A leader peaking up about a very difficult topic...

Angela Merkel has made a rather interesting statement, and one shared by many people, in many countries. Here is her point of view on the assimilation of Muslims within German society:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101017/wl_afp/germanymuslimreligionimmigration

As one who spends considerable time in Germany, I have observed the separation of Muslim/Western communities, and I don't think this can be blamed on the Germans, as a whole. It is evident that many Muslims do not wish to assimilate, but do wish to partake of the freedom the culture allows, while at the same time attacking its fundamental values.

Points of view?

(Yes, I do know that there is an 's' missing from the title, and know of no remedy for it.)

What a joke she is. She talks about subsidizing poor and culturally unassimilated muslim minorities and then she complains about them still being poor and unassimilated? Even to the point of thinking that these "subsidies" give her the right to make demands of them? What did she think she'd get by rewarding poverty and disconnectedness? This is right-wing socialism at its most retarded.

Pretty much agree with both of you. The fundamentalistic outlook of too many Muslims doesn't stop their opportunistically taking advantage of the social systems of countries they live in and whose basic social structures they despise. A bit hard to take and I think any kind of religious fundamentalism--even from Christians and Jews is maniacal--the Muslims just seem to be the worst.

Interestingly related book I'm just about to start reading: Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?

Haven't read it yet so can't comment, but when I saw the remarks of Merkel about forced marriages I thought of it.

Merkel's speech caught my eye, also. Looking at the Deutsche Welle website, it seems like her comments presaged a push for a purely assimilationist policy, not surprising for Germany but contrary to the loosely federated multiculturalism what many European intellectuals have been arguing is necessary to prevent bitterness from seething below the surface.

Apparently they need many immigrants, what they once called "guest workers" (and maybe still do) to keep their economy churning and are taking steps to integrate foreign professionals into their workforce much more quickly than they have in the past, while at the same time making an increased effort to turn these immigrants into Germans over time, which is fairly new, I believe.

Most of the immigrants Germans are concerned with are Turks (it seems) and even though Turkey and Germany are both nominally secular they are culturally religious--and the cultures clash, apparently enough to trump their beneficial economic cooperation.

Liberal political theorists will see the German policy maneuvers as retrograde--I wonder if opponents of assimilation (Parekh, say) will take the opportunity to reconsider their positions, or just say the Germans did it wrong or are giving up too soon.

What's interesting is that the former East Germany (from whence Frau Merkel stammt) is to the former West Germany what Muslims are to German society (in Merkel's view). Failed multiculturalism begins at home.

6> What's interesting is that the former East Germany (from whence Frau Merkel stammt) is to the former West Germany what Muslims are to German society (in Merkel's view).

I do not any see evidence, locally, to support such a notion. Although there were differences between the East and West Germans, there are still similarities, whereas there are distinct divisions between Germans and Turks. East Germans are making an effort to assimilate and the majority of Turks do not seem to be doing so.

Actually, you could make the case, and more than half in jest, that the Ossis are more representative of authentic German national consciousness than the aging multi-kulti hippies of Berlin.

But they do seem to have one thing in common with non-Aryans, at least.

The real question is: has multi-culturalism been a success, or not? Is Angela Merkel right?

I can't comment on Germany, as I do not live there. This remark by Merkel, though, stood out to me, as a non-Christian, right away:

"We feel tied to Christian values. Those who don't accept them don't have a place here," said the chancellor.

It sounds similar to the "We are a CHRISTIAN NATION!!!!" rhetoric that one hears on the U.S. scene. Is Merkel's statement a reflection of common sentiment in Germany? I had always thought that Germany was among the more secular of Europe's nations. Is that incorrect?

#8> "the aging multi-kulti hippies of Berlin". Hee hee.

You have the question exactly right, I think, and at least from one perspective the multi-cultural experiment has failed. Professional political theorists (I'm not one) have apparently settled on the notion that some sort of deliberative democracy will arise as a mechanism to integrate (not assimilate) minority cultures with the broader political society, but it sure seems like that just has not been the case in Germany. (My German isn't good enough to scan for news, so I'll admit I could be dead wrong.)

It even seems to me that the conversation the theorists have anticipated has been more evident in France, the most culturally-conservative of EU countries, where assimilation is the only recognized pathway for an entry into political culture. That strikes me as strange.

#9> "It sounds similar to the "We are a CHRISTIAN NATION!!!!" rhetoric that one hears on the U.S. scene"

It does sound very similar, but I can't even imagine a U.S. President ever saying anything at all like that despite how relentlessly the idea churns through our political awareness. Probably because we (I live in Colorado) lack an overwhelming cultural majority that it would make sense to pander to, except maybe when running for office rather than governing.

Yikes, Christian values again? You mean like burning witches? Can't we just call them Western values? Us Western non-Christians share them too.

Yes, "Christian values" makes us all -- or at least all us secularists -- sit up, because we're not sure what they are. Which Christian values in particular? If what is being referred to are simply the values of Enlightenment Europe and its offspring, fine.

I think the really interesting topic here is this: is there a resurgence of German national consciousness, and if so, what does this mean for the future?

Last month, while staying in a hostel in California, I had a long, interesting conversation with a young German businessman. He was liberal-minded -- probably more so than me -- but had not a trace of guilt about the Holocaust. As he pointed out, not only was he "not guilty for the sins of his grandparents", but even his grandparents weren't guilty, since they were children, or not even born, during the Hitler era. (Made me feel old.) And he gave me, approvingly, several examples of burgeoning German national consciousness.

What are we to make of this trend, assuming it is real?

For those interested in the German Question, this article from The Economist has some useful facts.

Yikes, Christian values again? You mean like burning witches?

Lol. Don't ever change, jj.

It's a valid point, even if stated in the extreme, Carnophile. One of the most salient ideas under discussion at the moment is what does it mean to belong to a culture? What is identity? How much of that derives from belonging to a group (is identity socially defined?) Is it personally defined?

JJ's comment on witch-burning doesn't come off all that much differently from your repeated references to "smug liberals."

The question at hand...

What are "Christian values"?

What are "American values"?

What are "xxxx values"?

In what sense does it make sense to speak of any individual as a member of a group? (And Lunar or Codyed might be the first to argue that "national" identity is about as absurd as it gets, though Codyed seems inordinately fond of grouping people according to "race".)

13> He was liberal-minded -- probably more so than me -- but had not a trace of guilt about the Holocaust.

I find that statement rather interesting, and I question the reasoning behind the assumption that he should feel guilt for something he neither did nor condoned. During my time in the USA, I did not witness anyone expressing guilt over the previous generations' handling of Native Americans. I must admit that I wouldn't have expected it, either, although it was heinous.

As for the 'burgeoning national consciousness,' I think we can attribute that to this generation's desire to remove the 'shackles of guilt' about acts for which they bear no responsibility, and instead voice pride in their country, which is the right of any citizen within any country. Many of their grandparents are still apologists for what was done in the past, and the grandchildren do not see any need for them to carry on in the same manner. I can't say that I disagree with them. After all, they did not commit the acts, nor did they condone them.

In contrast, I will suggest that the German children with whom I have conversed know a great deal about their history, and from what I can gather, are determined to never let it happen again. That's a 'consciousness' with which I take great comfort.

>16 Jesse_wiedinmyer:
It's a valid point, even if stated in the extreme

The version that he said was the extreme version.

