The Age of Migration: The EU and the US in Crisis

[blommen]

It may be somewhat easier if you come from a nation with a similar culture or language, or if you come with particular skills that are valued. But ultimately, I agree 100%. And you've just validated the concerns of those who want to limit immigration because of a failure to assimilate. As you just said, it's not even happening with those that are already here.

Then let's try to make it easier! Let's try to break with problems we have with integrating people into our society. To do that though, we need to be tolerant, we need to be open-minded and we need to realize that the failure to integrate is not solely on the immigrants. It is also ours.

Agreed. My point about cultures is that I think most nations are ultimately the product of their culture. And culture is simply the name we give to that combination of beliefs, morals, practices, habits, philosophies, etc., held by a group of people. In other words, people carry their culture with them.

So my point is that if you bring in large numbers of people from " fucked up" countries, and they don't assimilate quickly enough, their new place of residence often will start to look like their old one. And adding new Third World enclaves isn't good for either the immigrants, or the host nation.

So people flee from fucked up situations to create new fucked up situations where they end up? It sounds thin to me. Once again, I've had plenty of experience with these areas and they hardly look any thing like what you're describing. most of the families are friendly or keep to themselves and try not to bother any one. you have a few douche bags and assholes, just like you would in any other part of the city, but in no way are the ghettos turning into mini syrias. They are simply not interacting that much with other danes.

That's a complete copout because i'm not asking you to "quantify grief and suffering". I'm asking you to quantify the problem you identified by saying that there were a lot of fucked up countries whose people Europeans should help if they want to leave. If you're going to admit refugees, then deciding who qualifies is an essential first step.

I suspect the real reason you don't want to answer that is that it will make obvious that the scope of the problem is well beyond something that can be solved by taking in some refugees. And you don't want to answer the "so what about all the rest of them" follow-up.

I have stated from the beginning that my problem isn't with the fact that we aren't taking in more immigrants, if we don't have the capacity for it, my issue is with how the Danes are being represented to the outside world as inconsiderate assholes who don't care if your country is burning, and who aren't in any way prepared to help you in any way, should you show up on our doorstep. This image stems from our government which has to pander to the Danish People's Party, who got their mandates from the ignorance of the fearful, to stay in control. Therefore we as a country seem to be losing our sense of compassion more and more and having less of an understanding of the rest of the world, every single day.

Like I said, if refugees show up at your border, you help them in whatever capacity you may be able to. that doesn't guarantee admittance, nor have I ever stated such.

That's wonderful as a personal philosophy, but what you're talking about is not individual charity, but national policy. And that requires that actual laws be passed, the adoption of standards and procedures, and of course an overall plan that might actually work. And since you're criticizing some Danes for not wanting to take in more immigrants, asking "then how many do you think they should take" is a completely fair question.

this is a straw man. I never criticized them for not wanting to take in more refugees. I criticized them for making that call based on racial ignorance and bias.

What are the limits, if any, to the charity you believe European nations should show/as a matter of legal policy?

I think the european countries should help out in whatever capacity they feel they can. My problem all along is that I think Denmark can do more. THIS DOES NO NECESSARILY MEAN TAKE IN MORE IMMIGRANTS

It may not be only a question of actually admitting them to your country, but that is certainly a (the?) major issue dividing most Europeans at this point. You yourself just mentioned taking in those who want asylum. Okay... How many?

And what to you do after that number has been reached, and neighboring countries won't take any more? I mean, if you're going to be criticizing fellow Danes for being unreasonable, these are pretty legitimate questions.

This is getting ridiculous, I never claimed nor stated that the way forward was to take everyone in, I said the way forward was to help everyone in whatever capacity we can afford as a nation. what I was criticizing was the fucked up way the refugees were being treated upon arrival, being spat on, yelled at etc. What I criticized was my country assuming the mantle of international asshole, when we didn't need to, just to appease a bunch of out of touch, right wing, racists, who have never even met a refugee to begin with, but still subscribe to some warped sense of fear and hatred endorsed by a slimy, gutless political party who are too chickenshit to actually take part in government but are fine standing on the outside pulling strings.

