“If you want to witness entertaining paroxysms of cognitive dissonance, ask a cultural relativist about the caste system, female genital mutilation, or honor killings. The reflexive response is that these practices do not really belong to the respective cultures. The real culprit is — wait for it — Western Patriarchal Colonialism! This artful dodge enables cultural relativists to avoid the prickly reality that many cultures are fundamentally different and some values are truly incompatible.”
This article should be carried in all the major and minor media outlets of the West. It should also be required reading in all their education institutions followed by discussions based on principles of Critical Thinking.
I really dislike taking this point of view as the two Muslim friends that I have are just wonderful human beings. They are kind to all and love their home in Canada. One is quite religious but at the same time respects other religions and knows very well that I am Jewish and how i feel about Israel. He was disgusted by what happened Oct 7th and hopes for a 2 state solution one day.
Having said that, I still strongly believe that until we can discern between a Muslim and an Islamist, we must stop immigration from all Muslim countries.
My two friends, Mohammed and Nazilla, know how i feel and understand my concern. They have not disagreed, nor have they agreed which says a lot in itself.
One can see from the demonstrations that we are importing radical Muslim elements that want to tear down our way of life. I hope it does not take another 9-11 here or in the US to wake us up.
Regarding the expression "until we can discern between a Muslim and an Islamist," perhaps if we replaced the term Islamist with devout, pious, religiously dutiful, and righteous we would get a more accurate picture of what is going on because all religions have what more critical followers would call "fanatics."
In point of fact Islamists and their ilk are actually literalists who execute the calls to action of their sacred texts to the letter. The difference between the religions is just what actions are demanded of the faithful in their relation to the non-followers and non-believers.
No doubt some Muslims are either unbelievers or they practice a more moderate version (at least for those living in the West). The fanatics get the bad press.
Sadly Islam never went through the cauldron of the enlightenment as did Christians nor the Rabbinic reform of Judaism which brought Jewish practice into modernity. Were there such for Muslims, we would be all living in relative peace. Thank you Josh!
"Unfortunately, Islam has been less flexible than Christianity or Judaism in adapting to modernity"
Indeed, and that's why Islamic countries are seldomly successful (exept when there is oil in the ground). "Cultural appropriation", scolded by the woke-left, is in fact the essence of Western civilization.
So important we talk about this. I totally agree. And.. I would require certain changes if you want to live here. I think these shroud-like costumes are dangerous to public safety and should not be allowed. You don’t like it you can go elsewhere.
My daughter was walking her dog one evening after dark and there’s a supposedly Muslim woman standing on the sidewalk - alone - not moving. My daughter instinctively turned and walked in the other direction. how do you know it’s a woman under there? (why would a super religious woman be out alone at night ?) It’s a danger. They shouldn’t be allowed on public transportation for sure.
Being a Jew, however, I have to remind the readers that Jews are always considered the foreigners within, no matter how many centuries they have lived in a country. I agree that it would be catastrophic if the world were to become the Caliphate Iran dreams of, particularly for the world's women. I anticipate that as European and North American countries receive ever-greater influx of Muslim immigrants, there will be a jettisoning of the culture in general of those countries in favor of the culture of Islam, and to back myself up, I cite the destruction of the 6th century Buddhist sculptures destroyed by the Muslims in Afghanistan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamiyan). It is normal for a conqueror to destroy the artifacts and culture of its new country: see how Europeans obliterated Native culture in North America, or how the Christians destroyed or castrated all the Roman/pagan artifacts they could find. The west bends over backwards to be polite and compassionate to what is actually a slowly conquering army that has contempt for politeness and compassion.
So I am torn, because I am of a people who is always considered the enemy within. I would back those who say, "You've got to keep these people out if you want to keep your culture, your arts, your literature, all your civilization's accomplishments," but the right wing groups who want to keep out "them" also want to keep out "us". And they tend to be fascist. Granted, the groups who want to open the world to the Caliphate are fascist from the left. And the center is quiet. Either way, the Jews are going to be cast out, either by the right who see them as never "us", or by the left who see us as the first enemy to be eliminated.