When was the last time US Christians burned a witch?
It was such a weird thing to say.

repeated references to "smug liberals."

"Repeated"? I've only used the phrase "smug liberals" once that I recall.

And I'm not accusing them of witch burning.

JJ's comment on witch-burning doesn't come off all that much differently from your repeated references to "smug liberals."

Lol. Don't ever change, Jesse.

this generation's desire to remove the 'shackles of guilt' about acts for which they bear no responsibility, and instead voice pride in their country, which is the right of any citizen within any country... I can't say that I disagree with them. After all, they did not commit the acts, nor did they condone them.

Bravo, bravissimo! I agree.

Weirdly, if a US white male were to say the same thing about, e.g., slavery, he would (in certain quarters) be branded as "unhelpful" at best, and a "racist" at worst.

Weirdly, if a US white male were to say the same thing about, e.g., slavery, he would (in certain quarters) be branded as "unhelpful" at best, and a "racist" at worst.

And yet, quite a bit of our foreign policy is dedicated to supporting an Israeli state that we've propped up as atonement for the Holocaust.

#21> Weirdly, if a US white male were to say the same thing about, e.g., slavery, he would (in certain quarters) be branded as "unhelpful" at best, and a "racist" at worst.

Good point. Yanking in a similar but I hope more pertinent (with the added benefit that it actually happened) scenario, NPR just fired Juan Williams, apparently over this comment he made on Bill O'Reilly's show "When I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

Leaving aside any justification for that feeling Williams expressed, it is an intransigent empirical fact that many people feel the same way, and it's really going to be hard to talk this through if everyone who brings it up gets fired, or branded a racist, or worse.

"When I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

Well, you're also tacitly expressing approval for the idea that being dressed in Muslim garb means that they identify themselves primarily as Muslims.

That's Williams' conjecture, not necessarily their identity.

23> His brilliant contributions at NPR will be sorely missed.

24> Perhaps Mr Williams should drive rather than fly. Fear avoidance 101.

#25 - fear avoidance maybe - but statistically much more dangerous.

Guilt over the past seems a bit of an odd requirement for cultural identity to me - which surely has to be based on current actions. Maybe however that does explain Merkhel's comments - immigrants are never going to feel that same level of past guilt that a native apparently has to bear.

Well, the Juan Williams thing is at least partially because he showed that he's too much of a fool to be NPR's political commentator.

The guy on the plane who is LEAST LIKELY to be a terrorist is the guy wearing the keffiyeh: you KNOW he's been screened. The 9/11 terrorists were wearing western casual wear, you idiot.

Shorter Juan Williams: "I went on television and told the world that I wet myself when I see foreigners."

But he was talking about his natural reaction rather than how he saw things on analysis. I have been told that Jesse Jackson has mentioned that white people tend to do things like move their purses closer to themselves when a black person walks into a room, and that he has said that he does things like that when a black person walks into the room. None of that is the right thing to do, but it is reflective of some reality.

Gordon Allport long ago said we could work at getting over such realities, but it takes long work.

Robert

I think it's hilarious that I'm less racist than Juan Williams and Jesse Jackson.

>27 AsYouKnow_Bob: Exactly. (Though these dumb remarks alone still shouldn't have got him fired.)

What is disturbing about the Juan Williams affair is that he was punished, effectively, for his thoughts, not his actions. If he had been found discriminating against Muslim job applicants, that would have been one thing. But he simply reported on his inner feelings. He committed Thoughtcrime.

We had an incident in the UK recently, attendant on the Pope's visit. Some jerks in the Foreign Office, invited to submit an internal memo of appropriate activities for the Pope when he visited Britain, came up with a list which included things like opening a condom factory, ordaining a woman priest, etc. Ho ho ho.

Now this was indeed juvenile, and not what diplomats, even junior ones, are supposed to be doing. In fact, it's almost the definition of a diplomat's job that he must deal with, and be courteous to, a lot of people he finds quite distasteful.

One conservative commentator, with whom I agree, observed that the real insult to decency here was not the assinine joke memo -- which was just delayed undergraduate humor -- but what happened to some of the perpetrators: they were sent off for "diversity training". In other words, they weren't reprimanded for their behavior, but for their thoughts, which the state then took it upon itself to change.

So here is the basis for a new Rainbow Coalition: Oldthinkers United.

>31 Doug1943:
Although I share the general drift of your opinion (i.e., that this is overblown and wasting people's time when there are more important issues), I would quibble with you about terms. This is not about mere thoughts, or the Orwellian term Thoughtcrime, which you use. Thoughtcrime is a psychological level of totalitarianism and requires doublethink to overcome, and is internal. It is a more pernicious process than this media show of publically preening dumbasses, however disheartening this show might be.

Williams didn't actually just "think" something but he chose to say it, on the record in a very public forum. (Though, I repeat, firing the guy and much of the other reaction seems excessive.) But, on the other hand, there's nothing remarkable, in my opinion, if people also react publically and tell him he's stupid. Not for his thoughts (which are nobody's business), but for what he said.

This is just another episode in the political correctness soap opera, now in its umpteenth season.

For this viewer, some installments are more pleasing than others (distinctions which are no doubt based on all this thought-stuff floating around in me which you'll never see more of than I care to share, neener neener neener). As for what we share with each other, and say, sometimes I find it refreshing and bracing when someone speaks frankly and cuts through the crap.

Other times, though (as in this Williams incident), it's not refreshing and bracing: it's just more crap. Williams reminds me of when a toddler evacuates, and then asks you to go back with him and admire his stool.

#1> I didn't mean to go off-course by mentioning the Juan Williams affair. You're original point is far more interesting but I thought the Williams thing mildly germane.

#24> Well, you're also tacitly expressing approval for the idea that being dressed in Muslim garb means that they identify themselves primarily as Muslims

True enough, and that conjecture is suspect but not necessarily unreasonable. There have been many serious, thoughtful criticisms of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (for instance) which claim that it privileges Western Culture by insisting on treating the sovereign individual at the basis of political authority. The criticisms, some of them anyway, claim that point of view militates against cultures that consider the group to be the source of autonomy and the ground of political authority. So, in that case, an individual's value derives only from the extent to which they support the group.

If you know that about a group and an individual you encounter has made an effort to display group membership markers that separate them from most folks, you might have the basis for a pretty good walking-down-the-street-minding-your-own-business hypothesis that this person holds loyalties that differ from most folks you see. I don't just mean Muslim garb--we used to have a guy walking around town dragging a 8' cross and most of us figured he answered to an authority absent from most lives.

That may be the case in Germany and throughout Europe, where anti-immigrant activity is growing. (Though it's also the case that minorities usually become targets when times are bad, which complicates any analysis.) That is, certain groups of immigrants are showing a determined unwillingness to embrace a European society based on Western notions of liberal democracy, and since the whole "multi-kulti" project depends utterly on that happening, the project isn't working.

Merkel says the project has failed--my take is only that it currently isn't working but still could. But I live in the middle of a different continent in a country with its own immigrant issues. It's much easier to solve other people's problems. Especially when you don't speak their language.

#31 (Hi, Doug!), 32, 33:

Here's the thing, though: he wasn't being fired simply for his incorrect thoughts; he was also fired for being an idiot.

There are several million people in this country qualified to be a pundit. Why does a pundritry job need to go to someone who:

a) wets themselves when they see a foreigner
and
b) lacks the smarts and/or the judgment to know that this is not an appropriate feeling to admit to in public?

