When I arrived with my mother in Rotterdam in the late 1970s, we thought we had found a safe haven. Coming from the sharp-edged mountains of north Morocco, the streets of the Low Countries felt like a place where everything could be done better. It did not seem possible that, 30 years later, the likes of Geert Wilders would wield influence, pushing his ban on the burqa, but then there were no burqas to be seen in the street.
The Netherlands felt like a country that would never betray me. I was greeted with enthusiasm at kindergarten; my name was the longest among the pupils and it was assumed I was very proud of that. Dutch culture was like a tattoo being imprinted on my brown skin. I learned the language and delighted in excelling at it in front of my teachers. I was their dream of multiculturalism: a foreigner who showed he could adapt to their culture through language. The mothers of classmates would inform me that they loved Moroccan cuisine, especially couscous. They would speak vividly, romantically about foreign cultures such as mine, and I felt proud. The fact that I was different made me feel special. And the Dutch created wonder in me as a child. They tolerated their dogs on their couches; they gave generously to faraway peoples suffering from disaster and sickness. I didn't only read fairy tales, I lived one.
Then came the fall of the Wall, the 1990s and change. Europe decided it needed immigrants. The first change I saw was at home. My parents, growing older, gave up hope of the family returning to Morocco. Slowly, the feeling took over that we were here to stay, maintaining the privileges and opportunities of living in Europe. With that came the unease that their children would lose their identity. Already, we spoke Dutch, not Berber.
Meanwhile, the Dutch were waking up to the reality that most immigrants would never go back. Friday evening in Rotterdam saw large groups of immigrant children in the streets, estranged from their roots, trying to find solace in consumerism and urban culture, but also feeling alienated from Dutch society. Turks hung out with Turks, Moroccans with Moroccans. The melting pot didn't heat up, the elements weren't mixing. In my neighbourhood, former convicts stopped me to talk about Islam. They felt that my staunchly secular lifestyle would not only bring disaster to me, but also to the spiritual community of Islam. A young friend introduced me to his uncle who had just came back from Afghanistan. He was a mujahid.
I failed to see the shift. Immigrants had been seen by most Dutch as a marginal, colourful people from whose shops they could buy their meat and vegetables at ridiculously low prices. I knew this because my father had a butcher's shop and I would sell them their lamb chops. As the 1990s progressed, the difference between allochtoon – one "originating from another country" – and autochtoon – "one originating from this country" began to be emphasised. Allochtoon started becoming synonymous for criminality, big families, bad living and Islam. This wasn't restricted to Holland. In Germany, questions were being raised about Turkish immigrants adhering to a fundamentalist Islam. Thousands of young French-Algerian football fans stormed the pitch when France played Algeria, their way of saying: "We don't feel we belong in this country."
So what had changed? I believe it was memories of war. The mass destruction of its people had given Europe a self-image as an intolerant, cruel continent. The deep feeling of guilt towards the victims had to be made good in the attitude towards new immigrants. The immigrant became a totem of the left-wing elite, of which there could be no criticism. Multiculturalism became the catchphrase.
In the banlieus of Paris, young immigrant girls could not go out in the evening for fear of being beaten by their brothers. No criticism. Immigrants from West Africa could keep four woman in the same quarters. The elite did not intervene, for this was their culture. Society leaders believed that over time these immigrants would assimilate. A Moroccan would become Dutch, an Algerian French, a Turk Swedish.
This did not happen. They did the reverse. This was the moment the fear crept in, threatening the idea that Europe could assimilate its new citizens. If these immigrants adhered to their practices and rituals such as slaughtering their sheep on the balcony and not allowing their girls to go to school, Europe was being undermined from the inside.
It is in this context that Geert Wilders can proclaim that there is no moderate Islam, that any Muslim who calls himself a Muslim will one day become radicalised. This is not just a trick of words; when Dutch people who voted for Wilders looked out of the window, they really had this feeling that their Muslim neighbours were becoming more Muslim, not less. They saw girls in burqas, proclaiming that this was an individual decision strengthening their spiritual relationship with Allah. The Dutch wondered if somebody putting a cloth over herself could be a individual in their open society.
