Eurabia or Myopia?
While Googling for numbers on Muslim immigrant birthrates in France, I came across this essay by Randy McDonald, a Canadian, explaining away the more lurid predictions of a Muslim majority in France in this century.
Overall, he makes his points well. He rightly points out the fallacy of extrapolating a spiking birthrate into the future and arriving at some astronomical Malthusian figure. That mistake was made in the 1960s and '70s by the population bomb cassandras, but human birthrates have levelled off in most places.
In the case of France, and Europe as a whole, the Muslim immigrant populations tend to have explosive birth rates when they first arrive, especially when compared to the reproduction rate of the native populations, which often are below replacement level.
But over time, McDonald suggests, the birthrate of the immigrants should decline, and approach that of the natives. There is some statistical evidence in this direction with regard to modern Europe.
It should be noted, however, that this is by no means guaranteed. One of the factors that seems to drive down birth rates is economic success. But if the Muslims remain ghettoized in France, as McDonald admits they are, this factor might not come into play.
Even with success, there is no guarantee that a non-assimilated minority population will stop reproducing at a high rate. As a benign example, consider the Pennsylvania Amish, who despite a comfortable success in farming still have an average of seven children per family. In fact, it is their way of farming that relies on big families (and makes them far more successful than non-Amish farmers in most cases). The Amish population has been doubling about every 20 years since at least the 1940s, and the Amish have dispatched "colonies" from their old districts to 25 states and Ontario.
It's curious that, in listing the options for French Muslims and pointing out how they tend away from high population growth, McDonald overlooks polygamy, which may technically be illegal, but as recent in Britain and pressure in Canada shows, a civic law is no barrier to a religious community that believes itself answerable only to a higher law.
Some broader objections might be raised to the piece. McDonald shifts artfully between "Muslim" and "Mahgrebin" in his piece, depending which population suits his argument better at the moment. But they are not interchangeable. It's true that the North African populations have passed their peak baby boom years and are settling down. But that passage was recent and tens of millions of young men in North Africa face a future with few prospects (especially in socialist-wrecked economies like Algeria's). And the Middle East as a whole is still peaking in birthrates. Its numbers will continue to rise for another 10 years at least, by reasonable estimates.
He also tends to conflate culture and religion, when the two are not necessarily the same. To point to evidence that the children of immigrants to France tend not to speak their parents' language is not necessarily to say they are less religious -- especially when in many cases a Muslim immigrant's native language is not necessarily Arabic, the language of Islam.
He also overlooks the economic machinery that drives the immigration in the first place. It's not only the millions of jobless young Muslims in North Africa, it's Western Europe's need for fresh blood: a set of graying lands with heavy entitlement programs based on worker taxes needs a steady supply of working people, be they Tunesians or Eskimos, to maintain the system.
McDonald rejects figures from Muslim sources if they tout the rising population of Muslims in Europe, dismissing this as wishful thinking. Yet he accepts numbers from similar sites if they complain about European Muslims falling away from the faith. "I'm inclined to accept this report as valid, if only because Islam Online isn't a website that's particularly eager to accept secularism or assimilation among Western Muslims."
Which is exactly the reason to mistrust the report. Religious groups that are most committed to revival and evangelization are likely to put forth lurid tales, sloppily documented, of rampant secularism. The loonier American Christian organizations offer a good example of this.
McDonald also is unlucky in his historical comparisons; he compares modern France to America's efforts to absorb Catholic immigrants.
Yet, as McDonald himself points out, "the Roman Catholic Church is the single largest Christian denomination in the United States." As it turns out, the fears of the Know-Nothings of the 1850s were realized. But the consequences were not. But the nature of Catholicism, even a radical Catholicism, is different from that of Islam, especially a radicalized Islam. To pretend otherwise is to be willfully blind.
In addition, it overlooks the fact that Catholic immigrants to America were absorbed into a political system that deliberately was constructed to balance the competing powers of multiple religious sects.
And in fact the contrast of the highly religious American society and the utterly secular modern European one is relevant, I think, though McDonald does not address it. Historically, secularism/skepticism is a position of an intellectual elite. It does not tend to be the human condition. I have no idea if there is a God-gene, as some say, but personal experience and reading in history convince me that most people have a yearning toward faith, usually collective faith, even if I don't seem to share that quality.
When skepticism and disbelief spread widely in a civilization, that development often leaves it vulnerable to new and virulent faiths -- think of the late classical world at the time of Christ, or the Middle East at the time of Muhammad. New faiths, untempered by centuries of civilized co-existence, can rage like wildfires in that dry grass. The secularism of modern China, to me, is something to be wary of, not to celebrate.
Saddest, to me, is the way McDonald chooses to argue in a vacuum, by not allowing that there can be any serious argument but his. Nowhere is this more clear than when he hauls up his straw opponent -- the people who write hyperventilating comments on the freewheeling Little Green Footballs Weblog. This is the equivalent of Ralph Nader debating action figures and puppets. It can only pass for a real debate if you're already sure that everyone in your lecture hall already is on your side, a situation I suspect McDonald knows pretty well. If you are a lazy writer and you want to convince liberal Internet types of anything without going to the trouble of really convincing them, just say, "LGF commentators say the opposite." If you want them to say the sun rises in the west, find an Lizardoid to say it rises in the east.
He does introduce one serious writer on the European-Muslim situation, Bat Ye’or, only to instantly dismiss her, without addressing any of her arguments, merely because she is a strong supporter of Israel. Israel has nothing to do with French assimilation of Muslims. Ye'or's position on Israel may color her view of what Europe's interest is. But that is in no sense the point of her study. To dismiss her wholesale, simply because she is a friend of Israel, confirms to me the worst stories I've heard about the current state of academic attitudes.
Overall, he makes his points well. He rightly points out the fallacy of extrapolating a spiking birthrate into the future and arriving at some astronomical Malthusian figure. That mistake was made in the 1960s and '70s by the population bomb cassandras, but human birthrates have levelled off in most places.
In the case of France, and Europe as a whole, the Muslim immigrant populations tend to have explosive birth rates when they first arrive, especially when compared to the reproduction rate of the native populations, which often are below replacement level.
But over time, McDonald suggests, the birthrate of the immigrants should decline, and approach that of the natives. There is some statistical evidence in this direction with regard to modern Europe.
It should be noted, however, that this is by no means guaranteed. One of the factors that seems to drive down birth rates is economic success. But if the Muslims remain ghettoized in France, as McDonald admits they are, this factor might not come into play.
Even with success, there is no guarantee that a non-assimilated minority population will stop reproducing at a high rate. As a benign example, consider the Pennsylvania Amish, who despite a comfortable success in farming still have an average of seven children per family. In fact, it is their way of farming that relies on big families (and makes them far more successful than non-Amish farmers in most cases). The Amish population has been doubling about every 20 years since at least the 1940s, and the Amish have dispatched "colonies" from their old districts to 25 states and Ontario.
It's curious that, in listing the options for French Muslims and pointing out how they tend away from high population growth, McDonald overlooks polygamy, which may technically be illegal, but as recent in Britain and pressure in Canada shows, a civic law is no barrier to a religious community that believes itself answerable only to a higher law.
Some broader objections might be raised to the piece. McDonald shifts artfully between "Muslim" and "Mahgrebin" in his piece, depending which population suits his argument better at the moment. But they are not interchangeable. It's true that the North African populations have passed their peak baby boom years and are settling down. But that passage was recent and tens of millions of young men in North Africa face a future with few prospects (especially in socialist-wrecked economies like Algeria's). And the Middle East as a whole is still peaking in birthrates. Its numbers will continue to rise for another 10 years at least, by reasonable estimates.
He also tends to conflate culture and religion, when the two are not necessarily the same. To point to evidence that the children of immigrants to France tend not to speak their parents' language is not necessarily to say they are less religious -- especially when in many cases a Muslim immigrant's native language is not necessarily Arabic, the language of Islam.
He also overlooks the economic machinery that drives the immigration in the first place. It's not only the millions of jobless young Muslims in North Africa, it's Western Europe's need for fresh blood: a set of graying lands with heavy entitlement programs based on worker taxes needs a steady supply of working people, be they Tunesians or Eskimos, to maintain the system.
McDonald rejects figures from Muslim sources if they tout the rising population of Muslims in Europe, dismissing this as wishful thinking. Yet he accepts numbers from similar sites if they complain about European Muslims falling away from the faith. "I'm inclined to accept this report as valid, if only because Islam Online isn't a website that's particularly eager to accept secularism or assimilation among Western Muslims."
Which is exactly the reason to mistrust the report. Religious groups that are most committed to revival and evangelization are likely to put forth lurid tales, sloppily documented, of rampant secularism. The loonier American Christian organizations offer a good example of this.
McDonald also is unlucky in his historical comparisons; he compares modern France to America's efforts to absorb Catholic immigrants.
"France’s problem with its nominally Muslim minority in the early 21st century isn’t a civilizational clash, any more than the United States’ problem with its nominally Catholic minority in the early 20th century was."
Yet, as McDonald himself points out, "the Roman Catholic Church is the single largest Christian denomination in the United States." As it turns out, the fears of the Know-Nothings of the 1850s were realized. But the consequences were not. But the nature of Catholicism, even a radical Catholicism, is different from that of Islam, especially a radicalized Islam. To pretend otherwise is to be willfully blind.
In addition, it overlooks the fact that Catholic immigrants to America were absorbed into a political system that deliberately was constructed to balance the competing powers of multiple religious sects.
And in fact the contrast of the highly religious American society and the utterly secular modern European one is relevant, I think, though McDonald does not address it. Historically, secularism/skepticism is a position of an intellectual elite. It does not tend to be the human condition. I have no idea if there is a God-gene, as some say, but personal experience and reading in history convince me that most people have a yearning toward faith, usually collective faith, even if I don't seem to share that quality.
When skepticism and disbelief spread widely in a civilization, that development often leaves it vulnerable to new and virulent faiths -- think of the late classical world at the time of Christ, or the Middle East at the time of Muhammad. New faiths, untempered by centuries of civilized co-existence, can rage like wildfires in that dry grass. The secularism of modern China, to me, is something to be wary of, not to celebrate.
Saddest, to me, is the way McDonald chooses to argue in a vacuum, by not allowing that there can be any serious argument but his. Nowhere is this more clear than when he hauls up his straw opponent -- the people who write hyperventilating comments on the freewheeling Little Green Footballs Weblog. This is the equivalent of Ralph Nader debating action figures and puppets. It can only pass for a real debate if you're already sure that everyone in your lecture hall already is on your side, a situation I suspect McDonald knows pretty well. If you are a lazy writer and you want to convince liberal Internet types of anything without going to the trouble of really convincing them, just say, "LGF commentators say the opposite." If you want them to say the sun rises in the west, find an Lizardoid to say it rises in the east.
He does introduce one serious writer on the European-Muslim situation, Bat Ye’or, only to instantly dismiss her, without addressing any of her arguments, merely because she is a strong supporter of Israel. Israel has nothing to do with French assimilation of Muslims. Ye'or's position on Israel may color her view of what Europe's interest is. But that is in no sense the point of her study. To dismiss her wholesale, simply because she is a friend of Israel, confirms to me the worst stories I've heard about the current state of academic attitudes.
