Answer....they all make anti-immigration a central policy. I'm not going to suggest they're right, or they're wrong, but just that they're powerful and they have a message that is gaining strength.
Yesterday the United Kingdom voted to divorce themselves from the European Union. Much of the reason for that was simply that they felt the European Union was not working for them, that they would be better of without having to get approval from Brussels (the EU HQ) to conduct much of their everyday business. It's called "Euro-skepticism".
But a good deal of the impetus to opt-out was due to their increasing unease with the new wave of Muslim refugees entering their country daily. The other national movements mentioned above are also looking to slam the door on their open borders, too.
In Europe Muslim immigrants are not generally integrated into mainstream society. They are strictly segregated, practically speaking if not by any actual government edict. Too often the natives don't mix well with their new neighbors. Suspicion is rampant and tensions are high. Reports of violence committed by Muslim youths is just fuel on the fire, even though, as is usually the case, the majority are peacefully just trying to get by. And with every act of radical Islamic terror, the division grows wider.
Things are a bit better, for the time being, here in the US. America's 3.3 million Muslim residents are fairly well integrated, but say they're feeling eyes on them from every direction, while the natives see an Islamic terrorist behind almost every rock. Enter first the Tea Party, and now Donald Trump. With President Obama proposing to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees into the US, Trump is riding high in the polls with his promise to "Keep 'em out".
I think it's safe to say that Muslims generally don't play well with others....Sunni's fight Shia, Saudi's fight Yemenis, Iranians fight pretty much everyone, etc. In fairness Muslims can say the West started this latest wave of unrest (let's not go back and re-fight the Crusades, OK?) by getting involved in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and elsewhere, trying to foist on them our "dastardly, un-Islamic democracy". That in effect just stirred the ant pile, sending those inside scurrying in every direction looking for safety. I think it fair to say our efforts to "nation build" have been a flop.
As I see it we're just different peoples with different cultures that are hard for the other to get their heads around. I don't see the wedge between us getting anything but wider in the near future. It just seems like we're caught up in a vicious circle.
What do you think? Do you think we'll just walk wide of each other for decades to come, or will it deteriorate into something more violent? With the head start Europe has on us regarding anti-immigrant nationalism, how nasty will it get there, and will we be far behind? In all honesty, with the paranoia that exists today, I'm concerned that things could get out of hand very easily. It's easy to escalate things, but quite difficult to de-escalate tensions once they build.
Remember a couple years ago when two Islamic terrorists were intercepted and killed by a Garland, TX policeman as they were trying to shoot up a Mohammad cartoon contest? The Garland PD never released the name of the officer, and it was only at the trial of an accomplice in Phoenix that the officer's name came out. Now the Garland PD is having to provide him special protection. That's how toxic its become.
As Walter Cronkite used to say, "And that's the way it is."
S
Basic question, IMO is and always has been "what is the benefit of diversity"?
ReplyDeleteIt is taken as an article of faith these days that it is, in and of itself, a laudable goal devoutly to be achieved.
However, I can think of NO society which ever thrived and prospered because neighbors could not talk to one another. And a careful, non PC glance at those countries today with the highest standard of living and good quality of life show something interesting, if not unexpected.
I'm not quite understanding your position. Your first two sentences seem to question the desirability of diversity, but as I read it, your last paragraph seems to say it IS desirable. 'Splain it again for my feeble mind, please.
DeleteIt's easy to escalate things <-- I agree! Just think of the few short years it took a certain Austrian to spout hatred in an obscure beer hall in Munich until six million Jews were exterminated.
ReplyDeleteYes, look at the millions who are saying that Trump might be just the ticket, eh? Somewhere, the shattered pieces of Hitler's skull are forming into a grin.
DeleteI just might get into trouble for saying this, but most of our troubles in the Middle East come from our blind devotion to Israel. The Palestinians deserve a homeland and Israel is determined that this not happen. Former president Jimmy Carter, the only president to broker a deal between Israel and an Arab country (Egypt) understood this, as does President Obama, and it's interesting how all of a sudden the Republicans are soooo0 pro Israel. I don't believe any country should be founded on a religion, and that includes Israel.
ReplyDeleteI welcome you saying whatever is on your mind. I agree that BOTH Israel and the Palestinians deserve their own homeland. But in order for the Palestinians to have theirs, shouldn't they demonstrate they can live peacefully with their neighbors? Shouldn't they demonstrate they will police themselves and prohibit the radicals among them from harming others? But in the case of Hamas today, the power that controls Gaza, for example, THEY are the ones producing homemade missiles and firing them into Israel. They are NOT policing themselves. They are NOT stepping on their radicals. THEY ARE THE RADICALS!
DeleteRemember the Oslo Accord when Pres. Clinton worked with Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin to set the framework for a mid-east peace? Both, in principle, would have their own homeland, responsible for their own people, and agreed to respect the sovereignty of the other. But ultimately Yasser Arafat decided that if the Palestinians could live in peace, they wouldn't need him or his PLO, so he backed away from it. He had a vested, selfish interest is stirring the pot. My understanding is that Israel was willing to give it a try.
The Israelis are not blameless, however. They are too quick to retaliate IMO. And their retaliation is often IMO out of proportion to what was done to them. And why do they insist on building new settlements on Palestinian property? Isn't that just poking a stick at them? Why invite retaliation?
You say no country should be founded on religion? But that is EXACTLY what Islam preaches. They believe in theocracy. Secularism is their enemy, and politicians who embrace secularism are in their cross-hairs. As I said above, it seems to me the western world and the Islamic world are just fundamentally different peoples with different cultures and mores. It's hard for each to get their arms around and their heads around each other. It's like that square peg/round hole riddle.
Watching the rise of Nationalism and Nativism is fascinating, esp. since until a year or two ago it seemed we were on a path to globalism. The only objectors at that times were like the KKK, John Birch Society, various right wing European groups, but now look: Europe, starting to show signs of the EU breaking apart, the rise of Nativism and Nationalism here in the US. This time Muslims have taken the place of Jews, and instead of focusing on the Jews success in business, we're focusing on a group of less than .1% of Muslims to banish and eliminate them.
ReplyDeleteI did, as kind of a little intellectual exercise, just how we can do that here in this country, under Trump.
http://memoirsofacardiopulmonaryguy.blogspot.com/2016/06/how-it-can-actually-be-donethe-trump.html
Sounds like something you'd give consideration to, eh?