What will European racism do for America?
For years, Europe has claimed that it's more tolerant than the US. Repeatedly, I have expressed my disagreement, and have cited Norway's black sub-class and the anti-Semitism of France and Germany as examples. Now, the populace of Europe has started a backlash against Muslims, and the spark for this appears to be the murder of Theo Van Gogh. Personally, I think the backlash may have started before the murder, but the symptoms (public and publicized racism) were a few months behind the events of actual importance. Europe can no longer claim to be more tolerant than the US.
Centuries ago, the greatest British thinker stated that the largest threat to British power was Britain itself, because British abuse of power was the only thing capable of destroying the empire, because it would encourage many nations to unite against what they saw as unjust use of British power. Please allow me to quote a section of Politics Among Nations, by Hans J. Morgenthau (Brief edition, published in 1993. Page 179):
-----------------------------------------------
The only nation that in modern times could maintain a continuous position of preponderance owed that position to a rare combination of potential superior power, a reputation for superior power, and the infrequent use of that superior power. Thus Great Britain was able, on the one hand, to overcome all serious challenges to its superiority because its self-restraint gained powerful allies and, hence, made it actually superior. On the other hand, it could minimize the incentive to challenge it because its superiority did not threaten the existence of other nations. When Great Britain stood at the threshold of its greatest power, it heeded the warning of its greatest political thinker—a warning as timely today as when first uttered in 1793:
-----------------------------------------------
I should note that Politics Among Nations is a great book, but it is also somewhat difficult to read, as the earlier half of that passage illustrates.
Now, combine these two thoughts. America may be risking its own power with the occupation of Iraq by galvanizing much of the world to oppose the US. One of the leading claims against the US was (falsely) of racism.
However, it is becoming obvious that America is not the racist nation, and Europe is realizing that Muslim extremism is a problem. Europe's actions may be saving America from backlash to the possible over-eagerness to go into Iraq, because a racist Europe cannot lead a worldwide anti-US backlash.
Is this a good thing? For America, it is, at best, fair - America's allies become slightly less sane in exchange for America looking better. For Europe, this is almost certainly a bad thing, as this will set back their chances to compete on par with the US or to develop a US that they are comfortable with (perhaps that means they would want some control over America, or perhaps it means that they simply prefer we be less erratic and extreme in our actions).
In summary, I think that most fears that the US will inspire a global backlash can be alleviated. Some fears can remain, as they may have a basis in other issues. It's hard to determine what domestic effects this will have on both Europe and the US. Europe will probably have less immigration, tourism, and a slight drop in trade. The US should absorb the immigrants that would otherwise have gone to Europe, but that's about all that I can predict with any certainty at 1:20 AM. I will speculate that Europe may have to decide which it dislikes more; Israel or Muslims. That decision will be one of the largest factors (if not the largest factor) affecting the future of European involvement in the mid-East and, especially, the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Centuries ago, the greatest British thinker stated that the largest threat to British power was Britain itself, because British abuse of power was the only thing capable of destroying the empire, because it would encourage many nations to unite against what they saw as unjust use of British power. Please allow me to quote a section of Politics Among Nations, by Hans J. Morgenthau (Brief edition, published in 1993. Page 179):
-----------------------------------------------
The only nation that in modern times could maintain a continuous position of preponderance owed that position to a rare combination of potential superior power, a reputation for superior power, and the infrequent use of that superior power. Thus Great Britain was able, on the one hand, to overcome all serious challenges to its superiority because its self-restraint gained powerful allies and, hence, made it actually superior. On the other hand, it could minimize the incentive to challenge it because its superiority did not threaten the existence of other nations. When Great Britain stood at the threshold of its greatest power, it heeded the warning of its greatest political thinker—a warning as timely today as when first uttered in 1793:
Amongst precautions against ambition, it may not be amiss to take one precaution against our own. I must fairly say, I dread our own power and our own ambition; I dread our being too much dreaded. It is ridiculous to say we are not men, and that, as men, we shall never wish to aggrandize ourselves in some way or the other. Can we say that even at this very hour we are not invidiously aggrandized? We are already in possession of almost half the commerce of the world. Our empire in India is an awful thing. If we should come to be in a condition not only to have all this ascendant in commerce, but to be absolutely able, without the least control, to hold the commerce of all other nations totally dependant upon our good pleasure, we may say that we shall not abuse this astonishing and hitherto unheard-of power. But every other nation will think we shall abuse it. It is impossible but that, sooner or later, this state of things must produce a combination against us which may end in our ruin.
-----------------------------------------------
I should note that Politics Among Nations is a great book, but it is also somewhat difficult to read, as the earlier half of that passage illustrates.
Now, combine these two thoughts. America may be risking its own power with the occupation of Iraq by galvanizing much of the world to oppose the US. One of the leading claims against the US was (falsely) of racism.
However, it is becoming obvious that America is not the racist nation, and Europe is realizing that Muslim extremism is a problem. Europe's actions may be saving America from backlash to the possible over-eagerness to go into Iraq, because a racist Europe cannot lead a worldwide anti-US backlash.
Is this a good thing? For America, it is, at best, fair - America's allies become slightly less sane in exchange for America looking better. For Europe, this is almost certainly a bad thing, as this will set back their chances to compete on par with the US or to develop a US that they are comfortable with (perhaps that means they would want some control over America, or perhaps it means that they simply prefer we be less erratic and extreme in our actions).
In summary, I think that most fears that the US will inspire a global backlash can be alleviated. Some fears can remain, as they may have a basis in other issues. It's hard to determine what domestic effects this will have on both Europe and the US. Europe will probably have less immigration, tourism, and a slight drop in trade. The US should absorb the immigrants that would otherwise have gone to Europe, but that's about all that I can predict with any certainty at 1:20 AM. I will speculate that Europe may have to decide which it dislikes more; Israel or Muslims. That decision will be one of the largest factors (if not the largest factor) affecting the future of European involvement in the mid-East and, especially, the Israel-Palestine conflict.
posted by Chris at
1:20 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home