signandsight is funded by Kulturstiftung des Bundes

Features » Politics And Society

Comments on the article: The multicultural issue

22/03/2007

 
Dionysius
(3 comments)
registered on 18/04/2007
The originalite of the western culture
It's only with the greek civilisation and then with Rome and modern Europe that appeared in a culture not really a total modesty, but a self critical point of view inside this same culture. With Montaigne for instance and of course even more witt Montesquieu, the theme of the relativity of the cultural values is developped. That means that we have no right to say that a culture is inferior to the our culture just because it's different, and the consequence of this attitude is that we should be able to look to our own culture as we were outsiders. But this principle, in Plato, Aristote, or the enligntment philosophers (french and american) doesn't mean that all the cultures are of equivalent, but that they must be judged, including ours, impartially at the light of reason. The originality of the western civilization is to have created a tribunal of human values, human rights and rational criteria at the light of which all civilisations must be examined. That is contrary to the post modernist idea that assert that all civilisations are equivalent with the logical conclusion that we don't believe in any values.
Created on 18/04/2007 | Reviewed on 18/04/2007
› Report this comment to editors
to rate a comment › login
Rating: (0 users rated)
 
salad
(2 comments)
registered on 03/04/2007
Quote:
Sjoerd DeJong
Sjoerd: With So many supporters, too bad Ayaan couldn't find an apartment building who wouldn't take her to court to get her evicted. Indeed, the Dutch loved Ayaan! And were begging for her to stay. Your insight on how much the establishment loved her was "So bang on", I mean Really! (Maybe if you don't want Ayaan's "friends" to take swipes at your "Friend" Buruma, then you should urge him to not make his attack personal against Ayaan)
Created on 03/04/2007 | Reviewed on 03/04/2007
› Report this comment to editors
to rate a comment › login
Rating: (0 users rated)
 
salad
(2 comments)
registered on 03/04/2007
Nude Beaches versus Beaches for Women Only... Why stop there!
To the "intellectuals" who use Nudist Beaches as reason to support Female-only beaches, let's highlight the difference: 1- A non-nude person can go a nudist beach. A male person cannot, by definition, enter a Women's only beach. The former is "inclusive", the latter is not. 2- Why protect only a female's interest in a Women-only beach. After all, heterosexual males might be interested in ensuring that no homosexual male is attracted to them. Heterosexual women may demand likewise. Perhaps the State should divide its shoreline to a "Mixed Beach", a "Women's only beach", "a Straight man only beach", a "Straight Woman only beach"... 3- Why stop there. After all, if "women" don't want to arouse the interest of men, and still feel the State should offer them a reserved area to swim, then why not be a little more selective. How about White women not interested in attracting the attention of Black males be secured a location to enjoy their preferences! It is not the business of the "Multi-cultural" state to pander to the restrictions and interests of its constituents. If you want a mosque or a church, or a woman-only beach. Buy such a property with private money and set it up! But don't expect the tax-payer to foot the bill. Enough with the ridiculous non-sense being spewed from so-called "Intellectual" minds.
Created on 03/04/2007 | Reviewed on 03/04/2007
› Report this comment to editors
to rate a comment › login
Rating: (0 users rated)
 
Sjoerd DeJong
(2 comments)
registered on 11/03/2007
In defence of Ian Buruma (2)
I am afraid Mr. Buruma’s book Murder in Amsterdam was up for the same treatment once the friends around Ms Hirsi Ali noticed its message would not be their own belligerent one. And instead of discussing M. Buruma’s book, which would add to his air play, his critics tried to get rid of it by questioning its authors veracity. Admittedly, Mr Buruma made some factual errors in his book (calling Paul Scheffer, another of Ms Hirsi Ali’s friends, a former ‘maoist’, while he had been a communist). Such mistakes are unfortunate, of course, but they do not justify the present campaign against his book. Nor should they draw attention away from its message, wich I have read as saying: in order to solve our problems with islam and islamic immigrants, we would do well to come down from Enlightenment Olympus, and get to work. Or is the hidden message to muslims really: we don't want you here at all?
Created on 17/03/2007 | Reviewed on 17/03/2007
› Report this comment to editors
to rate a comment › login
Rating: (0 users rated)
 