The burqa worried me too. But I saw Wilders's move as a dangerous way of turning populist sentiments into cold-blooded politics and creating a new sort of fear.
The place of the Second World War in all this is growing more complicated. Populist parties in the Netherlands, Denmark and France are linking Islamist ideology to fascism. Islam is the new Nazism and Muhammad is their Hitler. History has become a blueprint for a new history: the world war against Islam.
In the 1980s, this message would have made people laugh, but not now. Look around. In Sweden, the debate around Islam and migration is growing in urgency. And Islam is just a particularly toxic element in the anti-immigrant movement. Nicolas Sarkozy, who is part Jewish, is throwing out the Roma. In Germany, the country of the Holocaust, a former head of the Bundesbank, Thilo Sarazzin, is making a plea for reducing working-class immigrants because of their low IQ.
The idea that Europe is being kidnapped by an ever-growing non-western population is creating fear and populist parties are winning. But it will be impossible to stop migration. European populations are growing older, the workforces shrinking. But speaking in favour of migration – passionately, because I am a child of migration and make literature out of all its painful and comical contradictions – has become a form of blasphemy.
Certainly there is something rotten in multiculturalism, but turning the stereotypical victim into the stereotypical scapegoat is cheap and does not do justice to reality. I know that the Netherlands of my childhood will never come back. We are entering a dark period. A generation is growing up with xenophobia and the fear of Islam has become mainstream.
It's time to come up with a new idea of what Europe is, drawing on the humane Europe as defended and described by writers such as Thomas Mann and Bertol Brecht. A Europe that newcomers consider a refuge, not a hell. If not, Europe will not die for a lack of immigrants, it will die for lack of light.
Comments in chronological order (Total 334 comments)
3 October 2010 12:18AM
So what changed? Did the Dutch?
Did they speak vividly and romantically about Dutch culture I wonder? Can anyone see where the Dutch experiment went wrong?
Anyone care to guess why that might be? Why teaching young immigrants that their culture is romantic, that they are special, and Dutch culture and Dutch people are not, might have contributed in some way?
Anyone surprised when the Dutch start to agree that indeed they too feel these youths do not belong to the same country?
Indeed. And there's the problem - narcissism. It is not about the immigrants, it is about the left-wing elite. It is about what they want, what they hate, what they want to destroy, what they want to change, what they want to create. The new immigrants were just building blocks, tool, putty in the hands of our Betters. No wonder it has not worked out well.
I don't think it is the idea that is creating fear. But of course it is not impossible to stop migration. It is actually very simple - enforce the law. There is no reason why we have to accept that we do not or cannot control our own borders or who is part of our own community. Our populations are growing older, but that is not a reason to support euthanasia.
I agree with both.
On the contrary, that is just what Wilders wants to do. A generation is growing up without the naive beliefs of the 1968 generation when it comes to Third World cultures. A more realistic appraisal is taking place. That is not "dark" and neither is it xenophobia as such. The fear of Islamism is mainstream in parts of Europe, but then so it should be. That is not the same as a fear of Islam.
Brecht was a life-long apologist for Stalinism. Not a role model we want to adopt. By all means, come up with such an idea. The fact is that the people who support the Enlightenment and its values are in decline - numerically and intellectually. People who support some form of religious obscurantism or other are on the rise - all over the world and now in Europe. That old Europe has a choice of living or dying. No amount of "re-imagining" what Europe could be will change that if we cannot pursuade more immigrant children to be part of this society and this culture and defend Enlightenment values.
Sounds like a threat I am willing to live with.
3 October 2010 12:19AM
i worked beside Moroccans in Dutch pickle factories when I was a student in the 70s. There was no Islamic fundamentalist terrorism then. That and the murder of Theo Van Gogh must have changed things in Holland.
3 October 2010 12:19AM
Mass immigration to any country as fixed in identity as old Europe is bound to be challenging. Isn't that obvious?
The US is different, being itself founded on immigration.
Also, 'refuge' should not be conflated with economic migration, a mistake I feel you are making.
3 October 2010 12:21AM
Beautiful words. Thank you for a passionate and personal article.
