Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.

Eurabia = Europe sucks

by Jerome a Paris Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 04:56:03 AM EST

Shorter Economist: "Eurabia" is scaremongering, but we'll indulge in it anyway, to point out, as usual, that Europe sucks and America rules.

But now that they are giving it the legitimacy of their front page, with the usual French bashing (calling the young rioters of last November "Muslims" is simply plain false, and the image of the Eiffel tower is anything but subtle), expect more hand-wringing about Europe's seeming unability to deal with its own problems.


Display:
It makes a person wonder who is really behind this...campaign?

"Once in awhile we get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if we look at it right" - Hunter/Garcia
by whataboutbob on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 05:54:17 AM EST
Right, this is a well-$-lubricated campaign against progressive Europe. There is a steady interest behind it.
by das monde on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 06:05:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yeah, the author really hammers the point.

Britain's "Stop the War" movement, which organised huge rallies against the war on Saddam Hussein's regime, is a curious partnership between supporters of the international Muslim Brotherhood and largely non-believing socialists.

In the municipal politics of Britain and the Netherlands, some radical Muslims quite often find themselves doing political business with other anti-establishment groups on the secular left

[...] one of the few common denominators between angry Muslims and secular leftists is hostility to America.

Not only is the European left joining forces with Muslim extremists; they support terrists who attack America, too:

The September 2001 attacks, remember, were planned in Hamburg.

. . .

by cigonia on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 07:10:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I've not seen this week a piece which so brazenly sprinkles myths and misinformation into a scaremonger piece.

"It is a sign of the times, he thinks, that the country where he settled 17 years ago is about to say goodbye to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali-born Dutch politician who has sharply criticised the Muslim tradition in which she was raised. Having got into trouble because she once fibbed to the Dutch immigration authorities, Miss Hirsi Ali is moving to America."

Completely untrue - but it's now reality in the foreign press. The correllation is made that because there was a ruckus on her immigration procedure, she's leaving.

The truth of course is even sadder, which is why I'd say the quoted law professor Ellian about cynism in Europe is partly correct (but is also reported with any form of context). Hirsi Ali has struggled to continue her political careers, but was constantly hindered - lack of security, lack of safe lodging, (ridiculous) opposition of neighbours against the tenancy of Hirsi Ali. The Netherlands, as a country, has discarded her. Note that minister Verdonk, after her spat with Parliament about Hirsi Ali's nationality (still unresolved), is still supported by some 80 percent of the Dutch population. (It makes me howl.)

And that, of course, were just the two first paragraphs.

I need something to calm the heartburn now.

by Nomad on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 06:02:49 AM EST
I'd say Miss Hirsi Ali lied rather than fibbed about her origins when she applied to stay in the Netherlands as maintained by Ellian in the article. His use of the word 'fib'  is a piece of transparent spin. Other people have been extradited from the country for precisely the same kind of deception, only they didn't have friends in high, high places. That's what this story is about: and the nasty politics of her party. If she was 'constantly hindered' in her political work --- however she may have regarded her inflammatory behaviour in the horrible Van Gogh episode  among people who absolutely can hardly even deal with the smallest personal insult, namely, the Netherlanders --- is something I can't judge. Surely it is odd that she would have hardly be able to find a place to live in the country. But all in all I have no fear that Miss Hirsi Ali will not be able to take care of herself: she moved from Somalia to Kenya, from Kenya to the Netherlands, from the PvdA (left of centre) to the VVD (right of centre)in the wink of an eye when she was literally promised a seat in parliament and a portfolio after only twelve years in the country, and her latest metamporphosis from the VVD to an extreme rightwing organisation with which Dick Cheney feels entirely at home. She is extraordinarily resourceful, intelligent and self-assured.

About the Economist's cover: CANCEL!. The sales in the little old U.S. of A. will doubtless soar. The schadenfreude about the riots around Paris was right up the right wing's alley. Ditto idem the murder of Van Gogh in Amsterdam. 'You see, we told you so!' The Economist, you see, has a very heavy, lethal axe to grind: Anglo-American is best.

by Quentin on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 07:07:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Anglo-American is best, assuming you forget that the 7/7 attacks were planned and executed by British-born muslims, and that (as was pointed out in a poll in a recent breakfast) British muslims feel the most alienated from their home country in all of Europe.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 07:13:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, of course, among other things. The Economist can only talk the talk. When it comes to the walk it conveniently ignores realities.
by Quentin on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 09:42:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It even conveniently ignores the facts in other parts of the same newspaper - or even in other parts of the same article.

