on the one hand and satisfying the lunatic demands of the EU-backed Greeks and Armenians on the other?

A dangerous process has started, not only for us, but also for the EU.

My guess is that the process really isn't that dangerous if Europe can face its own problems squarely, and settles down to grapple with them. The rising tide of thriving Asian economies threaten the EU's economic health, which threatens EU's image of its own culture. Their vaguely socialist economies are going to have a very hard time competing with the more flexible hyper-capitalism of Asia, and market reforms will be terribly painful for their populations. Economic stresses are exacerbating the ethnic and religious fault lines within their populations.

We face the same economic problem, but we have (by European standards) already climbed the Mount Everest of multi-culturalism. Few Americans (and strangely, they seem to be concentrated on the extreme right and the extreme left) really believe that a sari-wearing Indian woman, or a Hasidic Jew, or a Muslim of Pakistani origin presents a real threat to the viability of our culture. The same is not true of Europe - to be comfortable with their own immigrants they want them to "look" and act "European".

Our waves of immigration seem more likely to assuage our demographic problems rather than contribute to internal instability. This is why I see Michele Malkinism as the real threat to our internal stability. If we maintain our standards of treating people based on their actions, rather than our suspicions of them, we are going to continue on without facing a significant threat from our internal ethnic minorities (of which, by European standards, everyone of us is a member). If we suddenly attempt a European-style "us" test, then we are going to convert our hard-earned strength into a weakness.

By fulfilling the promise of our Constitution, we have evolved a way to live as a country that is all minorities, and develop a national identity based on principles rather than ethnicity or religion. This is what Thomas Jefferson and so many of the Federalists were arguing for. Why should we ever sacrifice this heritage for some promise of a fragile and momentary security? The long-term instability would completely outweigh any momentary increase in safety.

Do you remember the New York memorial service for the victims of 9/11? Members of many different religions spoke, including a Sikh in a turban. I had tears in my eyes. No society in Europe could hold such a service or would even dream of holding such a service. This is what we have that the EU does not.

As greatly as I despise some doctrines of the Bush administration (such as the legal doctrine justifying torture), I also have to recognize the brilliant stubbornness with which his administration insisted that the danger we faced was not from a religion or an ethnicity, but from a terrorist mindset, and those around the world who supported it. At times the measures his administration implemented in service of this strategy have defied common sense, such as insisting that those of certain ethnicities should not be singled out as security risks, but on the whole this strategy has made sense. Let us hope that the excesses of the Bush doctrine will be eliminated by the constitutional scrutiny of Congress and the courts, but that the essential core of it will predominate.

If you are an American Muslim, and reading this, let me say to you that I regard you as no less American than I am. I do not fear you. I support your right to practice your religion. I honor your dedication to it.

If you are not a Muslim, and reading this, I ask you where is the surge of domestic Muslim terrorism? Where are the thousands of murdering fanatics? Don't look for them to be born and raised in this country. We can and should expose any groups dedicated to promulgating criminal conspiracies of any kind, but the problem is not the religion but a secular perversion of it expressed in religious terms. Irish people are not all IRA members, all Basques don't bomb, all black people don't belong to the Black Panthers, all native Americans don't shoot down federal agents, all Communists don't spy for Communist countries, all Jews don't belong to the Mossad, and all dedicated Catholics don't bomb abortion clinics.

Bush is right - terrorism is a unique mindset that is not confined to one religion. America and the world has experienced religious terrorism (from many sects), ethnic terrorism and political terrorism. We have survived and will survive them all. There is no need to abandon our birthright in favor of some sort of secular terrified tyranny of the "normal".