Douglas Murray’s The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam is as the name of the book suggests is both: an account of what Murray sees as the self destruction of Europe, and a criticism of the prime movers that Murray sees as responsible for Europe’s impending demise. “Europe is committing suicide.” are the striking opening words of the introductory chapter; Murray immediately clarifies that by “Europe” he means that that the civilization of Europe is in the process of killing itself (Murray 6). Murray explains that “Europe today has little desire to reproduce itself, fight for itself or even take its own side in an argument.”; this is attributed to two core reasons that Murray refers back to throughout his book: the first being
…show more content…
Elliott Abrams, a former deputy national security advisor for the 2nd Bush administration gave a completely favorable review. The review offers no criticism of the book and many agreements are made about Murray’s points. Abrams called Murray’s work “brilliant, beautifully argued and deeply disturbing” and recognizes that Murry will be called names for his writing but defends murry that there is no prejudice on Murray’s part; just honestly. Abrams seems to particularly agree on Murray’s points about low European birth rates and the questions that Murray asks throughout the book. Ian Almond , a world literature professor, offers a much more detailed and critical review of the book. Almond begins his review with the things he thought positive about the Murray’s work. Almond likes the questions Murray raised in his book such as: how a culture dies?, what is the importance of demograpic changes in this death, and when is it ethically legitimate to call for a stop to migration. Almond believes that the book is an important challenge to political correctness and points out that shines light on some relevant aspects of the migration crisis that people avoid talking about. Almond notes that the book does an excellent job on portraying the chaos of the European political class. Almond then goes on to list the books flaws. Almond calls the books most glaring weakness is its one sided flow of information. Almond claims that the book is rhetorical, not arguementative; and paints Muslims in a mostly negative light and notes that the only “good” Muslims that show up in the book are victims of “bad” muslims. The book’s lack of counter arguments and opposing narratives is also discussed. Almond claims that the book ingnores history that is inconvinent for its narrative and challenges Murray’s notion of a Christian Europe when historically Europe has been home to
Elliott Abrams, a former deputy national security advisor for the 2nd Bush administration gave a completely favorable review. The review offers no criticism of the book and many agreements are made about Murray’s points. Abrams called Murray’s work “brilliant, beautifully argued and deeply disturbing” and recognizes that Murry will be called names for his writing but defends murry that there is no prejudice on Murray’s part; just honestly. Abrams seems to particularly agree on Murray’s points about low European birth rates and the questions that Murray asks throughout the book. Ian Almond , a world literature professor, offers a much more detailed and critical review of the book. Almond begins his review with the things he thought positive about the Murray’s work. Almond likes the questions Murray raised in his book such as: how a culture dies?, what is the importance of demograpic changes in this death, and when is it ethically legitimate to call for a stop to migration. Almond believes that the book is an important challenge to political correctness and points out that shines light on some relevant aspects of the migration crisis that people avoid talking about. Almond notes that the book does an excellent job on portraying the chaos of the European political class. Almond then goes on to list the books flaws. Almond calls the books most glaring weakness is its one sided flow of information. Almond claims that the book is rhetorical, not arguementative; and paints Muslims in a mostly negative light and notes that the only “good” Muslims that show up in the book are victims of “bad” muslims. The book’s lack of counter arguments and opposing narratives is also discussed. Almond claims that the book ingnores history that is inconvinent for its narrative and challenges Murray’s notion of a Christian Europe when historically Europe has been home to