My wife - who was born and lived the first nine years of her life in a third-world, Muslim infested, hellhole called Mindanao, Phillipines - proposed an interesting idea today. I was telling her that, while Europeans always comment on the fact that Americans don't know history (and, they don't, for the most part), it is astounding to me that Europeans seem to have no recollection of their own history with Islam.
Repeatedly, throughout history, Europe has been invaded by Muslims (Moors) who have attempted to do exactly what they are doing today, establish Sharia law and a Muslims state to rule over the Infidels. Repeatedly, Europe has had to do battle with those Moors, and in several cases throw them the hell out of their countries.
The history of the encounter between Islam and Europe is long and brutal, with no positive fruits to speak of. And yet, the Europeans act as if allowing millions of Muslims to flood into their countries (and establish Muslim neighborhoods which then become "no-go zones" for the police) does not pose any danger whatsoever to their way of life.
I told my wife that the blogger Fjordman theorizes that the future of Europe will be a return to the Medieval world, where strong nation-states will be replaced by townships with localized armies of citizens protecting, possibly, walled cities. I asked how it is that Europe doesn't see the danger, doesn't recognize this slow drift into a new dark age.
My wife responded that it might not, at all, be that they don't recognize it, but instead, that they don't fear such a world the way we do in America. They don't fear it because it is the world they come from. It is the familiar world of their history, and so, it doesn't seem so unthinkable.
Instead, she said, there may be many Europeans who harbor romantic notions about the good old days, the pastoral life, the visceral reality of a life of small community, banded together against the brutal outside world.
She said that such a life has no part in the dreams of Americans because we have always been about hopes, dreams, and ideas, about building towards a better future, whereas, Europe is more about clans, tierra, and a sense of place.
I have to wonder if, perhaps, my wife is correct, and Europeans really do see the coming of a new dark age as a return to the good old days. Perhaps, what we perceive as the roar of an onrushing Islamofascist monster out to destroy our modernity, Europe hears as a medieval siren song, and swoons, sucked down under into the beautiful dream of their past.
Pastorius,
ReplyDeleteThat's a very interesting viewpoint from your wife. But I'm not sure that I agree.
For one thing, I don't believe that most Europeans believe that such a medieval world would be re-established. Further, I'm not sure that Europeans know as much about their own history as you've mentioned here. Or maybe they think that "this Islam" is different.
I do note that some Europeans are converting to Islam. Perhaps in a search to find something to fill a spiritual void.
I wonder what Mark Alexander thinks of your wife's theory?
Think about my wife's idea for awhile. I don't think you will find it that strange when you really think about it.
ReplyDeleteMy wife was speaking from experience. She understands what it is like to come from a medieval type world. She understands what it is like to harbor romantic notions about a homeland which is, when viewed in the cold light of reality, is horrid and disgusting.
I think the phenomenon is more complex than that. I explain as follows:
ReplyDelete1. The "average" European doesn't have a sense of nostalgia for the life of the Middle Ages. On the contrary, everywhere in schools, media and popular opinion, the whole Medieval period is presented, in a rude distortion of real history, as one of religious fanaticism (Christian, of course, while Islamic was supposedly a civilization of reason and enlightenment), backwardness, submission of women to men, rigid class system, a political system with hereditary transition, etc. In short, everything the modern European supposedly despises.
2. I have an alternative explanation: HESPEROPHOBIA (hate of everything that Western Civilisation represents). I see in the modern European, the traits that are characteristic of a civilization in advanced stage of decay. In the intellectual/academic plane, this manifests itself in epistemological and therefore also ethical relativism. There is no truth, therefore, there is no moral truth, therefore nothing is really good or bad, but it only depends on the perspective. Thus, killing a woman just because she married someone who had not been approved by her family, is bad only if performed by westerners, but ok if done by muslims.
Epistemological/Ethical relativism is related to the loss of faith in the Christian religion. If there is no God, then there cannot be truth, etc. All these effects of the loss of faith were seen and described by Nietzsche, who predicted the degree of idolatry/irrationality/moral relativism that we are seeing today. But it is also manifested in the adoption of replacement religious or pseudo-religious beliefs. The Human mind is abhorrent of vacuum, and as the human psyque terribly needs to believe strongly in something trascendental, if people abandon faith then they will adopt substitute beliefs. Ecologism (a return to pagan and pre-Judeo-Christian adoration of "Mother Earth"); Racism (a return to the veneration of the tribe/clan, via the veneration of indigenism. Instead of trying to expand Western values like individual dignity and freedom, we see the campaigns to "preserve" indigenous cultures, cultures that abhor private property and individual freedom and consequently are condemned to misery); Statism ("The New Idol", the State, as Nietzsche referred) seen in Socialism/Social-Liberalism, who distrust private enterprise and individual liberty, while wanting that everything becomes controlled and mandated by the State (Control of the Mind via Political Correctness; control of individual health by dictating what they have to consume and what they cannot consume, like in the smoking bans, the mandated labelling of foods, the campaign against fats in food, etc.)
It is evident from many phenomena we see today in the behaviour of the modern european, that all these are consequences of the lack of identity. As Hillaire Belloc said once, Europe is the faith, and the faith is Europe. By losing the faith and abjuring of it, Europeans have become to hate everything that represents that faith, which are basically: reason, objective realism, individualism, hope, free will and liberty, private property, limited government, natural law, preeminence of Man over Nature, (moral) equality (albeit not sameness) of the sexes, etc.
So, it is really the lack of identity with its hate of everything of our past as Western Civilisation, that manifests in what can rightly called a self-sabotage by Europeans.
Well Jaime, I agree with everything you said, but I must admit, it is news to me that the Medieval age was one of reason and order. I must admit, I do not know history that well, so perhaps I simply don't know what you are talking about.
ReplyDeleteAs I understand it, the Dark Ages were a time in European history when various areas within Europe were often beseiged by Moors and other barbarians, there were not stable, organized nation-states, there were instead walled-cities, life was brutal and short for the average person, etc.
Where am I wrong?
Additionally, the Christianity which existed in Europe was an ignorant Christianity, as I understand it. The Catholic Church controlled what people learned and did not learn of the Bible. It seems to me the Dark Ages were a pre-Individual era, with priests and kings mediating "truth."
It seems to me all these things I enumerate here are the things you abhor.
Like I said, maybe I'm wrong about the history of the Dark Ages.
Let me know, please.
First, a clarification. The Middle Ages must not be confused with Dark Ages. I recognize that I have contributed to this confusion in my post.
ReplyDeleteDark Ages is a term used technically to denote the period from about the time of the official fall of the Western part of the Roman Empire (A.D. 476), until about the dead of Charlemagne (rough approximation, A.D. 950). The Feudal Period ranges from then to about 14th Century, and then what some scholars call "The True Middle Ages", from about 14th Century to about 16th Century. All those three periods are usually as a conglomerate called the Middle Ages, but the situation was very different in AD 1300 than in AD 500
QUOTE: "As I understand it, the Dark Ages were a time in European history when various areas within Europe were often beseiged by Moors and other barbarians, there were not stable, organized nation-states, there were instead walled-cities, life was brutal and short for the average person, etc."
Yes. First, the "obscurantism" in the arts, invention, philosophy and academia in general, was due to the fact that the Pax Romana had disappeared, and the economic situation of Europe had been declinig for centuries, caused by debasement of the currency by the Emperors, increased socialisation of the economy, and growing militarism. When there ceased to be a Pax Romana across the whole of Europe, and it disintegrated in very little areas controlled more or less by the officers (and later its heirs) of the Roman Army and political governors, it was everybody on its own.
The Muslim invations began at about the 8th Century and for a moment it seemed that the whole of Europe was to be conquered, until Charles Martel stopped them, and then began the slow and long process of reversing the invasion and expelling them from Europe (took approx. 8 centuries).
So, your general description is true, but it was due to the fact of the economic/political decay that had been taking place for centuries. The Catholic Church or the faith had nothing to do in causing that to happen.
QUOTE: "Additionally, the Christianity which existed in Europe was an ignorant Christianity, as I understand it. The Catholic Church controlled what people learned and did not learn of the Bible. It seems to me the Dark Ages were a pre-Individual era, with priests and kings mediating "truth."
Unfortunately this is a perception impressed upon us all by the school and the media, but it is a very grave distortion of historical fact. It were actually the monks in their monasteries who preserved the rolls of the books written so far. We have today access to classics such as Plato's, Aristotle's, etc., thanks to the fact that the monks preserved them. Since at least the time of Constantine's conversion to Christianity, the bishops were usually very educated people. And when it came the time of the fall of Rome, it was they who took the task of preserving so much of the knowledge of the classics. Eventually, when a new peace was more or less achieved in Europe (by the time of Charlemagne) and people could again live without the fear of barbarian pirate raids, that permitted the relatively rapid recovery of the intellectual and artistic richness in Europe.
As for individualism, it is one of the essential parts of Christianity. That every individual soul is unique, precious and sacred, is one of the fundamental dogmas of the Catholic faith (Remember that at the time there was only one faith in Christianity, and it was the Catholic faith. Christianity and Catholicism can be equated for any time before the advent of the Reformation).
And just from about the year AD 1000, the first period of great expansion of Western Civilization began. During the feudal period and the "True Middle Ages", slavery was non-existent (for much that some people want to equate feudal servitude with slavery, they are two very different things and cannot be equated); the liberation of women was in advanced progress; very clear limits to political power were established, and we see the emergence of very important inventions as the codex (before that, books were written in rolls instead), with separate pages bound together and with a cover; the musical scale and the mechanical clock. Oh, and those cathedrals that even 1,000 years forward do still put us in awe.
Think of it, you go and see European cathedrals built in the Medieval period, and you cannot continue thinking that it was a period of obscurantism and suppression of art and knowledge. You can say that all these developments revolved around religion in a way that we modern westerners find strange. There was no secular life as we know it. Art and science was closely related to faith. But it was partly because the Church was one of the main benefactors of art and science back then, and also because people in general were much more spiritual and concerned with heavenly matters than us.
The fact remains that the whole renaissance and continuous growth of the sciences and arts ocurred without any need to overthrow the established Church or anything similar. There was no shock in that sense. That is because the impression that the Church hierarchy was abhorrent of knowledge and science is one impression that the anti-clerical propaganda has made us believe.
I recommend two books on the subject of Middle Ages and how it was very different from the popular conception of a period of ignorance and religious fanaticism. One is by Regine Pernoud, Those Terrible Middle Ages. The other is from Hilaire Belloc, Europe and the Faith.
It seems to me there is not a lot of contradiction between what you and I are saying. You are much more detailed in your analysis because you know history better than I.
ReplyDeleteHere's the thing, when i say "truth" was mediated by the Church, I am not saying the Church was ignorant. I am saying, as you are saying, that the Church had a tremendous amount of power.
I am not a Catholic, however, I subscribe to First Things Magazine, and I am a huge admirer of Catholic intellectualism. At the same time, even though I am a American Evangelical Christian, I am big on the separation of church and state. It seems to me the power that the Catholic Church had in Europe was bad for the Catholic Church. I think you could say that, in a lot of ways, it killed Christiantiy in Europe.
Thanks for the clarification. Basically, as I understand you, you're saying that the Middle Ages were not all of a kind, that there was a progression within the ages, and that the Catholic Church had a hand in the progression of freedom and individualism and the presevation of Europe and the progress towards the nation state.
Yes, if that's what you are trying to say, I understand and I agree.
Thanks, my friend. Please let me know if I am still misunderstanding any of this.
We are in the same frequency Pastorius. Yes, what you sum up is basically what I am saying.
ReplyDeleteBTW, I am not a Catholic either. I am an Atheist, but only in the sense that I believe there is no God or deity whatsoever. The trascendence of the teachings of Catholic faith, I find fascinating and very important for what Western civilization is. As Oriana Fallaci used to say of herself that she was a "Christian Atheist", well, I feel exactly the same. I admire the Catholic faith as much as she did, because I have come to understand that it is inseparable from what Western Civilization is.
I agree 100% with you in that any religion loses in the long run when it associates itself too much the government power. Government power tends to be something like an Anti-Midas: everything it touches gets corrupted. And in the long run, Catholic Church suffered badly for the inevitable corruption that came as a consequence of its accumulation of too much power. The Reformation and the Schism was the result of the widespread dissatisfaction in Europe at the time, with the established Church that had come to be very elitist and distant from its original role.
Just as a last note, what I have been saying doesn't mean that the Catholic Church didn't made mistakes or incurred in excesses at various times in history. What I say is that those excesses have been greatly, really greatly exaggerated in the popular mind.
Thanks to you for this interesting exchange of ideas.
Regards and Happy 2007.
JRM
Yes, this has been interesting. I appreciate you help here.
ReplyDeleteI have to admit, I have an amateur philosopher's understanding of history. That is to say, I have a BA in Philosophy and not much interest in History outside of the history of ideas. Therefore, my understanding of history is broadbrush to the extreme.
I definately need help.
You and I are in agreement about the Catholic Church. I am not an atheist, but as a Protestant, I would still say, the Catholic Churhc is the intellectual background of Protestantism. Additionally, I am also in agreement with you that the Catholic Church comprises much of the intellectual backbone of Europe, and therefore, America as well.
That wife is smart.
ReplyDeleteI will add three things.
Several nations in Europe are very small and have hardly any political power. So for the citizens of such power less, but expensive (high taxes) states there is little point of being a part of such an entity.
Two, local identities in Europe and Asia are MUCH stronger than in the USA.
So there is something to take the place of the state.
Finally, the EU weakens the national states, but has no identity in the eyes of Europeans. So people do not become loyal to the EU, although the EU is responsible for 50 percent of all legislation these days. In reaction people turn to their local identities.
Oh and a blessed 2007.
Regards,
Snouck
Snouck,
ReplyDeleteI agree. My wife blew me away with this analysis. Other than you (a real European) I have encountered nothing but disagreement on this post. (I posted the idea on several blogs.) I expected that it would be one of those ideas which would be strange, but met with instant recognition.
Oh well.
The things you added, obviously, strenthen my wife's point.
Thanks.
'I do note that some Europeans are converting to Islam.'
ReplyDeleteIt's due to exposure. Wait until the Chinese Christian evangelists reach Europe/ME. Those that aren't thrown out will find converts. Numbers of Europeans following islam will always be outweighed by muslim apostates who have moved to the west, approx 15 - 20% with 200,000 in the UK alone. I know many.
'the EU weakens the national states, but has no identity in the eyes of Europeans'
The French are still the French, the Irish, the Irish. We keep the EU at arm's length and are even a little more nationalistic because of it. I like being a European, however I remain British.
Islamism will meet animosity at the ballot box: witness atypical rightwing gains throughout Scandanavia, 7% of the British looking to vote BNP and Le Pen at 78 ever more popular.
Hey Londinium,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment. For whatever reason, it strikes me as a strange development that what seems to be the last stage of the Great Commission is to be undertaken by the Chinese, but that does, indeed, seem to be the case.