by
Segen • Jun 22nd, 2008 at 10:42 am •
33 comments
Another heinous “honor killing” in Germany: a 16 year old German girl of Afghan descent was stabbed 20 times by her older brother. Her crime? She became “too German” and was a disgrace to her family’s honor. This is another sickening notch on Germany’s belt of numerous honor killings and violence towards Muslim women. German-born girls as young as 12 years old are forced to spiritually marry and then legally marry at age 18, women are not allowed to leave their homes, must cover themselves at all times, and not assume any Western identities or they risk beatings with hockey sticks, burnings with gasoline, chokings with wires, drownings in bathtubs, stabbings with knives and axes, and shootings. Western-born women are so fearful of their families and cultures that the practice of hymen restoration or “revirgination” has become a common practice for Muslim women who have had sex before marriage. The 3,000 Euro procedure is a small price to pay in the face of death at the hands of their oppressive home cultures and religions.
Why are such repressive actions towards women happening in Europe? Europe already went through the sexual revolution in the 1960s. Women already fought society, culture, and the law to gain more sexual freedom—meaning, not the ability to be promiscuous, but rather ability to date, to marry who they want, to divorce, to use birth-control, to abort, to engage in premarital sex, to not be required to be a virgin at marriage, to be protected against sexual discrimination and harassment, and so on and so further without the disapproval of society or non-secular laws. Why do these ideals not apply to Europe’s Muslim population? How can Europe allow such discrimination in a continent that began liberal thought, fiercely promoted individual freedoms, and demanded secularity? My hunch is that Europe does not want to admit it has an immigration “problem” and ignores minority populations altogether—including atrocious violence against women. When Europe cannot ignore immigrant groups, it handles them with a light touch, as not to be perceived as racists or “Nazis.”
How can European women who are suffering—by Western standards—at the hands of their oppressive culture and religion be helped? First of all—European laws for monstrous crimes must be enforced (unlike the case where a German judge cited Islam law and condoned wife beatings for a Muslim couple). Perhaps a law like a “hate crime” law can be adopted in Europe with stricter enforcement and harsher punishments for religious or culturally motivated violence. Secondly–patriarchal family structures in Muslim communities must be rethought: women must be able to earn their own money if they want to, they should have access to education, have the ability to choose when they want to bear children, have access to childcare, and to be encouraged to assimilate into European society—with European laws protecting and guaranteeing all of these freedoms.
Encouraging and protecting European assimilation of Muslim men and women is very important in realizing a Europe with fewer “honor killings”. Immigrants should know that when in Europe, they must do as the Europeans do—including adopting the culture, values, and laws. European states—Germany in particular—will never become “salad bowls” of mixed cultures like in the United States. The United States is a nation of immigrants where acceptance of others was key to survival in this new land; this accepting attitude is now a part of American culture. Europe is more culturally homogenous than the US—with its culture based on family ties and a strong sense of history. Europe stands by its traditions and will make few concessions to integrate those of other cultures. This resistance to integrate cultures has led to the divided Europe that exists today—Europeans living amongst pockets of cohesive and largely ignored immigrant groups (think of the immigrants in violent suburban Paris ghettos). European countries must begin to vehemently promote assimilation of their immigrant populations to change a culture that accepts “honor killings” as fact. Assimilation means teaching national languages, requiring education and improving educational standards in immigrant communities, integrating native Europeans with immigrant communities the public sphere, offering job training, providing incentives for assimilation, and including special protections and programs for women in particular.
Comment by Anonymous on 22 June 2008 at 2:28 pm:
Segen, thank you for blogging about this.
I think there are other opportunities to fight these crimes, too. They are not indigenous to the West; as you note, they are being imported.
I would like to see better use being made of our aid to the countries where these crimes are indigenous. A significant portion of it should be tied to improvements in basic human rights. And we should stipulate that donors will do the auditing, the measuring, and the monitoring to ensure that there are actual improvements (i.e., objectively measurable, properly documented by qualified people, and sustained).
