Radicalization of Muslim youth in Europe versus America

[bhchao]

Why is radical Islam from Muslim immigrants more pronounced in Europe than in the States?

Both Europe and America are destinations for Muslim immigrants; but what factors allow Muslim immigrants in Europe to be able to preach or carry out radical violence?

I read that even second or third generation Muslim youth in Europe are prone to radical Islamic behavior. This is not the case however in the States, where assimilation usually sets in by the second generation. Second generation Muslim youth in America might retain or accumulate strong Islamic traditions, yet their practice of it in America is more moderate than their European counterparts.

There are more opportunities for immigrants in America to get ahead in society through personal initiative, free from institutional obstruction or societal prejudice. Leaders from both parties also foster a political ideology of cultural unity amid diversity.

In Europe, are liberal policies toward immigration to blame for the radicalization of Islam there? Or are the failure of integration policies mostly to blame?

[Lu]

I think a difference is that people, including Muslims, who come to the US really choose to go there, and buy into the idea of the American Dream, that they, too, can be a part of. Europe on the other hand was a more pragmatical or even negative choice: pragmatical for many of the first-generation laborers, who originally were supposed to come here, do the dirty work, and return home with the money they made. Through various circumstances, many ended up staying instead of returning, not because Holland (in this case) was where they wanted to be, but because it's where they ended up. In addition, the locals weren't (and still aren't) too keen on letting them into their society.

For refugees Europe is more of a negative choice: they want to be somewhere else than where they are now, and whatever other place is the most likely to let them in, that's where they'll go.

Also, the original immigrants to Europe were usually the poorest, least educated people of their country, and so their children, the second and third generations, start out at a disadvantage: not only do they not know Dutch when they first go to school, they might not even know a whole lot of their own language. The immigrants to the US on the other hand I think are more likely to be the highest educated. They have better opportunities to begin with, and their children are more likely to succeed as well.

I'm not pretending to have the final answer on this, but these are just some things that I think contribute to it.

[gato]

Also, the original immigrants to Europe were usually the poorest, least educated people of their country, and so their children, the second and third generations, start out at a disadvantage:

That may be true, but it's not related to the radical Islam. Radical Muslims tend come from a more educated background. They tend to be more like Osama bin Laden (who comes from a billionaire family), and less like the poor Afghan kid who doesn't how to read. They tend to come from middle to upper-class families and well educated. Some of them came to their resentment of the West through personal experience -- perhaps as an exchange student or immigrant.

Edited March 11, 2009 at 01:29 PM by gato

[gato]

Here is an article related to the topic, but the attack was in Somalia.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/10/AR2009031003901.html?hpid=topnews

Somali Americans Recruited by Extremists

U.S. Cites Case of Minnesotan Killed in Suicide Blast in Africa

By Spencer S. Hsu and Carrie Johnson

Washington Post Staff Writers

Wednesday, March 11, 2009; Page A01

In recent public statements, the director of national intelligence and the leaders of the FBI and CIA have cited the case of Shirwa Ahmed, a 27-year-old college student from Minneapolis who blew himself up in Somalia on Oct. 29 in one of five simultaneous bombings attributed to al-Shabaab, a group with close links to al-Qaeda.

Overall, U.S. intelligence officials assess that "homegrown" extremists are not as numerous, active or skilled here as they are in Europe, but authorities remain focused on what Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair called the "likelihood that a small but violent number of cells may develop here."

Domestic radicalization has been a greater concern in Europe than in the United States, whose economic mobility, assimilative culture and historic openness to immigrants have provided some insulation, U.S. officials suggest. In the year before the 2005 London transit attack, Britain in particular struggled with reports that al-Qaeda was secretly recruiting Muslims at British universities and that up to 3,000 Britons had returned over a decade from the terrorist group's camps.

[yonglin]

Some thoughts:

1. "Radical" muslims are very often liberal until they arrive in the West. I think radicalization of Islam in Europe is a reaction to the fact that it is very difficult to become part of mainstream European culture, where cultural/national identities are based mainly on heritage/ethnicity. In the US, being American has more to do with adhering to a certain set of values and is not intrinsically unattainable. If you cannot become part of the mainstream culture, you naturally seek refuge among those "of your own". Of course, you'll develop some resentment for the society in which you live and this might take the form of radical Islam.

2. Very few (if any?) European countries hold assimilation of immigrants as a major political goal. Usually, it is argued that a "cultural mosaic / salad bowl / multicultural society" is better than the "melting pot" which is advocated in the US. I think this gives more "wiggle room" for the formation of radical organizations.

3. Europe has a very long tradition of welfare. In Sweden (with which I'm the most familiar), new immigrants are put on welfare and eagerly shovelled away to little towns with few job opportunities. This isn't particularly clever, since new immigrants really need to get out to get a job, learn the language and build social networks. With less generous welfare benefits (generally the case in the US), the incentive to actually do this will be a lot higher.

[gato]

2. Very few (if any?) European countries hold assimilation of immigrants as a major political goal. Usually, it is argued that a "cultural mosaic / salad bowl / multicultural society" is better than the "melting pot" which is advocated in the US. I think this gives more "wiggle room" for the formation of radical organizations.

There are a lot of people who advocate the "salad bowl" model instead of assimilation in the US, particularly in the universities. They believe that assimilation means assimilation into the European American culture and they don't think that's desirable. But in actual practice, American culture is a mix of its many strands, with some more dominant than others, and assimilation is more likely to happen in the US than most other countries, but it takes time and may not happen with the first or even second generation immigrants.

[flameproof]

I think the reason is simply that US is not a major destination for many Muslims. UK has historically strong connections with Pakistan, France has strong connection many African countries. Germany has strong links with Turkey, they are not really radical though.

In other EU countries it's rather moderate. The caricature issue in Denmark was IMHO rather isolated.

US seems more like a mainstream place that caters for everybody from everywhere without a single big grouping of one Muslim nationality.

Of course I could be completely wrong here too.

[peekay]

Interesting report on a global survey done by BBC and Gallup last year: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7200514.stm

Europeans apparently feared more interaction with Islam - according to the report, they saw it as a threat to their cultural identity.

But people in the US, Canada, Israel and the Muslim world said more contact would be a good thing.

"Although some might expect the United States, Israel and the Middle East to be more likely than Europe to be threatened by the 'other', the opposite is the case," the report said.