rfmcdonald: (Default)
In one of his last posts before Acts of Minor Treason transitions to a mostly photoblog, Andrew Barton has a post describing something important about worldbuilding: a scenario about the future needs to be plausible.

Originally dominated by farmland, ever since the 1950s its 4.8 square kilometers have been one of Metro Vancouver's industrial centers. I walked across it in order to reach the Alex Fraser Bridge, and I've been in few places quite so odd; on Sunday afternoons, it seems, Annacis Island is dead. There are few sidewalks, only a handful of businesses that aren't industrial, and I would be very surprised if anyone lived there. Obviously, I concluded, it would be a great place to put a thriving cityscape, eighty years hence! Annacis Island, a thriving place of adventure where anything can be had for the right price - boasting the largest concentration of parahumans in the Pacific Northwest! And I could develop it without having to worry about annoying reality.

Population? Hmm... something like sixty thousand seems reasonable with enough density, no?

It wasn't until later that I had an opportunity to do the math - and sure, with sufficient density, Annacis Island could theoretically support a population of sixty thousand - but with a population density of 12,500 per square kilometer, twice that of Hong Kong. In some places this would be believable - but even with the Lower Mainland penned in by mountains on one side, ocean on another, and the United States on still another, there's plenty of room to spread out here - and very little motivation to densify to such a degree without an extremely good reason to do so.


This sort of thing applies for all scenarios purporting to predict future events. If you're making a prediction about the future--Europe's going to become Muslim, say--then you have to do your homework to see if the current trends suggest that, and if there's any likelihood of these trends changing abruptly. (No they don't, and no there's much likelihood.) Thinking about triggers for change--like, say, the Annacis Island hyperdensification--is provocative, but you have to think of reasons why. (Extraterritorial alien enclave in the middle of Metro Vancouver, perhaps?)
rfmcdonald: (Default)

  • 80 Beats observes the discovery of a star in the Large Magellanic Cloud, a satellite galaxy of our Milky Way, that's the most massive star discovered to date with a mass three hundred times that of our sun.

  • At the Everyday Sociology Blog, Janice Prince Inniss writes about the rising rates of intermarriage in the United States, with Asians and Hispanics marrying outside their demographic more often than whites or blacks, and some potential partners (whites, mainly) more valued than others.

  • Lawyers, Guns and Money's Robert Farley is properly scathing of a book, Walter Laqueur's The Last Days of Europe, that's terribly sloppy in its argument that Europe is becoming Eurabia.

  • Marginal Revolution quotes from a Stratfor analysis of Greece's situation that's altogether too reductionistic: Greek problems aren't all about geography, people.

  • At the Search, Douglas Todd points out that rumours that Muslim birth rates in Canada are so high that soon we'll be elected Muslim prime ministers are, well, Eurabia.

  • Towleroad's Andy Towle announces that after many years, the Obama administration has helped the International Lesbian and Gay Human Rights Commission to finally gain consultative status at the United Nations, along with other groups. Abroad, a coalition of mainly Muslim countries has opposed the recognition; inside the United States, some Republicans followed suit.

  • Undercover Economist Tim Harford writes about the thriving--and mass popularity--of board games like Settlers of Catan in Germany.

  • Window on Eurasia reports speculations that the recent ouster of the nationalist governor of the Russian republic of Bashkortostan might mean that the Russian government is finally going to place the autonomous ethnic republics more tightly under its control.

rfmcdonald: (Default)
The people who talk about the impending arrival of Eurabia base their argument not only on the--charitably--pretended astronomically high birthrate of "Muslims" but on the weakness and decadence of Europeans, unwilling to defend their proud traditions against arrogant incomers. Right.

Some 57.5 percent of voters supported the ban. The initiative was also supported by the required majority of cantons, with 22 of Switzerland's 26 cantons voting in favor of the ban. The two city cantons of Geneva and Basel-City rejected the proposal, as did two French-speaking cantons, Neuchâtel and Vaud.

[. . .]

the organizers of the campaign managed to turn the dispute over minarets into a symbolic referendum on the influence of Islam. They did not speak much about minarets. Instead, they talked about Sharia law, burqas and the oppression of women in the Islamic world. In the end, even the prominent feminist Julia Onken supported the initiative.