"I'm am very frightened of people who dress in their traditional garb"
Would it have been ok for him to have said:
- "I cross the street to avoid people of color"
- "Public displays of affection revolt me"

I mean, lots of people have thoughts about their own hang-ups that - true or not - they should know better than to voice. ESPECIALLY if they're are publicly representing a larger, very public institution. And especially if their thought makes no sense.

(As I said above at #27: if you find somebody in traditional Muslim garb on your flight, THAT'S the guy you want to sit next to. That guy has been thoroughly, thoroughly vetted. "Hi, stranger - how was YOUR check-in?")

NPR might have overreacted in instantly firing him - but AT MINIMUM, Williams needed to be called on the carpet to explain why such a dummy should continue to hold such a high-profile job.

Hi, Bob. Everyone seems to be lying low. Or maybe recovering from their summer vacations. Let's get into a nasty, acrimonious argument with lots of wounding personal insults, so that we attract them back.

From the NPR Code of Ethics ( http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/ethics/ethics_code.html ), emphasis added:

Credibility.

NPR is primarily a news organization. We are always testing and questioning the credibility of others. We have to stand that test ourselves, whether we are functioning as reporters, hosts, newscasters, writers, editors, directors, photographers or producers of news, music or other content. Our news content must meet the highest standards of credibility.

The purpose of this code is to protect the credibility of NPR's programming by ensuring high standards of honesty, integrity, impartiality and staff conduct. We accomplish this by (a) articulating the ethical standards we observe in pursuing and presenting material through our various distribution channels, (b) setting rules and policies that prevent conflicts of interest, (c) establishing guidelines for outside work and activities that may reflect on NPR, and (d) establishing policies and procedures to ensure that the activities of NPR that fall outside journalism and daily production - corporate underwriting, foundation funding, marketing and promotional activities - do not jeopardize our journalistic independence or involve NPR journalists in activities inappropriate to their roles. This code should also guide your use of social media; for more details, please refer to NPR News Social Media guidelines.

This code covers all employees of the NPR News Division.

The code also applies to material provided to NPR by independent producers, member station contributors and/or reporters and freelance reporters, writers, news contributors or photographers.

Our coverage must be fair, unbiased, accurate, complete and honest. At NPR we are expected to conduct ourselves in a manner that leaves no question about our independence and fairness. We must treat the people we cover and our audience with respect.

"Fair" means that we present all important views on a subject. This range of views may be encompassed in a single story on a controversial topic, or it may play out over a body of coverage or series of commentaries. But at all times the commitment to presenting all important views must be conscious and affirmative, and it must be timely if it is being accomplished over the course of more than one story. We also assure that every possible effort is made to reach an individual (or a spokesperson for an entity) that is the subject of criticism, unfavorable allegations or other negative assertions in a story in order to allow them to respond to those assertions.

"Unbiased" means that we separate our personal opinions - such as an individual's religious beliefs or political ideology - from the subjects we are covering. We do not approach any coverage with overt or hidden agendas.

1. Application and enforcement of this Code is the responsibility in the first instance of every NPR journalist. This responsibility extends to both him/herself and to every other NPR journalist with whom he/she works. We should feel free to guide ourselves by offering suggestions to our peers to help them comply with their obligations under this Code, and NPR journalists should welcome any such suggestions and discuss the issues with professionalism and respect.

3. NPR journalists who do not comply with the Code may be subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination. Disciplinary action against those journalists covered by the AFTRA contract will be consistent with the contract.

**

It would appear that Mr Williams was terminated for violating this Code of Ethics, which was a condition of his employment at NPR.

On the eve of the convention that nominated Goldwater, Daniel Schorr of CBS, “reporting” from Germany, said: “It looks as though Senator Goldwater, if nominated, will be starting his campaign here in Bavaria, center of Germany's right wing” and “Hitler's one-time stomping ground.” Goldwater, said Schorr, would be vacationing near Hitler's villa at Berchtesgaden. Schorr further noted that Goldwater had given an interview to Der Spiegel “appealing to right-wing elements in Germany” and had agreed to speak to a gathering of “right-wing Germans.” So, “there are signs that the American and German right wings are joining up.”

But as Andrew Ferguson of the Weekly Standard has reported, although Goldwater had spoken vaguely about a European vacation (he did not take one), he had not mentioned Germany, and there were no plans to address any German group. Der Spiegel had reprinted an interview that had appeared elsewhere. (^)

It's surprising NPR employed Schorr after that one.

Somebody else did something bad 46 years ago?

Well, in 1964, Schorr was working for CBS.

NPR didn't hire him until 21 years after that indiscretion (...IF those charges are true...); maybe that'll be the length of penance before they forgive Williams.

Doug1943 at #35 Let's get into a nasty, acrimonious argument with lots of wounding personal insults, so that we attract them back.

Nah, let's not.

Didn't you get the memo? It's a new era here on Talk: we all sing "Kumbaya" together now.

Nina Totenberg is NPR's award-winning legal affairs correspondent.

I guess the perception is that one can only say out loud, in public, that which is acceptable to the majority. Apparently, truth and honesty have no bearing on acceptability? (I am referring to the original topic, of course.)

#36: I don't see how Juan Williams violated any part of NPR's Code of Ethics, except, perhaps, the requirement to treat the "people we cover" and "our audience" with respect.

Even here, though, I think it would be a stretch to say that he treated Muslims with disrespect, or even disrespected them. (Presumably, NPR's Code of Ethics does not require their reporters to actually respect the people they cover, just to treat them with respect.)

I think the real reason he was fired because he legitimizes Fox News by appearing on it, and liberals want to put Fox News beyond the pale. This was just a handy excuse.

#27: "The guy on the plane who is LEAST LIKELY to be a terrorist is the guy wearing the keffiyeh: you KNOW he's been screened. "

Hmm.... two questions present themselves here.

(1) Is this actually true? Do people who are "ostentatiously Muslim" get screened, in preference to the rest of us? Please tell me this is really true.

(2) Should it be true? (We racist conservatives are excused from having to answer this one, since of course we believe in profiling: people who are wearing keffiyehs, ostentatiously praying to Mecca, etc. should damned well get the full screening treatment. But I thought our liberal friends were against profiling. Or did common sense break in here?)

#41: "I guess the perception is that one can only say out loud, in public, that which is acceptable to the majority."

It's not majority opinion that Juan Williams offended against, but liberal opinion.

I think the real reason he was fired was because he legitimizes Fox News by appearing on it, and liberals want to put Fox News beyond the pale. This was just a handy excuse.

Bingo.

Even here, though, I think it would be a stretch to say that he treated Muslims with disrespect, or even disrespected them.

Because there's nothing disrespectful about assuming that a guy is going to kill you because of the way he's dressed...

>40 BOB81:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/10/22/krauthammer_slams_nprs_hypocri...

Oh, please. Fox News is beyond the pale, with it's menagerie of circus freak guests and seething, bitter hosts who nourish various grudges against their media peers. It's also home to some of the nation's most enthusiastic moral relativists! Yeah, we're guilty of X but not nearly as much as those liberals. Aside from that, Fox News can accurately be called the Tu Quoque Channel.

