Shadi Hamid seems to have evolved. When Jonah Goldberg interviewed him some time back, he said that when a Muslim country "democratically" enacted Sharia law, that was a legitimate and respectable expression of the will of the people. On the other hand, if an American state "democratically" enacted restrictions on abortion, that was horrific.
On the other hand, I think he's right about "liberal democracy" and its weakness. Either "democracy" means "a system where the citizens and/or their representatives vote on laws and stuff," regardless of the content of the "laws and stuff," or it means, "the system where the outcomes are what I want them to be." The chance that it's going to be both at the same time is slight.
I can't speak for Shadi , but based on his recent comments, I think he has concluded, based on what has transpired with American institutions and political discourse, that "neutrality" is an illusion, that ideology steps in to fill the gap created by supposed "neutrality," and the ideology tends to lean heavily in one direction.
Interesting anecdote about claiming American Indian ancestry. My mother's family has deep roots in the Maryland and Virginia colonies starting in the late 17th century and there existed a family story of an American Indian ancestor, or rather, ancestress, from those early colonial days. It was never something the family dwelled upon or paraded about but it would come up every now and then. "Oh, you know we're supposed to have this Indian ancestor," usually when looking at some of the earliest family daguerreotypes from the 1840s and a few still extant if somewhat primitive paintings of colonial era ancestors who, while surely white, were also not blond and blue, but who you'd might think were Spanish or Italian.
An intrepid aunt set about trying to trace down this ancestor to see if the story was true. And she did discover there was indeed a colonial Indian ancestor.
But it wasn't American Indian. We are descended from the offspring of a relationship between an indentured Scotswoman and the South Asian Indian manservant of Lord Calvert, the proprietor of the Maryland colony at the time who had brought an Indian - South Asian Indian - servant with him for his duration in Maryland. She being indentured could not officially marry. Letters exist in various archives describing this servant and even a record of their relationship. Because it wasn't a legal marriage, their offsprings took her last name. It's also not surprising why within a few generations the South Asian Indian ancestor was replaced with an American Indian as memories faded and the concept of an actual South Asian Indian became simply too exotic to comprehend, and I suppose the genders also swapped because the concept of an out of wedlock relationship was also too shocking to contemplate.
I wonder what percentage of been-here-since-colonial-days Euro-American lineages have garbled and/or totally unfounded stories of American Indian ancestors. I'd bet it's extremely high. My family had such a legend, but it seems to be 100% false, according to DNA analysis anyway.
Congratulations on your readership figures. They are very well-deserved. Your writing is one of the things which makes my weeks enjoyable - thank you for it.
Seconding this. I don’t see eye to eye on all of EW’s views, but they’re usually even-handed and I learn a lot. Plus, my inner conservative will out anyway. Better here than in many conservative spaces.
Think I might check out your Battle of Hastings book just to see if you have a take on whether the guy with the arrow in his eye in the Bayeux Tapestry is Harold Godwinson, or if the guy get run down by a horse is, or if in fact it is an action-packed frame depicting the hapless Harold getting an arrow in the eye and then being run down by a horse in sequence.
Also the "conservatives and the religious breed more" demographic singularity will take place in 2200, according to I think Professor Kaufmann's projections and the projections of others. Hopefully they'll have cured death by then and you'll get to see it, Ed.
Hanania's argument is a bit baffling. On the one hand, he claims that the tide of secularisation, the growth of liberalism is irresistible: "You can’t," he writes, "expect to maintain the values of a rural community in a country where no one farms anymore." On the other hand, he seems confident that it will be reversed by mere demographic inertia! But how so, if the social arrangements that maintained faith have withered? Why should we be confident that the children of the religious will remain so in changed circumstances?
Hanania remarks: "It’s interesting to wonder what the clerics who took over four decades ago could have done differently." The answer is: They could have done less. The reason the Iranian theocracy hasn't been able to force Iranian society as a whole to share its values is simple: people don't like to be pushed around. A religious tyranny has triggered a secular resistance.
It was, by contrast, harsh secular rulers, in countries like Egypt and Syria, that helped create the upsurge in Islamic fundamentalism during the late 20th century. Turkey's secular constitution, and the heavy-handed enforcement of secular values, was the breeding ground for the AKP. The devout Muslim minorities in Western Europe are religious in part as a reaction against the secular society in which they live.
And the most Christian parts of Europe are those which endured, for some decades, the secular tyranny of Communism. It will be interesting to see if there's any Christian revival in Western Europe, as a result of irritation at Woke presumption.
Shadi Hamid seems to have evolved. When Jonah Goldberg interviewed him some time back, he said that when a Muslim country "democratically" enacted Sharia law, that was a legitimate and respectable expression of the will of the people. On the other hand, if an American state "democratically" enacted restrictions on abortion, that was horrific.
