What adds to this dichotomy/non-interactionist model, however, is the narrative that many north africans share about Western invasion during the colonial period. And in some ways, I have to agree with them–although French colonialism in Algeria can only be understood through the lens of all the historical interactions between the two sides of the Mediterranean–I would still maintain that the French invasion of Algeria in the 19th century was not simply a continuation of those interactions since the 11th century, but more a colonial invasion and domination of a people. Of course, it’s important to highlight the way that France and the concept of what it is to be French changed through this interaction, as well as the way Algeria and ethnic lines within it also changed, especially in the French construction/opposition of Kabyle culture against Arab.

Finally, I imagine you’re all familiar with Amitav Ghosh’s In an Antique Land, a book which tries to show the history and the influences of all these interactions since the 11th century, along with their relevance to the current situation in a village in Egypt, but without all the anthropological jargon (as an aside, I think the publisher tries to hide his academic status, nowhere does it say he’s an anthropologist THOUGH he did get a D.Phil in anthro from Oxford. So in this non-fiction book he’s marketed as a novelist). I helped teach this book when I was a TA for an introductory course and I feel that it worked out quite well.

Oh really? I thought in the beginning I asked you in which parts of Western Europe “waves of muslim migration” currently (in the sense of ‘at present time’) could be notified, as I am not aware of a phenomenon like that.
For Germany at present time, as one could argue, rather the opposite is the case.

“it wasn’t the language, per se”

yeah I think in here I agree.

I’m off my blog and writing a text in german gegenwärtig, which immediately takes bad impact on my english. (‘code-switching’, anyone? I did not want to say “that was my question”, but “that answered my question. thx 4 ur attention.]

“But in any case I’m not speaking about last year’s migration but about, say, last century’s.”

I see. thx for clarification. That was my question.

What parts of Western Europe are you talking about?

[I do not ask for having found a Haar in der Suppe as in many parts of Western Europe muslim migrants live in second, third and I don’t know fourth generation? – thinking of France.]

I do want to point out, though, that I’m not talking about “contact” but about “always already *in* contact”. Take Frederick II, for example — born in Sicily, which was itself a former Muslim holding, Frederick II spoke and reportedly prayed in Arabic. Catholic scholars worked in Muslim-controlled cities throughout the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance. From the 11th century on, Muslim and Christian kingdoms existed side-by-side. El Cid led armies for both Muslim and Christian rulers — often leading armies against kingdoms he had formerly served — and often leading armies for kingdoms he had formerly fought. Even the Roland saga is far more complex than the myth of Christian resistance it hs become — Charlemagne entered Iberia at the behest of Muslim leaders to exploit a revolt in Saragossa (hence “Saracens”), and was quickly “Arabized” (virtually everyone who came to Iberia ended up adopting Muslim fashion, architecture, and food tastes) before returning home to deal with Frankish revolt — at which point his rear guard was attacked by fiercely Christian Basques (not Saracens at all!). And so it goes — the point being that Iberia was deeply involved with the rest of Europe, even when it was ruled predominantly by Muslims. And, foc ourse, just because Ferdinand won a battle in Granada doesn’t mean that the centuries of Muslim presence simply vanished — Muslims and Jews entered Catholic SPain as converts (Moriscos and Marranos), but more than that, the new Spanish leadership inherited the architecture, libraries, and institutions of Muslim Spain. There’s more continuity, I think, than discontinuity, but it’s buried beneath centuries of European nationalism and winner-writes-the-history-ism.

In general, I really side with your post. Over at Anthropology.net, there have been a couple posts and discussions on the divide between (or neglect of) integrating the contributions of the Muslim world with the West. However, this post of yours, much more eloquently advocates breaking the boundaries between the West and non-West.

The first divide that comes to mind is the ignorance towards Ibn Khaldun‘s foundation to sociology specifically, and social science in general. As social scientists, if we advocate breaking the divides between us, surely we should acknowledge the scientific works of those on the “other” side.

[This post, originally signed, has been made anonymous at the request of the poster. The name of the poster has also been removed from the following post. -Ed.]