If the problem were to be nipped at the source, less would have to be done within the immigrant communities in the West.
Ellen R. Sheeley, Author
“Reclaiming Honor in Jordan”
http://www.redroom.com/author/ellen-r-sheeley
Comment by tet on 22 June 2008 at 3:39 pm:
Very good article, Segen.
Unfortunately for Europe, I don’t think that a secular culture can compete with a religious one, at least not for very long. The low birth-rate among native Europeans and the high one among the Muslim population adds to the problem.
Therefore, I expect the Muslim immigration wave in Europe to do what the Ottomans of the Renaissance could not–they’re going to eliminate European culture over the next two generations, barring a nationalist movement that expels them from the countries.
During this period, the remaining “European” women will lose the rights gained last century and will be forced into a situation where they must outwardly follow sharia or face violence in public.
Tom Trumpinski
Comment by Segen on 22 June 2008 at 8:08 pm:
Ellen,
Thank you for your comments. I like the idea of tying foreign aid to improvements in human rights in “indigenous” countries to stop the export of honor killings. This aid idea could be applicable to “receiver” countries in Europe, as well. The United States Department of State pressures countries throughout the world on issues of trafficking in persons (TIP). The Congressionally-mandated annual TIP report denotes the status and improvements of trafficking in many countries of the world. Good foreign relations with and aid from the US is often tied to improvements in TIP in many countries–including those in Europe. Perhaps the United States could push for European countries to deal more willingly and throughly with religious and cultural violence in their own “receiver” countries, on top of “indigenous” countries.
Comment by Segen on 22 June 2008 at 8:22 pm:
Tom–
Interesting take on this situation. A part of me hopes that European countries can get their acts together and start a very strong push for assimilation of these groups before it ever gets to the point you are describing. Europe is at a critical juncture, though, and they must act fast before things spiral out of control. I feel that assimilation is possible with the newer generations–if they are reached. Many of these girls were in fact killed FOR assimilating. The seeds of assimilation are there, but they must be nurtured and protected.
On a personal note, when I was last living in Germany, I was physically attacked twice. Both times were by young Turkish men. In the second attack, I was grabbed inappropriately in broad daylight. The guy just gave me the worst look in the world. His face said to me: “I have more power over you, you Westerner.” I think I was singled out by him in this instance because I was wearing a lot of makeup. (My normal American makeup is a lot for Germans, which is seemingly a ton for Turks, I guess). I felt completely helpless; he probably felt powerful. The American “violent” nature in me wanted to run after the guy and pummel him to the ground–which is what I would have done if I could find the strength to do so. But here is the difference: Germans *never* would fight back. It is really not in their culture to fight back. So here is a generation of young un-checked Turkish men doing whatever they want, to whoever they want, whenever they want to. There is no violence to check the violence, and no legal actions to check it either.
Either European countries need to step it up in terms of law and order, or I think there will be a big violent outburst on our hands very soon–with the outcome not looking good for the Europeans.
Comment by tet on 22 June 2008 at 10:01 pm:
Segen, if it is not in German culture to fight back, that’s been instilled in the last fifty years. Prior to that, there’s over 2000 years of historical records of them being quite willing to do so.
Personally, I think that the present generation there’s been cowed by the threat of an EU. If they’re pressed, they’ll fight, I’m sure of it.
Tom Trumpinski
Comment by Segen on 22 June 2008 at 10:19 pm:
Tom–
I know it seems odd that Germans are very gentle culturally–given WWI and WWII, but this cultural trait *has* developed recently. I think this extreme 180 has a lot to do with guilt from WWII.
In regards to the EU–no German is fearful of that. They’re pulling the strings anyway. Young generations are embracing the EU. It is the older populations that are skeptical.
Comment by Lally on 23 June 2008 at 9:37 am:
“Encouraging and protecting European assimilation of Muslim men and women is very important in realizing a Europe with fewer “honor killings”.”
No, I don’t think this is enough assimilation!