Doug: well, yeah, maybe it's pollyanna-ish of me to hope that TSA/airport security is something more than security theater; that it's about something more than acclimatizing the American public to authoritarianism. I mean, a half million names on the list, one might hope that the net is cast wide enough to include more than grandmothers, and that I hope I'm not wrong to assume that a guy who wears "traditional Muslim garb" might be looked at.

Wait, I just read Williams' transcript, and he genuinely said "I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot."

This construction is ONLY used to announce "Look, Bill, the next thing I am going to say is TREMENDOUSLY bigoted. And I know this.". Bigots use that construction to acknowledge that yes, bigotry is wrong.

People have at least learned to preface their bigoted remarks with "I am not a bigot" because at least we've advanced to the point that it's socially unacceptable in civilized company to be a bigot.

So Williams even knew that what he was saying was bigoted. It's clearly agreed that he would not be allowed to say bigoted things about black people.

Apparently it's a surprise to lots of people that it's equally unacceptable to say bigoted things about Moslems. Which is sort of interesting.

Liberals don't hate it for that reason.

They hate it because it has been effective in mobilizing large numbers of conservatives, and allowing millions of people to focus politically, who, before the rise of conservative mass media, were just isolated individuals who were not happy with the way things were going in America, but did not have a voice.

Suppose Fox News, and the conservative talk shows, closed down. Do you think we would be better off?

>48 Doug1943: - Yes, Doug, I think we would be better off if conservative talk radio shows and Fox News closed down. The one thing public policy wonks and common folk of the type who listen to Limbaugh and watch Fox News is that both are so fucking certain of their positions. It's bad enough that the former are dominant within American political life; it would be worse if the latter had more say.

This construction is ONLY used to announce "Look, Bill, the next thing I am going to say is TREMENDOUSLY bigoted. And I know this.". Bigots use that construction to acknowledge that yes, bigotry is wrong.

This is utter nonsense. You saw someone use it and you extrapolate to all mankind.

Calling Juan Williams a bigot is beyond the pale.

46 -- That is an absurd description of Fox News, though I suspect you wrote it that way mainly to amuse yourself. It has a certain mean, bitter cleverness. I am a semi-intelligent person, have some letters after my name, blah blah blah. I watch Fox and I don't find it biased. Not its news. Beck is biased and so is Hannity, but those shows are analysis. Greta Von Susteren does some of the best investigative journalism on the air.

deniro at #50 This is utter nonsense. You saw someone use it and you extrapolate to all mankind.

Um, it's used all the time; and the next thing out of the mouths of people who use this phrase is always a bit of shocking bigotry. Watch for it, you might learn something. "I'm not a bigot, but..." is now the 'tell' for a bigot.

Calling Juan Williams a bigot is beyond the pale.

Wait, what? Juan Williams was just fired for being a bigot. What is it you think we're talking about here?

#50 You know, if you looked at the outside world rather than relying only on the contents of your head, you'd Google for the phrase "I'm not a bigot, but" and learn that mine was rather a commonplace observation, one that lots of people have made.

The Google returns are currently swamped with "Juan Williams" cites, but there are still lots of answers turning up like this from some random guy on the internet:

June 20, 2008

We all have one of those friends. You know, the friend that will every so often begin a sentence with “I’m not a racist, but…” to which you respond with a pre-emptive cringe because you know whatever is coming after the fold is going to be atrocious. It’s as if they know that what they are going to say is incredibly racist, but they have the minimal amount of social awareness to realize that they should strive to be egalitarian.

Could someone give an example of what might typically follow the "but" in "I'm not a racist/bigot but ..."?

"...but when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

Okay. So if I'm a white walking down the street at night and I see a group of young Black males ahead, does that make me a bigot/racist if I get nervous? If I'm a Black walking down the street at night and I a car cruises by with some young white males inside and Confederate flag stickers on the outside, does that make me a bigot/racist if I get nervous?

You said you "hope I'm not wrong to assume that a guy who wears "traditional Muslim garb" might be looked at" when getting on the airplane. Surely you mean you hope that he is not looked at any more than a white grandmother? (Some other bigot posting here seemed to assume, apparently approvingly, that he would be looked at more than a white grandmother, and thus we could rest easy when flying on the same plane as him. For shame. Why in the world, except for racism and bigotry, might we want to look at Muslims boarding a plane more closely than white grandmothers?)

#1> For those still interested in the original topic, Foreign Policy offers a well-researched, informative review of immigration politics in Germany.

It includes this sentence, which could apply in places besides Germany: Germans are restless, and they increasingly believe their political class is tone-deaf.

"You know, if you looked at the outside world rather than relying only on the contents of your head"

-- This is offensive.

I dunno. Looking at the evidence rather than judging the world by by your prejudices may not be necessary, but it does do quite a bit towards making sure that the contents of your head correspond to the outside world.

#55 So, I don't follow American news, but it is an interesting question of what makes someone bigoted.

Am I discriminatory if I say, as a female, that I'm scared walking down the street by myself at night when there's a man behind me also walking down the street?

Statistically, that guy is probably just another student walking down the street. But yet, society has taught me to fear him as a potential rapist, and to avoid walking alone because any of those men walking behind me might attack.

Is my fear discriminatory towards men? And if you think so, am I to blame for my fear? Or a society that teaches me to fear? Or the rapists who cause society to instill fear in me to protect me against them?

I don't know the answer to these questions...

59>
If someone were to fear all men, of whatever category, indiscriminately, then that person's fear is probably pathological. The same holds for Mr Williams. If the sight of "muslim garb" on a fellow airplane passenger causes his little heart to pound wildly, then he probably needs therapy or valium. Or he should just drive rather than fly on airplanes.

Also, "society" doesn't teach anyone anything, it's specific people and institutions (parents, political pundits, teachers, etc) that convey messages and images of indiscriminate and pathological fear. Mr Williams has done his part.

Could someone please comment on the idea that Williams is silly to worry about fellow passengers in Muslim garb, because they will probably have had extra attention paid to them.

I'm getting the idea that everyone thinks this is okay.

Surely ipaying special attention to Muslim airline passengers is just typical American imperialist racist bigotry?

I understand why the conservatives here might be happy with this, assuming it's true, but surely liberals ought to be up in arms at the very idea.

deniro at #57: "-- This is offensive."

Ok, sorry if you're offended. But have you actually Googled the phrase yet to see how people have learned to interpret it?

I would bet that you're still being offended that the map of the world you have in your head doesn't match what's actually going on in the world.

You said at #50 that I was making it up, extrapolating and over-generalizing from a single instance. I did the research for you, and the evidence showed that you were wrong.

Now you tell me that it was "offensive" for me to bring actual "evidence-not-found-in-deniro's-head" to the argument.

The correct response to being shown something that you didn't know about the world is to say "Thank you", not "This is offensive."

Very nice of you to edit your post at #57 so that my post no longer followed logically, Deniro.

His original statement was "This is unnecessary."

Edit - Not this is offensive.

"Also, "society" doesn't teach anyone anything, it's specific people and institutions (parents, political pundits, teachers, etc) that convey messages and images of indiscriminate and pathological fear. Mr Williams has done his part."

Sorry, when I said society, I kind of assumed that was interchangeable with institutions and the people of them. What else is society but a collection of specific people framed by institutions?

