"Multi-culturalism is a new word, much bandied about these days by opinion-formers in the political and business elites. It is not really about cultural diversity, still less land rights, and least of all individual freedom. Rather, it is a form of social engineering that seeks to level down and standardize all cultures, trampling on regional and ethnic loyalties which are not determined by market or state."
-Dr. Aidan Rankin
In the latest issue (21.10.2005) of Suomen Kuvalehti, which I happen to prescribe to, there was a thought-provoking article by Tommi Laitio about Dutch author Geert Mak, “one of the top names of the Dutch leftist intelligentsia” as SK describes him. Reading this article provoked all kinds of thoughts in me.
On the other hand, Mak condemns the killing of political figures and movie directors, the attacks against homosexuals and other issues related with Muslim immigration and integration in Holland, but as expected, the blame is laid squarely on the Dutch government and the Dutch nation. Holland has finally, after a long sleep of ignorance and denial, began to question whether a liberal multicultural society really is the ideal and the utopia it has been made out to be. As the article quite clearly states, votes for anti-immigration parties and politicians has been rising steadily in correlation with the number of immigrants residing in the country. This has also been going on in neighbouring Belgium, in Britain, France and all Western European countries I can think of that are faced with the same problem. Holland, however, the very epitome of a multicultural welfare state, has seen some of the worst problems. The murder of anti-immigration and particularly anti-Islam politician Pim Fortuyn, the murder of Theo Van Gogh, the attacks on gays and lesbians, the fact that all politicians critical of the lenient immigration policies and of Islam (such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Geert Wilders) need body guards and live in secret hideouts, are issues that are all part of present day Holland and much of Western Europe in general. Of course, these are the issues that have been reported far and wide outside of Holland. However, in Holland, “newspapers report on an almost weekly basis of clashes.”
Mak, despite these incidents, wants to work towards compromise (something which he sees as a very typical Dutch trait) and reconciliation. He is against the sort of statements made by Ali Hirsi, questioning the compatibility of Islam and Western society. The integration problems are, according to Mak, because of savings in education of immigrants and immigrant housing. Also work with youths has been receiving less than adequate funding. Now, I wonder, do immigrants in Holland attend different schools than Dutch kids? Do they provide their own housing, and does their housing by the state differ from that of other poor Dutch people? Is the funding pulled specifically from immigrant districts and not from other districts as well? I would assume, resting on my humble knowledge of things, that the answer to most questions is more or less “no”. If the answer was "yes", I would be worried. Immigrants have exactly the same chances and opportunities as others do, and there most probably are support groups and other organizations intended specifically to help immigrants succeed and perhaps even integrate. I guess that is the problem, the immigrants are not privileged enough in Mak’s opinion. In my opinion, the blame cannot and should not be laid on the Dutch people (perhaps on the Dutch government for starting the mess) as there are a few phenomena which I can think of, that at least partially explain the situation and how it became what it is. Regarding school: When 2/3 of school-aged children in Amsterdam (according to the article) have an immigrant-background, what exactly are they meant to integrate into? Which society? I would guess that the majority of those children are Muslims, and they never need to leave their mostly Muslim surroundings, even when in Holland. Where is the need or indeed the incentive to integrate for them, when the society they are meant to integrate into is becoming the minority and already is so among their peers? As for immigrant housing and immigrant districts, I can see a couple of problems here: firstly, the phenomena of ghettofication is quite widespread in Western Europe. Immigrants of similar cultural backgrounds concentrate in one area, and so that area becomes an immigrant district. These districts and communities then develop in the way that they open shops selling items they are used to, they open Islamic schools and mosques, further isolating themselves from mainstream society. There is no integration there, it is splintering Western European societies into “us” and “them”. Unemployment in these districts is typically high, as is crime and much other deviance. Then the issue is blamed on lack of funding. OECD recently blamed Swedish policy for creating these ghettoes and that they are the cause of high immigrant unemployment in Sweden. What do you, in all honesty, imagine would happen if Swedish municipalities did not allow immigrants to move from one location to another, but forced them to stay in the housing they had been provided with? Dutch districts have ‘surprisingly’ survived better without all these ill effects. As is typical of people such as Mak, he points out the problem (which him and his likes are responsible of creating) but offers no solutions.