We should assimilate the entire world, especially the middle east and Sri Lanka, to be atheist, and only then will the honor killings stop.
Comment by tet on 23 June 2008 at 10:33 am:
Lally, no secular civilization has ever conquered a religious one, long term, they collapse of their own utopian flaws before they succeed. I don’t expect any to do so in the future, either.
I am amazed by your desire to completely eradicate an entire religion because of your utopian beliefs. Seems like imperialism isn’t dead, after all, if you’re serious. Most of my religious friends aren’t even interested in stuff like that.
Brenda wasn’t interested in taking over the world last time I checked, after all.
Tom Trumpinski
Comment by Brian on 23 June 2008 at 10:58 am:
“Seems like imperialism isn’t dead, after all, if you’re serious.”
She’s not. She IS, however, trying to expose the latent prejudice present in this post. Now, obviously, neither Lally nor I is a big fan of honor killings – indeed, as we’ve both discussed many times, we’re not big fans of religion in general. But to suggest that the only way to correct this problem is to insist on complete assimilation into European cultural norms is a little ridiculous. Indeed, one of the things that have caused Muslim immigrants in Europe to become isolated and radicalized is that one of those European cultural norms is intolerance toward immigrants which leads to the formation of public policy that makes it incredibly difficult for them to get jobs, raise families, and feel like respected members of the European community on an equal footing with everybody else.
Comment by Brian on 23 June 2008 at 11:11 am:
Incidentally, I think Lally and I should have our own “Pinky and the Brain”-style TV show in which we play two atheists who keep trying to take over the world but always fail in various wacky ways.
Comment by Buck B. on 23 June 2008 at 11:11 am:
You’ve been reading too much Mark Steyn, Tom. The “look out, the Muslims are going to take over Europe!” argument is so ridiculous on its face it’s laughable. You really believe that shit? Muslims are going to immigrate to Western Europe in such numbers over the next 20 years that they’re going to take over? Come on, man.
“No secular civilization has ever conquered a religious one, long term, they collapse of their own utopian flaws before they succeed.”
What does this even mean? The march of human history has consistently been towards greater secularization, and it is a path every single advanced nation has followed and continues to follow. So what, we’re all going down?
Comment by Lally on 23 June 2008 at 11:31 am:
Tom,
I think Brian has spoken to my irony in that comment well, however, you do say that “Brenda wasn’t interested in taking over the world last time I checked, after all.”
Now, I love Brenda and I’m not going to speak to her beliefs. But a hypothetical member of Brenda’s type of Christianity, true, does not want to “take over the world.” However, he or she also believes that most of the world, especially those that have heard the gospel and rejected it, or had the opportunity for salvation and squandered it, are likely predetermined to go to hell and suffer for eternity. So though it is true that some Christians don’t want to take over the world, and neither do I incidentally, at the very least I neither require assimilation to my beliefs as part of my fundamental political or cultural views NOR do I hold steadfast metaphysical beliefs (i.e., totalitarian beliefs, totalitarianism construed in a broad sense) about others’ fate based on their beliefs.
Comment by Brian on 23 June 2008 at 11:38 am:
More importantly, Lally informed me in private conversation that she would play Pinky and I would play the Brain. Just want to get that on the record.
There would also be a guest spot for Christopher Hitchens, whose role would be to constantly appear unamused by our antics.
Comment by Muslims Against Sharia on 23 June 2008 at 12:45 pm:
The STOP HONORCIDE! campaign was launched on Mother’s Day 2008. The goal of the campaign is to prosecute honorcides to the fullest extent of the law. We want honorcide to be classified as a hate crime and we advocate for every existing hate crime legislation to be amended to include honorcide.
http://www.reformislam.org/honorcide/
Comment by Segen on 23 June 2008 at 1:23 pm:
Brian and Lally,
I did not insist on complete assimilation in this post, nor did I insist that this was the only “solution” to this problem. In addition of assimilation on both immigrants and the host country’s parts, I suggested that host countries better enforce existing laws, introduce new hate-crime specific legislation, and enable those who want to assimilate to do so with full protection of the law (the exact thing the 16 year old who was murdered was trying to do).
