All Rise: Immigration: It’s Not about Race.

"Minnesota Women" (Amina Farah Ali and Hawo Mohamed Hassan)

“A Minnesota woman on trial for allegedly funneling money to a terrorist group in Somalia was found in contempt of court Monday when she refused to stand for the judge and jury, citing religious grounds.” (October3, 2011)

Reuters, the AP and  the Minneapolis Star Tribune refer to these “Somali Americans” as “Minnesota women.”  Rather than the stereotyped interests one might associate with a Minnesota woman – baking, out door sports, PTA and so on, these ladies have an interest in jihad back in Somalia,  You know, just like the “Massachusetts man” whose interest in  miniature aircraft got him a jam the other day.

The Daily Beastis a bit more to the point with “Feds Accuse 14 Americans of Aiding Somalian Jihadists” (Aug 5, 2010 2:30 PM EDT), but also refers to the defendants as “Minnesota women.”

Some Minnesota Women

One wonders at the use of “Americans.”  Are we then to think that these jihad ladies (and one is engaged in jihad simply by supporting the armed conflict.  All major schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree on this point) are people just like you and me, or our neighbors.  Or is it shock that “Americans” would do something like this, as if the bestowal of nationality necessarily changes attitudes, or that citizenship acquired by naturalization or birth right will automatically trump centuries old tribalism?

American these ladies may be in nationality, but in attitude they are something else, as Aminah demonstrated when she refused to stand for the judge.  No doubt she recognizes no law but shariah, under which of course she would not be accused of any offense,

It can be tedious pointing out this endless linguistic obfuscation on the part of  the legacy  media.  Minnesotans have a certain stereotyped appearance: Generally white, although we do think of Prince, Scandinavian  and German origin, interested in fishing and hunting, hardy snowmobilers.  It may seem brutal, but I will say it outright: the accused don’t look like Minnesotans.     The reason they don’t is not because of their color but  their demeanor.

“Here come da Judge.”  There are civic institutions for which we demonstrate respect, even if we may not feel it in our hearts.  This is the deal.  This makes us Americans.

Apparently, this was unsatisfactory in some quarters, and Minnesota,  a state the NYT described as “lily white,”  was chosen as a primary destination for  Somali immigrants.  On a smaller scale, quite similar to the “Blair Immigration Project,” in which the Labor Party elite opened Britain to mass immigration, largely from Muslim countries, especially Pakistan and Bangladesh.

A former speech writer for Blair describes the idea:

“The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He defended the policy, saying mass immigration has “enriched” Britain, and made London a more attractive and cosmopolitan place. ”

A fairly common scene in Londonistan

Well, it certainly has, without doubt, increased the availability of kebab and curry takeout. Other changes have not been so desirable.

Diversity  The sophisticated left and right coast mentality has always been drawn to cosmopolitanism.  New York and San Francisco – and begrudgingly, Chicago, and also New Orleans, which while cracker, was also French – were the preferred roosts of the bohemian: These cities had French and Italian restaurants, Chinese, and were as close as we could come to Europe.  Snobbish as this outlook was, it was at least looking in the right direction.  We have been immeasurably enriched by immigration.  It’s not just the exponential growth in dining choices, but the validation of our inclusive way of life,  and how we see ourselves.

Thus it is easy to fall into the trap of looking at all immigration through a sentimental lens,  The immigration now is not always what we knew, a Greek or a Chinese who started a small business, and whose kids went to college, maybe joined the military, and happily moved to the suburbs, where they lived in houses with space and amenities people in the home country only saw on the silver screen.  Filipinos, Latinos, Chinese, Arabs, washing  their trucks on weekends, barbecuing in the park.

There has always been that tension, particularly with immigrants from more traditional societies, between the immigrant generation, and their progeny who move away form “old country ways.”  It’s a familiar story.  The children were drawn to the main culture because it provided opportunity, and because the message was overwhelming,.  Those few blocks of the old country became to seem a prison when the hyphenated Americans looked out to that vast continental possibility.

Our culture is a blend, first settlers from the British Isles, all white yes, but not in themselves homogeneous, the churchmen of New England and entrepreneurs very different from the land grantees of the south, or the hardscrabble Scotch Irish of the Piedmont, and a generous leaven of felons from throughout the home islands,  Huguenots here and there, the absorbed Dutch.

“White” is not, and never has been an ethnicity.

Few  remember that the WASPS were not at all happy with e arrival of the
Germans.  They only went to Church Sunday morning, and instead of going back for evening services, spent the rest of the Sabbath having picnics, playing sports – women too!  Scandalous and depraved.  They drank and danced.  The Irish had their troubles in America, but came in droves from a far worse alternative. The million or more Scandinavians encountered no difficulties other than being called dumb Swedes or square heads.