It's now 1.30 AM here and I have classes in the morning, so I'll be heading to bed and as far as I'm concerned this discussion is over. If you're going to resort to straw man arguments I'm not gonna waste my time debating with you any further. You may think that me not having a concrete solution to the problem outside of "let's try to be decent human beings" is naive, but in the end this was all I was ever advocating. I used to think this was a given in my country and now I'm starting to see maybe that wasn't the case after all.

oh well.

 

[gourimoko]

Agreed. My point about cultures is that I think most nations are ultimately the product of their culture. And culture is simply the name we give to that combination of beliefs, morals, practices, habits, philosophies, etc., held by a group of people. In other words, people carry their culture with them.

So my point is that if you bring in large numbers of people from " fucked up" countries, and they don't assimilate quickly enough, their new place of residence often will start to look like their old one. And adding new Third World enclaves isn't good for either the immigrants, or the host nation.

This point of view is the only thing I thought worthy of a response in your post, and I felt that it should be addressed separately.

You make the argument:

"most nations are ultimately the product of their culture. And culture is simply the name we give to that combination of beliefs, morals, practices, habits, philosophies, etc., held by a group of people."

Within this argument there are several obvious problems.

First off, to make the argument, we need to presuppose that "a group of people" share a singular identifiable culture. This, by your definition, would entail some closing overlapping beliefs, morals, practices, habits, and philosophies. You state that this overlap defines the people and the nation, wherein I think both arguments are false.

The United States, by example, does not have a unified culture. We are quite obviously a multicultural society. So, you're argument would not apply to the most dominant nation on Earth.

Specifically though, you were referencing "Third World" nations. I think by most accounts the Philippines is considered a Third World nation; yet, there is no unified, singular Filipino culture. There are over one-hundred different languages, cultures, beliefs, with several different widely practiced (and contentious) religions. There is no unified philosophy of governance, of civil rights, of property rights, etc.

So does your argument work anywhere? Well, maybe. Let's take a more homogeneous society - like Japan. Does this argument work there?

Perhaps. Perhaps you could argue that Japan is a product of it's culture, but, I don't think that'd be historically or contextually accurate. I think you could stereotype the Japanese to fit this narrative, but, in doing so, you'd miss the continuity between pre-War Japanese culture and the culture that thrives today.

In fact, you could more successfully argue that Japanese culture is an example of lack of self-identity, rather than culture creating or defining identity. This is in one of the most homogeneous populations on Earth.

But, even from simply a cursory glance, while there exists some degree of racial homogeneity within Japan, there is no commonly practiced belief system; most people are not as concerned with the news, politics, or social policy; and while there exists a "culture" of commonly held practices and habits which are quite unique, there is really no rational way to project from this initial set of cultural conditions and extrapolate the society we see today.

As yet another test of your theory, we can look at China.

China is populated largely by a single ethnic group (~91%), the Han Chinese, which is a multiracial group which share a cultural and ethnic identity. However, this ethnic group spans several nations, including China, Singapore, Taiwan, the Philippines, India, Malaysia, Japan, Korea; etc etc. These people share a common cultural thread in many cases, and not in others; however, the nations in which they live are very different from one another. Their contributions to their nations do not take a "Chinese" cultural form, but instead, that of their nationality.

The point is that your culture has as much an influence on your ideology as your education, your upbringing, your environment, etc. There is no rational means to predict from a person or group of people how a nation might develop.

More to the point, in attempting to work backwards from present conditions, you are completely ignoring the fact that nations do not develop independently of one another; at least, in the vast majority of circumstances. Therefore, your argument simply ignores what might be the most causative factor in nation development, that being, continuous interactions with other nations.

