2009/06/30

Europe-bashers and their next misunderstanding

.
I've already blocked or deleted about a dozen comments that were insulting to Germany/Germans in general or to Europe/Europeans in general. Unsurprisingly, there was never anything substantial in those comments, just mere aggression and offensive behaviour.

One of the Europe-bashers' ideas seems to look like this:

The U.S. is great and powerful, therefore Europe isn't.
A weak Europe cannot defend itself.
Well, Europe wouldn't event try.
They're a bunch of people who surrender.
They already surrendered to the Muslims without a fight.
They're already doomed & lost.

The background is - obviously - that there's a significant Muslim minority in Europe.

This minority is noteworthy in Britain (South Asians, especially Pakistanis), France (from Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia) and Germany (from Turkey), for example.
The British and French example are rooted in their colonial past while the German example is rooted in a policy of inviting South Europeans and Turks to work temporarily in Germany*.


I've actually already encountered people who tried to tell me that Muslims would be a majority in a generation. I have a *low* opinion of that opinion (and their math skill).


There's a new study (and therefore articles) about Muslims in Germany, and I expect that it's going to feed the trolls.


There's a title over the title: "Challenging stereotypes".

The article and the study summary are worth reading.
Seriously; read it!

It's pointless the repeat it here, so I'd like to add my take on the topic of "Muslims in Europe".


They're not a bloc, and especially not an organized one. Most of them are simply a part of the European lower(-earning) classes, with sub-cultures just like indigenous lower class people.

* The median/average Education is low.

* The median/average income is low.

* Almost none are working in the state's institutions of power (police, courts, military).

* They lack political representation; Muslim members of parliament are rare exceptions.

* The degree of political organisation (political parties, national clubs) is close to non-existing.

* They're not ethnically homogenous. The "Turks" in Germany aren't all "Turks", for example. We have both Turks and Kurds here. They would never ever unite to topple the Germans.

* The 2nd and 3d generation Muslims are quite unlike the 1st generation and therefore don't really have the same culture as the 1st generation's homeland.

* Median/average Muslims in Germany aren't very religious. I have yet to see a Turk who interrupts work for one of the daily prayers or even prays in my field of view. Here are very few mosques in relation to the Muslim population.

* The median/average fertility is higher, but simple math keeps them from becoming a majority for many generations.

* We have quite few new Muslim immigration in Germany as far as I know. The last immigration wave came rather from Russia (better to avoid that topic...I don't really *like* our policy in this regard).

We had no census since 1987 (next is planned for 2011) in Germany, so there's little hard data on Muslims in Germany. Even the data from the new study is probably not very accurate.

Here's a graphic that helps to get the *take-over by baby boom* myth back to earth:


It's about the development of birth rates.
"Türkinnen in T." = Turkish females in Turkey
"Türkinnen in D." = Turkish females in Germany
"Deutsche" = Germans
"Deutsche Musliminnen" = German female Muslims

(Keep in mind that fertility is just one side of the coin; the other one is mortality, and I suspect that's higher as well.)

The data tells the obvious; they're humans just like us and kind of converge. There's no way how they could outnumber "Christian" or "Atheist" Germans with status quo fertility in this century.
And keep in mind; they're not a homogenous bloc; Turks and Kurds are more friendly to Germans than to each other.

Sadly, the intense and repeated B.S. propaganda about the issue of Muslims in Europe has mislead even many of those who otherwise have rather reasonable ideas. I know several such examples personally.


Oh, by the way; the unspectacular percentages of Muslims in Europe.
France: less than 10%
Germany: about 5%
UK: less than 3%
Spain: at most about 2%
Italy: less than 2%

The only European state that suffered from anything like a Muslim take-over was Yugoslavia. The Serbs "lost" Kosovo because the Muslim Albanians settled in Kosovo and achieved majority status long ago.
We actually helped the Kosovars to achieve a final success.
I suspect that this Kosovo story has inspired the outlandish myth that European countries like France will be taken over by Muslims soon.


I'd like to suggest that next time somebody approaches you with a wild opinion about Muslims taking over Europe you either tell him some facts or just smile at him. The myth is not worth spreading.

Muslims in Europe won't take-over European states anytime soon, they're simply no security hazard of that scale.

Sven Ortmann

*: That was a quite stupid and despicable policy in my opinion. The foreign workers were called in to solve a workforce shortage. I don't accept "workforce shortage" as a problem at all. Another name of it: Full employment.
To "solve" this "problem" was not in our interest. A proper approach would have been to invest excess capital in foreign countries or to reduce the national savings rate.

edit:
There's another debunking blog post about the "Muslim takeover" hysteria at the Tiny Frog blog. I didn't even know the video in question, I was merely annoyed by recurring distribution of the myth distribution through other channels.
.

14 comments:

  1. I'd rather agree that we won't be overrun by Muslim in the forseeable future. But do you think (because I really do not know) the data you presented here and therewith your conclusions are valid in case of all immigrants or people with foreign ancestry living in Germany? If I remember correctly their numbers count about 20% of the total population after all.

    ReplyDelete
  2. We've all got foreign ancestors...I've got some French Huguenot refugees in my father's line.

