Europeans reconsider the "melting pot" ideal?
Francis Fukuyama has an excellent editorial in the Opinion Journal about the radicalization of Muslim immigrants in Europe.
Here's his conclusion:
Since van Gogh's murder, the Dutch have embarked on a vigorous and often impolitic debate on what it means to be Dutch, with some demanding of immigrants not just an ability to speak Dutch, but a detailed knowledge of Dutch history and culture that many Dutch people do not have themselves. But national identity has to be a source of inclusion, not exclusion; nor can it be based, contrary to the assertion of the gay Dutch politician Pym Fortuyn who was assassinated in 2003, on endless tolerance and valuelessness. The Dutch have at least broken through the stifling barrier of political correctness that has prevented most other European countries from even beginning a discussion of the interconnected issues of identity, culture and immigration. But getting the national identity question right is a delicate and elusive task.
Many Europeans assert that the American melting pot cannot be transported to European soil. Identity there remains rooted in blood, soil and ancient shared memory. This may be true, but if so, democracy in Europe will be in big trouble in the future as Muslims become an ever larger percentage of the population. And since Europe is today one of the main battlegrounds of the war on terrorism, this reality will matter for the rest of us as well.
Here's his conclusion:
Since van Gogh's murder, the Dutch have embarked on a vigorous and often impolitic debate on what it means to be Dutch, with some demanding of immigrants not just an ability to speak Dutch, but a detailed knowledge of Dutch history and culture that many Dutch people do not have themselves. But national identity has to be a source of inclusion, not exclusion; nor can it be based, contrary to the assertion of the gay Dutch politician Pym Fortuyn who was assassinated in 2003, on endless tolerance and valuelessness. The Dutch have at least broken through the stifling barrier of political correctness that has prevented most other European countries from even beginning a discussion of the interconnected issues of identity, culture and immigration. But getting the national identity question right is a delicate and elusive task.
Many Europeans assert that the American melting pot cannot be transported to European soil. Identity there remains rooted in blood, soil and ancient shared memory. This may be true, but if so, democracy in Europe will be in big trouble in the future as Muslims become an ever larger percentage of the population. And since Europe is today one of the main battlegrounds of the war on terrorism, this reality will matter for the rest of us as well.
posted by Kate Marie | 11:57 AM | Permalink
|
5 comments
5 Comments:
That second paragraph you cited gets to the heart of the problem: Many European countries are trying hard to pretend that being Danish or Dutch or French is a simple matter of legal citizenship and that their sense of nationality has no ethnic component, but it's just not true. They thought they were being sensitive and tolerant, but they were only being condescending to massive numbers of non-white immigrants and holding them to lower standards. I suppose the resulting Muslim slums--unassimilated, culturally isolated, and violent--really aren't all that surprising.
I hope Europe can figure out how to handle this problem without getting ugly. I guess we'll see.
You're right, Jeff, and I hope -- with you -- that they can figure out how to handle the problem.
What's interesting to me is Fukuyama's suggestion that they try to adopt a more American notion of citizenship. I think he's right that being American *is* much more a matter of legal citizenship (and some measure of acceptance of American democratic principles) than it is in Europe. It's not about "blood, soil, and ancient shared memory" (except, perhaps, for some wackos on the fringes).
In his book, What's So Great About America, Dinesh D'Souza argues that one cannot "become" Indian, any more than one can "become" Chinese or Korean or Saudi et al. Birth is destiny. But, one can become an American. It's not all that hard. How great is that?
Oh, right. America is such a young country, with an adolescent swagger about it. (Paltrow)
That's where I'm not sure Fukuyama is right, because while many European countries can't imitate the American immigration model, part of the problem is that they've being trying to anyway. Becoming an American is a simple but profound thing, because we're open to all, but you and CIV are both wise to point out that becoming an American means buying into an idea.
By contrast, I don't know what it means for a black North African Muslim to "become" French, Dutch, or Danish. Unfortunately, I don't think the French, the Dutch, or the Danish do either. Whatever they decide it means, though, my gut feeling is that it's necessarily going to be something different than what it means to be American. If they want to solve this problem without bloodshed, Europeans are going to have to come up with something ingenious, and as weary as I am from the steady stream of anti-Americanism they've been sending our way in recent years, I'm certainly rooting for them.
Good point, Jeff. Americans do buy into an idea of America (and of their identities as Americans); I guess it's partly because America began as an idea in a way that European countries never did. They *can't* really replicate that. I guess that's also why the idea of something (or someone) being un-American -- while certainly scoffed at in some quarters -- is plausible. Can an Italian be un-Italian in any meaningful way?
I'm really rooting for the Europeans, too.
But I must say this discussion reminds me how much I love my country.
Post a Comment
<< Home