I have not been able to thread this needle, and I don't know the answer.
Shelah, you nicely summarize the dilemma that has long vexed me: at some point, tolerance and inclusion become their own undoing. It is antithetical to our core principles to treat people differently based on their origins. Yet, if we apply those principles expansively enough to immigration policy, that may create a majority that discards those very principles.
Constitutions can be a safeguard against that, but only a limited one. Firstly, constitutions can be changed with a large enough majority, and before you know it, you could have laws against blaspheming Muhammad (some European countries are already close to that). But secondly, they don't necessarily preclude a lot of cultural practices that the current majority in Western countries finds abhorrent-- FGM, &etc.
I think most of us couldn't stomach the idea of a cultural litmus test for immigrants. But without it, we risk having our current, mostly-shared values overwhelmed. Historically, this wasn't that big an issue in most Western countries, because the cultural-value differences with the immigrant population weren't that great. The current global immigration flows have changed that dramatically.
We can't keep pretending that everyone in the world shares the same values or that the differences are trivial. They don't and they aren't. If you import 100 million (or even 10 million) Salafis, your open-minded, liberal country is going to change--real fast. So barring a litmus test, the best we can do is to limit immigration to fairly small numbers and prioritize on people with skills (which is somewhat of a proxy for modern liberal values).
> the best we can do is to limit immigration to fairly small numbers
Well that's what the western countries have always done with Jews. Let in a trickle, then close the gates. The argument for this of course is that we don't completely assimilate, we keep our own identity, which is exactly the objection you're making to the Muslims, but I agree, allowing a small number of Muslims to immigrate, just as these countries only allow a small number of Jews to immigrate, may be a good solution.
The problem with any extreme ideology or solution is that it is by its very nature imbalanced. Perhaps what we are looking for is balance, which is difficult to achieve in today's polarized society.
"The argument for this of course is that we don't completely assimilate, we keep our own identity, which is exactly the objection you're making to the Muslims,"
Well, not exactly. At least in the US, the sense of national affinity is defined by shared Enlightenment values (freedom, equal rights, democracy, etc.) rather than ethnicity or religion. Those values owe a lot to rabbinic Judaism (or at least they're quite compatible with it as George Washington famously pointed out).
I think it is very possible for someone who is Jewish (or Muslim for that matter) to maintain much of their identity within those Enlightenment values and the American supertribe. As proof, I can cite literally millions of American Jews who have done just that. And a fair number of Muslims too (around 15,000 Arab-Americans fought for the U.S. in WWI). I can't think of anyone more "American" than Ben Shapiro, Chuck Schumer, or Humayun Khan -- all folks who maintain(ed) strong loyalties to their religious/ethnic backgrounds.
This has all been fostered by the melting pot and the more limited flow immigration that makes it work. As newcomers arrive, they assimilate and acknowledge that the Enlightenment framework makes it possible for the greatest number of people to live happily together without turning their backs on their origins. If you flood a country with vast numbers of people who don't adapt to (or outright reject) that framework, that system breaks down.
You bring to mind the fact that on both right and left, in the past year I’ve encountered essays or podcasts or something criticizing Enlightenment values. Damn me if I can remember where it was but I remember being surprised. An assault on logic is in the wind. The arguments were that there are things we can’t measure, that we can’t prove, that actually exist but that Enlightenment values don’t recognize. And OK, I am totally in agreement on that because here I am, a painter, I deal with the language of the nonverbal, the irrational, the sensed and felt. I believe in qi and I believe in energies that we don’t know how to measure yet, and this belief greatly informs my sense of religion. That said, just because I believe in these things, I’m not willing to throw out logic and science. Just because science is often wrong, I am not willing it throw it out, scientists make mistakes like anyone, they just have to get closer to the truth the next time. I am speaking again about balance, about how you need Enlightenment values and you need to acknowledge the unseen, but this avoidance of extremes seems to be too much to ask of most people. I’m not sure why. Podcasters or essayists who use technology to get their messages out condone Enlightenment values by their actions even as they verbally deride them.
