Some time ago I wrote a piece here about whether Mark Steyn had exaggerated the threat of a fast-growing Muslim population in Europe (I argued that demographic prediction is a notoriously inexact science); I argued, and still do, that it is a bit odd for a conservative skeptic on doomongering scares like global warming to be so keen on pushing a doomongering prediction of his own. But I also maintain that while Steyn may be guilty at most of extreme pessimism, he’s no racist. Islam is a body of ideas (including some very bad ones); it makes universal claims about the place of men and women in the world that are designed to apply to the entire universe. If humans had terraformed Mars, you’d be certain that radical islamists would be keen to convert the people who lived there. But this has nothing whatsoever to do with race.
So to accuse him of racism on the basis of a quote not by Steyn but by someone else is pretty stupid. And to then not issue a short, honest apology but then to more or less recycle the racism charge in a long, meandering post, is even worse. And that is what the blogger, Jim Henley, has done. I used to read his blog quite a bit; I disagree partly with his strict non-interventionist foreign policy although I think his argument that “Hayek does not stop at the water’s edge”, suggesting that intervenionism is as dumb in foreign policy as it is with domestic affairs, is generally wise. But in this latest case, Jim has made a royal ass of himself over this issue and continues to dig a hole in the ground for himself. A shame, because there is a reasonable case to be made criticising Steyn, but this is not the way to do it.
Ah, but racism is the most unforgivable sin of the modern age. It is typical of the left that they use it inaccurately about criticism of Islam because they also, long ago, redefined “fascist” to mean anybody who disagreed with them. I have had both hurled at me during the 80s for the heinous sin of not supporting the forceable deportation of the entire white population of South Africa “back” to Europe. It was the most ludicrous argument I have ever had in my entire life. It ended up with my socialist interlocutor saying that “OK, if it comes to that then I’d support deporting black people from the UK to make it fair” It was moonbattery of the highest order.
In America, there are two great sins: to be mean-spirited/bigoted and to screw little kids (for many this is actually anyone under 18). That’s it. You are more apt to be viciously denounced in America for saying “I hate blacks” than to actually kill a black man (unless it can be proved as a “hate crime”).
Such is the moral state of America.
I would like to add that if there is any group that deserves to be at or near the front of the line for being put up against the wall if we ever see 1776 happen all over again, it is our “anti-racists.” A more totalitarian group of vermin has never existed in American history.
The online ass-raping continues at his site. Some of his toadies come in, drop their pants, and take one for the team, too.
He then starts a new thread for his non-apology apology. He’s famous now, just not in the way he had hoped or intended.
Seems to me that the charge of bigotry/racism against Steyn is based mostly on his lumping all who follow Islam into a monolithic demographic group. Of course we and Steyn know that the far majority would have nothing to do with the angry, young Islamic radicals. However, its the radical fringe that is beginning to set the terms of the conflict and so far, the moderates have not demonstrated that they have the necessary backbone to stand up to or take action against the radicals. Based on that, is it really necessary to have to be so precise in the use of language so as not to tar the whole because of a few?
If the majority are just sitting back and letting the radicals set the terms then as far as I’m concerned they are just as guilty. I need to see something positive form the Islamic moderates and liberals (if there is such a thing). So far they have given us nothing substantive to lead us to think they don’t silently approve of where the radical minority is taking them.
And when exactly did ‘Islam’ become a race anyway?
The fact that there are very few blond blue-eyed Muslims out there makes it very easy to accuse opponents of Islam of racism.
There are a few. That’s why I’ve said that cultural factors are as important as the religion itself: the blond-haired blue-eyed Muslims I’ve known have all been Bosnian or Albanian, and therefore culturally have had at least some connection to the western tradition.
I wouldn’t take it too far. India also has a significant Muslim population and from a distance also appears to be a civilized part of the world.
I’d like to know just what it is about the ME and the Horn of Africa that makes them so different in their interpretation than India or SE Europe or so on.
YADATROT: Demographic panic-peddling is at best inexact, but Jim Henley is just plain being an empty shirt. Throwing the ‘R’ flag is cheap and doesn’t make him look any smarterer than he already is.
True. Only they don’t count. They don’t count with Westerners because they practice a very moderate version of Islam, i.e. they behave, not only look, like westerners. They also don’t count with the majority of Muslims for the same reason.
India is indeed much more civilized than its neighbors, but it is despite, not because of its Muslim population. If anything, its Muslims cause it many problems, mainly terrorism. Surprise.
That’s because ME and the Horn of Africa is where the cultural origins of Islam are. This is where Mohammad was from.
Where are these moderates I keep hearing about? When about 34-36% of the British Muslims of the up and coming generation want **Sharia** in Britain, that doesn’t seem very moderate. You might say that that is just 1/3 of the population, but think about that for a second. 1/3 of the young Muslims in Britain want to make Britain like Saudi Arabia or Iran. What lesser, theocratic tyranny would those who are moderate prefer? That’s a relevant question, since this is a spectrum we are talking about here, not monolithic boolean options.
People like Henley don’t want to admit the fact that there are only a handful of Islamic states that are actually “moderate” in any sense of the word, and they don’t account for probably more than 5-10% of the Islamic world. Albania, Turkey and possibly Azerbaijan. If you look at the rest of the Islamic world, why on Earth would you assume that they are “moderate” based on the Western notion of being moderate in your politics?
Sunfish
In India Muslims and Hindus often kill each other – by the thousand.
Some important people used to blame this on wicked British “divide and rule” – but after 60 years of independence this has worn thin.
Especially as Muslims and Hindus (and others) have been fighting in India for more than a thousand years.
Blond, blue eyed Muslims – like the suicide bomber lady from Belgium.
It is the ideas in someone’s head that matter – not the colour of the skin that covers the head.
Mike T.
The fact that 1 out of 3 young Muslims in Britain say that they want people who leave Islam to be killed could be turned around.
It means that 2 out of 3 do not.
I admit that is fewer moderates than the older generation – but it is still a moderate majority.
As for Mark Steyn:
First they said he was Jewish – and then when he replied that he was not, that his family were Flemish immigrants to Canada….
Well they said “ah we know about you Flemish nationalists….”
On the “noninterventionism” doctrine.
Really this is a policy of peace – which is fine if everyone else follows it.
Sadly those who will not make war are overwhelmed by those who do. So it is not really like arguing about price controls or government welfare programs (as both Hayek and Mises understood).
“No we are not pacificts, we just hold that force should only only be used if the home nation is under attack”
Sadly this “noninterventionist” line would mean that the home nation would be island surrounded by tyranny – and island that would not last long.
Too harsh?
No – take the example of Murry Rothbard the dean of noninterventionist thought in the post World War II world (and whose writings on this subject are sent to people, via the internet, by the Ludwig Von Mises Institute every other day).
He was opposed to the American government aiding the fight against Nazi Germany – the United States had not been directly attacked you see.
He was opposed to preventing the conquest of Korea by the communists – he was even opposed to preventing Soviet conquest of Western Europe, he hated NATO and campaigned against the election of Eisenhower in 1952 (no not just in favour of Taft – he campaigned against Eisenhower in the general election as well).
And all this stuff (and much else) is presented as something to be proud of
Nazis want to take over the world – none of Uncle Sam’s business unless they invade the United States itself.
Communists want to take over the world – ditto.
The United States as a island of liberty in a sea of tyranny – as if such an island could long exist.
But it is not even American nationalism.
For the Confederacy is supported – forget the fact that the United States government only took up about 1 or 2 per cent of G.D.P. in 1860. The Civil War was not “really” about slavery – it was justified resistance to big government (but the Confederacy had a higher income tax and more credit money inflation in the war than the Union did – shut up we are not listening, Uncle Sam is always the bad guy).
As for a direct attack upon the United States.
9/11 – a direct attack with thousands of Americans dead in the World Trade Centre, and the H.Q. of the armed forces of the United States in flames.
The reaction?
An article in “The Mises Review” (Volume 7, number 4, Winter 2001) where David Gordon uses a review of a book by G.E.M. Anscombe (a book written decades before) as a excuse to attack the United States – to accuse America of engaging in a war to “kill innocents” and compare the war against A.Q. and the Taliban in Afghanistan to the atomic bombing of Japanese cities.
It is not “noninterventionism” really – it is “America is always in the wrong” ism.
It’s a religion not a race.
The modern left’s use of the word racism is Orwellian.
It is typical of the left that they use [“racism”] inaccurately…
The modern left’s use of the word racism is Orwellian.
I know neither of you referenced Mr. Henley directly with your remarks, but it is worth mentioning that he himself is hardly a leftist.
Exactly. “America First” is one thing, “Blame America First” is quite another and it’s the latter that dominates contemporary Libertarianism (and the Ron Paul campaign, despite the falsehoods that dissemblers may try to purvey on this website).