I believe that when in another country, one must follow the laws of that country. Laws are generally based on customs and culture–so assimilation would be an obvious choice at encouraging people to follow laws. (The laws I am talking about are not minor like “stop for pedestrians and don’t spit your gum on the streets” kind of stuff, but rather, people’s lives and the persecution of minorities (women) in a minority group itself (Muslims).) I mean, honor killings in the United States are handled by US law only; whatever people do in the name of religion or culture comes second to US law. (On a side note: I was talking to my mom about my post and she said about five years ago or so a Schaumburg, IL couple killed their daughter for being too American. My brief search for more information on this was not fruitful. If anyone remembers this and can locate information about it, I would be interested to learn more.)
Europe is very culturally homogeneous and its “hands-off” approach to immigrant populations is not working. Yes, It is hard for immigrants to find jobs, but it is also hard for native Europeans to find jobs, as well. The jobs issue is not just about keeping out immigrants, but even finding work for European citizens. Language barriers complicate the issues of being accepted in and wanting to integrate in European society. Europeans can’t even get along with themselves in terms of language or culture; for example, Poles are looked down upon in Germany and Ireland. Throwing in a non-European language into the mix complicates things further. Whether they like it or not, Europeans need to take responsibility for immigrant groups and the immigrant groups need to use and benefit from opportunities provided them. For example, Germany began offering nearly free language courses for up to 600 hours to immigrants.
The honor killing issue is clearly a complicated one. I have offered my suggestions regarding assimilation, enforcing current European laws, providing trainings for minority groups, and perhaps adopting stricter legislation for hate crimes.
Instead of assimilation, what would you suggest to help address this issue?
Comment by J. Prescott on 23 June 2008 at 1:45 pm:
Buck -
Not having read Steyn’s America Alone, I am not familiar with the arguments. I am familiar with demographics, which state that there won’t need to be significant influx of muslim immigration for the “traditional” Europeans to soon be outnumbered. Muslims account now for 5% of Europe’s total population, but have significantly higher birth rates, and are concentrated in urban areas.
“What is important, say analysts, is not so much the raw population totals but rather the demographic trends. Over the last 30 years, Europe’s Muslim population has more than doubled, and its growth rate continues to accelerate. Current projections hold that the number of Muslims living in Europe might double again by 2015.
One major reason: immigration. Upward of 900,000 legal immigrants enter Europe each year; most of them are Muslim. The same is true of foreigners immigrating illegally into Europe, estimated to number 500,000 per year.
Immigration is only one factor in the emergence of Islamic Europe, however. In Muslim communities already there, high birth rates are the norm.
Additional pressure comes from demographic realities in nearby Islamic lands. Fouad Ajami, a professor at Johns Hopkins University, gave the relevant figures in a recent Wall Street Journal article: “Forty percent of the Arab world is under 14. Demographers tell us that the fertility replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman. Europe is frightfully below this level. … Fertility rates in the Islamic world are … 3.2 in Algeria, 3.4 in Egypt and Morocco, 5.2 in Iraq, and 6.1 in Saudi Arabia.”” Air Force Magazine, http://www.afa.org/magazine/July2005/0705europe.asp.
Also it is key to note that Europe, not the US was the home of most of the Sept. 11 terrorists and where they joined Al Qaeda.
So you got a bunch of young, angry, unemployed, culturally isolated individuals of Muslim background against a bunch of older, demilitarized, culturally reclusive Europeans. As time passes, one population is growing extensively, the other dying off naturally.
Forget religion vs. secularism. Which side would you pick? The one with a growing base of fighters with a ax to grind, or a civilization that is naturally declining in size and has a hard time passing a constitution, much less addressing a situation as complex as the one they currently face?
