Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Austin Dacey and Colin Koproske have an important article in the latest issue of Free Inquiry, a Humanist journal, about a drive to pass a Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights (UIDHR). The article is a condensed version of a longer report called Islam and Human Rights: Defending Universality at the United Nations (PDF). Dacey and Koproske argue, quite correctly in my view, that the world needs to stand up in opposition to a movement from Islamic countries to transform resolutions that declare the need to protect individual rights into resolutions protecting a collective right of Islam to violate individual rights. And they're doing so largely through slight-of-hand.
The report covers the drive to pass those "defamation of religion" laws that I've written in opposition to many times, but only as one part of a larger effort to build an alternative framework of Islamic Human Rights. That effort includes trying to pass the UIDHR, which was "written by representatives from Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and various other Muslim states under the auspices of the London-based Islamic Council, a private organization affiliated with the conservative Muslim World League."
Unfortunately, those nations are selling the UIDHR as merely a compliment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which just had its 60th anniversary, when in reality the Islamic version is in clear conflict with the old version. They do this, as Dacey and Koproske point out, through mistranslation:
It drew little criticism as it was rife with ambiguous, equivocal language and had an English translation that masked many of its overt religious references. In its original Arabic, the UIDHR often requires Islamic considerations that limit rather than enshrine human rights as outlined by international norms. For example, compare the English and Arabic versions of Article 12, which outlines the "Right to Freedom of Belief, Thought and Speech"*:English: "Every person has the right to express his thoughts and beliefs so long as he remains within the limits prescribed by the Law. No one, however, is entitled to disseminate falsehood or to circulate reports that may outrage public decency, or to indulge in slander, innuendo, or to cast defamatory aspersions on other persons."
Arabic: "Everyone may think, believe and express his ideas and beliefs without interference or opposition from anyone as long as he obeys the limits [hudud] set by the shari'ah. It is not permitted to spread falsehood [al-batil] or disseminate that which involves encouraging abomination [al-fahisha] or forsaking the Islamic community [takhdhil li'l-umma]."
The English version reads as an innocuous restatement of well-established norms, embracing rights to speech and generally accepted limits involving slander and libel. In its original Arabic, however, this article demonstrates a clear religious test for speech: one may not express oneself beyond the limits set by Islamic law, and one must not "encourage abomination" or "forsake" the Islamic community. The concepts of "falsehood," "encouraging abomination," and "forsaking" are unclear and dangerously open to potential abuse by religious courts. It is apparent that it is not citizens who are protected, but the umma (Muslim community). The rubric of judgment is not public law, not universal standards of justice, but shari'ah (Islamic law).
Much of this follows the framework developed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the same group of 57 Islamic nations that is pushing defamation of religion laws, when they issued a previous declaration of Islamic human rights:
The OIC's most significant entrance onto the field of human rights came in 1990, with the adoption of the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. This document, affirmed by all fifty-seven member states and considered canon to this day, used much of the language from the 1981 UIDHR, this time making it clear (even in English) that "All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic shari'ah," and that "The Islamic shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration" (Articles 24 and 25). In place of religious freedom, its authors issue what is in effect a prohibition against conversion from Islam: "Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion or to atheism." Article 22, the Cairo Declaration's "free speech" provision, clearly suggests that it is Islam, not the individual, that deserves protection:(a)Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the shari'ah.
(b)Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic shari'ah.
(c)Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith.
In other words, you have the right to free speech unless what you say is found offensive or contrary to Islamic law. This is not freedom, it is theocracy. And as I discussed a couple weeks ago with Jeremy Beahan, the producer of my radio show who is also a philosophy professor, it is important that the left provide a coherent defense of the liberal democratic values of human rights and a coherent critique of policies that violate them, whether those violations are done in the name of Christianity, Islam or any non-religious political philosophy as well.
Failure to do so allows the right to dominate the discussion, which is a very bad thing. The right wing critique of radical Islam, while often accurate in terms of the ideas and actions it is aimed at, is also often accompanied by their own version of Christian chauvinism and/or jingoistic nationalism and bigotry. But this need not be the case. A defense of the universality of human rights can and must come from the left, unaccompanied by a broader hatred of Muslims in general, or jingoism, or any sense of Christian chauvinism.
