15th July 2010, 6:40 PM
I don't really wish to continue this but I'll just quickly respond to a few points.
I don't really know, but it doesn't involve banning the burqa. I've heard other people say that if France really cared about Muslim women's rights and liberation, they would have done more along the lines of creating things like support shelters and an environment where women from oppressed and abused homes can seek help and protection, allowing them to express themselves freely without blantantly infringing on their religion. Something along those lines, I guess, but really all I know is what I don't support.
Fine, but the problem comes when people move into new cultures and act within the rules, but then new ones are added or changed in direct response to their presence in an attempt to control them.
It's because you're reading Huntington wrong, just like you were the last time you alluded to him. Huntington's main point is that what matters most is culture, and that the main source of conflict and violence will come when one culture feels threatened or dominated by another. It's one of the most popular explanations of contemporary international relations because it appears to spookily predict 9/11 (it was first published in the early '90s and refined since then) and often comes off as an easy way to describe Al Qaeda and Islam/Western relatons and the like. It states that because of the new globalized world where the Western presence is so pervasive, a clash is inevitable. I also dislike the theory for a variety of reasons, primarily the author's belief in universalism and its fearmongering ways, but one thing it's not about is willful ignorance. The fact that it contains the word "Clash" in its very title should be enough to indicate that it's not about one culture pretending another doesn't exist.
Quote:Your idea of "action" sure does seem to involve a lot of doing nothing, and allowing violently sexist societies to enforce their own laws even in Western countries. That is absurd and horrible, and that is the point here -- when a person moves to France, or America, they should expect to have to learn to believe in and follow the laws and governmental philosophies of that country. The problem Europe is having is that too many people are coming into Europe, but expect to keep their own, anti-free cultures even in Europe. Keep their own culture? Certainly, fine with me, diversity is good. Keep their own violent, sexist ways? NO! You keep trying to equate the two, as if opposing sexism is opposing cultures, but that is simply not the case. The two are different!
So, to be clear -- what kinds of actual actions are you supporting?
I don't really know, but it doesn't involve banning the burqa. I've heard other people say that if France really cared about Muslim women's rights and liberation, they would have done more along the lines of creating things like support shelters and an environment where women from oppressed and abused homes can seek help and protection, allowing them to express themselves freely without blantantly infringing on their religion. Something along those lines, I guess, but really all I know is what I don't support.
Quote:In Europe or America there are different expectations for people, and we should expect people to follow our rules and understand our cultures if they are going to stay here, yes?
Fine, but the problem comes when people move into new cultures and act within the rules, but then new ones are added or changed in direct response to their presence in an attempt to control them.
Quote:Oh yeah, and on a related note, for some reason what you said there reminded me of Huntington's theory of the clash of civilizations -- that the world's cultures should stay apart and separate. We should stay out, civilizations cannot get along, all we can do is stand back and let them do their thing...
It's because you're reading Huntington wrong, just like you were the last time you alluded to him. Huntington's main point is that what matters most is culture, and that the main source of conflict and violence will come when one culture feels threatened or dominated by another. It's one of the most popular explanations of contemporary international relations because it appears to spookily predict 9/11 (it was first published in the early '90s and refined since then) and often comes off as an easy way to describe Al Qaeda and Islam/Western relatons and the like. It states that because of the new globalized world where the Western presence is so pervasive, a clash is inevitable. I also dislike the theory for a variety of reasons, primarily the author's belief in universalism and its fearmongering ways, but one thing it's not about is willful ignorance. The fact that it contains the word "Clash" in its very title should be enough to indicate that it's not about one culture pretending another doesn't exist.