I believe the problem we have in the west is that we don’t find we can respect a foreign culture without deriding or losing our own. Which is bizarre, you’d think we could chew gum and walk at the same time but no.
As you mention regarding Darwin, ‘survival of the fittest’: this is the physical world, and ‘survival of the fittest’ has a part to play. However, it isn’t ultimately the physical world with human beings, which drives direction: it’s perceptions and beliefs, experiences driven by them building from one choice to the next, over many generations. Ideology.
My belief system is what built this culture and its practical physical environments which these people from other belief systems want to come to and benefit from: not the other way around.
Therefore, they can assimilate and live according to my culture’s laws and values or they can stay where theirs rule.
Same for the Indigenous peoples-not singular- complaining about ‘settler colonialism’: if their many and varied ‘systems’ were better, they’d have exported them successfully, as their populations thrived, just as we did, expanding and pushing into where my forebears came from, just as they pushed against each other in their tribal wars all along before we whites landed.
If they want to bitch about being overwhelmed, with the clash between stone-age living styles vs that involving metalworking, gunpowder, the wheel, advanced agrarian methods, textile production, etc- let them do it after giving back all the benefits we brought with us. Like hunting rifles, bush aircraft, snowmobiles, septic systems, water treatment and indoor plumbing, stonemasonry, insulated buildings, wool clothing, nylon, you get the drift.
Otherwise the lot of these arrogant grifters, thieves and liars on all sides who want to suck at the trough we’ve built but tear it apart while they do, can shut up.
Meanwhile: can SOMEONE please find the ‘spine’ stores for my own cultural brothers and sisters, hand them out and insist they be inserted??
"they can assimilate and live according to my culture’s laws and values or they can stay where theirs rule"
Assimilate means to replace all one's cultural values and practices with the dominant culture. Another approach is integration, wherein one retains one's culture but fits it in with the dominant culture by adding to them rather than seeking to replace them. Simple case is one culture importing its cuisine to the delight of the "native" culture. Styles of dress, festivals shared are others, e.g. Duwali and the Chinese New Year parades being open to one and all.
As to comments about the Indigenous peoples, let us not overlook the fact that they were conquered not because of superiority of the newcomers culture but because of the superiority of their weaponry.
As Andre Maurois noted, “We owe to the Middle Ages the two worst inventions of humanity – gunpowder and romantic love.” Something to think about as give ourselves a collective pat on the back.
I agree that cultural relativism is dangerous. But the author refers to Sharia councils being established in the UK, stating (for example) that "It is unclear whether witnesses will testify in honor killing cases in these areas". This is scare mongering. Honor killings like any murder will be investigated by the police and prosecuted through the UK judicial system. Sharia councils as I understand it adjudicate on religious matters but operate under UK law and are similar to regional Beth Din which adjudicate on matters of Judaism in the UK, similarly bound by UK law.
"Unfortunately, Islam has been less flexible than Christianity or Judaism in adapting to modernity. "
Modernity is based in Christian values. The fact that Christianity disappearing means the "west" is disappearing is not a coincidence. The "west" is going to have to reinvent ethical narratives that have uniquely and exclusively developed under Christian values and honestly they're stuck with political policies and crazy dei adjacent stuff or effective altruism. These secularists who feel slavery is bad in their immediately accessible reason or emotions get drawn into pretty crazy ethical conundrums pretty quickly. Us Christians are going to be fine no matter what happens but everything positive about the "west" is staying with us which we can develop on. Secularists are beyond confused about everything and lash out at everything.
“Germany reports an average of 12 honor killings a year — nearly four percent of all murders.”
Very interesting piece. But I think you need to update the above, as I’m pretty sure that the number of annual murders in Germany is more than a tiny bit above 300 (perhaps you used a Covid year stat?). With ~84M people and an annual murder rate somewhere around 1 per 100,000, that puts the number of murders at or above 800, more than double that claimed by your “nearly four percent” assertion.