Comment by Brian on 23 June 2008 at 1:52 pm:
I agree with everything you’re suggesting except the assimilation stuff, and I would add a greater emphasis on reforming public policy to be more open to offering opportunities to those entering European society. You’re right about it not just being immigrants who are negatively affected by those policies, young people are as well. But it should be emphasized that it’s NEW people who are adversely affected, not just some general unemployment problem. It’s hard to ENTER the workforce, so people in a position to do so are unable, and those people tend to be either young people or immigrants.
The confusing thing to me about talking about assimilation is that honor killings are just bad things in general that the law needs to deal with, independent of the intermingling of different cultural groups. I mean, I’m in favor of “assimilation” to the extent it means that crazy hyper-traditionalism should be done away with, and of course I also agree that people need to obey the laws of the country they live in, but I kind of think that’s defining assimilation down a bit, and I suspect you mean more by that word than just that. You invoked the whole “salad bowl” concept in a critical way, and that’s the part of your post I’m attacking. The notion that Europe’s cultural homogeneity means that new groups aren’t allowed to practice the same kind of celebration of diversity that is practiced to some extent in the US is wrong and unrealistic and sounds like a justification for Europeans being unwelcoming. Assimilation is a natural process that happens over time when cultures mingle, and I have no problem with that, but groups that aggressively push for rapid assimilation usually end up doing more harm than good.
Comment by Segen on 23 June 2008 at 2:07 pm:
Brian,
The whole “salad bowl” is currently not even working for Europeans–Germans don’t get along with Poles and Greeks and Turkish Cypriots? Ha.
Sure, things are changing over time. The EU is helping Europe adopt its European “salad bowl”, but what I was saying is that this salad bowl regarding Muslims is fundamentally different than the immigrant salad bowl in the US.
People in the US have for over 200 years dealt with living and thriving with people from all corners of the world. We needed each other to survive. We didn’t have families; we had neighbors. Acceptance and integration are parts of American culture.
Europe on the other had has gotten by through class systems, family ties, and deep historical reasons for seperation as it is today. This cultural feeling IS a part of the reason why immigrants are not welcomed with open arms. Couple immigration from people with very little cultural similarities with European unemployment a dwindling population and your salad bowl has a recipe for disaster. (Which is what we are seeing today).
The salad in Europe will look a lot different than the salad in the US. I think it is idealistic to assume that Europe will be like the US, given our immensely different cultural backgrounds and history.
I see the European salad working a lot better, if the pieces can start to look like they fit together a bit more. Hence, assimilation.
Comment by Buck B. on 23 June 2008 at 2:38 pm:
Prescott,
I don’t dispute the demography, I just dispute that Muslims are substantially different than past immigrant groups. The culture clash described in the article is a particularly ugly one, but I think it also underscores the reality of what inevitably happens to immigrant cultures: By the third generation, children have more in common with their home country than with the culture of their grandparents.
Honor killings and other attrocities to the contrary, I don’t see any reason to think this won’t be repeated among Muslims in Western Europe.
The same applies to birth rate. Immigrants have traditionally had higher birth rates than the native population, but within a couple generations these too tend towards the cultural mean.
Comment by tet on 23 June 2008 at 3:44 pm:
Buck, look at the historical difference been immigration and migrations of populations.
Historically, I think that both the Muslim populations in Europe and the Mexican populations in Aztlan have more of the characteristics of the latter.
Now, the march toward secularization is not one-way. There are currently a higher percentage of religious (particulary fundamentalists) than there were fifty years ago because of birth demographics. As far as secular societies having a quick demise, I point to the absence of the largest secular nation of the last century–the Soviet Union.
Not only did it not manage to eliminate religion over its 70 year lifetime, a number of the former SSRs are now Islamic Republics.
Tom
Comment by Buck B. on 23 June 2008 at 4:17 pm:
Tom,
Your argument is case No. 1 for why the U.S. needs a real Marshall Plan to better the Muslim world. The pattern is very clear: as living conditions improve and the middle class grows, birth rates slow. Women wait longer to give birth and have fewer children when they do. If you really want to slow down the Muslim birth rate, improve their lives.