That's the most damning indictment. They reach conclusions that are contradicted by the very same article. Reality does not matter. We create our own reality.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 11:09:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It is amazing how this "Eurabia" meme moved so swiftly from the incoherent US extreme right to the respectability of the Economist. I wonder what's next, "surrender monkeys"?

The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom - William Blake
by talos (mihalis at gmail dot com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 06:05:49 AM EST
Meaning that using it in the front page even if only to "dicuss the stereotype", is sensationalist to say the least. And the stereotype of EUrabia has not spread generally in the US, but rather among the bushite wingnuts...

The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom - William Blake
by talos (mihalis at gmail dot com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 06:12:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A curious assumption: the Economist is 'respectable'.
by Quentin on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 07:08:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
OK, fair point: mainstream? highbrow? not Anne Coulter?

The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom - William Blake
by talos (mihalis at gmail dot com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 07:15:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Fox News for business people.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 08:42:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Elites in a number of countries, including journalists, feel safe repeating stories if it's been in the FT or the Economist before.

And lots of businessmen know only that version of international news.

So what they say does matter to shape conventional wisdom, unfortunately.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 11:11:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, it does matter but thats is not the same as what someone might equqte with respectability. Let's say it has high 'MSM credibility'. Ha!
by Quentin on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 01:11:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Contrary to fears on both sides of the Atlantic, integrating Europe's Muslims can be done

A nice way for them to say that it's not being done at all ...

Late last year, when Muslims in many of France's slum-suburbs erupted in almost uncontrollable violence, this was seen as proof of Europe's failure either to give the newcomers a decent economic life or to confront extremism successfully

As if they were all Muslims, and either extremists or newcomers ...

the fact that Muslims seem to have fewer babies the longer they have been in France

Something can be both a fact and seem to be true ...

etc etc

by Alex in Toulouse on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 06:07:40 AM EST
France's slum-suburbs

I forgot this: "rioting" banlieues are slum-suburbs!

slum. noun. a densely populated usually urban area marked by crowding, dirty run-down housing, poverty, and social disorganization

Density, poverty, social disorganization certainly all qualify, but dirty run-down housing ...

by Alex in Toulouse on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 06:11:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I gave up my subscription to the Economist after the '04 American election.  I'm self-employed, and it is useful for my work but I am not so involved with business that I need to read it.  At the time I made the decision because I wanted to be able to support progressive media.

Earlier this year I decided to renew the sunscription, but the very first issue angered me greatly.  The snide one-off comments, typified by Bagehot and Lexington, are too much for me so I've decided to cancel again.

The quality of their reporting is not the question.  The editorializing inherent in their view distresses me.  Their world is not mine.

by lizah (lizah at gmx.org) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 06:22:25 AM EST
And the unattributed quotes, poor journalism if you ask me.

The US editor is either a liar or incomptent, but wth a certain bias well known in the US press. Read his coverage of Abrahamov, up there with the yellowist of US journos.

by redstar on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 07:58:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
their editorialising, but the fact that it used to be transparent (i.e. they separated clearly facts from opinion) and now it is no longer (they editorialise while pretending to be presenting facts).

They are living off their reputation, but will get burned if they keep at it - unless they are aiming at being just another right wing US business magazine instead of a high quality international one.


In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 11:14:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This is actually about two issues:

  1. Is the Economist any good as a source of information?  I gave up on the miserably rag back in the med 90s because of their slavish devotion to the concepts of Neoliberalism. Since then I have managed to bring a dinner party conversation to an abrupt halt by expressing my contempt for the Economist.  What I said was, "If you believe Ben Franklin, the American Revolution was fought so we wouldn't have to take those ideas seriously.  Yet way too many people read the Economist because they think it is as cool as quoting Shakespeare.  Barbarian nonsense is barbarian nonsense even if it DOES have a British accent."

  2. Does the presence of a religious minority disrupt society? This is actually a good question--so I am NOT surprised the Economist blew it.  For the record, my observation is that folks of roughly the same economic status mix pretty gracefully--no matter their religious practice.  If, however, one religious group is doing much better or worse economically than the norm, they will stand out and become targets--especially if their religious practice causes their non-standard economic status.  I am willing to bet that if the kids of the Paris suburbs has a reasonable economic future, they wouldn't be rioting.  Thinking that they are rioting because they are Muslim is just so much useless bigotry.

Since the economic positions of the Economist directly CAUSE most of the economic frustration that kindles those riots and religious frictions, they must either change their editorial stands, or find an irrelevant scapegoat.  