The number was 214 in 2023 (see below). One has to be careful to distinguish between actual murder (214) and all attempted murders (which is in the 600-900 range).
Yes, I see that reported number from Statista. I don’t claim to know for sure if it is accurate and the final word or not, and claim no expertise on murder numbers in Germany or elsewhere.
Of course if that Statista number *is* true, that would make the 12 honor killings be nearly 6%, rather than merely nearly 4%!
Color me very suspicious of the Statista claim that “homocides” are merely attempted murders rather than actual murders. All other sources of murder statistics show much higher numbers of actual murders than Statista does.
I took an average. But I really think we're splitting hairs here—whether it's 4% or 6%. 12 is a big number in a country that has relatively few homicides.
And it’s a big enough number given the more likely 1.5% - 2%. My point is no more and no less that overstating the percentage is not helpful when the reality is bad enough.
Speaking only for myself, when I see suspiciously high numbers, I tend to discount/discredit the entire arguments of the person putting them out there.
My suspicion is that I’m in the minority but by no means unique.
"In 2023, Germany recorded 214 cases of murder, alongside 490 attempted murders, resulting in a total of 704 incidents classified as murder or attempted murder. "
And cites a Deutsche Welle article. But then there's this:
This is hard to reconcile with the Statista and DW numbers. Perhaps those numbers are based on convictions rather than occurrences. So yeah, we'll go on the conservative side and emend the text to reflect ~1.7%.
Thank you, I especially like the point that cultural relativism is not exactly en vogue globally.
“If you want to witness entertaining paroxysms of cognitive dissonance, ask a cultural relativist about the caste system, female genital mutilation, or honor killings. The reflexive response is that these practices do not really belong to the respective cultures. The real culprit is — wait for it — Western Patriarchal Colonialism! This artful dodge enables cultural relativists to avoid the prickly reality that many cultures are fundamentally different and some values are truly incompatible.”
What a great paragraph!
This article should be carried in all the major and minor media outlets of the West. It should also be required reading in all their education institutions followed by discussions based on principles of Critical Thinking.
Excellent and important article. Unfortunately, most people assume that everyone around the world is good. Denial is not a river in Egypt.
I really dislike taking this point of view as the two Muslim friends that I have are just wonderful human beings. They are kind to all and love their home in Canada. One is quite religious but at the same time respects other religions and knows very well that I am Jewish and how i feel about Israel. He was disgusted by what happened Oct 7th and hopes for a 2 state solution one day.
Having said that, I still strongly believe that until we can discern between a Muslim and an Islamist, we must stop immigration from all Muslim countries.
My two friends, Mohammed and Nazilla, know how i feel and understand my concern. They have not disagreed, nor have they agreed which says a lot in itself.
One can see from the demonstrations that we are importing radical Muslim elements that want to tear down our way of life. I hope it does not take another 9-11 here or in the US to wake us up.
papa j
Dear Papa J,
Regarding the expression "until we can discern between a Muslim and an Islamist," perhaps if we replaced the term Islamist with devout, pious, religiously dutiful, and righteous we would get a more accurate picture of what is going on because all religions have what more critical followers would call "fanatics."
In point of fact Islamists and their ilk are actually literalists who execute the calls to action of their sacred texts to the letter. The difference between the religions is just what actions are demanded of the faithful in their relation to the non-followers and non-believers.
Yes stop all immigration from Muslim countries, absolutely. Have had same thought re 9-11.
No doubt some Muslims are either unbelievers or they practice a more moderate version (at least for those living in the West). The fanatics get the bad press.
Sadly Islam never went through the cauldron of the enlightenment as did Christians nor the Rabbinic reform of Judaism which brought Jewish practice into modernity. Were there such for Muslims, we would be all living in relative peace. Thank you Josh!
"Unfortunately, Islam has been less flexible than Christianity or Judaism in adapting to modernity"
Indeed, and that's why Islamic countries are seldomly successful (exept when there is oil in the ground). "Cultural appropriation", scolded by the woke-left, is in fact the essence of Western civilization.