    The 20th and 21st century immigrants (excluding WW2 refugees) have such a share, but they're not all identical with Muslims.

    The first wave of foreign workers had a lot of Italians, Spanish, Portuguese. The Post-Cold War immigration wave was mostly German-Russians.

    We've also got considerable numbers of EU citizens living close to (and on our side of) the border.

    There's nothing in sight that could unite them, and at least four of our five major parties are acceptable to 'foreigners' with German citizenship.

    In 'worst' case: Divide et impere.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Of corse I am aware of the heterogene "ethnicity" of all western societies. And it is also obvious that they're not all muslims. Therefore one cannot speak of a foreign conspiracy to overthrow the "Deutschtum". Especially considering the first statement that's particularly redicolous. What I ment was how optimistic are you in regard to their integration given that there is so much talk of parallel societies?

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Muslim overrunning Europe started with false statistics being repeated, (and yes they were Americans who started it!)

    Sven I disagree on what people say about Europe (being weak, surrendering to Muslims etc.), I get a lot of that BS also!

    but surrendering to the Muslims without a fight?

    that doesn't make any sense!

    people who say or think that don't seem to understand that Muslims are people too!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Integration happens on the individual level in my opinion. Some integrate well, others don't. that won't change. This applies to other subcultures (like punks) as well.

    The recent emphasis on education will do some good for foreign people here.


    @anonymous troll who got his comment blocked:
    "lower class" is not a Freudian slip as you meant with your mind full of prejudice and hate.
    It's the correct sociological term.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't think that Europe will be over-run with muslims. However, I think that the paranoia has its basis in two realities: demographic trends seem to suggest that muslims will rapidly become more and more prevalent in European societies, and Muslims in Europe tend to not assimilate as well as their American counter-parts.

    Though America is a largely White and Christian dominated society, there is no national or ethnic affiliations of that sort (only among racial supremacists). You can be American whether you are of Arabic, Jewish, White, African, Asian, etc. decent. In many European countries (my family has experienced this first-hand) the situation is exactly the opposite. Your family could have lived in France for seven generations, but if you are of Moroccan decent, you will never be "French." You can never achieve that national identity.

    Therein lies the danger that some of these people are talking about. Since muslims cannot assimilate properly, they not only tend to create a subculture of their own, they also become radical as they feel resentment. It is a difficult fact to face, but if Europe had kept the Jews and kept out the muslims, she wouldn't be in this mess (the mess being that she is subjected to fits of paranoia by her strongest ally and contains people that want to destroy her values and pervert their religion and cause problems for moderate muslims).

    ReplyDelete
  7. Some of our Muslims are from Bosnia, and I believe that they can easily get accepted as "Europeans".
    The same should be true for people of mixed descent.

    I think it would be inappropriate to call Turks with Turkish citizenship but no German citizenship "Germans" or "Europeans".
    The conditions for getting citizenship aren't very difficult - many of those who didn't get citizenship don't want it.

    I'm not sure that your description of the U.S. is accurate; I've encountered Americans who did not accept Hispanics (not the same as Muslims, of course) as "American" or as citizens.

    Their situation is comparable with non-EU foreigners in Germany, who are mostly foreign workers (at least in theory) and many don't have German citizenship.

    The overall integration in the future is yet to be determined.
    Their integration in the past was hampered by the notion that their presence isn't permanent, that they would/should return at age 60+.

    Assimilation isn't necessary anyway; we should just settle conflicts just like any other conflict between subcultures.
    Every situation has its subcultures; it's pointless to strive for a homogenous culture.

    So far most conflicts/problems have their roots in the income situation; and this has its roots in education.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hey Paul, how does your comment here

    "The Muslim overrunning Europe started with false statistics being repeated, (and yes they were Americans who started it!)"

    fit with your own blog post a week ago?

    http://www.pauliddon.net/2009/06/islamic-europe-in-mere-few-years.html

    ReplyDelete
  9. hey Sven

    that's a good point, I thought these statistics were correct for a time!
    but I thought it was enough to agree with Nicolas to clarify his point

    anyway I updated it
    thanks for your concern!

    and sorry for any misunderstanding!

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm not sure what's been said, but it is a matter of demographics, and that equally applies to the US. France has about 18 percent Muslim population the last time I checked but by 2012 half of the 18 year olds were supposed to be of Muslim descent. The "French" don't have children so it's more then likely that someone who does will eventually get the place and for all I know it could be the Poles.

    How many of those 18 YOs are practicing Muslims I have no idea. If I recall, and admittedly it's been five or six years since I gave a damn about Europe or anywhere else (The US has plenty of it's own problems), Germany had the least number of Muslims of any Western European Country. However, historically it's always a matter of demographics and Germans have few children while "Turks" do.

    For an American to care about this issue is ridiculous since Mexicans, who aren't assimilating, will be in the majority way before Europe is overrun by "Muslims". And once again it's about demographics. They have kids while most ("white") Americans have 1.

    And let's assume that the worst that's being said about Muslims is true. What danger do they represent to the US? I say none.
    Unless we help them, which we are at present, they can't even produce enough fuel for their rockets. Jihad and martyrdom seem scary on the surface but as most American soldiers know, Martyrdom is not the first choice of most holy warriors. Nuking threat of Nuking them is good enough to keep them in line. If this was the North Vietnamese I'd be worried, but the great majority of Muslim nations can barely feed themselves without a great deal of western assistance and even if they did take over Europe the US should go into the business of feeding and providing Iphones to them.

    We're broke as a nation and unless we start producing something our wars will be very sad affairs. The withering body of the US economy is going to teach us a great lesson about reality.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I should also like to add that I've never felt that Europe was weak or needed to be defended by us. That's why I've been wanting out of NATO since the early 1980s and angrily talking about it since the fall of the Soviets. American pride made it easy for others to manipulate us into taking on a responsibility that was not ours. I won't even go into all the wasted money.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Emery; the Muslim population of France is not fully known because they don't ask for it in census and similar.
    It's believed to be less than 10%.

    Birth rates are different between indigenous and immigrant populations, but they converge; the difference isn't very drastic.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm going to write this post in German. Quite frankly, I don't see how this topic is anyone's business but ours, we don't need arrogant Americans spweing their ignorance on something they don't understand. To those who are truly interested and actually give a damn, I apologise.

    Zum U21-EM-Sieg gegen England am Montag schreibt die Herald Tribune: Multicultural Germany Is on the March

    Die Frage für mich ist, kann sich die Bundeswehr davon eine Scheibe abschneiden? Was macht die Bundeswehr, um junge Migrantenkinder in ihre Reihen aufzunehmen? Wenn junge Migranten für sich die Entscheidung treffen, sie wollen lieber für ihre Wahlheimat als ihre ursprüngliche Heimat kicken, sollten diese Menschen dann nicht auch bereit sein, für ihre neue Heimat zu kämpfen und zu sterben? Auf die schnelle konnte ich keine brauchbaren Zahlen finden (bspw. vom SoWi Institut der Bw). Ich weiß nur noch, mal etwas Positives über Deutschrussen gelesen zu haben. Der Name Sergej Motz fällt mir da spontan ein ... aber Deutschrussen sind ja auch erheblich besser integriert als Muslime.

    Sollte innerhalb der Bundeswehr vielleicht mehr Fokus auf die Integration und Rekrutierung von Migranten als auf die von Frauen gerichtet werden? Langfristig wird uns das sonst, vermute ich mal, in den Arsch beißen. Wenn die Bundeswehr jetzt schon von der Bevölkerung abgekapselt ist, was ist dann erst, wenn Migranten einen erheblich wichtigeren Beitrag zu unserer Gesellschaft leisten, aber in den Streitkräften überhaupt nicht vertreten sind? Was ist dann erst mit Rechtsextremismus in den Streitkräften? Die Wehrpflicht hat dahingehend auch völlig versagt, auch wenn in Sonntagsreden gerne auf ihre integrierende Funktion hingewiesen wird. Diese Illusion vom "Spiegel der Gesellschaft" sollte endlich mal zerschlagen werden. Wie kann man ein Problem beheben, wenn man seine Existenz leugnet?

    Aber guter Blogpost. Ich kann Ihnen nur Harald Schmidt nahlegen: "Die Amerikaner meinen, ohne die USA wären wir heute eine sozialistische Sowjetrepublik. Ich meine die Amerikaner wären ohne uns Europäer heute noch Indianer." :-)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ich bin nun schon einige Jährchen außer Dienst, aber damals (90er) war Rechtsradikalismus mir nur äußerst indirekt (ein anstößiges Poster in einer Unteroffiziersunterkunft) aufgefallen und ausländisch wirkende Soldaten (u.A. ein wirklich recht dunkler Inder oder so) schienen problemfrei Dienst zu tun.

    Das größere Problem sind sowieso nicht Rechtsradikale, sondern Zivilversager mit weicher Birne in Unteroffiziersdienstgraden. Die Rechtsradikalen sind da sozusagen als Unterkategorie enthalten.

    In einem Stützpunkt gab es eine Geschichte, dass einst ein Soldat in einer Kneipe von Portugiesen verprügelt worden sei (dort wohl einer erheblich große Minderheit), was eine Stunde später mit einer Kneipenschlägerei in Kompaniestärke geregelt worden sei.
    Ich denke allerdings, man hätte Portugiesen auch durch Fußballfans Verein XY ersetzen können mit identischem Ausgang.

    Auffällig war beim Bund natürlich, dass Türken nicht zu sehen waren.


    Ich persönlich denke, dass sich bei den Türken vielleicht bei der letzten WM etwas geändert hat, als sie nach dem Ausscheiden der türkischen Mannschaft ihrerseits deutsche Fahnen (zumindest hier im Ort) aus den Fenstern hängten, Wimpel an die Autos montierten und später mit uns mitfieberten.
    Solche Dinge können langfristig die Einstellung auch zu erzdeutschen Institutionen wie Bundeswehr und Polizei ändern.

    ReplyDelete

Use a nickname and stick to it! I may block anonymous comments. Offensive comments may also be blocked, in part due to the duties of a blogger in Germany.