UGLY people!!!!  The ONLY reason to read the Economist is to keep track of what the REAL bad guys are thinking.


"Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"

by techno (reply@elegant-technology.com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 06:56:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
LOL

What exactly did Ben Franklin say?

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 06:58:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Franklin was writing about the levels of observable poverty in London (shocked him) compared to those of Philadelphia.  He attributed the differences to a monetary system that was superior to the Bank of England's.  

Sorry, I don't have the quotes at hand tonight--my Franklin bio has been loaned to a friend.

"Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"

by techno (reply@elegant-technology.com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 09:35:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Try this until I find the exact reference I seek.

A Modest Enquiry into the Nature
and Necessity of a Paper-Currency
by Benjamin Franklin (1729)

http://etext.virginia.edu/users/brock/webdoc6.html


"Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"

by techno (reply@elegant-technology.com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 10:10:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Curious. How would the graph look like if instead they had featured the percentage per country as the main statistic, with the estimated Muslim population as number at the side?

Still looks scary for France, but would inject a different flavour why the USA might not have faced the more touchy subjects Europe is dealing with...

by Nomad on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 06:32:16 AM EST
How many angels can stand on the head of a pin? How many Muslims are there in any one of those countries? Most of the 'Muslims' in France are of Algerian origin, many of them for generations, many of whom might not even consider themselves especially Muslim anyway. How many of those Muslims indeed feel comfortable (successful?) in France. And the questions go on and on. The Economist leads us into the world of borderline prejudicial extremism.

Remember: there is no need for Europe to justify itself to the little ol' U.S. of A. Oh right, now I bang into the same old wall again: is the U.K. European.

by Quentin on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 07:20:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
is the U.K. European

According to whom?

Who is behind The Economist, and what is its readership?

Who is the intended target of this bullshit?

Is the UK independent of the US?

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 07:24:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If my recalled figures are correct (I used to work for Pearson plc which owns half of the Economist and all of FT and is run by a Texan who, to be fair, is married to the EIC of the Guardian) a plurality of the readership, as well as the vast majority of the growth, is in America.

There's a reason why this magazine is infuriating.

by redstar on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 07:54:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A very good question you end with, as did the good General.
by redstar on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 07:51:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
By the way, redstar, you are now on the ET political compass.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 07:54:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
...the good Generals?

 * confused*

by Nomad on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 07:59:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The good General (singular) is De Gaulle. The UK could only join the EU after he took his veto to the grave with him.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 08:01:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Unfortunately.
by redstar on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 08:04:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You know what's really funny? Margaret Thatcher led the yes camp in the EU referendum in the early 1970's. It boggles the mind.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 08:08:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks, a new fact for me. (The s on Generals was a typo, BTW.)

I'm sure my EU sister would've scoffed at me now. My defense: I study the history of rocks, not people.

by Nomad on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 08:09:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
For some reason I'm able to remember pretty much everything I read on here, and people have mentioned that particular episode repeatedly.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 08:14:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Context is a concept The Economist apparently fails to pursue with anything they touch - see the Hirsi Ali comment. The only reason I posted this graph is to point out that the figure in the Economist gives the idea to those who don't study the figure in depth that more Muslims are within the USA than European countries - and look, the USA has no troubles at all! It must all be Europe's faulty social model if they can't even handle their miserable amounts of Muslims...

If the Economist can pile all numbers onto one heap, so can I. It just goes to show that with a larger Muslim society, Europe is in a different stage of integration than the USA is - that's all. It makes no sense to draw parallels based only on the amount of total Muslims present. Comparing between two continents when the USA has a percentage of total population that's as large as France, or the Netherlands, that'd make a first start.

Now the Economist included the percentages as well within their figure, but why the choice to present it the way they have it, and not the way I put up? What's the motivation behind that choice? I'm not a statistical expert, so everyone should feel free to point out where my reasoning is flawed.

by Nomad on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 07:57:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A representation of these data that captures both views at the same time is a scatter plot (not a bar chart) with population on one axis and muslim population on the other, on a log-log scale. Maybe I'll find time to make that chart later today (should take 15 minutes with R, but B is nagging me to put together some IKEA furniture ;-)

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 08:00:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
...of IKEA furniture is that they contain not a single formula!!

Must be a dismal Sunday... ;)

I'd be keen to learn that on R, too. At my current progress, however, it'd take me six hours, not 15 minutes... Still on the R learning curve.

by Nomad on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 08:07:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Maybe I should e-mail you the code I use to generate each of the graphs I post...

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 08:09:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
When I was mucking in my fresher year with Fortran (77, no less!), the best way to learn was to study code from other programs, take it apart with a text book, and write the same program yourself from scrap.

I'd certainly appreciate that.

by Nomad on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 08:13:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
We could go for an ET graph-off! Here is my take on the political compass:

by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 09:03:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I always knew my heart was with the Greens. Those bloody Commie bastards can stay where they are!
by Alex in Toulouse on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 09:10:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Whoa, what software did you use for that?

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 10:13:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's a perl script generating imagemagick draw commands. Not very efficient. 98 seconds for an 800x800 png with dual P4 3GHz processors.
by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 10:40:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I really should look into R.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 02:41:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
IKEA furniture also lack a recent comments button.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 08:10:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm sure IKEA are open to suggestions.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 03:06:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]


A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 12:17:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
is that most "Muslims" in France are just as secular as their Catholic brethen, so describing them as Muslim is already highly misleading - just like describing me as Catholic.

This presupposes that everybody has a religion- a really sad (and thankfully false) hypothesis.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 11:16:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This presupposes that everybody has a religion- a really sad (and thankfully false) hypothesis.

When Americans look at the rest of the world, they always assume that people are primarily classified by their religion and ethnicity and everything follows from there. Come to think of it, when they look at themselves they assume the same. The difference is that they assume in the US that "diversity" is a source of strength because of the success of the melting pot, and that abroad it is the source of all conflict, and that the rest of the world needs to learn the American way of integration in order to live with themselves peacefully.

I believe the situation in Iraq would be very different had the Coalition Provisional Authority not come in from the very beginning determined to "manage the ethnic and religious divisions within Iraq".

The frames we wear...

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 11:42:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It would also be useful to compare the socio-economic status of Muslims in the different countries. For instance, are Muslims in the U.S. more likely to be middle class than disadvantaged? As the discussion of the riots in France shows, there are issues that come up when a group is economically disadvantaged that are less likely to come up with a middle class group.

It doesn't help to compare apples and oranges; if there are differences in the demographics between the U.S. and various European countries, this should be taken into account.

by lauramp on Tue Jun 27th, 2006 at 01:29:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In the "Look out Europe, they say" article, I've noted the following word use, excluding their use in quotes/surveys and as non-quantifiers/adverbs/modals:

rather (in sense «rather odd», not in sense «rather this than that») => 5 times

many (as in «many Muslims») => 6 times

some (as in «some Muslims») => 14 times

may (as in «may affect») => 6 times

seem (as in «seem to be») => 5 times

These represent over 1% of all words used. This may be a high number. Many words are common, but some are not. This is a fact, it seems.

by Alex in Toulouse on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 06:44:29 AM EST
The author(s) are being magnanimous, not wanting their self-evident truths to hurt too much.

In some transatlantic squabbles, the American message has been delivered more in sorrow than in anger.

.

by cigonia on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 07:32:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think the same can be said of the European message being delivered to American diplomats over the past 5 years, to judge by press accounts.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 07:37:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
More mistakes: arab = muslim

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 07:22:40 AM EST
That was my immediate reaction to the title.
by Upstate NY on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 08:41:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Were some of the folks who suggested re-subscribing to this middle-brow limey rag still suggesting it?

At least if it were produced with newsprint I could make use of it in the commodities in a pinch.

by redstar on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 07:49:27 AM EST
Someone (an American, sorry I don't recall their nick) wrote here not long ago that we didn't need to get too worried, Bush was toast, Cheney and Rumsfeld were cooked, the neo-cons were through, and an increasing majority of American citizens were wise to their game.

I'm not in a position to contest that view of the state of American opinion. I'd be relieved to find it was true. The Economist is an opinion-maker, and a journal with the means to maintain its independence. The simple fact (and this is one) of this FP plainly shows that the unilateralist kick-ass imperialists and the neo-con imperialists don't consider themselves as done for yet. Simply the use of the heavily-connoted term "Eurabia" (an anti-European and anti-Arab racist slur used by the far right) is proof enough: Europe conflated with Arabs conflated with Islam (as if all Muslims were Arabs, as if all Muslims were practising, as if all practising Muslims were Islamist fundies).

The use of that header with the Eiffel Tower and the Crescent is blatantly slanderous and, alone, constitutes a burning mark of shame on the reputation of a once-excellent publication.

