Compare Daniel Pipes and Paul Collier on the Migration Question by Political Observer

Read this essay by Daniel Pipes on what I can only call a kind of  Sophisticated Xenophobia, on the question of the Syrian Refugee,  that he argues must be- the title expresses his singular idea: ‘Let Refugees Remain in Their Own Culture Zone’. Does this even meet the lowest standard of humanitarian concern? Should a reader of this essay be surprised at the brazen expression of  Islamophobia voiced by the notorious Neo-Conservative, Mr. Pipes? Based on the cultural/religious differences between the ‘West’ and the ‘Arabs’ as presented by Mr. Pipes: the specter of Mr. Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations re-appears in an even more morally/intellectually pernicious form.

Mr. P. frames the question thus: Will the presence of a large un-assimilated population of Muslim refugees loyal, not to western enlightenment values, but to Sharia Law produce social/political chaos? One might answer: Does the presence of 500,000 Ultra-Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn, with their roaming Modesty Squads, Law by writ of Rabbi abetted by the Brooklyn district attorney, Charles J. Hynes, and Tribal conformity, produce social/legal chaos?

http://www.danielpipes.org/13389/syria-refugees

I can’t say that this video from the Economist offers a rebuttal to Mr. Pipes. But ‘Paul Collier on Migration’ seems to offer a bit of sanity and the use of rational argument to an important question.  Who we are regarding the refugee question that will not go away , it is ever present . America’s culpability in the production of circumstances that produce refugees is an unquestionable reality.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2013/10/paul-collier-migration-and-diversity#

Political Observer

About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.' https://www.lrb.co.uk/v15/n20/perry-anderson/diary
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.