In saying that, I find the argument that nations are "Third World" as a result of a supposed inferior culture is outlandish and rooted in less-than-scientific thinking.

There are numerous complex historic reasons as to why the economic hierarchy of nations is as it is today; and by removing the historical and continual, present day, context of colonialism (European or Asiatic) from consideration and instead attempting to work backwards from the end result is not only foolish but demonstrative of inherent bias.

There is no reason whatsoever to, in an rational setting, take present-day conditions and use it as a cause for bringing itself about. This is circular reasoning. Instead, if you are truly interested in determining cause, then you would look to find historical reasons for downturns in socioeconomic conditions in various cultures. These reasons are numerous, throughout modern history, in Africa and the Middle East.

And while understanding the historical highs and lows of any society, it should be self-evident that no "culture" is superior to another; nor is any religion superior to another, or any set of metaphysical beliefs or ideals over that of another immeasurable set of ideals.

It isn't demonstrably better to eat with the left hand or the right, to bow or to shake hands, to use chopsticks or a fork. Cultures are not entities that can be quantitatively measured against one another on some impartial scale tucked away in some metaphysical vacuum. The very notion that one can argue such a thing is absurd.

Only in arrogance can we look at a people who have lived through countless wars, colonization, hunger and famine, civil unrest, political turmoil, and now exist in a state of seeming perpetual war and say to ourselves, "it is their inferior culture, that is what is to blame."

 

[gourimoko]

You keep conflating the issues of immigration policy with policies dealing with mass migrations that result from ethnic cleansing.

I have no problem with countries enforcing immigration policy under normal circumstances, but you're entire argument ignores the present conditions in Syria and the fact that there are 4 million refugees today as a result of an ongoing war.

Also, this argument of "cultural superiority" has no place in this conversation; it's meaningless and beside the point. Beyond the fact that it's an asinine statement in and of itself, "my culture is better than yours," it has little bearing on this conversation of refugees.

These people aren't asking to become Europeans, they are asking for refuge. That does not generally require or suggest assimilation.

Disagree?

@Cratylus ....

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Then let's try to make it easier! Let's try to break with problems we have with integrating people into our society. To do that though, we need to be tolerant, we need to be open-minded and we need to realize that the failure to integrate is not solely on the immigrants. It is also ours.

This is exactly why I mentioned Sweden. It is repeatedly held up as the gold standard for the treatment of immigrants from the developing world, and get, they're starting to have major problems. And if the Euros who are the best at it still aren't good enough, then maybe it is time to rethink the entire enterprise.

So people flee from fucked up situations to create new fucked up situations where they end up? It sounds thin to me. Once again, I've had plenty of experience with these areas and they hardly look any thing like what you're describing. most of the families are friendly or keep to themselves and try not to bother any one. you have a few douche bags and assholes, just like you would in any other part of the city, but in no way are the ghettos turning into mini syrias.

But isn't part of your criticism that Denmark takes in so few? Maybe that's why there are fewer problems.

I have stated from the beginning that my problem isn't with the fact that we aren't taking in more immigrants, if we don't have the capacity for it, my issue is with how the Danes are being represented to the outside world as inconsiderate assholes who don't care if your country is burning, and who aren't in any way prepared to help you in any way, should you show up on our doorstep.

Then i'm sorry, but i'm not grasping the distinction. Danes are being portrayed as "cunty" because they are reducing benefits for immigrants coming to Denmark, and otherwise discouraging these folks from coming to Denmark. But you say that really doesn't have anything to do with how many they take in. I guess i just see this "cunty" behavior as having to do very much with whether Denmark is willing to take in more who "show up on the "doorstep."

Like I said, if refugees show up at your border, you help them in whatever capacity you may be able to. that doesn't guarantee admittance, nor have I ever stated such.

I'm still not getting this. Migrants show up on your doorstep, and you're supposed to treat them well. But that doesn't include actually admitting them. So what does it include? Giving them the proverbial ham sandwich and roadmap to somewhere else?

I've read a couple of articles about one group of immigrants not being treated well at a school, and it's a story that seemed to get a lot of play. But that honestly seems like a minor irrelevancy next to the much more substantive issue of whether or not they can stay.

this is a straw man. I never criticized them for not wanting to take in more refugees. I criticized them for making that call based on racial ignorance and bias.

Again, I'm kind of not getting the distinction. So you'd be okay if they said "sorry, it's not that we have anything against you racially. We just don't want a bunch more refugees?" You'd have no problem with that?

I think the european countries should help out in whatever capacity they feel they can.

Isn't that what they're.already doing, by definition?

My problem all along is that I think Denmark can do more. THIS DOES NO NECESSARILY MEAN TAKE IN MORE IMMIGRANTS

Fine. So what does it mean?

If it is any comfort, other than that one story about the school (and you kind of had to dig even for that), Danes aren't being portrayed in U.S. media as particularly anti-immigrant. The stories here are all about the big picture, like the closing of borders, the fence in Hungary, Poles and Slovaks wanting nothing to do with any of it, etc., and the reality of huge numbers of refugees.

So you guys aren't looking particularly cunty, at least from here.

 

[Jordan]

This point of view is the only thing I thought worthy of a response in your post, and I felt that it should be addressed separately.

You make the argument:

"most nations are ultimately the product of their culture. And culture is simply the name we give to that combination of beliefs, morals, practices, habits, philosophies, etc., held by a group of people."

Within this argument there are several obvious problems.

First off, to make the argument, we need to presuppose that "a group of people" share a singular identifiable culture. This, by your definition, would entail some closing overlapping beliefs, morals, practices, habits, and philosophies. You state that this overlap defines the people and the nation, wherein I think both arguments are false.

The United States, by example, does not have a unified culture. We are quite obviously a multicultural society. So, you're argument would not apply to the most dominant nation on Earth.

Specifically though, you were referencing "Third World" nations. I think by most accounts the Philippines is considered a Third World nation; yet, there is no unified, singular Filipino culture. There are over one-hundred different languages, cultures, beliefs, with several different widely practiced (and contentious) religions. There is no unified philosophy of governance, of civil rights, of property rights, etc.

So does your argument work anywhere? Well, maybe. Let's take a more homogeneous society - like Japan. Does this argument work there?

Perhaps. Perhaps you could argue that Japan is a product of it's culture, but, I don't think that'd be historically or contextually accurate. I think you could stereotype the Japanese to fit this narrative, but, in doing so, you'd miss the continuity between pre-War Japanese culture and the culture that thrives today.

In fact, you could more successfully argue that Japanese culture is an example of lack of self-identity, rather than culture creating or defining identity. This is in one of the most homogeneous populations on Earth.

But, even from simply a cursory glance, while there exists some degree of racial homogeneity within Japan, there is no commonly practiced belief system; most people are not as concerned with the news, politics, or social policy; and while there exists a "culture" of commonly held practices and habits which are quite unique, there is really no rational way to project from this initial set of cultural conditions and extrapolate the society we see today.

As yet another test of your theory, we can look at China.

China is populated largely by a single ethnic group (~91%), the Han Chinese, which is a multiracial group which share a cultural and ethnic identity. However, this ethnic group spans several nations, including China, Singapore, Taiwan, the Philippines, India, Malaysia, Japan, Korea; etc etc. These people share a common cultural thread in many cases, and not in others; however, the nations in which they live are very different from one another. Their contributions to their nations do not take a "Chinese" cultural form, but instead, that of their nationality.

The point is that your culture has as much an influence on your ideology as your education, your upbringing, your environment, etc. There is no rational means to predict from a person or group of people how a nation might develop.

