White meat, dark meat
Apr 25, 2007 Euroids, Futurama
Mark Steyn talks about the unpleasantness in Turkey — a situation that most of us have some trouble keeping score on:
For a year or more now, there’s been a steady drip of “Who lost Turkey?” stories. The modern secular Muslim state – a country that gave women the vote before Britain did and was Israel’s best friend in an otherwise hostile region – certainly, that Turkey seems to be being de-boned by the hour: it now has an Islamist government whose Prime Minister has canceled trade deals with Israel, denounced the Iraqi elections, and frosted out the US Ambassador because he was Jewish; a new edition of Mein Kampf is prominently displayed at the airport bookstore. In other words, the Zionist Entity’s best pal is starting to look like just another cookie-cutter death-to-the-Great-Satan stan-of-the-month.
What does he ascribe this to? Admitting that he has become the “in-house Demography Bore” at National Review, he says it’s a matter of internal Turkish demographics:
Since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, there have been two Turkeys: the Turks of Rumelia, or European Turkey, and the Turks of Anatolia, or Asia Minor. . . Ataturk’s modern secular Turkey has simply been outbred by fiercely Islamic Turkey.
Steyn makes this point in a column explaining why, contrary to some of his critics, his observation that Europe as we know it is rapidly en route to self-extinction-by-contraception is hardly racist, and that the analysis works perfectly well even within an ethnically consistent, but culturally divergent, setting such as Turkey.
He could just as well have cited Israel, where notwithstanding the melange of ethnic groups constituting Israeli Jews, birthrates among strictly-orthodox haredim compared to the sub-replacement rate among secular Israelis is a constant theme in all sociological observations concerning the state’s future.
And what is at the heart of this: The simple truth that populations that are pessimistic about their futures do not have children, or worse. As Robert Samuelson writes, “by not having children, people are voting against the future—their countries’ and, perhaps, their own.” And those that are optimistic — including, frequently, those who have religious belief that sustains their spiritual states even in harsh economic times — one way or another, rule the future.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet!
April 25th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Yes, but if they do, will they have kids?
April 25th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Yes!
April 25th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
nah steyn is wrong like with everything else
turkey is fine
it promoted a secular leader from the islamist party when in fact the party’s real leader is an islamist
more at .org
http://eteraz.org/story/2007/4/25/02615/9575
April 26th, 2007 at 7:59 am
Turkey still officially denies its butchery of the Armenians, which became an inspiration for the Nazis.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:42 am
Bob, can you document that — that the Armenian genocide was an inspiration in any meaningful sense (or what that sense might be) for the Nazis? In all my exposure to literature on the Nazi regime and the Final Solution I have never seen anything like this.
Ali, thanks for the link, but nothing you’ve written contradicts what Steyn says about the actual changes in Turkey’s Israel policy. Here are links demonstrating that Turkey, unlike even the cynics of Europe, has supported the eliminationist Palestinian government of Hamas; and indeed a general “rollback” of cooperation with Israel (also here). On the other hand, governments make policy decisions for many reasons. I could not find anything about a freezeout of the US ambassador on the Internet, nor about an actual cancellation of the trade agreement. I can hardly imagine Steyn made these things up, however — any guidance here would be appreciated.
This was, however, not the point of my post, Ali — demographics and birthrates were. You being a secularized Muslim (fair description?), I would be interested in your take on the matter, actually.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:40 am
I guess I should leave a serious comment. Not having read enough studies on the subject, I have a hard time discriminating between various possible causes. For instance, have studies separated out the effects of poverty, gender inequality, and religious belief on birth rates? Often the three go hand in hand, so, unless properly controlled for, it would be difficult to correctly identify the cause. Is giving birth “voting for the future,” or is it giving into your husbands demand to have a child — i.e. voting for your husband’s future? Now, I don’t know the answer to this; I’m just proposing some questions.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Ron, this might be along the lines of what Bob is referring to:
“Accordingly, I have placed my death-head formations in readiness — for the present only in the East — with orders to them to send to death mercilessly and without compassion, men, women, and children of Polish derivation and language. Only thus shall we gain the living space (Lebensraum) which we need. Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”
April 26th, 2007 at 11:47 am
And maybe the Turks were inspired by the Russians. And the wheel keeps on turning…
April 26th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Alex is correct.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Onething more: Samuelson says at the end of his piece, “People ignore Adam Smith’s keen insight: ‘[The] chief part of human happiness arises from the consciousness of being beloved.’” True, but on the other hand, some happiness studies show that while men are made happier by marriage and children, the reverse is true for women.
April 26th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Ron,
is it honestly “voting against the future” to not have children? perhaps it’s simply voting for your own future by avoiding the material, social, and psychological costs of having children? there are plenty of reasons to have or not have children and as usual steyn does zero analysis. preferring instead to ride his ridiculous distortions off into the sunset.
April 29th, 2007 at 12:49 am
Bob & Alex,
I think you are reading way too much into that excerpt. Hitler took much of his imperial ideas from the Romans, including the Eagle. Others came from an amalgam of religious and political sources. Similar comments about the Carthaginians were made by the Romans: “Cathargo delenda est”, for example.
Hitler was only using a recent example to reinforce his comments.
Respects,
April 29th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
His expectation, based on the Armenian experience, that the Western democracies would turn a blind eye to his implementation of genocide was a strong factor, but no one is saying it’s the only one or the main one.
April 29th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
[...] Comments Ron Coleman on Whatever happened to….Bob Miller on White meat, dark meatBob Miller on Generals and majorsCasey on Whatever happened to….Gwedd on White meat, dark [...]