So important we talk about this. I totally agree. And.. I would require certain changes if you want to live here. I think these shroud-like costumes are dangerous to public safety and should not be allowed. You don’t like it you can go elsewhere.
My daughter was walking her dog one evening after dark and there’s a supposedly Muslim woman standing on the sidewalk - alone - not moving. My daughter instinctively turned and walked in the other direction. how do you know it’s a woman under there? (why would a super religious woman be out alone at night ?) It’s a danger. They shouldn’t be allowed on public transportation for sure.
If they’re completely covered you don’t who it is. It could even be a man up to something nefarious.
Exactly. You can’t tell if it’s a woman. It could be a man with a knife - or a machine gun for that matter.
I am with you on every count.
Being a Jew, however, I have to remind the readers that Jews are always considered the foreigners within, no matter how many centuries they have lived in a country. I agree that it would be catastrophic if the world were to become the Caliphate Iran dreams of, particularly for the world's women. I anticipate that as European and North American countries receive ever-greater influx of Muslim immigrants, there will be a jettisoning of the culture in general of those countries in favor of the culture of Islam, and to back myself up, I cite the destruction of the 6th century Buddhist sculptures destroyed by the Muslims in Afghanistan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamiyan). It is normal for a conqueror to destroy the artifacts and culture of its new country: see how Europeans obliterated Native culture in North America, or how the Christians destroyed or castrated all the Roman/pagan artifacts they could find. The west bends over backwards to be polite and compassionate to what is actually a slowly conquering army that has contempt for politeness and compassion.
So I am torn, because I am of a people who is always considered the enemy within. I would back those who say, "You've got to keep these people out if you want to keep your culture, your arts, your literature, all your civilization's accomplishments," but the right wing groups who want to keep out "them" also want to keep out "us". And they tend to be fascist. Granted, the groups who want to open the world to the Caliphate are fascist from the left. And the center is quiet. Either way, the Jews are going to be cast out, either by the right who see them as never "us", or by the left who see us as the first enemy to be eliminated.
I have not been able to thread this needle, and I don't know the answer.
Shelah, you nicely summarize the dilemma that has long vexed me: at some point, tolerance and inclusion become their own undoing. It is antithetical to our core principles to treat people differently based on their origins. Yet, if we apply those principles expansively enough to immigration policy, that may create a majority that discards those very principles.
Constitutions can be a safeguard against that, but only a limited one. Firstly, constitutions can be changed with a large enough majority, and before you know it, you could have laws against blaspheming Muhammad (some European countries are already close to that). But secondly, they don't necessarily preclude a lot of cultural practices that the current majority in Western countries finds abhorrent-- FGM, &etc.
I think most of us couldn't stomach the idea of a cultural litmus test for immigrants. But without it, we risk having our current, mostly-shared values overwhelmed. Historically, this wasn't that big an issue in most Western countries, because the cultural-value differences with the immigrant population weren't that great. The current global immigration flows have changed that dramatically.
We can't keep pretending that everyone in the world shares the same values or that the differences are trivial. They don't and they aren't. If you import 100 million (or even 10 million) Salafis, your open-minded, liberal country is going to change--real fast. So barring a litmus test, the best we can do is to limit immigration to fairly small numbers and prioritize on people with skills (which is somewhat of a proxy for modern liberal values).
> the best we can do is to limit immigration to fairly small numbers
Well that's what the western countries have always done with Jews. Let in a trickle, then close the gates. The argument for this of course is that we don't completely assimilate, we keep our own identity, which is exactly the objection you're making to the Muslims, but I agree, allowing a small number of Muslims to immigrate, just as these countries only allow a small number of Jews to immigrate, may be a good solution.
The problem with any extreme ideology or solution is that it is by its very nature imbalanced. Perhaps what we are looking for is balance, which is difficult to achieve in today's polarized society.