More to the point, in attempting to work backwards from present conditions, you are completely ignoring the fact that nations do not develop independently of one another; at least, in the vast majority of circumstances. Therefore, your argument simply ignores what might be the most causative factor in nation development, that being, continuous interactions with other nations.

In saying that, I find the argument that nations are "Third World" as a result of a supposed inferior culture is outlandish and rooted in less-than-scientific thinking.

There are numerous complex historic reasons as to why the economic hierarchy of nations is as it is today; and by removing the historical and continual, present day, context of colonialism (European or Asiatic) from consideration and instead attempting to work backwards from the end result is not only foolish but demonstrative of inherent bias.

There is no reason whatsoever to, in an rational setting, take present-day conditions and use it as a cause for bringing itself about. This is circular reasoning. Instead, if you are truly interested in determining cause, then you would look to find historical reasons for downturns in socioeconomic conditions in various cultures. These reasons are numerous, throughout modern history, in Africa and the Middle East.

And while understanding the historical highs and lows of any society, it should be self-evident that no "culture" is superior to another; nor is any religion superior to another, or any set of metaphysical beliefs or ideals over that of another immeasurable set of ideals.

It isn't demonstrably better to eat with the left hand or the right, to bow or to shake hands, to use chopsticks or a fork. Cultures are not entities that can be quantitatively measured against one another on some impartial scale tucked away in some metaphysical vacuum. The very notion that one can argue such a thing is absurd.

Only in arrogance can we look at a people who have lived through countless wars, colonization, hunger and famine, civil unrest, political turmoil, and now exist in a state of seeming perpetual war and say to ourselves, "it is their inferior culture, that is what is to blame."

I gotta disagree with the bolded, gour. Have you ever shaken hands with someone who uses the opposite hand? It's bad news.

In all seriousness, though, great post. I'd like to add another example, Syria.

Syria is made up of Alawis (which before the 1970s were not even considered Muslims), Kurds, Sunnis, and Christians. This has been the same ever since the end of WWII when Jews fled. Yet, the nature of Hafez al-Assad's dictatorship and Bashar al-Assad's dictatorship are entirely different. Hafez was a dictator, but he generally opposed Western involvement, and attempted to appease the agriculture, industrial, and public sectors. Albeit he was unpopular with big business, but the majority of society generally liked him.

Bashar, on the other hand, decided to appease to western neoliberal models. This resulted in him becoming buddy-buddy with the business sector (Bashar's cousin, Rami al-Makhlouf, who now owns a phone company, controls some asinine amount of Syria's economy) at the cost of pissing off the agriculture and industrial sectors. Because Syria is so reliant on both agriculture and industry (these are two of the largest sectors in the entire Middle East) this pissed off a lot of the population. And while being buddy-buddy with the business sector allowed Bashar to control significant portions of the country's economy, it eventually resulted in people being pissed enough that we are where we are now.

What I am trying to get through, is first, Syria is a multicultural society; and second, that same uniform national "culture" has lead to two very distinct types of dictatorship.

So unless people in the Middle East are all Masochists -- and my hundreds of friends/connections in the region absolutely aren't -- and enjoy their own suffering, then I don't see how their culture leads to dictatorship. Usually the dictatorship emerges as a popular regime, it solidifies its popularity from aiding and befriending important sectors of society (military, business, agriculture, whatever) and then it defeats all opposition. By the time people realize what is happening it's in their own self-interest just to go with it, because if they stand up they'll die. People don't inherently like not having rights, but usually there isn't much they can do about it, and when the west aids the dictatorship (see Bahraini uprisings of 2011-2012) the people are in an even worse predicament.

 

[Sebastian]

As far as being able to get jobs, part of it is the language, which is very hard to learn. Danish is one of the hardest languages to learn on the planet and it gets progressively harder the older you are. Once again, a lot of immigrants try to learn the language but have a tough time doing it, because they are surrounded by other immigrants all the time (that goes for the children as well, who live in these areas).