Mostly playing devil's advocate here:
By acknowledging how he feels, was Mr Williams necessarily contributing towards further propagating those bad assumptions? Or is he challenging it? If I said I feel scared with men walking behind late at night, am I saying: "you too should fear men" or "we should change things so I don't fear men at night"? Is admitting something (that is probably more widely held) contributing to the perpetuation of that initial belief, or helping gain proper perspective on that belief?

The philosopher in me who has read On Liberty agrees with Mill that people should be able to say incorrect things, so that everyone knows people feel that way and can try to change their minds. If people are afraid to say things, that doesn't mean they will stop believing them. It just means we won't know what we are up against.

64> I agree with Mill. Nothing I wrote in #60 indicates otherwise. Or, to refer to Brandeis: ". . . discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine." (Whitney v California, 1927, 375). I would only add to this ideally, because it assumes something like undistorted communication ala the theory of communicative action.

I believe that it might be in order to fire someone who confesses to inappropriate feelings about some group, if they were doing a job where such feelings could reasonably be expected interfere with their ability to do that job. Whether it would actually be correct do to so would depend on more than just their confession that they had such feelings.

If someone feels strong sexual attraction to young children, they probably shouldn't be working with young children. If someone feels strong distaste for Jews, maybe they shouldn't be reporting on Jewish issues. If Juan Williams feels powerful revulsion towards Muslims then it's reasonable to ask if this will get in the way of his ability to report on or comment on issues involving Muslims.

I don't think it's possible to grow up in the real world, without absorbing various prejudices, or other negative attitudes, about different social groups. We may not even be aware of them.

What young person does not experience a certain amount of distaste for old people? What Black person hasn't reacted, at least occasionally, as bell hooks famously did when sitting next to a white man on an airplane, he having been given the seat she thought a friend of hers would have? (She wanted to murder him.) What good intellectual does not recoil from a group of flag-waving patriots, none of whom probably have university degrees?

But then we have to ask, in every case: does the person involve actually let these initial impulses influence the way they do their job? Shirley Sherrod shows us that we need not be slaves of our initial impulses. Why not Juan Williams?

For all of your distaste for the concept of "groupthink," Doug, you seem unwilling to not engage in the process of judging people as members of groups.

42> It's not majority opinion that Juan Williams offended against, but liberal opinion.

As stated in my message I was referring to the original topic, not Juan Williams. Perhaps reading all three sentences of my message would have helped you avoid this mistake.

K.J.. You're right, I was careless. Sorry.

Doug, here's another reply to your query at #53.

Earlier this week, a blogger at fashion magazine Marie Claire let loose with this: MarieClaire, talking about a new TV show:

So anyway, yes, I think I'd be grossed out if I had to watch two characters with rolls and rolls of fat kissing each other ... because I'd be grossed out if I had to watch them doing anything. To be brutally honest, even in real life, I find it aesthetically displeasing to watch a very, very fat person simply walk across a room — just like I'd find it distressing if I saw a very drunk person stumbling across a bar or a heroine {sic} addict slumping in a chair.

Now, don't go getting the wrong impression: I have a few friends who could be called plump. I'm not some size-ist jerk.

So once again, we have the "I am not a bigot" denial, accompanying a big helping of bigotry. ("Why, some of my best friends are plump" is a nice touch, too.) She's certainly entitled to think what she thinks - but to append the "I am not a bigot" bit is self-refuted.

When I looked this up Wednesday afternoon, the magazine had about 30,000 email replies. Yes, some of the replies were along the lines of "Thank GOD somebody has the courage to stand up to the forces of Political Correctness and tell the truth about fatties! I'm repulsed by them, too!" - but the majority of MarieClaire's mail is people pointing out that this was in fact nothing but "size-ist" bigotry, and that her "I am not a size-ist" disclaimer was in fact a way of announcing, "Why, yes, I AM a bigot." THIS IS A COMMON AND WELL-KNOWN PHENOMENON.

The problem is not entirely with the bigotry - the problem is also with the person denying that their bigotry is in fact bigotry. Announcing "I am not a bigot, but..." is now widely accepted to be an admission of bigotry.

deniro at #50: This is utter nonsense. You saw someone use it and you extrapolate to all mankind.

As I said, this is a widely recognized phenomenon. Just because you were unfamiliar with it does not mean that I made it up. I resent your accusation that I'm making up and spreading "nonsense".

Anybody can be ignorant of something, to have never noticed it - but to claim that people who have noticed it are wrong, that the phenomenon simply doesn't exist because you're unfamiliar with it - well, I guess that takes a conservative mindset. You should be thanking me for educating you, and not taking offense that there are things going on out in the world that you were ignorant of.

Just out of curiosity, deniro - have you Googled for the phrase yet, and seen the phenomenon that I described at #47, and that I showed an example of at #52 (and again, here)? Or do you still insist that because you were unaware of it, I must be making it up?

(Edited to fix a typo)

#70> her "I am not a size-ist" disclaimer was in fact a way of announcing, "Why, yes, I AM a bigot."

I wonder if the sociol psychologists have a term for that formula: " I am not a 2, but 1 + 1 describes me"?

Like AYK_Bob, I hear it a lot, and every time I cringe.

This is an interesting discussion! Before we go any further, can we agree on the definition of "bigot"? I admit I have not thought deeply about it, and don't have a precise definition, so I started by Googling, and came up with this:

From the Google toolbar ap (I think) for word defintions:
============================================================
Definitions of bigot on the Web:

a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigot

bigotry - the intolerance and prejudice of a bigot
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

bigoted - blindly and obstinately attached to some creed or opinion and intolerant toward others; "a bigoted person"; "an outrageously bigoted point of view"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

bigoted - Being a bigot; biased; strongly prejudiced; forming opinions without just cause
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bigoted

=======================================================

These definitions don't seem to capture all of the ways the word is used, in particular how it seems to be being used in this discussion. So I looked at some more web definitions:

From the Free Dictionsary:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bigot
==============================================================

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company

bigot: a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

bigot: fanatic, racist, extremist, sectarian, maniac, fiend (informal), zealot, persecutor, dogmatist
Collins Thesaurus of the English Language – Complete and Unabridged 2nd Edition. 2002

==============================================================

These definitions of "bigot" don't seem to me to express the way the word is being used in previous posts.

Comments?

Doug: ...so I started by Googling....

Clearly, you're not a mainstream conservative.

The only sense of "bigot" I see being left out is the sense of "one who judges an individual by the negative stereotypes that they have of a larger group".

Bigotry seems to me necessarily negative and negative about a class or classes of things. Intolerant prejudice suggested or cited by some of the definitions Doug found seems to be a big part of it.

Robert

PS As I hit the Submit button I applied my construal to parking meters, and it didn't work. I think bigotry also necessarily has people as an object, and perhaps from District 9 humanoid extraterrestrials.

R

Bob: Yes, I think you've put your finger on it.

Nowadays, the word doesn't seem to mean someone who clings irrationally and stubbornly to certain views, but someone who acts as you describe: they judge an individual by the negative stereotype that they have of a larger group.

So, let's unpack that definition. I think two points arise.

The first question is: what do we mean by a "negative stereotype"? It seems to me that a range of negative judgements about groups are possible, ranging from "All Xs are Y" through to "Some X's are Y". (Let's pass over the technical issue of whether the stereotype must necessarily be negative. I can imagine someone whom I would call a "bigot" who holds an -- unwarranted -- positive view about some group. But it's the negative views that attract our attention.)