Geert Mak, who was active in a leftist student organisation in the 1960’s and 70’s, does have the sense to admit, that “the greatest mistakes of those times was the underestimation of national identity and leadership.” What has changed, I wonder? Mak also thinks that politicians are making the situation worse by talking about it, which quite a typical view of multiculturalists, as far as I have gathered. As a matter of fact, Geert Mak seems to have some real issues with freedom of speech and freedom of opinion, which becomes evident in the article: “The problems become worse, when freedom of speech is being interpreted as the right to say what you want. You can’t say what you want.” I think that’s funny, because I was under the impression that within certain limits, you could do exactly that; say what you wanted. If these forbidden things are being said by public figures, how come the law has not come crashing down on them in our politically correct societies? Perhaps they are within their legal rights (for the time being) in expressing their doubts and criticism? If they are within their rights, does Geert Mak think that freedom of speech should be limited further?
Geert Mak also makes the usual, nonetheless arrogant, statement, that basically things have come to this point, there is no going back and that its time to deal with it. How it angers me, that the same people who are ruining/have ruined the safe, peaceful and European welfare state are now telling us to deal with it. Mona Sahlin, former Swedish minister of integration is known to have said "Like it or not, this is the new Sweden", the same person that also stated Swedes (at least those critical of multicultural society) are envious of immigrants, as they have a culture and a history, unlike the Swedes. How do these people get into national governments? “We grieved the permanent ending of the homely and secure Holland and of our era based on optimism,” Geert Mak writes in his new book. Just to top things off, Geert Mak makes the statement that in reality the Dutch have not been tolerant, they have been indifferent. “In real tolerance there are also limits. Some of the greatest victims of our indifference have been Arab women,” Mak goes on. The Dutch carry a heavy burden, when they seem to be the root cause for the misery in the world. It has been exactly the likes of Geert Mak, that have so fiercely resisted any attempt to implement any means to actually integrate hundreds of thousands of culturally and ethnically completely foreign people into Dutch society. Sounds like a task doomed to fail, but they made it so much worse.
On the other hand, Mak condemns the killing of political figures and movie directors, the attacks against homosexuals and other issues related with Muslim immigration and integration in Holland, but as expected, the blame is laid squarely on the Dutch government and the Dutch nation. Holland has finally, after a long sleep of ignorance and denial, began to question whether a liberal multicultural society really is the ideal and the utopia it has been made out to be. As the article quite clearly states, votes for anti-immigration parties and politicians has been rising steadily in correlation with the number of immigrants residing in the country. This has also been going on in neighbouring Belgium, in Britain, France and all Western European countries I can think of that are faced with the same problem. Holland, however, the very epitome of a multicultural welfare state, has seen some of the worst problems. The murder of anti-immigration and particularly anti-Islam politician Pim Fortuyn, the murder of Theo Van Gogh, the attacks on gays and lesbians, the fact that all politicians critical of the lenient immigration policies and of Islam (such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Geert Wilders) need body guards and live in secret hideouts, are issues that are all part of present day Holland and much of Western Europe in general. Of course, these are the issues that have been reported far and wide outside of Holland. However, in Holland, “newspapers report on an almost weekly basis of clashes.”