Later groups from southeast and south Europe did encounter resistance and even racialist contempt, but they too were  assimilated.  Assimilation doesn’t mean vanishing entirely. The Boston Irish, and the New York Italians are vital and distinct to this day, but consider themselves nothing but American, as do Americans regard them.

So why get upset about arrivals from Somalia and other Muslim nations?

After all, with mass Latino immigration,there is  the possibility of immigrant concentrations  so large they cannot be absorbed, because in their sheer numbers, they can be self referential.  Little Italies and Greektowns were a matter of a few city blocks;but we may soon be dealing with enclaves the sze of small states. And while hardly mainstream, Chicano irrredentism, with its call for the return or seizure by resettlement, of the Mexican Cession, exists.

Mexico North

A problem, yes; and a massive one, but one that is still manageable.  With high out-marriage rates, it is clear that Hispanic immigrants in the main assimilate. And in Latin America we see a branch of European civilization, with its civic institutions derived, via Spain, from ancient Rome.

In Somali immigration, and that of other groups coming from Islamic countries, the case is entirely different. Although  Hindus, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, and Vietnamese are from non-Western traditions, their cultures contain nothing like this injunction from the Koran:

Surah 3:28

Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (to remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.

Assimilation, which requires full participation in the host community, is scripturally prohibited in Islam.

In “Minnesotastan” we have the seeds of the “Islamic emirates” being established in Britain. Amina Farah Ali and Hawo Mohamed Hassan will never be “Minnesota Women,” and if the trends in Europe are an indicator, neither will their children.

Tower Hamlets, London

Advertisements

Gimme Rewrite! Newsspeak = Newspeak

From Reuters Fri Aug 26  2011  9:47 GMT:  “SOMALI MILITANTS BEHEAD BOYS IN MOGADISHU ATTACKS”

From Merriam-Webster Free Online Dictionary:

definition of MILITANT

1
: engaged in warfare or combat : fighting
2
: aggressively active (as in a cause) : combative <militant conservationists> <a militant attititude
The story gives an account of one boy who was kidnapped, and turned up the next day beheaded in the local livestock  market and goes on to report a spate of such killings recently.  Snatching and decapitating unarmed teens is certainly not combat, but I suppose you could characterize lopping off heads as being “aggressively active.”

Examples of MILITANT

  1. an angry and militant speech
  2. political radicals with a militant unwillingness to compromise on any issue

Well, sure, beheading does indicate a certain intransigence.

Definition of ATTACK

1
: the act of attacking with physical force or unfriendly words : assault
2
: a belligerent or antagonistic action
3
a : a fit of sickness; especially : an active episode of a chronic or recurrent disease b : a period of being strongly affected by something (as a desire or mood)

Well, okay, head-taking certainly would fall under the legal category of assault, and whoever did this most certainly got up in the morning feeling more than a little belligerent.

Then lost his head, so to speak.

And even definitions 3a and b work,since these guys definitely have a strong desire  to sever skulls, and do it repeatedly,

Now, this really isn’t funny: neither the actions themselves, which bad as they are, can be expected from the quarter whence they come.  What is worse is this kind of reporting which day after day reduces horrors to the mundane, and eventually banal, and sanitizes evil as savagery is called militancy in a cause.  It as if Holocaust histories were written without those grainy photos of heaped corpses, and instead used MSexcel generated graphs.

Here’s how they might have done it i the old days when there were no journalism schools, and reporters wore fedoras, smoked cigars and yelled “gimme rewrite” just before deadline.

“Islamic terror leaves headless kids across war torn Mogadishu.”

A more uptown approach might have been something on the order of:

“As Al Shabab Islamists emulate the barbarism  their prophet founder, Muhammed, first demonstrated against the Jews of Khaybar in the Seventh Century, the headless corpse of Qadar Omar Siyad, 19, was found among trash and offal in the city’s cattle market.  He was the latest victim in a string of brutal murders of young boys over the last few weeks.”

Note the parenthetical historical context, of the sort most reports on such actions in the Islamic world never contain.  This would refer later to a wrap up paragraph showing that beheading is inherent in Islamic texts and actions, across regions and history.

Not bad as a lead in, if I do say so myself. “Trash and offal” set the scene economically,  in a sensory manner.  You can smell the filth and see the flies, and this boy’s body given no more consideration than the waste of the slaughter house.

The story writes itself from there.  I learned this stuff in high school.  What they appear to learn in journo school these days is a a kind of etiolated prose that fills column inches, but sucks away meaning, so that “news providers” have become a self reinforcing constellation of ministries of truth, a gulag archipelago for language from which truth rarely escapes, with nary a Winston Smith or Solzhenitsyn among the workers  feeding the memory hole.

Gimme rewrite.