On the other hand, I think he's right about "liberal democracy" and its weakness. Either "democracy" means "a system where the citizens and/or their representatives vote on laws and stuff," regardless of the content of the "laws and stuff," or it means, "the system where the outcomes are what I want them to be." The chance that it's going to be both at the same time is slight.
I can't speak for Shadi , but based on his recent comments, I think he has concluded, based on what has transpired with American institutions and political discourse, that "neutrality" is an illusion, that ideology steps in to fill the gap created by supposed "neutrality," and the ideology tends to lean heavily in one direction.
Interesting anecdote about claiming American Indian ancestry. My mother's family has deep roots in the Maryland and Virginia colonies starting in the late 17th century and there existed a family story of an American Indian ancestor, or rather, ancestress, from those early colonial days. It was never something the family dwelled upon or paraded about but it would come up every now and then. "Oh, you know we're supposed to have this Indian ancestor," usually when looking at some of the earliest family daguerreotypes from the 1840s and a few still extant if somewhat primitive paintings of colonial era ancestors who, while surely white, were also not blond and blue, but who you'd might think were Spanish or Italian.
An intrepid aunt set about trying to trace down this ancestor to see if the story was true. And she did discover there was indeed a colonial Indian ancestor.
But it wasn't American Indian. We are descended from the offspring of a relationship between an indentured Scotswoman and the South Asian Indian manservant of Lord Calvert, the proprietor of the Maryland colony at the time who had brought an Indian - South Asian Indian - servant with him for his duration in Maryland. She being indentured could not officially marry. Letters exist in various archives describing this servant and even a record of their relationship. Because it wasn't a legal marriage, their offsprings took her last name. It's also not surprising why within a few generations the South Asian Indian ancestor was replaced with an American Indian as memories faded and the concept of an actual South Asian Indian became simply too exotic to comprehend, and I suppose the genders also swapped because the concept of an out of wedlock relationship was also too shocking to contemplate.
I wonder what percentage of been-here-since-colonial-days Euro-American lineages have garbled and/or totally unfounded stories of American Indian ancestors. I'd bet it's extremely high. My family had such a legend, but it seems to be 100% false, according to DNA analysis anyway.
must be loads surely.
I'm not even sure if Churchill's mother's supposed Native ancestry has ever been verified.
Congratulations on your readership figures. They are very well-deserved. Your writing is one of the things which makes my weeks enjoyable - thank you for it.
Thank you!
Seconding this. I don’t see eye to eye on all of EW’s views, but they’re usually even-handed and I learn a lot. Plus, my inner conservative will out anyway. Better here than in many conservative spaces.
Thank you so much Mike
Thirding this! Great hope for all that writers like Ed can hit the 10,000 mark.
Indeed. I'm currently stalled on 450 🙄
Think I might check out your Battle of Hastings book just to see if you have a take on whether the guy with the arrow in his eye in the Bayeux Tapestry is Harold Godwinson, or if the guy get run down by a horse is, or if in fact it is an action-packed frame depicting the hapless Harold getting an arrow in the eye and then being run down by a horse in sequence.
Also the "conservatives and the religious breed more" demographic singularity will take place in 2200, according to I think Professor Kaufmann's projections and the projections of others. Hopefully they'll have cured death by then and you'll get to see it, Ed.
Hanania's argument is a bit baffling. On the one hand, he claims that the tide of secularisation, the growth of liberalism is irresistible: "You can’t," he writes, "expect to maintain the values of a rural community in a country where no one farms anymore." On the other hand, he seems confident that it will be reversed by mere demographic inertia! But how so, if the social arrangements that maintained faith have withered? Why should we be confident that the children of the religious will remain so in changed circumstances?
Hanania remarks: "It’s interesting to wonder what the clerics who took over four decades ago could have done differently." The answer is: They could have done less. The reason the Iranian theocracy hasn't been able to force Iranian society as a whole to share its values is simple: people don't like to be pushed around. A religious tyranny has triggered a secular resistance.
It was, by contrast, harsh secular rulers, in countries like Egypt and Syria, that helped create the upsurge in Islamic fundamentalism during the late 20th century. Turkey's secular constitution, and the heavy-handed enforcement of secular values, was the breeding ground for the AKP. The devout Muslim minorities in Western Europe are religious in part as a reaction against the secular society in which they live.
And the most Christian parts of Europe are those which endured, for some decades, the secular tyranny of Communism. It will be interesting to see if there's any Christian revival in Western Europe, as a result of irritation at Woke presumption.
Hi Ed. Can’t figure out how to contact you directly. I’m a publisher interested in the UK publishing of your 2 forthcoming US mini books
edjameswest at gmail.com
Sent you a message