Indeed, we can look to the critiques offered by moderate Muslims like Muqtedar Khan as a good example of such a critique. Khan has long been urging that the US work with liberal and moderate Muslims against their common foe, reactionary Islamists. And while being a critic of American foreign policy, he has avoided the worst excesses of some factions on the left in playing the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" game.
If Islam is to be humanized it will be through the efforts of scholars like Khan, who are actively working to bring about an Islamic enlightenment and fight against the anti-modernist forces in their own religion, while at the same time providing a solid critique of American foreign policy as helping to feed those anti-modern, anti-Western tendencies. This is very important and I would like to see more liberal scholars taking the lead in doing the same thing.
Politics
Comments
Ed--
I don't think too many on the left see "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" as a viable option. Yeah, a few nuts might, but most organizations I know have been vocal and consistent critics of Islamic theocracies.
Some of that gets lost because they are also critics of US policy for precisely that reason. Most of the governments supported by the US have been and are Islamic theocracies. This has been remarkably consistent over the years.
In Pakistan, the US supported without reservation Musharraf's efforts to destroy the unions and secular opposition -- whenever he asked for help from our intelligence agencies, money, or guns, a planeload was ready. We supported Zia as well.
Our best ally in the Gulf is Saudi Arabia, followed closely by the other Gulf states.
The U.S. supported the Saud family over the democratic opposition from day one. Osama Bin Laden was the one calling for more democracy in Saudi Arabia, not the US.
The U.S., via invading Iraq, managed to destroy one of the more progressive multi-religious/multi-ethnic societies in the region -- Saddam Hussein's dictatorship was brutal and awful, but our plan was to replace him with a dictator (or really, an oligarchy) more to our liking. The result has been an unmitigated disaster for the Iraqis. As Juan Cole put it, one reason there is less violence is the sectarian militias now have to drive a ways to find someone to kill.
And in Afghanistan, the Taleban's forbears, the Mujahedin, were supported by... (go ahead, guess, I'll wait :-) ). The Muhajedin were unapologetically tribal and theocratic.
You want a consistent critique of Islamic fundamentalism from the left, check out The Nation, The Progressive, The Guardian of Britain, Z Magazine, Juan Cole's blog -- I mean, the list is pretty long.
The problem is that such voices get shouted down -- we don't get on Meet the Press because we point out the uncomfortable facts I listed above.
As to the Islamic Declaration of human Rights, well, in one sense it doesn't surprise me that a subset of conservative Islamic scholars would get hip to the methods of the Religious Right. They'd be stupid not to.
But let's be clear as to why these things appear to begin with: our own hypocrisy. We talk a good game about human rights and its universality, but tell me Ed, why any sane citizen of any country would believe for a second that the US would support any democracy at all. I mean, we've got a 50-year record of doing precisely the opposite.
I've said this before: The functioning democracies in the region are Turkey, Pakistan and Iran. And Iran is the only one of the three where the army hasn't anulled the elections. Is Iran a democracy? No, but it is no worse in many ways that Turkey, where speaking against the army gets you jailed and voting for a candidate they don't like is dangerous at best. (I might add that the theocrats in Iran lost a very important battle when they were forced to seat a whole set of candidates they didn't approve of in the last election cycle. Such would be unthinkable in secular Turkey).
The hypocrisy angle is important. Those of us who would describe ourselves as liberals or progressives would say that stopping the hypocrisy is essential to fighting fundamentalism. If you want to pull the rug out from under the Whahabists, you have to offer something else, an alternative that works for people. That alternative will depend on the culture of the people involved -- you have to ask them.
This isn't to say they get to violate certain human rights. But put it this way: human rights are respected in Japan, but I wouldn't argue that their road to democracy was anything like ours. (And contrary to popular notions, they were actually on their way to that before the fascists took power in the late 20s). Costa Rica's democracy looks a little different (no thanks to us) as does Brazil. But the key thing to remember is that no democracy appears -- let alone survives -- without popular support. And getting that support is work. It cannot be imposed from the top.