It seems to me that we more properly apply the word "bigot" to someone whose negative judgement of some group is at the "all" end of the spectrum. The applicability of the "bigot" label becomes more problematic, as we move towards the "some" end.

For instance, someone who believed that "all Tea Party supporters are white racists" would, in my opinion, be more bigoted than someone who said "most Tea Party supporters are white racists", and that person would, in turn, be more bigoted than someone who said "some Tea Party supporters are white racists." (Substitute "Obama" for "Tea Party" and "anti-American Marxists" for "white racists" if you wish.)

Of course, this assumes that the "all" and "many" propositions are false. It also assumes that "racist" and "anti-American Marxist" are meaningful terms being used meaningfully. (If one's definition of "racist" is someone who does not support Affirmative Action, or of "anti-American Marxist" is someone who wants a national health care system and opposed the invasion of Iraq, we introduce a new -- and unnecessary --element of complexity into the argument.)

The second has to do with "judging". I think in the discussion above, the word "bigot" is being applied to anyone who has a negative reaction to any member of a certain group. Thus, the person who confesses to being repulsed by fat people, is called a bigot.

Now, it seems to me that this is extending the definition of "bigot" beyond what is useful. Maybe this extension is being done for lack of a good word to describe what we're talking about -- a negative reaction which might hurt someone's feelings -- but I think there is a distinction between a raw emotion provoked by the sight of the member of a group, and a settled belief about that group's members which may be acted on.

Maybe the distinction can be made clearer by distinguishing two statements:

"I react negatively to fat people" (perhaps because all fat people remind this person of Rush Limbaugh, or they a bad a childhood experience with Santa Clause, or they fear becoming fat themselves, or they have succumbed to beautiful-people advertising which equates slimness with goodnes), on the one hand, and

"I will avoid being near fat people because they are stupid/smell bad/will steal food from my plate/etc".

The first statement just reports on an involuntary internal emotional reaction. No behavior, or even judgement, necessarily follows from it. (In practice, of course, it's more likely to.)

The second statement is, in my opinion, an example of bigotry. Not because of the avoidance, but because of the (spurious) reason given for it.

If someone fears spiders, that's not bigotry. If they refuse to pick up a spider in the bathtub because of this fear, that's not bigotry either. If they tell you that "Spiders are dangerous", that's bigotry, especially if they refuse to change their opinion when shown evidence that not all spiders, not even most spiders, are dangerous.

So ... I would only change your definition by one word: I would say a bigot is someone who judges an individual by the negative beliefs that they have about a larger group.

The other aspect unique to these cases is the "meta" level of bigotry.

Basic level: "I say these {various hateful things about some group or other}".

One can make the case that it's actually good to be self-aware, and it's good to acknowledge that one harbors these ideas - even if they are hateful. Sunlight, disinfectant, etc.

We reach a "meta" level of bigotry with the "Juan Williams" construction (which long predates his use of it, but he is the current case specimen we have to hand): "I will say bigoted, hateful things at the same time that I deny that they are in fact bigoted, hateful things".

I would point out that it's this 'meta' level - a demonstration of a LACK of self-awareness about his own bigotry - is the bit got Williams in trouble.

It's the difference between:

"(I acknowledge that it's irrational and probably very wrong of me,) but when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

and

"(I don't see the slightest thing wrong with telling the world) that when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

One is an acknowledgement of a problem that we all have; the other is a statement that it's OK to be a bigot.

"I am not a bigot, but..." is lip service to the idea that bigotry in the abstract is wrong - while continuing to think that one's particular bigotry is OK. ("What's the problem? I'm just saying what EVERYONE is thinking.")

So, can we agree that the statement "I have a negative reaction to X" is, by itself, not evidence of bigotry? Because given that statement alone, we don't know which of your two qualifications (in brackets) precedes it?

HELL no. Absolutely not. At minimum, it's certainly highly dependent upon the value of X. (Go ahead, show me some value of X for which it wouldn't be evidence of bigotry.)

People were doing various find-and-replace versions of Williams' remark, showing how any formulation of it is bigoted. People are outraged that he got called on it mostly to the degree that they share his attitude about Moslems. ("What do you MEAN we can't be suspicious of Moslems in traditional garb? Who the hell ARE we supposed to be suspicious of, then?")

(e.g., "I'm not a bigot, but, when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in those big dashikis, and wearing Afros and shades, and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as black, I get worried. I get nervous." Uh, what?)

Whether he could phrase it in such a way as to publicly admit his fears without career repercussions is a slightly different question. But bigotry is bigotry.

Okay. So, according to you, the following (true) example, is an example of bigotry.

In the UK, where I live, we used to (during the 1970s/80s) have trains where some of the carriages had small compartments, which held only a few passengers. Coming home from London late at night, you could easily be the only person in one of these compartments. There were some well-publicized rapes in these compartments. The rapist or rapists would find a compartment with a single woman in it, and know that they would have, say, fifteen minutes alone with her until the train got into the next station.

A former wife of mine, who used to travel home alone at night, had a rule: if she was travelling in such a compartment, alone, and a man got in with her, she would immediately leave and go to another compartment. This was an automatic rule with her.

Was this evidence, on a proper definition, of bigotry?

So your suggested values of X are something like:
"I have a negative reaction to (being at risk for being sexually assaulted)"?
"I have a negative reaction to (my public transport options)"?

We've already hijacked a thread about assimilation of Euro Moslems to talk about Juan Williams' firing. If you want to talk sexual politics, maybe we should start another thread.

No, the negative reaction was to males. Some (a very few) males are rapists. Being alone with one or more of them under those circumstances alarmed her, since she had no way of telling which kind of man had just gotten into the compartment with her. A consideration of the low odds of being raped didn't reassure her. This was just her reaction. She didn't say "All men are rapists" or "Most men are rapists".

Juan Williams' reaction was to Muslims on airplanes. Some (a very few) of them try to blow planes up, or hijack them. He didn't say "All Muslims are terrorists" or "Most Muslims are terrorists". He just had a reaction, based on the actions of a small number of Muslims, and was unwise enough to report it and attract the attention of the ThoughtPolice.

If he is a bigot, then so is she.

No: she doesn't meet the "meta" level of bigotry I talked about above at #76: unlike Williams, she does not go around flatly DENYING the nature of what she's thinking.

Does she say "I'm not at all afraid of strange men, but I make sure to leave the compartment when a strange man enters"?

I'm gradually coming to understand that it's this denial of what one is actually saying - and the apparent unawareness of what one is saying - that is the real reason Williams got fired.

As I said above - it's this unawareness of what one is saying that is unacceptable in a guy who's hired to be a political commentator.

If he's not sharp enough to recognize a that bigoted comment is bigotry, what is the use of him? Most of the participants on this thread have more qualifications to be a political pundit.

Hmmm...if I was Inspector Frost, I would deduce that the original topic has been bludgeoned into oblivion. I'll notify the coroner.

83> Wait! Wait, K.J. before you make that call let's try resuscitation.

Habermas has checked in via an opinion piece published in the N. Y. Times, containing, besides the kind of thoughtfulness you'd expect, this fairly savage attack (savage for philosophers, not LT):

The real cause for concern is that, as the Sarrazin and Wulff incidents show, cool-headed politicians are discovering that they can divert the social anxieties of their voters into ethnic aggression against still weaker social groups.

As usual, Herr Habermas is spot on.