The poster which the organizers used for their campaign showed a number of black minarets resembling rockets standing closely together on a Swiss flag. In front of the flag, a woman stared angrily out from beneath a black burqa. It was an image of a Switzerland that had been taken over by Islam. Minarets are "symbols of power" of a foreign religion, argued politician Ulrich Schlüer, who belongs to the SVP's right wing. The ban, he said, represents a clear statement against their spread.

The debate was largely divorced from the reality of Switzerland. Although around 22 percent of the population is of foreign origin, the country has so far had relatively few problems with its roughly 400,000 Muslims. Most of them are liberally minded Bosnians, Kosovo Albanians and Turks and their approximately 160 mosques are practically invisible. Burqas are seldom seen on Swiss streets and there have never been serious calls for the introduction of Sharia law.

The decision, therefore, does not reflect real problems in Switzerland, but rather a general feeling of unease toward Islam. The issue revolves around a deep-seated fear that society's values could be in danger.


The recent victory in the Swiss referendum of proponents of a cosntitutional ban on the construction of minarets demonstrates pretty strongly that not only the sort of anti-Muslim sentiment Eurabianists say doesn't exist, but that there's a fairly broad consensus on this across the political spectrum. Not that this sort of thing isn't evident across Europe, of course, with everything from bans on conservative Islamic clothing to restrictive immigration laws to strong pan-European opposition to European Union expansion to Turkey demonstrating that, yet again, Eurabianists aren't in contact with reality.
rfmcdonald: (Default)
By now I'd expect, most of you will have read New York Times' "The High Cost of Being a Gay Couple". This article, detailing how same-sex couples suffer financially compared to opposite-sex couples since the US federal government doesn't recognize their marriages, whatever individual states do, is a fairly compelling read, not least because of the numerous parallels with other officially disapproved couples. There are any number of bigots opposed to intermarriage because it'll damage the cultural integrity of the children, and more who oppose unfortunate couplings because they're visit apocalypses on an unwisely approving society, and many more hostile to the idea just because it's icky. Whether it's Danes marrying disfavoured non-EU citizens, Lebanese clerics who want to keep the different breeds of Christians and Muslims separate for their own good (who's "their"? good question), or Israelis who can't get married to people of different religious backgrounds without either frequently demeaning conversions or leaving the country, these couples definitely illustrate the boundaries of what their societies consider to be violations of basic boundaries. If you look at historical examples, like bans on black/white marriage in the United States (for example) or the apartheid-era ban on interracial marriage in South Africa, it's easy to recognize that marriage laws say quite a lot about a particular polity.

Of course intermarriage isn't the only kind of boundary violation out there. In a Financial Times article ("Immigrant Muslims in Belleville", 2 October 2009), Simon Kuper makes the point that French Muslims, far from constituting an irreconcilably foreign body bound to create Eurabia, actually are fairly well integrated into French society and are being changed by France rather more than they are changing their homeland.

Anyone wanting to understand the situation of Muslims in Europe should visit Belleville. The rundown Parisian neighbourhood just east of the city centre is packed with couscous restaurants, Islamic bookshops and French citizens of Arab origin. About 1.5 million nominal Muslims live in the Paris region, more than in any other ­European city.

But the narrow streets of Belleville are also packed with people of ­Chinese, Jewish, sub-Saharan African and middle-class French origin. A class of children pours out of a kindergarten: toddlers of four different colours hold hands while their teachers issue commands in French.

The Moroccan novelist Abdellah Taïa lives in the Belleville building on whose steps, according to legend, Edith Piaf was born. (In truth, “The ­Little ­Sparrow” was born in a local hospital.) “I’m even overjoyed to go to ­McDonald’s,” says Taïa, as he pours a version of Moroccan mint tea ­reinvented by a posh French tea house. “The servers are white, black, Arab, Chinese. It’s almost too philosophical-existential an experience, to see this mélange”. On Taïa’s street, the vagrants are French, Algerian and ­Portuguese. There is a café for white creative types run by Arabs and frequented in the mornings by Chinese businessmen. By the metro around the corner, older Arab men consort with Chinese prostitutes.