Wether or not the ghettos were planned this way or not, that is the reality of the situation. it doesn't change the fact that it's incredibly hard to get integrated into another country when that's your environment. It has nothing to do being stubborn or having an "inferior culture".

To add levity to a grim thread, I saw your statement on the difficulty of learning Nordic languages (I am currently learning Swedish for fun) and was once told by a Norwegian friend of how Danish has become unintelligible to Norwegians and Swedes although there used to be a level of mutual comprehension. Not sure if he was exaggerating as I have not advanced to the point where I can discern large differences between Swedish and Danish. In any event, here is a video addressing this phenomenon:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqgRC5sfCaQ

And, as any Dane could appreciate, of course it was Sweden's fault thanks to Karl Johan, aka Marshal Jean Baptiste Bernadotte, who absconded with Norway after administering the fatal blow to Napoleon in the 1813 Campaign. @The Human Q-Tip, you should research Bernadotte. Fascinating man. Peer, rival and cousin of Napoleon. Born in obscurity, he later rose from a lieutenant to major general in two years and could have easily been the leader of France instead of Napoleon. Developed the strategy that defeated Napoleon and became King of Sweden. I think I will write a journal article on him.

 

[blommen]

To add levity to a grim thread, I saw your statement on the difficulty of learning Nordic languages (I am currently learning Swedish for fun) and was once told by a Norwegian friend of how Danish has become unintelligible to Norwegians and Swedes although there used to be a level of mutual comprehension. Not sure if he was exaggerating as I have not advanced to the point where I can discern large differences between Swedish and Danish. In any event, here is a video addressing this phenomenon:

Sadly, this is absolutely true. The Danish language is extremely hard to master and our children are taking longer and longer mastering it. language evolution is natural thing though and not necessarily something to shun altogether, but for an immigrant coming into the country it can be a daunting and nigh insurmountable task to overcome.

 

[Sebastian]

Sadly, this is absolutely true. The Danish language is extremely hard to master and our children are taking longer and longer mastering it. language evolution is natural thing though and not necessarily something to shun altogether, but for an immigrant coming into the country it can be a daunting and nigh insurmountable task to overcome.

I know you guys love to drink. Any truth to the slurring due to Carlsberg?

Honestly, I find Swedish far easier to learn than German or French. Fewer cases and simplified grammar. What other languages do you speak besides Danske og Engelsk?

 

[No Regard]

To add levity to a grim thread, I saw your statement on the difficulty of learning Nordic languages (I am currently learning Swedish for fun) and was once told by a Norwegian friend of how Danish has become unintelligible to Norwegians and Swedes although there used to be a level of mutual comprehension. Not sure if he was exaggerating as I have not advanced to the point where I can discern large differences between Swedish and Danish. In any event, here is a video addressing this phenomenon:

Three Norwegian comedians' take on the Danish language.

 

[gourimoko]

I absolutely love German women.. FWIW..

 

[blommen]

Three Norwegian comedians' take on the Danish language.

You guys have no idea how funny this is

 

[Scholar]

The article below seemed appropriate to discuss in this thread. Have at it...

http://100percentfedup.com/muslim-p...ce-plan-to-keep-refugees-and-revelers-apart/#

 

[gourimoko]

The article below seemed appropriate to discuss in this thread. Have at it...

http://100percentfedup.com/muslim-p...ce-plan-to-keep-refugees-and-revelers-apart/#

So.. which of these girls would you smash?

I bet the brunette that got cut off on the top is actually hotter than the rest, but, oh wells...

 

[Sebastian]

The article below seemed appropriate to discuss in this thread. Have at it...

http://100percentfedup.com/muslim-p...ce-plan-to-keep-refugees-and-revelers-apart/#

Ban Octoberfest?

Good luck.

 

[Cratylus]

You keep conflating the issues of immigration policy with policies dealing with mass migrations that result from ethnic cleansing.

I have no problem with countries enforcing immigration policy under normal circumstances, but you're entire argument ignores the present conditions in Syria and the fact that there are 4 million refugees today as a result of an ongoing war.

Also, this argument of "cultural superiority" has no place in this conversation; it's meaningless and beside the point. Beyond the fact that it's an asinine statement in and of itself, "my culture is better than yours," it has little bearing on this conversation of refugees.

These people aren't asking to become Europeans, they are asking for refuge. That does not generally require or suggest assimilation.

Disagree?

@Cratylus ....

Yes, I disagree completely and would argue that Western culture is far superior to all others. The term "culture" generally refers to that complex set of knowledge, beliefs, laws, morals, customs, art, literature, music and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society. While the greatness of some aspects of culture (such as music, art, and literature) can be more a matter of opinion than of fact, most other aspects of culture can be analyzed and rated based on their overall impact on the human condition.

Rather than being "meaningless" as you claim, the concept of "cultural superiority" is at the very heart of this discussion. I'm not aware of too many places where Western culture has been adopted where the citizens are actively fleeing. Rather what we see is the exact opposite: immigrants and refugees who are fleeing various regions are trying to get into countries and regions where Western ideals flourish. I mean, How many Brits are trying to flee the UK? How many Aussies are trying to escape persecution by boarding boats bound for Indonesia or North Korea? How many German immigrants are struggling to cross the border into Pakistan? Or better yet, how many Syrians are trying to get into Cuba?

At some point we have to ask ourselves, if nobody's culture is inferior or superior to anyone else's culture, then why is it that peoples and countries who have adopted Western culture don't have the same problems of the human condition that those who haven't adopted Western culture have?

I will post this again because of its pertinence to this issue:


"The great ideas of the West—rationalism, self-criticism, the disinterested search for truth, the separation of church and state, the rule of law, equality before the law, freedom of conscience and expression, human rights, democracy—together constitute quite an achievement, surely, for any civilization. This set of principles remains the best and perhaps the only means for all people, no matter what race or creed, to live in freedom and reach their full potential. Western values—the basis of the West’s self-evident economic, social, political, scientific and cultural success—are clearly superior to any other set of values devised by mankind. When Western values have been adopted by other societies, such as Japan or South Korea, their citizens have reaped benefits.

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness: this triptych succinctly defines the attractiveness and superiority of Western civilization. In the West we are free to think what we want, to read what we want, to practice our religion, to live as we choose. Liberty is codified in human rights, a magnificent Western creation but also, I believe, a universal good. Human Rights transcend local or ethnocentric values, conferring equal dignity and value on all humanity, regardless of sex, ethnicity, sexual preference, or religion. At the same time, it is in the West that human rights are most respected.

"It is the West that has liberated women, racial minorities, religious minorities, and gays and lesbians, recognizing their rights. The notions of freedom and human rights were present at the dawn of Western civilization, as ideals at least, but have gradually come to fruition through supreme acts of self-criticism. Because of its exceptional capacity for self-criticism, the West took the initiative in abolishing slavery; the calls for abolition did not resonate even in black Africa, where rival African tribes took black prisoners to be sold as slaves in the West.

"Today, many non-Western cultures follow customs and practices that are clear violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). In many countries, especially Islamic ones, you are not free to read what you want. Under sharia, or Islamic law, women are not free to marry whom they wish, and their rights of inheritance are circumscribed. Sharia, derived from the Koran and the practice and sayings of Muhammad, prescribes barbaric punishments such as stoning to death for adultery. It calls for homosexuals and apostates to be executed. In Saudi Arabia, among other countries, Muslims are not free to convert to Christianity, and Christians are not free to practice their faith. The Koran is not a rights-respecting document.