Ignorance and fear are the greatest threat to Europe in the modern age. It's so disheartening to see the way in which lazy prejudices and hatreds are (once again) sweeping the continent. We can only hope that those who stand for tolerance and reason prove stronger in the end.
3 October 2010 12:40AM
Why so pessimistic?
How said a german politician so nicely: "Kinder statt Inder!" (roughly translated into more native children instead of imported workforce)
Now it only needs a change in politics for that to implement as official policy with some good ideas...and more and more european people and parties are moving in that direction as your article described so believable.
So, there is hope! :)
Only when nothing happens and the current governments further try to ignore the problem and even worse try to demonize those who have recognized
the dangers and want to change something.
That something is being done is in the interest of both, the native Europeans
and the now already here living immigrants.
You surely won't wish a worsening of the situation (more immigratiion) because
THEN the sh*ti will hit the fan!
3 October 2010 12:41AM
I worked in Holland a few years ago with Dutch people, Americans, a Moroccan, a Brazilian, some Spanish & an Iranian. Everyone did their bit to embrace the local culture and to express their origins too. In fact it was the Americans who struggled the most to fit in with the Dutch ethos in the work place, as they insisted their business methods were far superior and it got peoples backs up.
To go to another country and wilfully reject the way of life is a recipe for disaster. Equally, to treat guests or visitors to your own country as interlopers or as something to be 'tolerated' at best is bloody ignorant. Ultimately the onus is on the newcomers to fit in though, no matter what their country of origin or religious preference. If they can't be bothered, perhaps they should've stopped at home?
3 October 2010 12:52AM
In Australia I had a similar experience. In 2002, the government used hatred against refugees from Afghanistan and Africa, as the basis of PR campaigns, to win itself electoral support. It appealed to the worse aspects of peoples natures. I lost a great deal of trust in the Australian government, and in other Australians. I keep myself to myself, a lot more.
Maybe we need to take courage. Take interest in social policy, criticise the politicians when what they do makes it better for a few but worse for many.
The same traditions of tolerance that you admired in the 1980s, are still there. They are what allow Wilderses and Sarkozys to arise. But those traditions also allow us a licence, to criticise the Wilderses in public. Not for the specific issues themselves, that likely is what they want. But using those as a way to address, the broad directions of where they are taking Dutch society. It takes courage, it needs to be done. About the only thanks, is sometimes someone quietly admits, they agree with you.
The issue is not burquas yes or no. It is whether we want a society where all people feel secure and safe. That is the big picture the one that needs discussing. Use the issues, to lead into that.
3 October 2010 12:56AM
The winds of change are blowing through Europe. Mass undesired immigration has had the effect of weakening host communities, and strengthening the immigrant ones.
As to the assertion that Europe needs more immigrants, it would be courteous if Europe was asked. When immigration is debated, the term democracy disappears, and the word populism replaces it.
When the majority in Europe, get to vote on who can migrate, then an era of tolerance may return. Denying the masses a choice, is the 1st problem, and not realising it is the second.
3 October 2010 1:04AM
I left England in 1963 because it was xenophobic, racist, small-minded, and had such a deep level of cowardice people preferred to hate immigrants, rather than fight the pure-white English who had been systemically plundering the country for generations.
Some things have changed for the better. Immigration has been brilliant for Britain. A country stands ready to be created out of the recognition of humanity. Every person can see that race hate is the deliberate manipulation behind which the plunder of the poor by the rich can continue.
However, the fascists will always come back. I recall being physically attacked in Copenhagen in 1978, some idiot telling me to ''Get out of my country.'' They will have to be dealt with.
A good article.
3 October 2010 1:12AM
You said it yourself. There were not these problems back in the 70s, or even a few years ago. We have been told time and time again that radicalisation is on the up, not decreasing, seemingly regardless of whether those in Europe try to appease or condemn the problems with integration. You cannot transpose the situation from 40 years ago to today. I'm sorry if you disagree, but I'm not at all sad to see European politicians finally taking a stand against these oppressive, misogynistic traditions that other countries actively and often violently impose on women. The horrors of such cases as the girls who were actively left to die because they were not appropriately attired in Islamic dress (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/1874471.stm) and countries that actively enforce the burqa speak for themselves, and we do not want the same thing repeated here. It is ridiculous to compare the burqa to a tattoo as David Mitchell did recently, or to say that Western women are equally slaves to fashion, as I can't remember the last time a Western woman was subjected to condemnation and/or stoning or equally severe physical punishment for her decision not to wear a tattoo or the latest trend.