But that idea never makes it to the talking heads' outlets.
Yes, the Right dominates the discussion. They're the only ones invited, that's why.
Posted by: Jesse | December 30, 2008 10:21 AM
Er, perhaps there is something I'm overlooking but isn't it just a case of calmly explaining that Universal means Universal...?
Posted by: David Durant | December 30, 2008 10:34 AM
And the calm reply would be: "Everyone has the equal right to follow shari'ah, so it is Universal." (We see this same line of sophistry from the anti-gay marriage people: everyone has the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex.)
Also, about the English version being innocuous:
That means that everyone has a right to free expression unless a law is passed, and then they don't. In other words, it's meaningless.
Posted by: jpf | December 30, 2008 11:03 AM
Actually, I'd like to correct myself...
That English translation isn't just meaningless, it's actually worse than the Arabic version. In the Arabic version, "the Law" referred to Shari'ah law, a specific set of rules. If you buy into the Arabic version, you at least know before-hand what expressions are outlawed (+/- some interpretations). But the English version is open-ended. Any form or content of expression could be outlawed under that wording, and you have no way of knowing before-hand what will or won't be illegal. Even Islam could be outlawed and it would be entirely consistent with the wording.
Posted by: jpf | December 30, 2008 11:13 AM
Wouldn't the adoption of a document of this sort impair US efforts to spread conservative Christianity in currently Muslim nations? It should read Mosaic Law, not Shariah. Yes, that sounds much better.
Posted by: kehrsam | December 30, 2008 11:43 AM
Posted by: t | December 30, 2008 11:45 AM
Jesse stated:
"But the key thing to remember is that no democracy appears -- let alone survives -- without popular support"
Grass roots education is the key. This is possible in the new digital age. Especially with young people who crave the lastest technology.
Posted by: King of Ireland | December 30, 2008 11:46 AM
I would like to second Ed's support and his link to Muqtedar Kahn, a good friend of mine who is a consistently thoughtful and articulate critic of authoritarianism of any stripe.
Posted by: James Hanley | December 30, 2008 2:11 PM
TOTALLY off topic, but is someone gonna deal with the spammer "bizimlesohbet" who's been hitting just about every post on every blog here? It's getting to be a bit unnerving to see the same comment EVERYWHERE....
Posted by: G Barnett | December 30, 2008 3:45 PM
Theocracy disguised as democracy (wait a minute, isn't that what some people want here?)
Posted by: Raymond Minton | December 30, 2008 4:39 PM
SLEIGHT of hand.
Posted by: Old Ari | December 30, 2008 5:27 PM
Actually, what is 'Universal' about the UDHR? It isn't ultimately grounded in Science any more than any other sort of culture-bound, human wishful thinking. I'm surprised that Ed would champion something which is, at its basis, frankly irrational.
Posted by: Chris Lasch | December 30, 2008 6:09 PM
Old Ari: SLEIGHT of hand.
And COMPLEMENT in this context.
Posted by: JakeR | December 30, 2008 7:54 PM
"I don't think too many on the left see "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" as a viable option. Yeah, a few nuts might, but most organizations I know have been vocal and consistent critics of Islamic theocracies."
I think it's more a case of political correctness. The left is terrified of discrimination, espicially racism. This is the group that invented affirmative action and employment quotas. Because of this fear, groups on the left are unwilling to pass judgement - to declare blanket opposition to a culture or religion is to them dangerously close to racism or another form of bigotry. It's very hard for them to admit anything negative about any minority group, and even when they do it must immediatly be followed by appologies and excuses.
Posted by: Suricou Raven | December 30, 2008 8:05 PM
By far the best functioning democracy in the region is the one you left out: Israel.
Posted by: Bill Poser | December 30, 2008 10:22 PM
Bill Poser:
If by 'functioning' you mean 'most efficient at stealing/occupying land in defiance of international law', killing indigenous people, or discriminating on the basis of religion, then yes, you are correct.
Posted by: Chris Lasch | December 30, 2008 11:17 PM
Chris:
Israel is far from perfect -- Jimmy Carter's accusation of an apartheid state was a bit overblown but not too far from the truth -- but they are in general democratic, and don't forget how much of their bad press comes from state propaganda generated by repressive neighboring governments.
As for calling Iran a democracy, no. Not even remotely. It has all the structures and procedures of a democratic country, but the ayatollahs don't mind reminding people that they reserve the right to essentially rule by fiat if they wish. Pakistan is barely any better -- the government doesn't have full control over its national territory and it's too soon since Musharraf's departure to really call it functioning.
Posted by: Brian X | December 31, 2008 2:27 AM
Chris Lasch
Actually, what is 'Universal' about the UDHR? It isn't ultimately grounded in Science any more than any other sort of culture-bound, human wishful thinking. I'm surprised that Ed would champion something which is, at its basis, frankly irrational.
Come, chris, tell us more, which part of UDHR is not universal. Which part does not apply to all humans ?
Posted by: T_U_T | December 31, 2008 6:39 AM
Given Jesse's choice of countries, I would have thought that it'd be obvious that the term "functioning democracy" was being qualified in there.
Jesse's point, I think, was to establish how bad the governments supported by the US are, by comparing to countries we can barely call democratic without gagging.
Israel doesn't fit that mold; it's more like the US, democratic and free but with a lot of hypocrisy and jingoism thrown in.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | December 31, 2008 7:10 AM
Suricou--
You are making a classic mistake of many on the right. Criticism of Islamic fundamentalism doesn't mean you necessarily criticize someone for being a minority. Let me explain here the difference: talking about Islam as some kind of pathology in and of itself, or about social problems among non-whites as pathologies that are somehow inherent, that's racist. When people say "you're afraid to say anything bad about a minority group" you are really saying "why can't you just say the brown people are inferior."
The answer is that they aren't, and many of the issues of Islamic fundamentalism bear a striking resemblance to those of Christian fundamentalism. Alabama has a load of evangelical fundamentalists but I am not going to say that people from Europe have a "natural tendency" to be genocidal crazies, or can't run democracies, or whatever, Timothy McVeigh notwithstanding.
Let me lay it out if you don't get it yet:
Islam makes Arabs crazy fundamentalists = racist
Arabs can become crazy fundamentalists = not racist
Bill Poser/Brian X--
Yeah, I left out Israel, but the point was to note Islamic countries. In any case, the point I was making is that Turkey, our BFF in the area, is barely more democratic than Iran, it's just that they are a) our friends and b) secular. But the reason the EU has had problems with admitting them (aside from the undercurrent of bigotry, whcih the Turks are right to point out) is that you have a country that forbade people from giving Kurdish names to their children and has made a policy of suppressing Kurdish culture and killing them when possible. (There is no small irony in that the country most Kurds have fled to is Iran, where they have been treated much better).
Iran has elections, the voting is (by most international observers' accounts) and there is a pretty vigorous media there. In one sense, I'd argue that the local papers and TV stations have a range of opinion that is broadly similar to the US. What? I hear you say. Think of this: in the US, you can be a Ron Paul right winger or a mild liberal a la Obama. That's about as far as it goes in terms of major media outlets (which have shifted pretty far to the right over the last decade or two). In Iran, you can be a reformer or a radical theocrat.
The difference is that in the US the media is self-censoring, and in Iran the government does much of it.
More than that, I mentioned that in Iran, there is a huge internal fight going on over the role of the ayatollahs. Right now the idea is that the religious authorities get to approve candidates to run for office. But that has started to break down, and the ayatollahs lost their most recent battle over seating opposition parliamentarians.
(Ahmedinejad's election was in part a reaction to this, by the way. But the reformers remained in control of the prime minister's office, which is much more important viz. foreign policy -- Ahmedinejad's bluster on foreign is comparable in effect to the secretary of the interior, in the words of Juan Cole).
Now, let's look at Turkey. The military interfered in several elections over the past twenty years, most recently in the 1995 and 1998 cycles. The country was a military dictatorship for several periods between 1945 and the present -- basically whenever the military felt threatened. Oh yes-- any party that threatens the "secular" nature of the nation is banned (with the definition of "threaten" left to the military, essentially).
Pakistan is unstable in no small part because the US made it clear that any dictator who promised a friend and stability would have our support. Musharraf took over from a government that had a serious problem with graft. But all he did was change the recipients, and seriously damaged what democratic institutions the country had.
The whole point I am making is that people judge you by your friends. If you are good friends with John Gotti, i don't want you as mayor.
The same applies to countries. If Turkey is the model of secularism that the US is offering up, it's no wonder the conservative Islamists would respond -- and the Islamic declaration of human rights is a symptom of that.
If our best friend in the region is Israel -- which wasn't willing to accept democracy for Palestinians when the elections didn't go their way, attacks the Palestinian population, and tries to maintain a system designed specifically to deny them their rights, well, what the heck reaction do you expect?
or Algeria. The Islamic parties won the elections in the early 1990s. The secular government decided they wouldn't have it. The result is an ongoing civil war -- the Islamic parties said "well, we tried the ballot box, and that didn't work." The French and US governments both were silent.
Posted by: Jesse | December 31, 2008 8:53 AM
Chris Lasch's characterization of Israel is totally off the wall, but we aren't going to settle the Israel/Palestinian debate here. The relevant point is that Israel allows the expression of any political opinion and the functioning of any party, even parties profoundly at odds with the government. Israel has free elections with universal suffrage and has elected non-Jews to high positions. Israel has an independent and fair judicial system that with some frequency sides with the Arabs. That's a functioning democracy by any standard.
As for Israel not accepting democracy when it doesn't like the results, that is not an accurate characterization of Israel's attitude toward Hamas. Acceptance of democracy does not mean that one has to tolerate in all circumstances the result of democratic decision-making. The Nazis came to power legally, by democratic means. That did not require other countries to accept their policies or to submit to their aggression. By the same token, even if 100% of the population of Gaza fully supported Hamas, that would hardly justify Hamas' aggression and daily war crimes against Israel.
Posted by: Bill Poser | December 31, 2008 1:55 PM
Jesse,
I suggest that omitting Israel from the list of democracies in the region because your focus was on the Islamic countries is a mistake. The fact that paragon of democracy in the region, in the sense both of being ruled by the majority of the population and of respecting civil liberties, is a non-Islamic country is significant: Islam in its mainstream forms is incompatible with democracy.
Posted by: Bill Poser | December 31, 2008 1:59 PM
Come, chris, tell us more, which part of UDHR is not universal. Which part does not apply to all humans ?
All of it. It's really just a bunch of subjective statements made by people with a particular perspective/cultural formation. It's a document of faith, no more grounded in Science than any other religion. Its values are actually more slippery than those enshrined by religions, because the UDHR is more obviously a social construction that can be changed at will.
For example, how can we really say all humans are equal, except in a spiritual sense? Clearly, humans are unequal in many, many ways, and we tacitly acknowledge that despite these lofty aspirations. Science and rationalism lends itself more to eugenics than to starry-eyed notions of human equality, as history clearly shows. Science/rationalism can't tell us why the life of a human being is more precious than that of a cow or a mosquito -- it is folly to pretend that it is the sole or sufficient basis for human rights, or that the UDHR is somehow more legitimate than other cultural constructs regarding ethics.
Posted by: Chris Lasch | January 1, 2009 12:53 PM
I suggest that omitting Israel from the list of democracies in the region because your focus was on the Islamic countries is a mistake. Islam in its mainstream forms is incompatible with democracy.
Indonesia, which practices a far more mainstream version of Sunni Islam than Wahhabist Saudi Arabia, is democratic. It is also far more humane than Israel, which discriminates on the basis of ethnicity in clear violation of democratic norms. They want to get rid of the Palestinians because they know the alternative is a democratic, one-state solution. Zionism is clearly incompatible with democracy.
Also, we shouldn't turn "democracy" into a god. Something can be democratic and wrong-- for instance, when a population votes to oppress a particular group on the basis of ethnicity.
---
One more point to make about the UDHR: it is highly individualistic in nature. This too is an arbitrary cultural bias. It pays no attention to how humans actually are and how they relate to one another, and this reductionist outlook thus neglects to account for many important biologically-rooted social aspects of human existence.
Posted by: Chris Lasch | January 1, 2009 1:50 PM
According to all the evidence that I am aware of, the world is heading rapidly towards a world war between Muslims and non-Muslims. This is not an extreme view. It is just an honest and valid conclusion based on a deep understanding of Islamic ideology and upon a mountain of evidence.
I predict world civil war throughout the multicultural world. Mark these words. Anyone who truly understands Islamic belief, culture and mentality, and is honest, knows why this prediction will come true.
I do not hate Muslims, but I do hate their ideology and beliefs, just as I do not hate the Germans of the 1930s but I do hate their ideology and beliefs. It is always ideology and beliefs (both religious and secular) which lead to war.
Pretending that Muslim beliefs and ideology are not a threat to world peace is to make the same mistake that appeasers made in the 1930s. Pretending that Nazi beliefs and ideology were not a threat did not prevent a war, and making the same mistake today will also not prevent a war. Winston Churchill, the man who identified the Nazi threat, warned that the ideology of Islam threatened the existance of European civilisation. Look up his quotes on Islam, and discover the truth. He is the only politician who can be trusted to tell it as it is.
The only way to avoid the multicultural world war is to begin teaching Muslims why their ideology and beliefs are the biggest threat to peace in this world, and begin teaching Muslims sufficient science for them to understand why there is no afterlife for them to look forward to. It is only when Muslims understand that they've been duped by their own faith that there is any chance for peace in the future.
Posted by: Amina | March 16, 2009 5:47 PM
I'm sorry I missed out on this thread when it was hot. Very thoughtful responses.
Such as this from Chris Lasch:
"One more point to make about the UDHR: it is highly individualistic in nature. This too is an arbitrary cultural bias. It pays no attention to how humans actually are and how they relate to one another, and this reductionist outlook thus neglects to account for many important biologically-rooted social aspects of human existence."
You came to the precipice's edge, yet failed to look over. No, my friend, the propensity to a greater degree of individualism is not yet another "social construct", as is alleged my beloved European peoples are. It is a part of our evolved nature, the product of the unique cold-climate evolved suite of traits my people possess.
"Also, we shouldn't turn "democracy" into a god. Something can be democratic and wrong-- for instance, when a population votes to oppress a particular group on the basis of ethnicity."
There can be nothing moral in the degradation of other people(s). We European ethnonationalists seek not to deny others their humanity, yet, to deny us our peoplehood, and us alone, of all the peoples of the earth, is to deny us our humanity - for European derived is what we are, and what we wish to forever be.
From the article: "Failure to do so allows the right to dominate the discussion, which is a very bad thing."
Yet are those on the right to have no voice? Would the well-laid, long-practiced tack of "dynamic silence" to be plied if you had your way?
"The right wing critique of radical Islam, while often accurate in terms of the ideas and actions it is aimed at, is also often accompanied by their own version of Christian chauvinism and/or jingoistic nationalism and bigotry. But this need not be the case."
There is no "mainstream", "respectable" "right wing critique" of the true threat Islam poses to the West: which is demographic. You know that. I know, I know, Buchanan, Steyn. Give me a break. Is it not glaring that in their analysis what is missing is the prescriptive exhortation to European Man to do what he must, whatever he must, that is: what he ought do, to live, and not die, damnit?
You see, every where we look European Man is passing away, and all you can do, is to parrot boo words with Pavlovian relish. You flatter yourself unjustly if you think it not a product of your faith gene. As for me, I have no faith, only the evolved affinity for my closely-related genetic kin, my people. It is what is best in life.
Posted by: Captainchaos | August 8, 2009 3:26 AM
Captainchaos - You waited so long to post, you wanted to post so eagerly, and yet you managed to say so little in so many words.
a) Any two human beings have been separated from each other by a maximum of 60,000 years or so (between say a European and a Khoisan). This is not enough time for any significant differences to develop between them in a meaningful genetic sense.
b) The Human population had shrunk to a low of approximately 75,000 people at one stage, limiting the genetic diversity of the population still further. In fact there is probably more genetic diversity between any two dogs than humans. A sign of how close we came to extinction ourselves.
Bearing that in mind, what characteristics can be said to be 'European' (what does this mean anyway? How do we measure it? what is the cut-off point?) that are not found in 'non-Europeans'? Are such differences like to make us more or less suited to the current environment(s) we find ourselves in?
I think you'll find that all those 'European Traits' are merely learned behaviours. Anyone can learn them. But should they? Simply saying "we won" does not mean that such 'traits' are, by necessity, 'better' than any others. To do so overlooks the roles of contingency and availability in evolution of systems, these sometimes create sub-optimal results that can be out-competed by other forms.
As to demographics. Muslim populations are not a significant threat to the west if the following are allowed to occur:
1) Political inclusion. (Saying the system is bad is easy; actually making it work is hard. Radicals find they have to comprise to get things done, thus creating a moderate majority]
2) Economic inclusion. [Increased trade and exchange, increases the wealth of the citizenry as a whole. The middle-classes grow, literacy and numeracy improve, education becomes increasingly common. These reduce the hold of religions and other superstitions thus cutting off the power of radical groups]
3) Fostering of the understanding. [ This is particularly important in the face of increased threats to the humans as a whole. Once you can 'see the Earth form space' (so to speak) you realise that which separates us in far, far less than that which we share. (Note: this does not mean forcing one culture on another, but rather, allowing sharing of the best parts of cultures as decided by the individuals themselves)]
If these factors are achieved then the Muslim populations will become demographically identical to western Europeans with one or two generations. Assuming the population initially doubles each generation, this means the expected Muslim population in places such as England will be stable at around 0.75% of the population by the mid-21st century (with migration perhaps 1-2%). Hardly over-running the place. These scare tactics have been used against many, many migrants groups. These groups, have in two or thre generations, become bastions of the community. - DJ
_____
PS: Apologies for the rave.
Posted by: DingoJack | August 8, 2009 4:52 AM
Dingo Jack: "...and yet you managed to say so little in so many words."
I sought to make the moral case for the survival of my people, channeling what meager eloquence I could.
"This is not enough time for any significant differences to develop between them in a meaningful genetic sense."
Well, there is this study:
We have analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers that were typed uniformly in a large multiethnic
population-based sample of individuals as part of a study of the genetics of hypertension (Family Blood Pressure
Program). Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of four major racial/ethnic groups (white, African
American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different geographic locales within the United States
and Taiwan. Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed
near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/
ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity. On
the other hand, we detected only modest genetic differentiation between different current geographic locales within
each race/ethnicity group. Thus, ancient geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified race/
ethnicity—as opposed to current residence—is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population.
Implications of this genetic structure for case-control association studies are discussed. - Tang H, Quertermous T, Rodriguez B, et al. Genetic structure, self-identified race/ethnicity, and confounding in case-control association studies. Am J Hum Genet. Feb 2005;76(2):268-275.
So much for the "social construct" trope - more later.
Posted by: Captainchaos | August 10, 2009 8:01 PM
Bearing in mind my quick study is only of the internet and people such as Captainchaos and David Horowitz and his followers but I have come to the conclusion that the average conservative white males have genetically de-evolved.
The xenophobia they exhibit gets crazier and crazier by the year. But don't let that stop you Captainchaos I like to read your interpretation of the Bell Curve study done on intercity black kids back in the 50s.
Posted by: theroachman | August 10, 2009 8:23 PM
@Captainchaos: Your "meager eloquence" comes accross as psuedo-intellectual bollocks from a white power ranger with delusions of... Well... I think we'll just stop at delusions.
Posted by: Ramel | August 10, 2009 8:41 PM
"David Horowitz"
I am not a follower of Horowitz.
"But don't let that stop you Captainchaos I like to read your interpretation of the Bell Curve study done on intercity black kids back in the 50s."
Does it not strike you as obscene, and dare I say, racist, that Tibetans need justify their existence in terms of "superiority" to Han Chinese in order to be granted the right to the indispensable gaurantor of their genetic continuity - exclusive territory.
Posted by: Captainchaos | August 10, 2009 8:49 PM