What more are they saying within, that is not said by the FP title and graphics? Not much beyond the attempt, noted in comments above, to open up a "Fifth Column" meme: anti-war demonstrators = anti-Americans = collaborators with (or dupes of) the Muslim enemy.

For "Muslim", 35 or so years ago, read "Communist".

So what? Isn't it laughable? Do we have to take The Economist seriously? Since it's a conventional-wisdom builder, I'm afraid we do.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 01:13:54 PM EST
For "Muslim", 35 or so years ago, read "Communist".

70 years ago, read "Jew".

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 01:27:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And 35 years from now, read "car driver" ;)
by Alex in Toulouse on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 01:36:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That one will be deserved, for once...

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 01:54:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The term, "Eurabia," is, as I understand it, not meant to be racist.  I think it originated with the spooks.

For "Muslim", 35 or so years ago, read "Communist".

That's pushing it quite a bit, in my opinion.  Not wholly inaccurate, but pushing it.  Miguel's "70 years ago...Jew" comparison, however, is way off.  Not to be an asshole, Miguel, but, as you well know, it was not America and Britain who slaughtered the European Jews.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 03:40:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Can't happen here, eh?

I suppose it's possible, in theory, that the Economist does not mean "Eurabia" to be racist. It's also possible, in theory, that they are involved in a good faith attempt to save Europe from its errors. What's the betting?

And that was being an asshole: if the Nazis had successfully invaded the UK (or Ireland) I'm quite sure there would have been lots of people perfectly willing to help round up Jews for slaughter. Likewise in the US. Do you have any idea how widespread that sort of eugenicist  thinking was at the time or how popular fascism was outside of the countries  that implemented it? The importance of WWII's history is that any nation can act incredibly badly when whipped up by dangerous fools. It can happen there, and quite possibly would have.

I don't understand why, when seeing a phenomenon develop, Americans (in particular) require that it develop to the worst pitch of the previous analogues before any comparison can be drawn. Do you think that early 20th C anti-Semitism dropped fully formed from heaven? That 1950's McCarthyism happened in a vacuum? That Hitler came from nowhere and was suddenly a dictator? These things develop over time: "Islamofacism" is being built up to an analogue to Communism by people who need an overarching foe to fit their world-view to. That it's both a religion - Islam - and an ethic group - Arabs - that are being picked on has other disturbing echoes. Think of it as a cross between 20th C anti-semitism, mid 20th C anti-communism with a dash of corporatism thrown in. Makes for a delightful little cocktail. Good before dinner.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 04:06:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And that was being an asshole: if the Nazis had successfully invaded the UK (or Ireland) I'm quite sure there would have been lots of people perfectly willing to help round up Jews for slaughter. Likewise in the US. Do you have any idea how widespread that sort of eugenicist  thinking was at the time or how popular fascism was outside of the countries  that implemented it? The importance of WWII's history is that any nation can act incredibly badly when whipped up by dangerous fools. It can happen there, and quite possibly would have.

I didn't deny that eugenicist thought and support for fascism existed among a large number of people outside of those countries which implemented it.  (Eugenicist thought in America was more of an issue of the Progressive Era, though, from what I've read.)  What I am saying is that I don't see America or Britain as having been terribly at risk of internal far-Right takeovers.  (Far-Left, perhaps, but even this -- despite the far-Left building some momentum in the '30s -- seems unlikely, at least in America's case.  FDR soaked up those voters.)  What I am also saying is that "Islamofascism" (whatever that means) does not, as time has passed, seem to have produced the same mentality of fixation on all-out war that the Cold War produced.  Among some, it might appear to have done so, but such shows of determination seem strained, at best.  No one in his or her right mind believes that Islamic extremism poses as great a threat as the Soviet Union.  And I also think that we live in an era when a much larger number of people are willing to stand up against the mistreatment of Arab Muslims.  Seventy years ago, Abu Ghraib might not have even made the newspapers.  Today, it is an enormous scandal.

So perhaps I was an asshole, but I think you're overestimating the extent to which people supported those ideas here.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 01:18:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Not to be an asshole, Drew, but eugenics and antisemitism were alive and well in the UK and US in the 1920's and 1930's, too. Ivy league schools such as Yale had "Jewish quotas" not to encourage by to prevent Jews from studying there.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 04:26:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Whether "Eurabia" originated with spooks or not I don't know, but it's not frankly reassuring to me that it might have...