For those who insist that wearing a burqa is a matter of personal choice/closeness to god, the Quran does not specify wearing the burqa in order to be dressed 'modestly' (if anything, it draws more attention than less in secular Europe); secondly, if the case of Amel Marmouri and his wife - in which he will 'never' let her leave the house again if she is not wearing a burqa - are anything to go by, it hardly strikes a feminist cord (see http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,707251,00.html), thirdly, Syria, a decidedly Islamic country, has banned the burqa and niqab in universities (http://news.oneindia.in/2010/07/19/syria-bans-burqas-in-universities.html) on the grounds that it is inconsistent with academic values - namely, needing to see one's face in order to communicate. Are we to condemn Syria as harsh, intolerant, and a misunderstander of Islam too? Furthermore, The Economist previously published an opinion poll indicating that a majority of Muslim women were in favour of the French burqa ban (sadly I can't access it as you now have to subscribe, but is referred to here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools. I don't doubt that some women do wear the burqa out of a sense of religiosity, but it would appear that the majority do not.
Lastly, the burqa is a matter of public security, as demonstrated by such incidents as these: http://www.france24.com/en/20100210-burqa-robbers-post-office-paris-nicolas-sarkozy-ban-national-identity-france-muslim (two burqa-clad men hold up post office near Paris) and this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6097521/Burka-robbers-hunted-by-police.html (group of robbers commit three robberies using burqa) and this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/7309548.stm (man robs jewellers in Birmingham dressed in burqa, subsequently threatens driver with firearm). It is impossible to see or identify one's face and is for that reason a public security risk, as is a balaclava. By all means, if you wish to wear it or a balaclava or a helmet in the privacy of your home, then feel free to do so; but it is not appropriate for public security.
I honestly wouldn't give a damn about the burqa if I didn't think it posed a risk to others (as above) and to the women who are forced to wear it in an otherwise modern and secular country, where women are by and large treated as equals rather than sexually charged objects to be covered up on a daily basis by other men (you could argue, if you really wanted to, that this includes Allah - though you'd be stumped by the burqa-not-in-Quran aspect). But it does, and the world has changed, and now people are physically attacked and oppressed for what they do and do not wear. We do not want it in Europe too. That does not make us xenophobic; it makes us human.
3 October 2010 1:12AM
Come to Britain.
We never take things seriously enough to get upset about the things you talk about.
suitone
Well ... most of us don't..
3 October 2010 1:19AM
A courageous article, but I don't understand this comment :
.
You bet your sweet life 'workforces are shrinking', but that's because of job-cuts, not because of unavailability of indigenous labour. Why are our own unemployed consigned to the scrapheap (aka incapacity benefit) when we encourage the influx of labour from outside the EU? We're also depriving those countries of skilled labour. We desperately need to invest in better education and training of our potential workforce.
As for the aging population -- a lot of us baby-boomers aren't living the life of Riley, but are slogging away at work with no end in sight, because the state pension doesn't cover the essentials.
The Roma -- it's a complex and seemingly intractable issue, as a previous article here explained. It's simplistic to equate today's Roma with the Jews of the 1930s.
The article nails Geert Wilders, who seems to me to be an opportunistic rabble-rouser, who has muddied the debate on crucial issue of integration.
I think this fad for banning the full veil, now sweeping western Europe, is every bit as repugnant as the niqab itself -- and that's saying something. Ban it indoors by all means, but not in the street or on public transport.
In about thirty years, give or take, I'll be summoned by the great Guardian in the sky. I do wonder what kind of Europe I'll leave behind: how cohesive it will be, and how much it will still espouse the values of the Englightenment.
3 October 2010 1:21AM
remind me - what was the process by which christian europe managed to alienate and demonise european jews - which resulted in the holocaust.