The problem is that too many French Muslims are stuck in relatively isolated suburban housing projects, and that many of those who aren't find it exceptionally difficult to get past discrimination on the job markets. One sort of boundary--the idea that French Muslims are legitimate members of French society--has been crossed. Another boundary, their full integration into French society on the same terms as everyone else, remains to be crossed.

What are my culture's inviolable boundaries? I suppose that, as in France, it's the idea that immigrants are rapidly and fully assimilated into their new society. Another might be the idea that multiculturalism, far from ghettoizing immigrants by dividing them into static ethnic groups, is a way to integrate immigrants. Yet another might be violating the belief, done more frequently now than before, that Canada has nothing to learn from the Americans, and another--a specifically English Canadian one, here--might be contradicting the belief that English Canada has always represented Québec fairly and that this province is in fact full of bigots unlike the rest of Canada. As for the question of the couplings I mentioned above, well, Canada has improved significantly, but . . .

What are your culture's inviolable boundaries>
rfmcdonald: (Default)
Over at Demography Matters I've a post up taking a look at Vancouver Sun journalist Douglas Todd's two-pronged attack on Eurabia, touching on the demographic and the cultural issues all at once. I then go on to explore some of the implications. And yes, I'm mentioned by name. (Thanks!)
rfmcdonald: (Default)
I've a post up at Demography Matters linking to Matt Carr's superb rebuttal of the latest Eurabian tome, Christopher Caldwell's Reflections on the Revolution in Europe. Go, read.
rfmcdonald: (Default)
Window on Eurasia's Paul Goble reports on a journalist who, writing in the Moskovskaya Pravda, came up with an article titled "Moskvabad – Capital of Rusostan."

According to Kirill Grishchenkov, “more than half of the marriages in [the Russian] capital are inter-ethnic,” with a large share of those being between ethnic Russian women and Muslim immigrants and with a sizeable proportion of their children lost to the titular nationality of the country (www.mospravda.ru/issue/2009/06/09/article17616/).

And as a result, he says, these “family unions of Muscovites with arrivals from post-Soviet Asia and non-Russian regions of Russian can influence our life already in the near future.” Indeed, he says, the Russian capital is falling into what he calls “a vicious circle,”
from which it will be difficult to escape.

The number of Muslim immigrants is increasing, and their “non-drinking” lifestyle and “romantic” approach is attracting ever more ethnic Russian women. And as the latter marry the former, the city becomes even more attractive as a place for Muslims to come and settle, thus increasing the likelihood that ethnic Russian women will contract even more mixed marriages.

These trends will accelerate further, Grishchenkov says, if Russia forms some kind of “Euro-Asian Union” with Central Asian states, members of whose indigenous populations would then be able to move to Moscow and other Russian cities even easier than they can do at the present time.


This sort of thing is inevitable, really, given the unsettled national frontiers in the former Soviet Union, continuing Russian identity crises, substantial immigration from nominally Muslim countries once part of the Soviet Union, and the war against the Chechens. Certainly Eurabia is a pretty widespread meme, as easily it can be disproved on numerous grounds--like, say, the fact that Muslims behave like real people, not mindlessly machiavellian automatons. The expected references to Israel are included, interestingly, with particular reference to Israel's bigoted lack of civil marriage.

Exactly what impact their arrival in significantly greater numbers than today would have is of course difficult to say, the “Moskovskaya Pravda” journalist continues; “there are many possible scenarios.” But he argues that the “overall tendency is already obvious, and in the worst case, the fate awaiting [Russians] could be like that of contemporary Israel.”

There, the Moscow journalist says, the Palestinians are increasing more rapidly than the Jewish population, not only because they tend to have more children but also because in Grishchenkov’s words some “naïve Jewish girls” are willing to marry them and “in this way increase the Arab population of Israel.”

“It is interesting,” Grishchenkov writes, “that that part of the Israelis who as before believe in the idea of an Orthodox Jewish state are making passionate efforts to limit [such] inter-ethnic marriages.” And no one is upset, he continues, with their frequent and very open discussions about the dangers such marriages pose to the Jewish state.

“But here in Russia,” he continues, “which as before remains true to the ideas of the Communist International, the very raising of such a question is viewed as somehow shameful.” That should change, Grishchenkov says, or in the relatively near future, ethnic Russians will “cease” to feel themselves at home “in their own country.”