"Under Islam, life is a closed book. Everything has been decided for you, the dictates of sharia and the whims of Allah set strict limits on the possible agenda of your life. In the West, we have the choice to pursue our desires and ambitions. We are free as individuals to set the goals and determine the contents of our own lives, and to decide what meaning to give to our lives. As Roger Scruton remarks, “The glory of the West is that life is an open book.” The West has given us the liberal miracle of individual rights and responsibility and merit. Rather than the chains of inherited status, Western societies offer unparalleled social mobility. The West, Alan Kors writes, “is a society of ever richer, more varied, more productive, more self-defined, and more satisfying lives.”

"Instead of the mind-numbing certainties and dictates of Islam, Western civilization offers what Bertrand Russell called liberating doubt. Even the process of politics in the West involves trial and error, open discussion, criticism, and self-correction. This quest for knowledge, no matter where it leads, a desire inherited from the Greeks, has produced an institution that is rarely equaled outside the West: the university. And the outside world recognizes this superiority of Western universities. Easterners come to the West to learn not only about the sciences developed in the last five hundred years, but also about their own cultures, about Eastern civilizations and languages. They come to Oxford and Cambridge, to Harvard and Yale, to Heidelberg and the Sorbonne to acquire their doctorates because these degrees confer prestige unrivaled by similar credentials from Third World countries.

"Western universities, research institutes, and libraries are created to be independent institutions where the pursuit of truth is conducted in a spirit of disinterested inquiry, free from political pressures. The basic difference between the West and the Rest might be summed up as a difference in epistemological principles. Behind the success of modern Western societies, with their science and technology, and their open institutions, lies a distinct way of looking at the world, interpreting it, and rectifying problems: by lifting them out of the religious sphere and treating them empirically, finding solutions in rational procedures. The whole edifice of modern science is one of Western man’s greatest gifts to the world. The West is responsible for almost every major scientific discovery of the last 500 hundred years, from heliocentrism and the telescope, to electricity, to computers.

"The West has given the world the symphony and the novel. A culture that engendered the spiritual creations of Mozart and Beethoven, Wagner and Schubert, of Raphael and Michelangelo, Leonardo Da Vinci and Rembrandt does not need lessons in spirituality from societies whose vision of heaven resembles a cosmic brothel stocked with virgins for men’s pleasure.

"The West gave us the Red Cross, Doctors without Borders, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and many other manifestations of the humanitarian impulse. It is the West that provides the bulk of the aid to beleaguered Darfur, while Islamic countries are conspicuous by their absence.

"The West does not need lectures on the superior virtue of societies where women are kept in subjection, endure genital mutilation, are married off against their will at the age of nine, have acid thrown on their faces or are stoned to death for alleged adultery, or where human rights are denied to those regarded as belonging to lower castes. The West does not need sanctimonious homilies from societies that cannot provide clean drinking water or sewage systems for their populations, that cannot educate their citizens, but leave 40-50 percent of them illiterate, that make no provisions for the handicapped, that have no sense of the common good or civic responsibility, that are riddled with corruption.

"No Western politician would be able to get away with the kind of racist remarks that are tolerated in the Third World, such as the anti-Semitic diatribes of the Malaysian leader Mahathir Mohamad. Instead, there would be calls for resignation, both from Third World leaders and from Western media and intellectuals. Double standards? Yes, but also a tacit acknowledgement that we expect higher ethical standards from the West.

"The Ayatollah Khomeini once famously said there are no jokes in Islam. The West is able to look at its own foibles and laugh, even make fun of its own fundamental principles. There is no Islamic equivalent to Monty Python’s Life of Brian. Can we look forward to seeing The Life of Mo anytime in the future?

"The rest of the world recognizes the virtues of the West in concrete ways. As Arthur Schlesinger remarked, “When Chinese students cried and died for democracy in Tiananmen Square, they brought with them not representations of Confucius or Buddha but a model of the Statue of Liberty.” Millions of people risk their lives trying to get to the West—not to Saudi Arabia or Iran or Pakistan. They flee from theocratic or other totalitarian regimes to find tolerance and freedom in the West, where life is an open book."