As Brian said, assimilation is a gradual process, and for the most part it will take care of itself. What the states in Europe need to concentrate on is making sure that immigrants of all types have equal economic opportunity; the rest will follow. The surest way to get someone to assimilate it to invite them to join the middle class.
This whole “Islam vs. the West” clash that’s supposedly going to dominate the next generation simply doesn’t worry me. I have faith in Western culture, capitalism and democracy. It will triumph in the end simply because it works better than anything else. Barring some sort of reformation comparable to the one Christianity went through, I just don’t see Islam as the sustainable basis for a culture in the modern, globalized world.
Oh, and the Soviet Union only lasting 70 years probably had more to do with the same “unsustainable basis” thing than because they got rid of all the churches.
Comment by J. Prescott on 23 June 2008 at 4:30 pm:
Buck -
I don’t think there is an “inevitable” anything when it comes to immigrants, especially when what you are describing is a relatively recent historical phenomenon. Traditionally, immigrants from other cultures are not acclimated and do not eventually blend into the culture. What you speak of is an American phenomenon, not a pervasive global trend. I mean, off the top of my head, foreigners are generally not assimilated and retain their identities for several generations. The Jews in Europe, the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, the Ibos in Nigeria, the Marwaris in Burma, the overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia, the Lebanese in a number of countries, are all examples of cases where cultural and nationalistic identies of individuals don’t fade. Its covered in “White Liberals and Black Rednecks” by T. Sowell. But I don’t think you can just assume that there will be assimiliation by the immigrant population.
Again, look to the 9/11 report. The terrorists, almost to a man, were considered “liberal” Muslims, in that they followed Islam but did not stringently adhere to all customs. They drank, they danced, they enjoyed Western Culture as it was presented to them in their original country. It is part of the reason they wanted to go to Europe. They were already starting to “assimilate” before entering the country. It was their time in Europe which converted them to the more conservative aspects of their religion. Also, guest workers from Turkey have been around since the mid 50s, and the problem of Islamic-Germanic relations have not been mitigated over time. So the theory that this problem is going to just go away seems disingenuous at best.
One more note, based on a conversation I had once with Segen. We were discussing the difference in friendship between the US and Germany. In the US the relationships are not substantial, but individuals had more friends and were more open to meeting new people and having relationships with them. In Germany, people had fewer relationships, and it was incredibly difficult to “break into a group of friends,” but once you had a friend it was a friend for life. It seems to me that in that type of environment it would be hard for people to assimilate when the social networks are so difficult enter.
As for the Western Civilization being superior, I agree, so long as the goals people want are the same. If there are people that genuinely want a theocracy and are not secularized (which I also do not believe is something that is going to happen automatically), Western Civilization kind of sucks. While I crave the efficiency that Western Civilization provides, many people don’t.
History is not an inexhaustible march to some better future that is destined to happen. It is a series of catastrophes and lucky breaks. To suggest that something is going to stay the same way or something will persist no matter what is a recipe for that thing being destroyed or passed up. Your “modern, globalized world” could change in ways that you can’t conceive; in ways that make the Western World unable to keep up and an Islamic structure feasible. Complacency is not necessarily a virtue; there is no guarantee everything is going to be ok.
Comment by Buck B. on 23 June 2008 at 4:47 pm:
That is where we differ, Prescott. I am, essentially, a technological utopiaist: the exponential nature of technological progress DOES mean that history is an “inexhaustible march to some better future that is destined to happen.”
Comment by tet on 23 June 2008 at 5:27 pm:
Buck, the US will be as gone as the Soviet Union well within your lifetime–and I’m being very optimistic when I say that I expect you to live through the transition.
Technology has brought gas chambers as well as better wheat. Since science and technology are morally neutral at best, without a religious guidance to move them in a good direction, we’re as likely to get hell on earth as we are heaven.
Tom Trumpinski
Comment by Brandon Ruiz on 23 June 2008 at 9:22 pm:
I got into this clusterf*** a bit late, but a few points.
1) assimilation is nothing new. How the hell do you think we have Islam over about 1/5 of the world? It certainly wasn’t because a small group of Arabian Bedouin marched out, killed all the locals, and made shittons of babies. We didn’t get over 1 million Asians descended from Chinghis Khan because his Mongol descendents wouldn’t lower themselves to the habits of the locals.
2)I can’t find any reliable numbers on honor killings, but most of the news sources I dug up in about ten minutes of research suggest it’s in the hundreds per country varying by population. Now this isn’t good, but it’s not exactly as common as wearing the hajib either. One source said there were 5,000 women killed in India every year because their dowries were insufficient. I think this goes much deeper and more complex than religion.
3)I’m with Tom on technology being neutral. It all depends on how we direct its use as a society whether through public policy or a general consensus.
Comment by tet on 24 June 2008 at 8:54 am:
Actually, Brandon, we have Islam over 20% of the world because we had a forced conversion of that area.
SOP for the post-Prophet expansion:
Army of Islam marches over countryside, takes town, accepts enemy army surrender…
The populace of the town is divided up into the Jews and the various Christian sects, each with their particular religious leader.
Any remaining individuals, whether they be Persian fire-worshippers, Buddhists, or Hindu are given one chance to convert before they’re executed.
The People of the Book are then allowed to practice their religion with fewer civil rights and higher taxes than those who are followers of the Prophet.
It’s assimilation, all right, but it worked in the opposite direction because rational individuals could immediately see the benefits of adopting the religion of their conquerers.
Historically, true assimilation is very, very rare and usually consists of a large population taking in another people’s surviving women and children from a war or disaster and the women finding new husbands (or owners).
Tom Trumpinski
Comment by Buck B. on 24 June 2008 at 9:47 am:
Tom, what you’re saying makes absolutely no sense. The entire history of the Western world consists consists of one assimilation after another, and it’s ridiculous to say it only happens when all the men die off.
The relationship of the Roman Empire with the barbarian tribes surrounding it is a complex one, but it’s clear that over the centuries the tribes became increasingly Romanized. To the point that even when they gained the upper hand militarily by the 3rd century, they still aspired to Roman culture. Similarly, the Normans started out a dominant, invading culture, but were gradually absorbed by the Anglo-Saxons.
Just trace the history of any modern language and you’ll see that it’s really the result of thousands of years of cultures and peoples merging.
Maybe we have a different idea of what assimilation means, but it seems to me history is rife with examples of invaders being assimilated into an ultimately superior culture.
Comment by Buck B. on 24 June 2008 at 9:56 am:
For more assimilation fun, try to play “Where the hell did the Mongol empire go?”
Comment by tet on 24 June 2008 at 2:26 pm:
Buck, if you read Roman history, you’ll find what happened to them is that the semi-Civilized Germans who were at the edges of the Empire owed more allegience to their kinsmen than they did to the concept of Rome. The German dominated Guard began to choose the Emperors. The Germans never successfully assimilated like the other conquered peoples since there was always a pool of unconquered Germans on the other side of the border.
They’re why the Western Roman Empire fell. The Eastern Empire, which did not try to assimilate the Germans, lasted another 1000 years.
And, if the Normans were subsumed, how come the formal and proper words in our resulting language are derived from French? The Anglo-Saxon words are the ones that fucking peasants use.
The Normans won, just like the Germans.
Tom
Comment by Brandon Ruiz on 24 June 2008 at 10:24 pm:
Nobody said it was a weekend in the Hamptons…
Comment by segen on 25 June 2008 at 10:23 am:
EU States criticized for toothless anti-discrimination lawsd
Interesting article given our topic.
Comment by tet on 25 June 2008 at 10:31 am:
Assimilation
Tom
Comment by Anonymous on 26 June 2008 at 12:53 pm:
Islamic Europe