It seems to me that Grishchenkov might like to be one of the people running--at least advising--this wise new Russia and chasing the riff-raff out. If nothing else, the fact that he has authored this far-seeing article proves that he is amply qualified to determine who should belong to his nation and who certainly should not.
rfmcdonald: (Default)
While I was reading The Globe and Mail this evening, I turned to Doug Saunders's regular weekly column. This Saturday's column, "The 'Eurabia' myth deserves a debunking", the online version of the dead-tree article "Baby-booming Muslim hordes take Europe? Rubbish!"dealt at length with Eurabianists' lack of knowledge of basic numbers. Then I came to the below paragraph.

“In Europe, the national populations with the highest cohort fertility rates tend to be the northern and western European ones, where secularization is most advanced,” Canadian demographer Randy McDonald wrote. “More religious and conservative societies elsewhere in Europe fare relatively poorly.”


Have I mentioned that I quite like The Globe and Mail?
rfmcdonald: (Default)
Over at Demography Matters, I've posted a link to Himal South Asian, where Mohan Rao's article "Murderous identities and population paranoia" explores the role of prejudice in theories of popular demography, in this case, arguments that Muslims will outnumber Hindus in India that sound quite a lot like Eurabianist silliness.
rfmcdonald: (Default)
I first became familiar with Robert Zubrin through the Mars Direct plan, advanced in his 1992 The Case for Mars, which would see a highly economical spacecraft travel to Mars where crew members would live and work for a year and a half, this extended stay and the return flight enabled by the exploitation of Martian resources in situ. As someone on my friends list who reviewed the book said (and my apologies if I've got the phrasing wrong), the plan seems to be approximately technically correct but really doesn't supply a convincing reason as to why someone would like to travel to Mars, never mind (as Zubrin suggests) colonize it. Still, it was an entertaining enough read when I picked it up as a teenager.

I picked up Zubrin's latest book, Energy Victory, with similar hopes. Most of the chapters were inspired by the reasonably informed technolibertarianism that I'd expected, although Zubrin did seem to be upset about hydrogen fuels and electric cars, did seem to be strongly in support of ethanol, and did make references the the profits earned by states like Saudi Arabia without investments in human capital. It was only when I neared the end that things took a decidedly odd turn, as Zubrin began talking about how developing alternative fuels was essential for the West because the Muslim East and its ideologies and religion failed to nurture individualism and freedom nearly as fully in the Judeo-Christrian West and how this belief system oppositional to us incorporates Baal and Marduk and how we're facing--in Islam as a whole or in Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, I honestly got confused at this point--must defeat by these malign forces by developing alternative fuels so as to deprive fundamentalists of money and--

I don't go looking for this kind of stuff. Really. All I was looking for in Energy Victory was a mildly provocative book-length treatise on energy futures directed towards a popular audience. This kind of stuff really is everywhere.
rfmcdonald: (Default)
Back in April 2004, as a diversion from graduate school, I wrote a post "France, its Muslims, and the Future" that examined the question of whether Muslims would one day outnumber Christians in France and create a République islamique de la France. I concluded that such was quite unlikely, given the general convergence of fertility rates and a fairly high amount of assimilation. I concluded that one explanation for the popularity of Eurabia was the desire, among non-Europeans, for Europe to be punished for its various social, economic, and foreign policy sins.

Back in August 2005, I reviewed the book Watch on the Rhine, a book co-written by Thomas Kratman and John Ringo that prominently featured the SS as valiant warriors protecting Germany against the alien hordes. (I believe that an Israeli featured as a man who had to overcome his prejudice against the noble SS members.) The review got a fair amount of attention, not least because I posted it on USENET's rec.arts.sf.written. I've no idea what Ringo thought of it. I do know that Kratman was so peturbed that he lambasted me on the Baen forums (I'm a sensitive homosexual, apparently) and put a brief quote from my review on his website. I suggested, in my review, that this sort of book represented a worrisome trend in some areas of science fiction, particularly American science fiction.

What are they doing now? Ringo has recently been writing a series in which, as described in [livejournal.com profile] hradska's review, the female characters are mostly sex workers who like being raped and/or torturing/killing people. Kratman has come out with Caliphate, in which the Muslim hordes do take over Europe and make the degenerate Christians of the continent into second class citizens.

