I must have been one of them, because I didn't notice this book, which was published in 2006. The Spanish translation is from 2007, which is what I read (From Isabel Gonzalez- Gallarza).
While Europe slept... Where does that remind you off? Knowing that the author Bruce Bawer is a journalist working in Europe. Wasn't Kennedy a reporter too? His career in journalism started with a thesis about the appeasement of Munich and his first book was called "why England Slept." But this time Europe sleeps during the threat of the Islam extremists, unlike before the WWII when there was another enemy. Again the enemy comes from within: "How Radical Islam is destroying the West from Within."
First of all this book is a must read for anyone interested in European and American culture.
Bruce Bawer had a personal motive in writing this book (which becomes clear on the first page, when he writes: my partner and I...), but his background is in journalism and he investigates the threat mentioned in the title.
When writing this review I cannot other then smile sometimes for example now when commenting the structure of the book: which is very simple. There are three chapters, the first is titled: Europe's Blindness.
I personally found this the best chapter, as it is the one that is most accurate and less personal. It seems to me that as the story continues the anger of the author increases.
At the very opening I realize that Holland is very well represented in the book. The opening is about the death of Theo van Gogh. The book starts in continues like this:
Mark? Hi Bruce. Did you find out about what happened to Theo van Gogh? This personal approach makes the book very realistic. Theo van Gogh is a Dutch Filmmaker and columnist who was murdered by Mohammed Bouyeri, "born in the Netherlands, from Moroccan parents and part of radical Muslim organization. The tone (of the book) is set.
The Dutch reader will then find a very precise sketch of the Dutch society, with words like "gezelligheid," so important in the Netherlands. It can hardly be translated but means something like: coziness. And one can even wonder whether the word is not familiar to the already mentioned "appeasement." Not only in Holland but also in other European countries the abstract concept of peace is analyzed (The example in the book point especially to the Scandinavian countries where it is not a coincidence that "the Nobel Peace Prize" is a Swedish invention). Another fact about the Dutch society can again only be described by an authentic word: "verzuiling," meaning that every religious group had its own structure in society; the Catholics, the Protestants, the Jews, etc. had their own political party, their own news station, their own labor syndicate, etc. When discussing the use of diminutives in the Dutch language "biertje, vriendje" (bier, friend), which show that "these people are concerned not to exaggerate and not to expect too much from anything." When reading all this I thought: he this is someone who knows our culture very well. Later he comes with much more examples which are embarrassing to read (the joke about languages).
But the Dutch had a problem: the country well known for its tolerance had to tolerate an intolerant group of extremist. And that is when the conflict settled with the murder of van Gogh.
Bruce's his first observation about Muslims in the Netherlands is in Amsterdam, where the Muslims in the center are completely adapted and nearly use no "niqab or burka," but in some of the "ugly" suburbs they do. He explains the difference to us.
He then continues his journey in the book to other countries like Norway and shows that Norway isn't that different from the Netherlands. The Dutch are more cosmopolitan where the Norwegian are more provincial, but (later the reader learns) the role of the authority is the same. This is the first and fundamental critique on Europe: they do not only sleep when they shouldn't but they can not form an independent opinion as anything is ruled by the establishment. A variety of examples follow where newspapers and political parties are dominated by the same network of intellectuals. That he is right will appear later when his book is already published and the Dutch translation as well as this Spanish translation is changed due to the critique he uttered to a Dutch news editor.
This establishment is a very rough network that I know from experience is very hard to change. If you are not part of this network your opinion doesn't count. That was what strokes me; as not many have elaborated on this topic. As far as I know. One of the reasons why innovation is such a tough subject is precisely that, the role of the establishment and the academics that work as professional gatekeepers; they determine what is acceptable and what not. (but this is a personal opinion not mentioned in the book).
In the US it is very normal that a politician has a background in business or a career like actor, in Europe the politicians enter directly from the university and pursue a career in politics with the final objective to enter "Brussels." The examples mentioned of "Schwarzenegger and Reagan (he was a bodyguard in his former life) in the US are unacceptable in Europe, with a single exception: Berlusconi in Italy..."
Any interesting fact is his list of immigration defaults as I call them. Finland and Iceland have no immigration but every country has its own main source: In Sweden from Iraq and Iran, In Norway Pakistan, in Denmark from Turkey, In the UK from India and Pakistan, Belgium and Holland from Morocco and turkey, France and Italy from the Magreb, Spain from Morocco, German from Turkey, Switzerland from the Balkan... Then he describes how the immigration started: the immigrant is said to be a refugee, brings no papers with him which makes it impossible to trace the history and to verify the facts. Then all if not most European governments help the immigrant with an ample social security system...
He describes the isolation process as one where the described establishment is "political correct" in accepting the new inhabitants "with behold of their own cultural background." In comparison with the US where every immigrant is American and there is no segregation to religion or ethnic background.
As mentioned earlier, a large number of small anecdotes decorate the book. For example where a Muslim Couple witnesses two lesbian kissing. He describes the intervention of the Muslim couple and this is where it becomes clear where he is aiming at: the values of freedom are at stake, at the same time where the establishment in Europe cannot handle any longer a situation because of a previous acceptance of the new culture and under their terms.. The police and other officials are powerless.
The earlier mentioned political establishment and the displease felt by the citizens leads to a situation where the normal political parties get competition from "populist" parties that have extremism as single topic on the political agenda. These two - the establishment and the new populist parties - conflict obviously. These populist parties have a more American approach: they are against a too proactive government in society influencing people's freedom. As newspaper belongs to the establishment they ignore these parties as much as possible. (This was written in an about 2005 ...).
The big difference (again) between the US and Europe is that Europe listens to an authority and the US citizens listen to what works. They don't care about titles as long as people show leadership...
He than elaborates on the Islam Spokesman for Europe: Tarik Ramadan and about the difference between integration in the US and Europe. An immigrant is not supposed to work as a physician, do European citizens seem to think. This is where Bruce recalls his own neighborhood back in the US, summarizing a myriad of exotic names, but "all of them American."
Copyright © 2009 Hans Bool
For more information on similar and a wide range of different topics have a look at the writer's block note