I call it a racist slur because, whatever its origins, it has largely been used as such by the far right, and eschewed by anyone from the left or reasonable centre. This is precisely why I object to its use by The Economist, and see considerable importance in the way it is placed on this cover (large black lettering, about ten times the size of the sub-heading) in conjunction with instantly-identifiable symbols of Islam and France. Whatever qualifiers they may put inside the mag, the cover speaks a clear language.

My comment on "Muslim" and "Communist" is based on history as I lived it; when I, as a student in Britain, demonstrated against the Vietnam War, I was told by those who defended the war (that boils down to the American political and military establishment speaking through their punditry/communications/media outlets), that I was being manipulated by the Reds. That's what The Economist is now saying, mutatis mutandis, about those who protest the Iraq War. More broadly, I was pointing to the wish of certain American ultras to develop a new Cold War with a permanent enemy and a Fifth Column.

Otehrwise, I entirely subscribe to the above comments by Colman and Migeru.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 05:30:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A longer version on dKos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/25/15623/6967

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 03:11:38 PM EST
I crossposted the three muslim pupulation charts (The Economists', Nomad's, and mine) as a comment there, since you didn't include any of them in your diary.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 03:27:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm afraid your one needs work for the dKos audience... assume they don't speak the language and mark it a bit more clearly ... the labels need to be shifted as well. I'd put the percentages in brackets after each point perhaps?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 03:29:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Got the source to that? I just installed R ...
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 03:39:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Maybe I should post it on the wiki...

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 03:43:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
http://www.eurotribwiki.com/pmwiki.php/Main/RSampleCode

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 03:55:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A problem is that if you're in the U.S. and you want to read a news magazine, the Economist does a pretty good job of covering the international news scene. There is an obvious editorial bias, but the traditional American news magazines (Time, Newsweek, etc.) long ago changed their emphasis to coverage of Hollywood celebrities--and are now completely useless as sources of international coverage.

Similarly, if you want to read about American business, the Wall Street Journal is the best source of detailed information, and for international finance, the Financial Times.

All three of these are widely available here in bookstores and by subscription.

What daily and weekly newspapers would be more appropriate for an American to read, if the goal is to get international news and financial coverage, and a non-right-wing editorial stance, and local availability?

by asdf on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 07:30:38 PM EST
Their reputation was deserved. It is thus all the more important to point out today the bias that has crept up (fairly recently) in their coverage, to discount some of their editorialising accordingly.

They're still good for news, but they're no longer the "neutral" source they could claim to be to a much larger extent in the past.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 03:31:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I would not put any money on Bu$hCo being toast or cooked geese.  They are certainly out of favor.  But the election is not until November, so this could change.  

How fair will the election be?  Based on 2004, I would suspect many dirty tricks.

Two friends just came back from France and Germany and were quite impressed.  Two more folks who will use critical thinking skills when they hear negatives about Europe.

Does Rupert Murdock or Sun Myung Moon have any ties with The Economist?  Or do Richard Mellon Scaife, Charles Koch, Coors,  or Bradley Foundation have any ties.   These are all right wingers with money.

by tobysmom (tobysmom) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 09:00:04 PM EST
The Economist is owned by the Financial Times, which is in turn owned by Pearson.

From their website:
Since 1928, half the shares have been owned by the Financial Times, a subsidiary of Pearson, the other half by a group of independent shareholders, including many members of the staff. The editor's independence is guaranteed by the existence of a board of trustees, which formally appoints him and without whose permission he cannot be removed.

This is what they claim as their policy:

What, besides free trade and free markets, does The Economist believe in? "It is to the Radicals that The Economist still likes to think of itself as belonging. The extreme centre is the paper's historical position." That is as true today as when Crowther said it in 1955. The Economist considers itself the enemy of privilege, pomposity and predictability. It has backed conservatives such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. It has supported the Americans in Vietnam. But it has also endorsed Harold Wilson and Bill Clinton, and espoused a variety of liberal causes: opposing capital punishment from its earliest days, while favouring penal reform and decolonisation, as well as--more recently--gun control and gay marriage.

The recently appointed new editor John Micklethwait, replaced the 13 year tenure of Bill Emmot. Micklethwait comes from the US office and seems to have taken the paper on a different track. There are several other writers who have come to the paper via being based in the US.

None of the articles in the paper are signed, though there is no secret as to the staff.

I don't read it - I just get offers to be a subscriber with alarming regularity.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 03:56:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
i can forecast the next FP :

Should we invade Eurabia to prevent Muslims to use French'WMD (Nuclear) against US ?

Pathetic :-(

by fredouil (fredouil@gmailgmailgmail.com) on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 05:26:01 AM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]