Sjoerd DeJong
(2 comments)
registered on 11/03/2007
In defence of Ian Buruma
In defense of Ian Buruma’s book, I would like to say that it’s by far the best piece of reportage by a foreign writer about recent events in Holland I have read. Mr. Buruma does a wonderful job of giving readers not only much of the content of the current fierce and sometimes coarse Dutch debate on islam, muslims and multiculturalism, but also an interpretation of its historical context, and profiles of its main protagonists. You certainly do not have to agree with Mr Buruma’s (mostly quite modest and low-key) interpretation of events and personalities to enjoy the book and fully appreciate its reportorial virtues. So I think it’s a pity, although quite predictable (as I will try to explain), that Murder in Amsterdam has become the focal point of a polemic in which the author is cast as a relativist appeaser who does not understand the dangers of radical islam. Reading the terminally overheated contributions of Mr. Pascal Bruckner and Mr. Paul Cliteur, you might think they consider themselves lone heroes trying to keep Mr. Buruma’s sordid little book from triggering the final decline of the West. Why so much anger? As I see it, Mr. Buruma’s only 'sin’ as an appeaser of islam is almost hidden in the conclusion of his book, where he cautiously steps in for Amsterdam mayor Job Cohen. This well-known Dutch administrator, a social democrat, feels that all-out attacks on islam as a source of backward ideas, repression of women and terrorism are not helping the cause of integrating muslims. Cohen wants to work with muslims, and their organisations, to promote their role in Dutch society, without depicting them as a backward lot who will first have to completely shed their muslim identity in order to join western society. Buruma gives this pragmatic, albeit controversial approach ‘the benefit of the doubt’- and lo and behold, suddenly he’s in the same defeatist league as Neville Chamberlain. For readers less familiar with the current Dutch debates on islam and multiculturalism, it may be useful to outline some facts that critics of Mr. Buruma mostly tend to gloss over, but which may explain some of the ferocity of the campaign against his book. First of all, Mr. Job Cohen and his liberal pragmatism have been under constant attack in Holland the past few years from supporters of a more belligerent stance towards islam and muslims. This radical approach was championed by the now famous Ms. Ayaan Hirsi Ali and her circle of supporters. Mr.Buruma in his book voices doubts about Ms Hirsi Ali’s approach, and this dissident stance has apparently angered her friends. Of course, they have a lot to protect, including the public image of themselves as defenders of freedom and that of Ms. Hirsi Ali as ‘a political refugee form Western Europe’, as The Wall Street Journal has recently labeled her. Almost everybody who has joined the Dutch debate (including Mr. Buruma) agrees on the fact that Ms. Hirsi Ali is an exceptionally courageous woman, who lives under serious threats from islamic extremists who want to see her killed because of her outspoken opinions. But the widespread idea that she was ostracized by the Dutch elite, or ‘abandoned’ by her adoptive country, is simply not true. On the contrary, when Immigration secretary Rita Verdonk notoriously announced this spring that she had no choice but to revoke Ms Hirsi Ali’s citizenship (because it turned out she had misstated facts on her asylum application), the center-right administration of prime minister Jan Peter Balkenende was forced to resign. Political parties and media turned out in support of Ms Hirsi Ali, who got to keep her Dutch passport. Ironically, Ms Hirsi Ali herself had earlier, in an op-ed piece endorsing a hard line immigration policy, singled out Somalian asylum seekers as notorious liars and cheats because of their ‘group mentality’. In reality, Ms Hirsi Ali enjoyed the active support of the Dutch elite right from the start of her spectacular career. Pominent Dutch journalists, academics, politicians and writers served as her ideological and political coaches, helped her compose articles and speeches, and even made travel arrangements. Sociologist Yolanda van Tilborgh concluded in a recent study on the media reception of Ms Hirsi Ali that her position in the Dutch media was ‘strong’, and that her supporters had alwas been better organized than her detractors. The supporters of Ms. Hirsi Ali have made a habit of attacking high-profile publications or authors who doubt the correctness or the beneficial effects of Ms Hirsi Ali’s (or their own) radical views on the dangers of islam and the evils of multiculturalism. When Dutch writer Geert Mak published a left-leaning, but conciliatory pamphlet after the murder of Theo van Gogh, appealing to Dutch traditions of tolerance and accommodation, he was villefied (by among many others Mr. Cliteur) as a second-rate historian and a left-wing ‘millionaire’ who should stay out of the debate (his booklet sold 1
Created on 17/03/2007 | Reviewed on 17/03/2007
› Report this comment to editors
to rate a comment › login
Rating: (0 users rated)

Write a comment

You have to › login to write a comment.