At the end of the book, he includes an afterword, apparently confusing total fertility rates with cohort fertility rates, assuming that immigration to Europe is dominated by Muslims, taking worst-case scenarios and rare acts to be entirely representative of the future, and simultaneously providing the standard listing of right-wing policy recommendations for Europe while proclaiming Europe doomed. It's a bit of an embarrassing mess.

A while ago, Demetrios told me that I should look out for the afterword. What did I find there when I opened the pages? Near the beginning of his essay, he refers to "world-famous literary critic, Randy McDonald" (374).

It's been three years. I didn't know I stung that much.
rfmcdonald: (Default)
In a delightful post at A Fistful of Euros, Alex Harrowell examines the ideologues of "Eurabia". The links of their World Council of Families with Qatar goes beyond ironic.
rfmcdonald: (Default)
I've a post up at Demography Matters exploring the interaction between certain brands of conservatism and apocalyptic fantasies about Europe, particularly of the family-hostile continent's demographic collapse and he flipside of Eurabia. Comments, here or there, are most welcome.

(Yes, I expanded upon this post.)
rfmcdonald: (Default)
The below is excerpted from Simon Kuper's Financial Times essay "The crescent and the cross", a review essay concerning four of the most notable books on that subject, written by authors Walter Laqueur, Bat Ye'or, Bruce Bawer, and Melanie Phillips.

A fixed trope of “Eurabia’’ books is the writer behaving as though only he or she and a few other resistance heroes see Europe’s impending doom. Bruce Bawer, a US journalist living in Oslo, credits his aunt for coming up with his title, While Europe Slept, but Melanie Phillips sees Britain as forever asleep too. “Only if we take up this civilisational gauntlet that has been thus thrown down at us will we stop sleepwalking to defeat,’’ she concludes her book. (Phillips writes for the Daily Mail, and reading Londonistan feels like being imprisoned with a never-ending Mail editorial.)

All these authors start with disclaimers that not all Muslims support terrorist jihad. This is then swiftly forgotten as the plans for jihad in Europe are outlined. Ye’or, for whom Muslims are always the same, describes jihad as a 1,400-year-old strategy. Like Bawer, she explains that “they’’ never got over losing Andalusia in 1492.

Mixed with the hysteria are kernels of truth. Phillips’ Londonistan rightly recalls that in the 1990s the British authorities let many radical jihadists settle in London. Some later plotted terrorism against the UK. Phillips leaps from this to claiming that Britons cannot see the terrorist threat. However, this is rather negated by the fact that almost all her information about British terrorism comes from British newspapers.

[. . .]

A favourite rhetorical trick of these writers is the pars pro toto: isolated examples of Islamic extremism come to stand for a vast Muslim movement. It’s true, as Laqueur twice notes, that one group said: “We shall hoist our flags over 10 Downing Street.’’ But this is atypical. European Muslims almost all vote for mainstream parties, mostly of the left. In surveys the great majority profess satisfaction with their lives in Europe.

[. . .]

In the imagined “Eurabia’’, the Muslims are taking over. Europeans aren’t resisting. In fact, it is 1938 again, or in Bawer’s phrase, “Europe’s Weimar moment’’. A keyword of the “Eurabia’’ genre is therefore “appeasement’’ - once of Hitler, now of Muslims. Phillips urges a British-American alliance, as “when they stood shoulder to shoulder against Nazi Germany’’, with the US providing “muscle’’ and Britain “backbone’’. But unfortunately, Britain has gone wobbly. She expects this will prove fatal, because it is correct “at least in part’’ to see “Islam as a successor to Nazism and communism’’. It follows, for all four authors, that another exodus or Holocaust of Europe’s Jews is likely, though Laqueur grants that “by taking a low profile they might be able to survive in the new conditions’’.


Kuper goes on to document the numerous factual errors and ideologically-biased assumptions of these authors, concluding in the end that "the many factual errors in most of these books may be beside the point. The “Eurabia’’ genre does not belong to the “reality-based community’’. Rather, it exists to meet emotional needs. Its anti-Europeanism is a satisfying retort to European anti-Americanism. It also has a political message: if the Europeans, America’s traditional allies, have folded before Islam, then the US must go it alone."