Mak, despite these incidents, wants to work towards compromise (something which he sees as a very typical Dutch trait) and reconciliation. He is against the sort of statements made by Ali Hirsi, questioning the compatibility of Islam and Western society. The integration problems are, according to Mak, because of savings in education of immigrants and immigrant housing. Also work with youths has been receiving less than adequate funding. Now, I wonder, do immigrants in Holland attend different schools than Dutch kids? Do they provide their own housing, and does their housing by the state differ from that of other poor Dutch people? Is the funding pulled specifically from immigrant districts and not from other districts as well? I would assume, resting on my humble knowledge of things, that the answer to most questions is more or less “no”. If the answer was "yes", I would be worried. Immigrants have exactly the same chances and opportunities as others do, and there most probably are support groups and other organizations intended specifically to help immigrants succeed and perhaps even integrate. I guess that is the problem, the immigrants are not privileged enough in Mak’s opinion. In my opinion, the blame cannot and should not be laid on the Dutch people (perhaps on the Dutch government for starting the mess) as there are a few phenomena which I can think of, that at least partially explain the situation and how it became what it is. Regarding school: When 2/3 of school-aged children in Amsterdam (according to the article) have an immigrant-background, what exactly are they meant to integrate into? Which society? I would guess that the majority of those children are Muslims, and they never need to leave their mostly Muslim surroundings, even when in Holland. Where is the need or indeed the incentive to integrate for them, when the society they are meant to integrate into is becoming the minority and already is so among their peers? As for immigrant housing and immigrant districts, I can see a couple of problems here: firstly, the phenomena of ghettofication is quite widespread in Western Europe. Immigrants of similar cultural backgrounds concentrate in one area, and so that area becomes an immigrant district. These districts and communities then develop in the way that they open shops selling items they are used to, they open Islamic schools and mosques, further isolating themselves from mainstream society. There is no integration there, it is splintering Western European societies into “us” and “them”. Unemployment in these districts is typically high, as is crime and much other deviance. Then the issue is blamed on lack of funding. OECD recently blamed Swedish policy for creating these ghettoes and that they are the cause of high immigrant unemployment in Sweden. What do you, in all honesty, imagine would happen if Swedish municipalities did not allow immigrants to move from one location to another, but forced them to stay in the housing they had been provided with? Dutch districts have ‘surprisingly’ survived better without all these ill effects. As is typical of people such as Mak, he points out the problem (which him and his likes are responsible of creating) but offers no solutions.
Geert Mak, who was active in a leftist student organisation in the 1960’s and 70’s, does have the sense to admit, that “the greatest mistakes of those times was the underestimation of national identity and leadership.” What has changed, I wonder? Mak also thinks that politicians are making the situation worse by talking about it, which quite a typical view of multiculturalists, as far as I have gathered. As a matter of fact, Geert Mak seems to have some real issues with freedom of speech and freedom of opinion, which becomes evident in the article: “The problems become worse, when freedom of speech is being interpreted as the right to say what you want. You can’t say what you want.” I think that’s funny, because I was under the impression that within certain limits, you could do exactly that; say what you wanted. If these forbidden things are being said by public figures, how come the law has not come crashing down on them in our politically correct societies? Perhaps they are within their legal rights (for the time being) in expressing their doubts and criticism? If they are within their rights, does Geert Mak think that freedom of speech should be limited further?
Geert Mak also makes the usual, nonetheless arrogant, statement, that basically things have come to this point, there is no going back and that its time to deal with it. How it angers me, that the same people who are ruining/have ruined the safe, peaceful and European welfare state are now telling us to deal with it. Mona Sahlin, former Swedish minister of integration is known to have said "Like it or not, this is the new Sweden", the same person that also stated Swedes (at least those critical of multicultural society) are envious of immigrants, as they have a culture and a history, unlike the Swedes. How do these people get into national governments? “We grieved the permanent ending of the homely and secure Holland and of our era based on optimism,” Geert Mak writes in his new book. Just to top things off, Geert Mak makes the statement that in reality the Dutch have not been tolerant, they have been indifferent. “In real tolerance there are also limits. Some of the greatest victims of our indifference have been Arab women,” Mak goes on. The Dutch carry a heavy burden, when they seem to be the root cause for the misery in the world. It has been exactly the likes of Geert Mak, that have so fiercely resisted any attempt to implement any means to actually integrate hundreds of thousands of culturally and ethnically completely foreign people into Dutch society. Sounds like a task doomed to fail, but they made it so much worse.
0 Responses to “Geert Mak in Suomen Kuvalehti”
Leave a Reply