3 October 2010 1:21AM
Also, I'm sorry, but do you really think that most of us look at Muslims and think, by default, 'Gosh, I can't stand that Islam. If I link it to Hitler, I can use the values it espouses to slander it as fascist and thereby express my prejudice as legitimate.'
If so, that is a wildly paranoid and self-absorbed view, because the truth is, most of us want to get on with our daily lives and not give a damn about your private spiritual values. It is the things we read and learn every day about the atrocities committed in Islam's name, both against non-Muslims and other Muslims (mostly the latter) that makes us sit up and take notice (I could quote, but I'd be here all day - just Google 'stoning', 'adultery', 'honour killing', 'Ahmadis', 'Ayaan Hirsi Ali', 'Danish cartoons', 'Theo Van Gogh' etc). They are almost always based on fundamentalist interpretations of the Quran (though there is supposedly only one interpretation, it being the immutable word of Allah). If you want us to believe that Islam means peace, then it needs to come up with the goods. Of course this does not mean all Muslims, by any standards of reasonable logic. But every day that we see such oppressive symbols as the burqa appear more and more frequently, it sure as hell doesn't make us think 'Wow! I can't wait to convert to Islam'. Would you?
3 October 2010 1:23AM
its not simplistic at all. esp under the current fascistic sentiments that has combined with the collapse of capitalism .. scapegoating is what europe does so well.
3 October 2010 1:23AM
What nonsense.
If the writer been in Holland 70 years ago waiting for the Nazis to roll in then he would really know what dread is.
The above article gives every indication of having been written by an individual with very little experience or understanding or perspective of true adversity.
3 October 2010 1:27AM
moretheylie
No idea. But I doubt it involved suicide bombs. Or that it is in any way relevant.
3 October 2010 1:29AM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
3 October 2010 1:30AM
Sorry, by our country, I refer to Britain, not Holland.
3 October 2010 1:31AM
equally one could repeat the exercise with other faiths and non faiths. and find the same degree of wrongdoing.the fact is it is a human condition regardless of faith color creed etcetc.
of course you are meant to perceive islam and muslims as being somehow more bad or else how do we kill them in their million and deny our genocidal activities?
the nazis did the same to the jews and justified it too as being the fault of the jews themselves. we have history.
fact is 94% of all of the worlds terrorist acts are not conducted by islamist or muslim, in the usa jewish religious terrorism is greater than that by islamists (7% to6%) according to a recent cnn/duke university research and by the rand corporation.
europol informs us that of all the terrorist attcks 0.4% are islamist (2007 to 2009).
it is we the uk and usa invading muslim nations. and there are as many chrsitians committing terrorist acts against chrsitians and non christians. (rwanda/drcongo ..lords resistance army etc etc ..
3 October 2010 1:33AM
moretheylie posts
''remind me - what was the process by which christian europe managed to alienate and demonise european jews - which resulted in the holocaust'''
Some church business. Hanging a chap up to die. Someone did it. Someone was to blame.
Eventually those who did it got into the blood cells. Europe became so corrupted in order for it to survive it had to be purified.
What struck me about Europe in the 1960s wasn't the sheer numbers of resistance fighters you met in the elder generations - the world's biggest army - ir was the fact that people had been removed from their homes, had been disappeared, and then good God-fearing Christians had moved into their properties.
Nobody had said, ''Wait a minute, I can't go in there, it belongs to someone else, they might come back..''
3 October 2010 1:33AM
And yet oddly the second class status and poor treatment of none Muslims in Islamic countries causes the author no concern. So it’s certainly looks like they actual have no issue with people in general be discriminated against on religious grounds, rather they concern is focused on one group.
As for leaving out the bad bits of the Netherlands experience of its growing Muslim community, that is just plain silly as when people are knifed in the street for making a film, that does tend to get noticed. Overall it seems that as long as the Dutch were willing to accommodate to other ideas the author was happen, the moment that started to think perhaps these others should accommodate to theirs is when it all went wrong for them.
Now if the author really wishing to see intolerance of ‘outsides’ , they could start with Sudan Arabia work their way through the middle east to North Africa and see how the number our ‘outsides’ as gone only one way , that is downwards.
3 October 2010 1:37AM
@moretheylie
Please cite recent and relevant examples of problems on this scale with other faiths and non-faiths. Except for the Catholic church covering up widescale paedophilia, of course - don't even have to think about that one, it's so revolting and immediate in my mind! See, I have equal opportunities intolerance of no bullshit - I don't care which religion or group or whatever it comes from, it's the wrongdoing that bothers me. I'm sorry if that doesn't fit in with your neat (and completely erroneous) assessment of me as some kind of flag-waving, Bush-Blair-loving redneck fanatic who'd love nothing more than to see white Britain again. (By the way, my husband is Spanish, and half my family too, all fervent Catholics. I must really hate them!).
3 October 2010 1:41AM
If there is one thing Al queda and militant Islam has certainly achieved, It's killing the non muslim worlds enthusiasm for muslim immigration.
If you have members of an immigrant group who are waging war against the population of countries that let them in, well, eventually there is going to be a backlash against the immigrant community they are hiding amongst. Self preservation will ultimately trump political correctness. No one can be certain someone who practices Islam isnt one day going to decide that violent jihad is the way. Because of this people will eventually decide muslim immigration just isnt worth the trouble. There are plenty of non muslims willing to immigrate, so why seed your country with potentially murderous fundamentalists if you dont have to.
This might be unfair, but it shouldnt be surprising.
3 October 2010 1:46AM
Good article. Open and honest and can only add to the debate that should now begin if we are to prevent 'A generation growing up with xenophobia'.
3 October 2010 1:46AM
An excellent article, actually. Containing a few uncomfortable truths for both the Geert Wilders fan club and the doctrinaire multiculturalists, alike.
The only time I balked was the bit at the end calling Bertolt Brecht "humane" which makes about as much sense as calling Jean-Paul Sartre "handsome."
3 October 2010 1:51AM
That was then and is now, the problem. Europe was too welcoming and look what it got us.
We're not welcome in our own countries.
3 October 2010 1:56AM
Living in Amsterdam West, one of the Dutch city neighbourhoods with the highest proportion of Muslims, I would like to point out that Benali is referring here to a common Dutch prejudice ascribed to Muslims in general which hasn't occurred in decades. Despite it no longer happening, it has remained a symbol in the Netherlands for Muslim backwardness, the migrant workers coming from remote villages in rural Morocco.
Slaughtering sheep on the balcony of their apartment homes happened only in a few isolated cases back in the 1970s or 1980s. The practice was quickly banned and procedures were set up for Muslims to be able to take a sheep to a regular slaughterhouse where they can slaughter it ceremonially, yet within standard slaughter regulations pertaining to hygiene and (relative) animal welfare.
3 October 2010 1:59AM
yesyesnoyes posts
''There are plenty of non muslims willing to immigrate, so why seed your country with potentially murderous fundamentalists if you dont have to.''
The carnage of the Christian European wars in the last century is mind-shattering. From the historical record the Muslim faith has never murdered on such a grand scale.
The historical record teaches you that all the Christians need is a target.
The imperative of the 1960s - how did the extermination happen? - has been replaced by the drive to become satisfied capitalists. Hence targets appear.
3 October 2010 1:59AM
@bananachips
Muslims have to denounce and criticize every bad thing that muslims have ever done anywhere before they can criticize a European country. Blah blah blah... same old crap. Over and over again.
The author was born in Morocco and grew up in and spent most of his life in the Netherlands. Why should he have to bang on and on about Saudi Arabia just because you have an unhealthy obsession with the place?
3 October 2010 2:01AM
@jackcoyle76
It would be difficult to come up with a more hyperbolic, inflated and spurious expression of victimhood than this.
3 October 2010 2:06AM
I just read this diatribe again and the overwhelming impression it expounds is your belief that the Dutch should capitulate to your belief that your culture is superior to theirs and therefore in some way deserving of special treatment.
Moroccans are a minority like every other incoming ethnic group in Europe and should be treated as such. Respectfully where respect is deserved. But not at the expense of the indigenous population
3 October 2010 2:07AM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
3 October 2010 2:08AM
LinearBandKeramik 3 October 2010 2:01AM
@jackcoyle76
No it wouldnt. Yours is.
3 October 2010 2:09AM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
3 October 2010 2:12AM
@jackcoyle76
So you''re basically saying "I know you are but what am I". Is that really the best comeback you could come up with? What are you 5 years old?
3 October 2010 2:14AM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
3 October 2010 2:15AM
LinearBandKeramik 3 October 2010 1:59AM
So's this.
3 October 2010 2:18AM
This hate-filled comment by SarfOfTheRiver illustrates perfectly the dilemma experienced by immigrants. On the one hand they are expected to integrate and adopt the norms of their new home. Which in Western Europe means enjoying access to things like freedom of speech and being able to criticize the society you are part of. But if they act in the same way as "native" or White people do and actually criticize their government or society, they are told to "go back home".
It's a double standard that produces a lose-lose outcome for immigrants.
Not to mention the implicit suggestion that someone who grew up in the Netherlands really belongs somewhere else based on the colour of their skin or religious beliefs.
3 October 2010 2:25AM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
3 October 2010 2:26AM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
3 October 2010 2:26AM
LinearBandKeramik 3 October 2010 2:12AM
@jackcoyle76
If this means anything, it got lost in the translation.
3 October 2010 2:26AM
honor laws - honor killing (plain murders in everybody elses eyes)
3 October 2010 2:27AM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
3 October 2010 2:35AM
Speaking from personal experience my parents are from India and traveled to Europe for studies. Dad went to Univ of Coventry for a PhD in Electrical Engineering. My mother for her Post Doc at Phillips Labs in Eindhoven.
At that time in the late 1970s economy was depressed and people were quite unhappy. However my parents made it clear to their colleagues that they would return to India on completion of their studies. They were made to be extremely welcome where ever they visited.
The thing is if you are an economic migrant you need to start giving back to the community sooner or later. Not the community you have left back, but the one where you have made your home now. It is clear from the author tale that while his parents were happy to benefit from Dutch, the idea of merging with even people of the book seemed a bridge to far.
For many muslims Islam is a complete way of life and is also superior to all other ways of life. Why is that? Because God personally said so and Gods words are inviolant.
It is wishful thinking but the key marker is apostasy. You must be able to leave your culture without fear of death. If Muslims can be accepting of apostates (not just tolerance) the various host communities will respond positively. If truly the word of Allah is supreme why should folks fear mere mortals leaving the faith?
regards
3 October 2010 2:36AM
@Dani123
Assuming you are Christian, or of Christian background... I could equally ask when was the last time you were on the streets protesting the Christian Lord's Resistance Army using mass-rape as a weapon of war in Ugand?. Or when did you last demonstrate against American Christian fundamentalists blowing up abortion clinics?
Christians aren't expected to continually denounce the bad things that every other Christian in the world does. So why should Muslims? Surely you can see the absurdity of your expectation that Muslims take some kind of moral responsibility for the many millions of Muslims in the world?
And if you are not Christian I'm sure members of whatever religious group or ethnicity you are part of have done something terrible as well.
3 October 2010 2:36AM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
3 October 2010 2:39AM
Dear Abdelkader
any society, whether Holland, Morocco or elsewhere, and no matter how tolerant, still today maintain their local/national characteristics and, unfortunately, their prejudices.
Assimilation has always been the best course for immigrants, but do muslim immigrants really want to assimilate into European societies? If, as is possibly the case for muslims in western Europe, the religion and traditions of the immigrant are clearly at odds with the mores and outlook of the society which they enter, then assimilation is difficult and tensions are inevitable.
The fact remains, thought it may pain us to say, many of us in Europe cannot and will never accept much of the traditions we associate with our muslim communities... the burka and diminution of women's lives, forced marriages, sharia law and so on.
Assimilation is unlikely as long as such traditions are so at odds with European traditions.
3 October 2010 2:48AM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
3 October 2010 2:50AM
Is that the best answer you can give?
I will tell you when I decide to immigrate to Uganda for freedom and a better life!
Because THEY CAME HERE to enjoy our freedoms!!!
Not the other way around.
If they like their home countries so much and like to live under islamic theocracies, they are free to do so BUT NOT HERE!!! These are still OUR countries!