"The argument for this of course is that we don't completely assimilate, we keep our own identity, which is exactly the objection you're making to the Muslims,"
Well, not exactly. At least in the US, the sense of national affinity is defined by shared Enlightenment values (freedom, equal rights, democracy, etc.) rather than ethnicity or religion. Those values owe a lot to rabbinic Judaism (or at least they're quite compatible with it as George Washington famously pointed out).
I think it is very possible for someone who is Jewish (or Muslim for that matter) to maintain much of their identity within those Enlightenment values and the American supertribe. As proof, I can cite literally millions of American Jews who have done just that. And a fair number of Muslims too (around 15,000 Arab-Americans fought for the U.S. in WWI). I can't think of anyone more "American" than Ben Shapiro, Chuck Schumer, or Humayun Khan -- all folks who maintain(ed) strong loyalties to their religious/ethnic backgrounds.
This has all been fostered by the melting pot and the more limited flow immigration that makes it work. As newcomers arrive, they assimilate and acknowledge that the Enlightenment framework makes it possible for the greatest number of people to live happily together without turning their backs on their origins. If you flood a country with vast numbers of people who don't adapt to (or outright reject) that framework, that system breaks down.
I totally agree with you, you win that point.
You bring to mind the fact that on both right and left, in the past year I’ve encountered essays or podcasts or something criticizing Enlightenment values. Damn me if I can remember where it was but I remember being surprised. An assault on logic is in the wind. The arguments were that there are things we can’t measure, that we can’t prove, that actually exist but that Enlightenment values don’t recognize. And OK, I am totally in agreement on that because here I am, a painter, I deal with the language of the nonverbal, the irrational, the sensed and felt. I believe in qi and I believe in energies that we don’t know how to measure yet, and this belief greatly informs my sense of religion. That said, just because I believe in these things, I’m not willing to throw out logic and science. Just because science is often wrong, I am not willing it throw it out, scientists make mistakes like anyone, they just have to get closer to the truth the next time. I am speaking again about balance, about how you need Enlightenment values and you need to acknowledge the unseen, but this avoidance of extremes seems to be too much to ask of most people. I’m not sure why. Podcasters or essayists who use technology to get their messages out condone Enlightenment values by their actions even as they verbally deride them.
I believe the problem we have in the west is that we don’t find we can respect a foreign culture without deriding or losing our own. Which is bizarre, you’d think we could chew gum and walk at the same time but no.
As you mention regarding Darwin, ‘survival of the fittest’: this is the physical world, and ‘survival of the fittest’ has a part to play. However, it isn’t ultimately the physical world with human beings, which drives direction: it’s perceptions and beliefs, experiences driven by them building from one choice to the next, over many generations. Ideology.
My belief system is what built this culture and its practical physical environments which these people from other belief systems want to come to and benefit from: not the other way around.
Therefore, they can assimilate and live according to my culture’s laws and values or they can stay where theirs rule.
Same for the Indigenous peoples-not singular- complaining about ‘settler colonialism’: if their many and varied ‘systems’ were better, they’d have exported them successfully, as their populations thrived, just as we did, expanding and pushing into where my forebears came from, just as they pushed against each other in their tribal wars all along before we whites landed.
If they want to bitch about being overwhelmed, with the clash between stone-age living styles vs that involving metalworking, gunpowder, the wheel, advanced agrarian methods, textile production, etc- let them do it after giving back all the benefits we brought with us. Like hunting rifles, bush aircraft, snowmobiles, septic systems, water treatment and indoor plumbing, stonemasonry, insulated buildings, wool clothing, nylon, you get the drift.
Otherwise the lot of these arrogant grifters, thieves and liars on all sides who want to suck at the trough we’ve built but tear it apart while they do, can shut up.
Meanwhile: can SOMEONE please find the ‘spine’ stores for my own cultural brothers and sisters, hand them out and insist they be inserted??