UPDATE (3:55 PM): Links to Wikipedia profiles of the four authors have been added, along with those authors' names.
rfmcdonald: (Default)
Nearly two years ago, Pearsall Helms pointed out in the essay of this post's title that many of the prognosticators like Mark Steyn who predict the imminent Islamization of Europe into a so-called "Eurabia" based on the spectacularly dodgy ignorance and misreading of demographic statistics seem to want this grim dystopic vision to come about.

There is a vein of current right-wing thought that believes that Europe is so decadent that it is on the verge of handing over the continent to sharia and that fifty years hence all that blonde hair in Sweden will be covered in hijab. To this end I find that many of these American 'conservatives' are actively wishing for some kind of terrible collapse in Europe, into communal war or economic destitution or whatever. Why? I suppose that it's their own childish posturing reaction to the childish posturing of elements of the European left that cheerlead on the possibility of American military defeat/economic collapse. It's ridiculous. Most Americans (and the overwhelming majority of conservative ideologues) are descended from European immigrants, and why these people want their ancestral lands to suffer is simply beyond me.


Later in the post, Helms and commenters suggest that these people might want Europeans to suffer horrendous for their ideological impurities and historical sins. I've recently discovered that, earlier this year, British journalist Johann Hari managed to smuggle himself onto a National Review cruise and write up his experiences for The New Republic. It looks like Helms et al were right.

I am standing waist-deep in the Pacific Ocean, indulging in the polite chit-chat beloved by vacationing Americans. A sweet elderly lady from Los Angeles is sitting on the rocks nearby, telling me dreamily about her son. "Is he your only child?" I ask. "Yes," she answers. "Do you have a child back in England?" she asks me. No, I say. Her face darkens. "You'd better start," she says. "The Muslims are breeding. Soon, they'll have the whole of Europe."

[. . .]

The conversation ebbs back to friendly chit-chat. So, you're a European, one of the Park Avenue ladies says, before offering witty commentaries on the cities she's visited. Her companion adds, "I went to Paris, and it was so lovely." Her face darkens: "But then you think--it's surrounded by Muslims." The first lady nods: "They're out there, and they're coming." Emboldened, the bearded Floridian wags a finger and says, "Down the line, we're not going to bail out the French again." He mimes picking up a phone and shouts into it, "I can't hear you, Jacques! What's that? The Muslims are doing what to you? I can't hear you!"

[. . .]

The table nods solemnly before marching onward to Topic A: the billion-strong swarm of Muslims who are poised to take over the world. The idea that Europe is being "taken over" is the unifying theme of this cruise. Some people go on singles' cruises, some on ballroom-dancing cruises. This is the Muslims Are Coming cruise. Everyone thinks it. Everyone knows it. And the man most responsible for this insight is sitting only a few tables down: Mark Steyn. He is wearing sunglasses on top of his head and a bright shirt. Steyn's thesis in his new book, America Alone, is simple: The "European races"--i.e., white people--"are too self-absorbed to breed," but the Muslims are multiplying quickly. The inevitable result will be "large-scale evacuation operations circa 2015" as Europe is ceded to Al Qaeda and "Greater France remorselessly evolve[s] into Greater Bosnia." He offers a light smearing of dubious demographic figures--he needs to turn 20 million European Muslims into more than 150 million in nine years, which is a lot of humping--to "prove" his case.

But facts, figures, and doubt are not on the itinerary of this cruise. With one or two exceptions, the passengers discuss "the Muslims" as a homogenous, sharia-seeking block--already with near-total control of Europe. Over the week, I am asked nine times--I counted--when I am fleeing Europe's encroaching Muslim population for the safety of the United States.

At one of the seminars, a panelist says anti-Americanism comes from both directions in a grasping pincer movement--"The Muslims condemn us for being decadent; the Europeans condemn us for not being decadent enough." Midge Decter, Norman Podhoretz's wife, yells, "The Muslims are right, the Europeans are wrong!" And, instantly, Jay Nordlinger, National Review's managing editor and the panel's chair, says, "I'm afraid a lot of the Europeans are Muslim, Midge." The audience cheers. Somebody shouts, "You tell 'em, Jay!"