85> I would disagree with a portion of his assertion that Germans are reacting in a racist manner. The German people with whom I have come in contact welcome anyone who wishes to make Germany their home, as they have welcomed me. The dilemma is when people come and separate themselves from German society and insulate themselves within their own community, and practice many laws that are in contradiction to the German way of life, such as forced marriages, beating one's wife, and other issues that raise the hackles of most people I have come to know. Although Germany cannot be considered the standard-bearer for equalizing the position of women with men, they are definitely not of the variety that condones the beating of women, for any reason. It is not a problem of 'not wanting foreigners' in Germany, as much as Germans are made to feel that someone is camping in their country, and has no wish to share their experience with the locals, but does wish to utilize Germany's many benefits.

86> The dilemma is when people come and separate themselves from German society and insulate themselves within their own community, and practice many laws that are in contradiction to the German way of life...

Just mulling this over--the claims of racism seem simplistic. The perception is widespread in the U.S. and apparently throughout
Europe that Muslim immigrants of whatever original nationality constitute a monolithic ethnocultural group enaged in nation-building inside the territory of their host- or naturalized-countries. By nation-building I mean creating freestanding political and legal institutions grounded in languages and traditions entirely separate from those of the larger state.

I don't know whether or not that perception is accurate--it's not in the U.S., unless there's a memo I didn't get, but I'm curious if the non-integrated enclaves in Germany that Habermas (and K.J.) mention are that very thing.

I don't see any comment in Habermas' Op-Ed that refers to Germans or German society as racist. He is concerned with xenophobia and uses that term to describe a particular publication and public utterances of particular politicians.

When he uses the term racist (once), it's clear that he's doesn't think this term is really operative: Nevertheless I do not have the impression that the appeals to the leitkultur signal anything more than a rearguard action or that the lapse of an author into the snares of the controversy over nature versus nurture has given enduring and widespread impetus to the more noxious mixture of xenophobia, racist feelings of superiority and social Darwinism.

Hence, his argument is being profoundly misconstrued, probably because it is not read against the backdrop of the larger political philosophical discussion of the relationship of an ethnos to the identity of the liberal constitutional state. From the cosmopolitan perspective, what Habermas has called "constitutional patriotism" suffices to integrate diverse citizens within the modern state, but this idea is challenged by orientations that define the nation in terms of ethnicity. From the latter perspective, national identity is not defined by the abstract system of rights embodied in liberal constitutional frameworks, it is defined by a "thick" ethnic identity (which is singular), with possesses specific attributes: a shared language, culture, religion, etc. This "thick" notion of national identity is operative in Merkel's jeremiad on so-called "failed multiculturalism" and her assertion that Germany is a Christian nation, which implies assimilation into German citizenship requires something akin to the christianization of the Muslim Other (as opposed to the embrace of the liberal values framed by the German Constitution).

From this perspective, "identity politics" is practiced by both sides: by those who insist on the recognition of cultural difference of the Other; and by those who refuse to recognize cultural difference by insisting that the Other must assimilate into whatever is held to be the one legitimate cultural identity of the nation (with its specific linguistic and cultural attributes), which Habermas defines as the idea of a leitkultur.

Finally, Habermas' claim that politicians mobilize social anxieties to their advantage by channeling them into antipathy towards "minorities" (The real cause for concern is that, as the Sarrazin and Wulff incidents show, cool-headed politicians are discovering that they can divert the social anxieties of their voters into ethnic aggression against still weaker social groups) is easily confirmed by contemporary and historical observations in the German context as well as in the USA.

#88: The key issue is captured in this clause: " From the cosmopolitan perspective, what Habermas has called "constitutional patriotism" suffices to integrate diverse citizens within the modern state..."

Yes, it ought to, but does it actually?

Liberals seem to believe, as a point of principle, that Western countries should be willing to invite an unlimited number of people to settle in them, from any culture or ethnic group whatsoever. Any resulting social tension is just an example of wickedness (the current term for wickedness is "racism") on the part of the original inhabitants, or, at worst, a reaction to this wickedness by the new comers. Any expression of concern about social tensions is an example of xenophobia, a fancy term for racism.

But this principle is applied to Western countries alone. No one ever challenges, or even shows any curiosity about, say, what India or China's attitude would be towards large numbers of would-be immigrants from a completely different culture to that of the indigenous peoples of these countries. This will become an issue as these countries begin to need more low- and unskilled labor power than can be supplied by their own people, and you can then bet that we will see attitudes that make the Europeans look like Quakers. (Even now, you are safer being a Muslim in the United States, or Europe, than you are in India or China. In fact, if you are the wrong kind of Muslim, you are safer being a Muslim in the West than you are if you live in Muslim country dominated by a different sect of Islam.)

Another interesting contradiction of liberal attitudes towards ethnic mixing can be found in discussion of Africa. Africa is a pretty horrible place. , for, among other reasons, the frequent pogroms and even genocide that takes place among the various tribes there.

The Right tends to see this as due to certain attitudes of the indigenous population, and the left tends to blame the white colonialists. One of the main things that the white colonialists are supposed to have done, according to almost every liberal commentator on the subject I have read, is to have created a situation of recurrent bloodshed, by setting up states that overlap tribal boundaries, mixing several tribes within one state.

I suspect that liberals are correct here.

But notice the contradiction: One ethnic group per state is a very wicked idea for Europe, but would have been a very good one for Africa.

Of course you could say that the people advocating ethnic diversity for Europe but criticizing it in Africa believe that white European people are tolerant and nice, whereas Africans are inherently racist and xenophobic. But in fact the Left believes just the opposite.

one might hope that the net is cast wide enough to include more than grandmothers, and that I hope I'm not wrong to assume that a guy who wears "traditional Muslim garb" might be looked at.

El Al stopped a pregnant Irish women in Heathrow once. She was carrying more than enough explosive in her carryons to bring down the plane. Turns out that Arabs will knock up and engage Irish women if it will get them to carry gifts to their mother-in-law that tick aboard the right jet. Our opponents aren't stupid and aren't going to wear traditional Muslim garb to go commit terrorist acts.

In fact, some of our opponents are stupid , and some are not. But the really stupid ones are us for allowing the Richard Reids to commit crime after crime, and then repeatedly setting them free, and for allowing radical Muslims to preach their insanity openly.

and for allowing radical Muslims to preach their insanity openly.

Is it not preferable to have the insanity out in the open, where everyone can hear it, critique it, pick it apart, mock it, (hopefully) reject it, and (where necessary) monitor it and use the info to track down criminal acts? If it's all a big underground secret, all of these things become much harder to do, no?

Well, to me it's an empirical question. You may be right. If the radical mosques are full of MI5 agents and paid informers, with secret video cameras installed everywhere, and the radicals unable to breathe without it being recorded, then good.

But on the other hand, you may be wrong. Maybe our Islamist enemies will learn how to stay just this side of illegality in their public preaching, while siphoning off the potential suicide bombers for further training. (The way the Communist Party remained legal, while the Soviet espionage services recruited those people attracted to the Party who might be useful for spying.)

But there's no doubt in my mind that for years, the British government had a suicidal attitude towards Islamism within its own borders, compounded of Political Correctness, and the good old Tory attitude that if nothing bad happens to me, then who cares who else they kill and maim. It was a repeat of the 1930s Conservative -- with the honorable except of Winston Churchill and a few friends -- attitude to Hitler: let's hope he massacres Commies and Russians and leaves us in peace.

87> One book recommended to me, for English-speaking folk, is Londonistan by Melanie Phillips. It describes what has and is happening in the UK, with regard to this issue. Another that might be suggested to further understand the issue is While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within, by Bruce Bawer. Not everyone will agree with everything noted in these books, but there is some food for thought in both.

88> "From the cosmopolitan perspective, what Habermas has called "constitutional patriotism" suffices to integrate diverse citizens within the modern state, but this idea is challenged by orientations that define the nation in terms of ethnicity."

The main criticism of Constitutional Patriotism is that allegience to the "arid", abstract principles principles embedded in the state constitution can never be srtong enough to overcome the tenacity of "thick" traditional cultural beliefs, and so a shared commitment to those principles never arises in the public sphere.

I'm not well-read on the theory, but the accounts I have read assume that separate cultures within a state will acquire their allowable group rights through public appeal using a shared political mechanism. If (and I still don't know whether or not this is true) "some" (a thin euphamism for "Islamic") immigrant groups in Germany don't act according to that assumption, then Constitutional Patriotism becomes pretty suspect as a normative theory, to my eye.

It's hard to avoid seeing that all forms of liberal democracy are grounded in a specifically Western intellectual tradition so a guy would not expect folks from non-Western cultures to embrace them ecstatically, but it's also hard to see how, or why, a liberal democratic state would alter foundational principles to accommodate immigrant groups preferring to build separate intstitutions rather than taking part in the public effort to build and maintain the existing ones.

Contrary to #89, there's an almost universal consensus among theoriticians that sovereign states have the right to control their borders and therefore immigration however they see fit, so if there is a potential immigrant group that can reasonable be expected to avoid particpating in the public sphere in their new country, the wise thing might be to not let them in.

Separation of the private and the public spheres is fundamental to Western liberalism. Many Muslims operate just fine with that separation, but some, along with some Christians (and others) don't, and I think it a mistake for a liberal democratic state to question it's intellectual foundations to accommodate groups that have shown themselves unwilling to question their own foundations.

Steve: When I say "liberals" I should say "some liberals" or "many Liberals" or "many liberals with whose views I am acquainted".

English doesn't require, just permits, a quantifier in front of a noun, and I get lazy.

But .... I can promise you that, where I live (England) if you suggest that large-scale Muslim immigration might pose problems for a liberal democratic society, you will be denounced from many quarters as a racist/fascist/Islamophobe. There may be liberals here who agree with me, but they aren't very vocal.

By the way, I wonder how many of the liberals/progressives posting here agree with your penultimate paragraph?

But there is another issue: the history of the 20th Century, which saw the dissolution of multi-ethnic empires, tells us that it is very hard for two (or more) distinct ethnic/religious groups, where each group exists in significant numbers, to co-exist peacefully within one state, where state power is subject to voting, i.e. numbers. This is true for Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Christians.

This is an unpleasant fact. It may not be a fact forever. (I hope it won't be.)

But it seems to be true now. The United States is the exception that tests the rule, and it's worth examining why the Americans, who are despised as backward militaristic rednecks by all good European intellectuals, have succeeded where the Europeans have ethnically cleansed.

>70 AsYouKnow_Bob: et seq.

Bob, you’re behind the times. I have it on good authority that if you even notice that some people are fatter than others, you’re a bigot.

See here, for example, or here.

96> By the way, I wonder how many of the liberals/progressives posting here agree with your penultimate paragraph?

Well, Doug, I'm pretty liberal on social issues generally, so we can legitimately say, using your rules of qualification:

Liberals believe that it is wise for states to refuse immigrants who are unlikely to participate in the public sphere.

Unless we hear differently, then, the matter appears settled.

Do as I say, not as I do. Let's try to quantify "liberals", at least by hearing from those who post here.

And: I think "participation in the public sphere" doesn't capture the question of immigraton very well. Probably few people are exercised by immigrants who just keep quietly to themselves, as the Chinese (at least in stereotype) do.

It's those -- or their descendants -- who do, or may in future, "participate in the public sphere" in such a way as to move society in a direction the indigenous majority don't want to go, which arouse angst.

Folks like these.

99> I might suggest that the "indigenous majority" made the mistake of not participating in the public sphere more aggressively, and we all know what that cost the Native Americans.

The quotes I linked to in 97 suggest that if you were really enlightened you wouldn't notice skin color. The same logic would seem to apply to all phenomena in the observable universe, so that if one were to acheive perfect enlightenment - God-level enlightenment - one wouldn't notice anything at all.

I propose that this (rather obviously) gets it exactly wrong. My alternative kicks this in the teeth and directly trumps it. It's in the Quotations thread.

~ 97 & 101

Ah yes, the typical "I can find a silly example of sort of what you are espousing So see, that proves it, your position is ridiculous."

But could you tell us what you are in fact advocating for with respect to these questions, Carnophile?

Should there, for instance, be a test for U.S. citizenship based on skin color? After all, when naked, it is harder to see darker people during night time hours.Therefore they might make better sneak thieves and cause car accidents when out for an evening constitutional - if carrying out such activities naked, of course.

Should fat people be denied, by public regulation, availability to public carrier air travel? After all, they'll crowd the people seated next to them?

One need not even mention the disadvantages attached to "Illegals"
http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_diseases.html

There are a lot of real world consequences of noticeable differences between individuals. For instance, I suspect your online name offends vegetarians. Shouldn't your posts be banned from those markets where vegetarians are in the majority? The majority should set the standards, shouldn't it?

Could YOU give us some guidance regarding YOUR VIEWS on these topics? Where does one draw the line as to what constitutes "equal treatment under the law" or is that a concern of yours?

>102 lawecon:

Did you seriously write this?

Should there, for instance, be a test for U.S. citizenship based on skin color? ... Should fat people be denied, by public regulation, availability to public carrier air travel?

Seriously, did you actually try to put those words into my mouth?

Adios.

103> Are you seriously going to Ignore someone because they used an reductio ad absurdum argument? A better response would be to show how the cases differ.

~103

Problems reading too? I seriously posed some hypotheticals to you to try to elicit the specificity of your views - views which, for some reason, you seem to be unwilling to specify. Now instead of pretending that you are insulted, why don't you just answer the question posed?

>104 jjwilson61: Puh-leeeeeeeeeeeeeeaze.

~104

Brilliant retort. Not so brilliant diversion from your failure to answer a straightforward question.

(Reviving this old dust-up only because I just got handed another independent confirmation of what I said a few years ago at >47 AsYouKnow_Bob: )

In my local paper today, here's yet another independent observation that the phrase "I'm not a racist, but..." is used ONLY to preface an astonishingly racist statement:

If you ever start a sentence with the words, “No disrespect,” then your next few words are going to disrespect someone. Saying “No disrespect” is not a “Get out of Jail Free” card, neither is the phrase “I don’t want to sound like a racist, but…”

On Twitter, and then picked up by Huffington:

Two years ago:

https://twitter.com/OhNoSheTwitnt/status/777485347471122432

Modified and revived this week, and now pertinent to this thread:

https://twitter.com/YesYoureRacist/status/1029456032895037440

>It’s official — from now on, saying "I'm not racist, but..." will be known as "klansplaining”
> 12:53 PM - 14 Aug 2018

And now as a story on HuffPost:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/im-not-racist-but-klansplaining_us_5b73a0c2...