"they can assimilate and live according to my culture’s laws and values or they can stay where theirs rule"
Assimilate means to replace all one's cultural values and practices with the dominant culture. Another approach is integration, wherein one retains one's culture but fits it in with the dominant culture by adding to them rather than seeking to replace them. Simple case is one culture importing its cuisine to the delight of the "native" culture. Styles of dress, festivals shared are others, e.g. Duwali and the Chinese New Year parades being open to one and all.
As to comments about the Indigenous peoples, let us not overlook the fact that they were conquered not because of superiority of the newcomers culture but because of the superiority of their weaponry.
As Andre Maurois noted, “We owe to the Middle Ages the two worst inventions of humanity – gunpowder and romantic love.” Something to think about as give ourselves a collective pat on the back.
I agree that cultural relativism is dangerous. But the author refers to Sharia councils being established in the UK, stating (for example) that "It is unclear whether witnesses will testify in honor killing cases in these areas". This is scare mongering. Honor killings like any murder will be investigated by the police and prosecuted through the UK judicial system. Sharia councils as I understand it adjudicate on religious matters but operate under UK law and are similar to regional Beth Din which adjudicate on matters of Judaism in the UK, similarly bound by UK law.
"Unfortunately, Islam has been less flexible than Christianity or Judaism in adapting to modernity. "
Modernity is based in Christian values. The fact that Christianity disappearing means the "west" is disappearing is not a coincidence. The "west" is going to have to reinvent ethical narratives that have uniquely and exclusively developed under Christian values and honestly they're stuck with political policies and crazy dei adjacent stuff or effective altruism. These secularists who feel slavery is bad in their immediately accessible reason or emotions get drawn into pretty crazy ethical conundrums pretty quickly. Us Christians are going to be fine no matter what happens but everything positive about the "west" is staying with us which we can develop on. Secularists are beyond confused about everything and lash out at everything.
The "west" is losing epistemic access to our values which is why they're all confused.
“Germany reports an average of 12 honor killings a year — nearly four percent of all murders.”
Very interesting piece. But I think you need to update the above, as I’m pretty sure that the number of annual murders in Germany is more than a tiny bit above 300 (perhaps you used a Covid year stat?). With ~84M people and an annual murder rate somewhere around 1 per 100,000, that puts the number of murders at or above 800, more than double that claimed by your “nearly four percent” assertion.
The number was 214 in 2023 (see below). One has to be careful to distinguish between actual murder (214) and all attempted murders (which is in the 600-900 range).
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1045508/number-of-murders-in-germany/#:~:text=In%202023%2C%20there%20were%20214,cases%20in%20the%20previous%20year.
Yes, I see that reported number from Statista. I don’t claim to know for sure if it is accurate and the final word or not, and claim no expertise on murder numbers in Germany or elsewhere.
Of course if that Statista number *is* true, that would make the 12 honor killings be nearly 6%, rather than merely nearly 4%!
And other sources show different numbers:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/murder-rate-by-country
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/DEU/germany/murder-homicide-rate
Color me very suspicious of the Statista claim that “homocides” are merely attempted murders rather than actual murders. All other sources of murder statistics show much higher numbers of actual murders than Statista does.
I took an average. But I really think we're splitting hairs here—whether it's 4% or 6%. 12 is a big number in a country that has relatively few homicides.
And it’s a big enough number given the more likely 1.5% - 2%. My point is no more and no less that overstating the percentage is not helpful when the reality is bad enough.
Speaking only for myself, when I see suspiciously high numbers, I tend to discount/discredit the entire arguments of the person putting them out there.
My suspicion is that I’m in the minority but by no means unique.
Especially on Substack.
FWIW, Chatgpt says:
"In 2023, Germany recorded 214 cases of murder, alongside 490 attempted murders, resulting in a total of 704 incidents classified as murder or attempted murder. "
And cites a Deutsche Welle article. But then there's this:
https://www.n-tv.de/infografik/Zahl-der-Mordfaelle-in-Deutschland-1990-2022-article24142089.html
This is hard to reconcile with the Statista and DW numbers. Perhaps those numbers are based on convictions rather than occurrences. So yeah, we'll go on the conservative side and emend the text to reflect ~1.7%.