As an addendum, it's worth noting that in the America of a century ago, Roman Catholics like Buckley and Jews like Podhoretz would have been suspected by many as being agents of (Anglo-Saxon and Protestant) America's doom. (Canada, too, of course, as elsewhere in the Anglophone world.) Does the ability of members of those once-suspect demographics to propagate borderline-racist slanders and ethnic-minority-conspiracy theories show just how thoroughly those denominations have been accepted as pure laine among Anglophones?
rfmcdonald: (Default)
The Financial Times has an ongoing series of articles examining MUslims in Europe, particularly Muslims in the European Union. Two articles in this series are of note.



Jytte Klausen, a professor of politics at Brandeis University who studies European Muslims, says: “It’s being advocated by people who don’t consult the numbers. All these claims are really emotional claims.” Sometimes they are made by Muslim or far-right groups, who share an interest in exaggerating the numbers.

Nominal Muslims – whether religious or not – account for 3-4 per cent of the European Union’s total population of 493m. Their percentage should rise, but far more modestly than the extreme predictions. That is chiefly because Muslims, both in Europe and the main “emigrating countries” of Turkey and north Africa, are having fewer babies.

“Nobody knows how many Muslims there are in Europe,” says Ms Klausen. Few European states ask citizens about religious beliefs. Estimates based on national origins suggest that 16m nominal Muslims live in the EU. There are about 5m in France, 3.3m in Germany and 1.5m-2m in the UK.

“Berlin is a Muslim city, Paris is a Muslim city, and even Madrid or Turin to some degree,” Jocelyn Cesari, an expert on European Muslims at Harvard University, has said.

The EU’s most Islamic country is Bulgaria, where 1m Muslims account for about one-seventh of the population.

But the birth-rates of Europe’s Muslim immigrants, though still above the EU’s average, are falling. The fertility rate of north African women in France has been dropping since 1981, say Jonathan Laurence and Justin Vaisse in their book Integrating Islam. “The longer immigrant women live in France, the fewer children they have; their fertility rate approaches that of native-born French women.”

At the last count Algerian women living in France averaged an estimated 2.57 children, against 1.94 for French women overall.

The decline in birth-rates is more dramatic in north Africa itself. Women there use contraceptives more and have babies later than they did. In Algeria and Morocco 35 years ago, the average woman had seven children. According to the United Nations, it is now 2.5 in Algeria (about the same as Turkey), 2.8 in Morocco, and falling in all of them. The US Central Intelligence Agency’s World Factbook has even lower estimates of Algerian, Tunisian and Turkish birth-rates: below France’s rate and below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman. Emigrating countries are no longer exporting high birth rates to Europe.




An overwhelming majority of French people regard Muslim immigrants as French, see them as suitable marriage partners for children and do not consider them threats to security. This may seem surprising less than two years after the riots in French suburbs and three years after France banned Muslim headscarves from schools.

But Patrick Simon, a demographer at Ined demographic institute in Paris, said the riots of November 2005 had not been Islamist revolts against France. Rather, the main grievances were economic and against the police. “There was a social motor, not a religious motor,” he said.

Fewer than a quarter of Spaniards saw the presence of Muslims as a threat to national security or thought Muslims had too much political power. Only a fifth said they would object to their child marrying a Muslim.

The US prides itself on integrating immigrants more successfully than European countries. However, 40 per cent of Americans with children said they would object to their children marrying Muslims. Mr Bleich suggested this might be because more Americans than Europeans belonged to churches. “If you asked someone in an evangelical church, ‘Would you object if your child married a Catholic?’ you might get quite high numbers too.”

A third of Italians and Germans, and 46 per cent of Britons felt Muslims had too much political power. Of the British figure, Mr Bleich said: “That radically over- estimates the amount of power Muslims have.” Only four of 646 members of parliament are Muslims, and Muslims had failed to change Britain’s Iraq policy.

The poll’s methodology weighted the sample for factors such as age and gender but not for religious belief, and the number of self-declared Muslim respondents appears low. In France, Muslims are thought to represent 8-9 per cent of the population. In Germany and the UK, the figure is closer to 3-4 per cent. But self-declared Muslims represented only 1 per cent of the respondents in these three countries.

Profile

rfmcdonald: (Default)rfmcdonald

February 2021

S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
212223242526 27
28      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 14th, 2025 04:57 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios