The editors of Charlie Hebdo have had enough of the self-despising multiculturalists in their midst.  "In reality, the attacks are merely the visible part of a very large iceberg indeed. They are the last phase of a process of cowing and silencing long in motion and on the widest possible scale."  The Federalist's M. G. Oprea elaborates.
The Charlie Hebdo editorial correctly points out that in Europe the dominant liberal culture has pounded into us that we must adapt to Muslims who come to our country, and never ask them to adapt to any of our ways. Doing so would be colonialist and wrong. It’s a double standard, of course. As the welcoming countries, Europeans must suppress their own culture and ideals for those of the Islamic immigrant population.
There's a simple revealed preference counter-argument, of course.

You're here because where you left, things sucked.  Have you considered that things don't suck here because we got a few things right?
Asking immigrants to assimilate doesn’t mean white-washing their culture and religion, asking them not to wear the hijab, or demanding that they eat pork. But it does mean asking them to accept, to some degree, the culture of the country to which they have willingly moved. These are things like women’s rights, tolerance, free speech, or criticism of religion. It also means not having to apologize for having a culture of one’s own.
That's a more tactful way of putting "have you considered that things don't suck here because we got a few things right."  Left for future research: will immigrants who accept some of the cultural norms of their new country have an evolutionary advantage over those who stick with the familiar?

No comments: