Around half the British bombers of 7/7 and 7/21 were of Pakistani origin, the other half of African or Caribbean origin. The NYT now spins the Pakistani group as victims of cultural confusion:
“They don’t know whether they’re Muslim or British or both…” They are alienated from their parents’ rural South Asian culture, which they see as backward… they feel excluded from mainstream British society, which has so far not yielded to hyphenated immigrant identities as America has.
‘Give me mango lassi and aloo gobi in every grocery store, or give me death’ (which they actually have in the UK, bless Sainsbury’s little heart). The sale of desi exotica and Apu on The Simpsons irritate thin, sunlight-deprived snarkidesis into penning high-class rants on blogs, like the class nerd hitting the football star with a rubber band sneak attack and then running like a coward. But did Apu push the 7/7 murderers over the edge?
It’s pretty silly when you put it that way, of course. And the UK has one of the richest desi diasporic subcultures anywhere, so there’s no lack of musicians, movie stars and models for teens to identify with. Naturally, it’s not about cultural chiseling. IMO the Beeston milieu boils down to three factors: the reverse psychology of teen rebellion, the in-your-face racism of working-class Britain and standard-issue criminality. The perversity of rebelling by being more conservative than your parents is by far the strangest one.
The second gen is much more demanding of their rights as Britons than their immigrant parents who just want to keep their heads down and earn a paycheck:
The British Raj officially ended on Aug. 15, 1947, but its relationship to its subjects did not. In the following decades men of the Indian subcontinent came to Britain en masse to supply cheap, unskilled labor for factories, foundries and, especially, textile mills in northern Britain…Mr. Hussain, now 54, worked in factories and mills, drove a taxi, and has run a corner minimart for 15 years… Integration was minimal, thanks to barriers of race and language, culture and religion. The migrants were the colonized who came to live among their former colonizers. “When we came, we were like servants,” Mr. Hussain said…
The children of the immigrants have shed the servility, and passivity, of their parents, Mr. Hussain said. They want their rights, even if they have to fight for them. This inspires both pride and unease in him… Arshad Chaudhry, an accountant and member of the Leeds Muslim Forum, sees it differently. “They were very timid,” he said of the first wave.
The second gen is also better off for the usual reasons, their parents’ hard work and the intrinsic advantages of being native to a culture:
Both groups say South Asians have actually prospered more than whites, which has generated some resentment… Plenty of British Muslims face staggering poverty and unemployment, but the bombers and their immediate circle were not among them. At least some youth seem more directionless than deprived.
In some ways, Mr. Hussain and other elders say, the young people have had it easy. At the age when their fathers worked like mules, the sons are playing cricket, studying, hanging out. Compared with their parents, they are well educated, thoroughly literate, fluent in English and the Internet…
But the reverse psychology of rebelling against your parents’ beliefs generates some odd beliefs in the young fuddy-duddies of the fundamentalist fringe. These beliefs are quite retro; they’re neither new nor usually associated with louche, layabout teens at all. On the positive side, they include the deep pro-Americanism among college students in Iran. On the negative, they include a more conservative interpretation of religion in young Muslims and the Arabization of South Asian Islam. You also see this reflexive rebellion in Pakistan, where support for Islamist parties has grown in reaction to Gen. Musharraf despite the unpopularity of their actual, Taliban-like beliefs.
Neo-Islamism contains many ironies. In questioning their parents’ more tolerant strain of religion, they’re even less faithful to their culture, which is exactly what they complain about. And their alignment with an Arab interpretation is odd because many Arabs are famously disdainful of South Asian Muslims on a personal level. Pan-Islamic unity has never truly existed, it’s always fallen prey to the usual human prejudices of language, origin, accent and appearance.
Religiously, the young men came at Islam like converts – questioning everything, accepting nothing. If they were going to practice, they wanted to do it in what they considered the right way. If they wanted to go to heaven, they felt, they had to find the purest form. They wanted evidence for whatever they did in the Koran.
All of the young men quickly rejected the Islam of their parents, who practice a Sufi-influenced strain of the subcontinent called Barelvi. Shaped partly by Hindu and folk customs, it believes in the power of pirs, or holy men, and their shrines… The young men, Mr. Khan especially vehement among them, believed such “innovations” contaminated Islam… They stopped praying at their parents’ mosque, even as they used its basement gym to warn youth against the type of Islam their parents practiced upstairs… They turned, instead, to the more rigid, orthodox Deobandi school of Islam, which also had a mosque in town. The adherents of Deobandism include the Taliban of Afghanistan; they take what they see as a literal approach to the faith.
Of course, working-class Muslim Britons face hardcore racism of the two-fisted variety:
They grew up in rough and often blighted neighborhoods where “hardness” – the ability to fight anyone, at any time – was essential, said Mr. Hussain’s son Nadeem Ejaz, 30, who runs the family’s green grocery. The red shoelaces favored by young racists from the National Front remain etched in his teenage memories. Many young Muslims, Mr. Khan among them, turned to martial arts or boxing partly to ensure combat readiness.
And some drift into standard-issue criminality:
Boys regularly divide into white and Asian gangs… Here and in other South Asian communities over the past 15 years, they have begun to out-English the English, selling drugs and serving prison terms at alarming rates. In Stratford Street, a Bengali-British drug dealer with a gold tooth and a practiced air of menace sits on a stoop…
Some know family businesses are waiting for them to take over. Some go on welfare as soon as they reach adulthood. Some sell drugs. “They are getting lazy, getting spoiled from the government,” said Abu Hanifa, 60, another shopkeeper who works around the clock…
Many white residents of Beeston tend toward tattoos and pit bulls. The drinking starts early, and openly. Trash and furniture clot some streets. Faces have been ravaged by drugs, whose use peaked a few years ago when legions of zombielike heroin addicts wandered the streets.
The class difference between Muslims in Britain and those in the U.S. is probably the most fundamental. Beeston’s issues ain’t exactly American Chai.
But British born Indians have a totally different experience. Here is a great article Times of UK by Aatish Taseer The reporter brings an intersting perspective being half-Indian and half-Pakistani born in Britain. Interesting ..Check it out guys !!!
The article is interesting, but does not address why this phenomenon is uniquely affecting the Muslim community as opposed to other non-Muslim immigrant communities. For example, Japanese-Americans, German-Americans, Italian Americans did not turn against the society into which they immigrated from their countries (which were at war with the American nation at the time). Also , the second group of bombers were not British born, and had immigrated there of their (apparently) own free will from Sudan etc. They came to Britain of their own free will and were not born into a culture which they perceived as alien. And if they saw elements in British society that they disapproved of, why didn’t they target those specifically, rather than random attacks ? I think the article is incomplete in its analysis. Though the article does reveal a disturbing trend in the minds of young Muslims.
Manish
The article is not about Muslims in the Midlands – it is about Muslims in Yorkshire and the North – Midlands is Birmingham, Leicester, Nottingham, Coventry etc
I grew up in an area with a good mixture of Indians and Pakistanis. There is one thing I want armchair theorists to give me an opinion on before I launch into a major discussion on this issue. In your opinion, why is it that Sikhs and Hindus who have faced in-your-face racism and violence have not resorted to fascism as a ‘reaction’ to the situation of disadvantage and marginalisation within British society in the way that SOME members of the British Pakistani community have?
Given that we too are discriminated against and are the descendants of factory working immigrants and have the same historical-colonial background and context?
I want to get your (and anybody elses) thoughts on this matter before I offer the rest of my perspective.
Thanks, fixed.
Here I a quoting Rajeev Srinivasan from the following blog entry http://rajeev2004.blogspot.com/
“In any case, British subcontinentals toiled away for years, but their destinies could not be more different. The Muslims tended to have far more babies, not to educate their children, and to easily become fundamentalists: for instance there is the curious case of British Pakistani Aurangazeb who ‘innocently wandered over the Line of Control into India,’ which is Orwellian doublespeak meaning ‘terrorist infiltrator.’ The Hindus and Sikhs, on the other hand, prospered and moved out of the ghettos in the grimy industrial towns. The obvious difference: religion.“
This was written even before 9/11 …
I urge people to not refer to me Indian as South Asian. Please Please don’t do that. We have NOTHING in common with Pakistanis/Bangladeshis except that they were Hindus as well 60-700 years ago. By clubbing Indian with South Asian Identity, we are just implying that Indians share same values and ideas as terrorists on 7/7. Do you ever hear any Pakistani calling themselves South Asian???
Aatish Taseer’s comments are spot on, note his Indian half is actually sikh and his fiancee is (HOT!!) British royalty —
That isn’t even factually correct on the face of it. It’s especially wrong with the 2nd gen in the diaspora.
It’s morally despicable to throw overboard all your Westernized/atheist Muslim professional friends who abhor the fundies. Or maybe you don’t know any.
One uses South Asian to refer to shared culture, Indian to refer to nation-specific politics or culture. That is as it should be.
Just as I respect your right to label yourself, respect my right reciprocally.
This whole debate on whether Hindus and Sikhs want to be associated with Pakistanis any more misses the point – there are things that British-Indians like me can tell you about what has gone wrong with SOME British Pakistanis that can be very helpful for all to hear – and we can help Muslim Pakistanis if they are willing to listen (no matter how harsh the criticism might sound)
The question is, is anyone listening and is anyone willing to face up to some harsh criticism?
The first step is to listen up and stop making excuses for the fascist ideology that has latched onto British Pakistani Islam – no excuses for fascism, full stop.
Actually to be honest I think the rift might be too big – and so what I say is more in lament than in hope of changing anything, but if anyone is willing to listen, and not let the discussion veer away into another ‘Dont-Call-Me-South Asian!’ punch up, we could actually have a fruitful thread here – but you have to nip that in the bud (the debate was had on another thread earlier and it wont advance things if this spins out of control again)
Who is up for it?
Do you? or are you too busy crossing to walk on the other side of the street so nobody thinks you’re one of those filthy types…
Abhimanyu, I realize it is the writer not necessarily you saying those things. Just representing the devil’s advocate…
-my comment was not personally directed at you, same as you were quoting an article
If you want to have that debate it would mean firm referring by whoever controls the comment board to make sure that the discussion stays on topic and does not veer into the ‘Dont Associate Me With Pakistanis’ area that has been beathen like a dead horse on Sepia Mutiny in the past and very recently too.
Manish,
If you read the article you linked to, perhaps you too would be wary of asserting cultural brotherhood with people who reject decency and humanity for their “extra-national” dream of an Islamic world. Nothing matters to these fanatics other than “the Islamic nation and its Arab culture.” Certainly, these guys have themselves rejected their Pakistani identity – not to mention any South Asian one.
And it is disgraceful to term this pathology as a “demanding of their rights”.
I share the opinion that racism, by itself, cannot account for the trend towards violence by some Pakistani youth in the UK. There are other Muslims in the UK besides Pakistanis – Bangladeshis, Arabs, East Africans, etc. These other Muslims have probably faced discrimination, but have not resorted to criminality, with the exception of the four remarkably inept East Africans who attempted a copycat attack on the subway on 7/21. What must be particularly infuriating about that attack was that the Eritrean fellow collected nearly $60,000 in welfare benefits over 10 years. So it’s okay to take the infidels money, but feel free to blow them up if you disagree with their politicians.
The Taseer article does bring some useful insight, particularly this bit:
“As a half-Indian, half-Pakistani with British citizenship, I have observed the gulf between what it means to be British Pakistani and British Indian. To be Indian is to come from a safe, ancient country and, more recently, from an emerging power. In contrast, to be Pakistani is to begin with a depleted idea of nationhood. In the almost 58 years that Pakistan has been a country, it has been a dangerous, violent place defined by hatred of the other — India. Its national image has been tarnished “
That older Pakistanis living in Britain despair over the laziness of their British-born children means that national-origin is not a good enough explanation. There are two contributing factors. One is the increased Arabization of Pakistani youth, which weÂ’ve discussed at length on different threads. The other is the role of women. Many young Pakistani women are sent back to Pakistan once they are teenagers, where they miss out on the educational opportunities that are available to their Indian and Afro-Carribean neighbors. Such women have more children than they can handle, and have no marketable skills. While Hindu and Sikh girls in the UK also experience family pressure in matters of dating and marriage, their families seem to push them as hard as their brothers to do well in school.
In other brown news, the current issue of Reason has an interview with Salman Rushdie. It does not seem to be available online. And noted Lahore-based journalist Ahmed Rashid has a piece in the Daily Telegraph”
“Why Tolerance is not on the curriculum in Pakistan” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/08/01/wislam01.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/08/01/ixnewstop.html
Manish, On your comment No.7 – For good reasons, I dont agree with point 3 & 4. But am not going to get into it and change the focal point of the discussion. Fair enough to say that not all of us see eye to eye on that notion. Having said that, Punjabi Boy – would love to hear your thoughts. I know that you have already written it up, and have your fingers on the ‘POST’ button 🙂
for the record, i’m not an ‘atheist Muslim.’ can there really be an ‘atheist Muslim,’ as there can be an ‘atheist Jew’ or ‘atheist Hindu’ (both these religions have a strong cultural-ethnic connotation).
I just linked that article as it was written by someone who can identify better with British Asians situation. (As opposed to other British reporters). “South Asian” title debate is not relevant here.
I like what Fareed Zakaria said on ABC’s “This Week” : “There will always be some ideology that dis-affected youth gravitate to. Few decades ago it was Marxism, or Che. What we have to do is to dis-credit the ideology”
I met a young woman who grew up in West Yorkshire here in NYC and she told me that in her suburban community teens hung out within their separate groups, unlike when they were children.
Also, I have started to read Nadeem Aslam’s “Maps for Lost Lovers” where the characters are Pakistani-Brits (1st and 2nd gen). He points out many problems, not w/ Islam itself, but with the way people in this small, poor town practice it. Girls are married off to their cousins in Pakistan, but it does not waork out all the time. The author notes that everyone is worried about what others will think of them. And also, not everyone has choices or feels as if they do, so they keeps repeating the same bad choices: arranged marriage, beating their children, rejecting anyone white the kids bring home, etc.
why is it that Sikhs and Hindus who have faced in-your-face racism and violence have not resorted to fascism as a ‘reaction’ to the situation of disadvantage and marginalisation within British society in the way that SOME members of the British Pakistani community have?
i think it’s bcuz these religions allow for personal growth and exploration which filters down into our daily thinking. We don’t just accept what is told to us, we question and reason with things until they make enough sense. We pay attn to our world and religion and try to find the balance we need.I think from that, many hindus/sikhs view the enemy not so much as being white people, muslims, etc, but the true enemy being poverty. It is to be avoided at all costs. The British did ransack india and there are many who hate the british to this day for it, but I think we internalized early that the biggest weakness they dealt us was poverty, and that education was the only way out.
Contrast that w/ the Pakistani situation, where Islam rules everyday thinking, life is dictated by the book. The book says the enemy is not poverty, but the enemy is british, hindu, christian, jew, all nonbelievers etc etc. Therefore, there is honor in being poor and in strongarming your way to bending ppl to your will. It’s completely similar to gangster style behavior but w/ the caveat of a ‘higher calling.’Plus it’s a lot easier to control the masses when they’re all following one line of thinking instead of having to deal w/ personal freedoms.
I’d like to hear Punjabi Boy’s views on this topic as well.
Me too.
I dont know if it is possible to talk frankly about this without giving ammunition to Pakistani-Haters – but there are some misconceptions about the root of it that have to be faced up to.
wow lovin, people who are hindus and sikh are so contemplative and spiritual! that’s why india is so egalitarian socially compared to pakistan, right?
i want to hear PB’s thoughts too. (nice pictures would be appreciated)
To break it down even more, it’s not even Pakistani Muslims, but the Sunnis and the Wahhabis. My director (with whom I did a movie about a Pakistani Shia festival) is a Brit Pakistani who is constantly cussing non-Shia Muslims for being so intolerant. He’s having to go on the radio constantly these days to defend Islam, but his fury is at the “backwards” Muslims. To be fair, he also has conflicts with his Middle Eastern Shia bosses because he thinks they ignore Sufi traditions and are too different from South Asians.
I read this Hanif Kureshi essay last week in some Granta compilation book, about him going to Pakistan, and this intellectual clinging to him, despairing about how all the educated and progessive Pakistanis flee, leaving only the radicals to take the country back to the 8th century, and how the older generation misses the dancing and freedom of ’70s and ’80s Pakistan. It was really depressing. People like my director, and his buddy Aki Nawaz are always going on and on about how great Pakistan is, but I notice no one seems to be rushing to move there.
why is it that Sikhs and Hindus who have faced in-your-face racism and violence have not resorted to fascism as a ‘reaction’ to the situation of disadvantage and marginalisation within British society in the way that SOME members of the British Pakistani community have?
Well, to start with, the extremists have created a framework where they can get the marginalized muslims into their thinking. It has a lot to do with the historial context of Islam today – The extremists in Political Islam hasn’t come to grips with the powerless 500 years. To top that there is a clear aggression against Muslim states by the West as recently demonstrated in Iraq. In the extremist framework, they are treated equal, hailed as a hero, and dead in the end – at the end, it is about stupidity.
One uses South Asian to refer to shared culture, Indian to refer to nation-specific politics or culture. That is as it should be.
says who? I am one of those ppl who absolutely hates the term South Asian. It implies that I have to be classified as something so that some idiot w/o knowledge of the world can mentally comprehend my heritage.
My parents worked too hard in this country to be marginalized and lumped together so that they could lose their identity. I’m Indian, not South Asian. Unlike the USA, where each state culturally more or less mixes together, India is a true democracy seeing that it’s a union of multiple states which in an of themselves are mini-nations. Thus to say we’re South Asian is to get away from the pride and accomplishments of Indian heritage and world standing.
re: najeeb, the analogy with hindus and siks with muslims breaks down in part because islam is not analogous with the former religions in many ways. it is a transnational, confessional and universalistic religion with a long history of “interaction” (to put it mildly) with christendom. deracinated south asian muslims have many off-the-shelf motifs to select from because of their affinity with their middle eastern coreligionists. if, for example, england ‘liberated’ khalistan from india, but decided to run it as a puppet regime, how many british sikhs would remain as depoliticized as they are now? the fiasco with sikhs destroying theaters and protesting violently a few months back in relation to ‘insults’ to their religion suggests to me that monsters lurk within all human minds, though the structure and history of islam allow the expression of those monsters more frequently.
Looks like even younger recruits are now being targetted.
The first thing is to recognise that the rise in Islamic militancy within British Pakistanis is a form of ideological fascism that has specific roots which have played on real difficulties that Pakistanis, in particular Mirpuris, have had with integrating or adapting to British society – and that we have to approach this problem with the aim of ‘understanding’ only in as much as you try to understand the very real feelings of marginalisation and dispossession a white working class Nazi skinhead who actively engages in violence and the propagation of his racist ideology.
The first thing is to say that the old paradigms we use to understand this phenomenon are busted – enough of the ‘blame it on racism and poverty’ mantra – you have to be brave and talk frankly – and I can, because I grew up with Mirpuris and can tell you how things have changed in England over the last 15 years and I have seen it all with my own eyes and I even predicted a while back that something like this would happen.
To start with, here is an article by Shiv Malik from the New Statesman that is helpful. I dont know how long it will be available online so I will paste some of it here:
Here is the most important part of the article:
wow lovin, people who are hindus and sikh are so contemplative and spiritual! that’s why india is so egalitarian socially compared to pakistan, right?
you’re confusing social issues w/ religious issues. If you want to talk social issues I could go on forever about how ridiculous indians/hindus can be to each other based on numerous things. The point here is why given these issues and others, hindus/sikhs abroad are not as fervent as Muslims to catch on to the extremist route.
And if we are going to talk society than we cannot ignore the marginalized/non-existent role of women in Pakistan when compared to the progress and freedom that Indian women have made. Surely this is a sign that empowering the population as a whole, not just one gender, could serve to improve the moral, economic and political state of things today
Unlike the USA, where each state culturally more or less mixes together, India is a true democracy seeing that it’s a union of multiple states which in an of themselves are mini-nations. Thus to say we’re South Asian is to get away from the pride and accomplishments of Indian heritage and world standing.
well, most of us here are american, and so the term ‘south asian’ does make a certain amount of sense in that light. identities are not static ideals, but in dynamic continuous flux. those who dissent from ‘south asian’ will have a role to play in its holding power, but for some the term has great salience already, it does exist. and it i suspect as inevitable as american pie when you add brown people + USA.
you’re confusing social issues w/ religious issues. If you want to talk social issues I could go on forever about how ridiculous indians/hindus can be to each other based on numerous things. The point here is why given these issues and others, hindus/sikhs abroad are not as fervent as Muslims to catch on to the extremist route.
the assertions you make about the character of religions implies certain inferences about cultures which practice those religions. i am not against generalization, per se, but one should be cautious because they are often easy to falsify, or at least not particular rich in terms of the models with predictive power they generate. i’m not a marxist, but certainly the fact that half of british hindus are of east african origin, and so very well off and self-selected to begin with, play a role in the difference of hindus from muslims. similarly, the sikhs also tend to be middle class. one can not neglect the reality that the pakistanis are, as a whole, a village culture imported wholesale to work in factories. no matter that the bombers where affluent, that economic background of their zeitgeist is an important factor.
what i’m trying to say that there likely is some difference in the mentality of hindu/sikhs vs. muslims all other variables controlled for, but the other variables are very uncontrolled in england, so we should not neglect them.
Razib: I am not quite sure about the nature of Islam has much to do with this. For instance, the suicide bombing as a technique was mastered by Tamil Tigers, who were mostly hindus. All that we are talking about Islamic terrorists now: brutality, targeting innocents, brainwashing youth and children, etc.. can be said about Tamil Tigers too. But, It is the universal appeal of Islam that is lacking in revolts by other extremists.
monsters lurk within all human minds
I agree with you there!
No. The overwhelming majority of Sikhs in Britain are from village backgrounds and our grandparents – including mine – came to work the factories.
All that we are talking about Islamic terrorists now: brutality, targeting innocents, brainwashing youth and children, etc.. can be said about Tamil Tigers too. But, It is the universal appeal of Islam that is lacking in revolts by other extremists.
i would change universal to trans-post-national. tamil tigers won’t be bombing london anytime soon because their goals are narrow and tight, and to a large extent intelligible outside their worldview (ie; one might disagree with the tamil tigers’ methods, but one understands their anger at the way the sinhalese dominated gov. treats them). the salafi radicals who spread international terror are different becasue they start outside of the central orbit of axioms that are intelligible to moderns. ie; they have little national feeling, have more emotional affinity with muslims in mindanao than christians or hindus in london (if they are british) and start with a non-material set of axioms (the core of the islam religion as they see it) which results in a chain of “logic” which non-radicals can not understand or at least comprehend without disregarding their own axioms.
in other words, i think the ‘why?’ question is far more transparent in resolution for tamil tiger suicide bombings than the london suicide bombings. prejucide is not a sufficient answer, though it might be a necessary precondition.
No. The overwhelming majority of Sikhs in Britain are from village backgrounds and our grandparents – including mine – came to work the factories.
interesting. now, i’m waiting for more elaboration, because the sikhs and “pakistanis” are also genetically very similar. here is a case where many variables are controlled, and the social trajectories can tell us a lot about the importance of ideology/religion.
The total numbers of Ugandan Asian refugees that came into Britain was around 40,000 at the time of Idi Amin’s temper tantrum – and they were mixed Hindu Muslim Sikh. The figure of ‘half’ the Hindus in Britain coming from middle class mercantile backgrounds is wrong.
The total numbers of Ugandan Asian refugees that came into Britain was around 40,000 at the time of Idi Amin’s temper tantrum – and they were mixed Hindu Muslim Sikh. The figure of ‘half’ the Hindus in Britain coming from middle class mercantile backgrounds is wrong.
well, on second thought, half seems high, but, i’m not talking just about ugandans. most of kenya and tanzania’s indians also left over time. and numerically the kenyans are i think the largest segment.
what i’m trying to say that there likely is some difference in the mentality of hindu/sikhs vs. muslims all other variables controlled for, but the other variables are very uncontrolled in england, so we should not neglect them.
yes, i agree. what do you propose are these variables? however, whereas i agree that many indians in england are from african descent, you still don’t have the small town Indian going ballistic either there, so the point becomes again, why is it that Pakistani’s have more crosses to bear than their desi counterparts of similar background?
Incorrect. The tigers suicide bombers are atheists. You can’t make an argument that it was their hindu beliefs that lead them to suicide bombings. Again, typical muslim response to shift the topic to something else instead of confronting the issue. Just like perinneal topic shifting issues of war of Iraq or palestine now we can expect to spin around uselessely without an understanding of ISLAMIC TERRORISM.
Put two and two together Razib.
By 1981, there were more than 150,000 South Asians of East African origin living in Britain.
the 2001 UK census says there are 558,810 hindus. even if east african indians are say 20% non-hindu (this differs by nation, ie; my impression is muslims are more numerous in uganda, less in kenya), that suggests a substantial minority of those in 2001 are of east african origin.
p.s. any data on the sikh emigrants? articles on their socioeconomic origin?
Put two and two together Razib.
well, i want you to elaborate. saying “it’s islam” isn’t going to present any solution in the near term (since the UK isn’t going to expel all muslims in the near future).
razib
My data on Sikh immigrants is that I am the grandson of one and I observe first hand with knowledge and intimacy the stories and aspects of the lives I see. I am offering qualitative opinion based on my life experience – life experience thick with reality and knowledge of England and the people we are talking about that you cannot glean from a set of numbers and scientific deductions about the proportion of Hindus who might have fallen into the bracket of what might be called working or middle class before they arrived in Britain – that is my eye, history, version and intuitive knowledge; accept its validity as you please.
Quoting Atish Taseer from his article :
Did you read my posts razib? That usually helps.
accept its validity as you please.
well, i assume you are being sincere. but if i am going to blog on this topic (i’ve been asked on it before actually because GNXP readers are aware that british pakistanis and sikhs are genetically similar, but have responded ‘differently’ to british culture) i need to go with more than personal communication. i guess i’ll do some digging if i have time.
Did you read my posts razib? That usually helps.
i didn’t see anything there as far as what i’m looking for. but whatever, you aren’t beholden to be any source of data. i’ll go looking on my own.
razib, not sure what your pendantic inquiries about majority/minority or poor/mercantile or asia/african immgiration splits are going to achieve. You can slice and dice the demography many ways but you are still talking about several hundred thousands of people with similar controlled factors with the exception of religion. I’m with punjabi in that as a start you need to accept that it is islam that is responsible for this menace. Otherwise we descend into the quagmire of cultural relativism, secondary effects, historical debates etc which don’t even come close to explaning the why’s and all of know can be tremendous time wasters. The second step of finding the solution in terms of islamic reformation or killing the mullahs or topling hardline govts or supporting moderate mullahs etc follows the first. Just last week, we had Bag Daddy enthrall people with his ‘umma is just another way’ and ‘eye-for-an-eye is OK’ theories. Not surprisingly, nobody called bullshit on him. Liberalism is made to bite its own ass. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
sorry razib – I meant did you see anything in my posts that could lead you to conclude that I offered up a simplistic – ‘It is because of Islam and Islam alone’ line of reasoning?
This is what I said earlier:
As in, an ideology that has become a parasite on Pakistani Islam in Britain – one that might feed off certain feelings of disaffection, that might press all the right ‘Ummah’ and ‘Jihad’ buttons in its rhetoric and appeal and therefore leech off Islam – but cannot be ascribed simply by factoring in issues such as racism but must take into account certain cultural paradigms within the Mirpuri populace and cannot be blamed on external factors of racism and discrimination, which EVERY ethnic and religious minority faces to some degree – without recourse to the insularity and virulent militant extremism that has gripped SOME British Pakistanis.
Plus, I do not have the statistics but Indian Muslims in Britain perform on a par, or close to, Hindus and Sikhs.
I’m not quite saying that – please read my posts again carefully – cheers.
I’m with punjabi in that as a start you need to accept that it is islam that is responsible for this menace.
the public policy implications are contingent upon
1) your model the system 2) your framing of utilitarian costs and benefits
ie; imagine that the british gov. expels all muslims, or people of muslim origin. if you have no muslims, you don’t have any muslim terrorism, right? well, actually since a number of afro-carribeans are always converting to the religion (as well as white brits), i suspect one near term effect is going to be retaliation from these people, who will slip through the ‘net’ of taking ‘islam is a menace’ seriously. this is a reductio ad absurdum, but to illustrate what i’m talking about.
also, context matters. the USA isn’t having that many problems with native muslims. if islam-is-islam in a context free environment, one could say the USA faces the potentional of home-grown terrorism. but, if one notes that aside from black muslims, the muslim population of the USA is higher than median SES, one might reconsider this.
there is of course a final point, which is that even non-violent muslims will have issues with the islam-is-a-menace message. so, it might behoove non-muslims in society who know islam-is-a-menace to pretend that they don’t know this while shaping public policy with the understanding that islam-is-a-menace.