# Europistan



## AirbusA321LR

Is it OK to call Europe "Europistan" in sentences like this?

Due to Angela Merkel's open border policy, Europe is becoming Europistan.

Intended meaning = If Europeans don't stop the mass immigration, their countries will become places like Afghanistan or Pakistan.


----------



## natkretep

I understand your meaning. Whether you use it or not depends on how inflammatory or confrontational you want to be.


----------



## JulianStuart

The suffix “X-stan” just means country or land of the X people.  I would not immediatley associate Europistan with what’s happening in the two -stans you mention. Having recently visited Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, I would be confused by what was intended by Europistan.


----------



## sdgraham

I have no idea what you mean by OK.

It's grammatically correct and I understand the sarcasm.

As to whether to use it, see post #2.


----------



## velisarius

"Londonistan*" was used in as a book title (published 2006). It caused a bit of a stir in Britain. I think most Brits would understand _Europistan_, though they might be  highly offended by it.


* The writer, Melanie Phillips,  defines herself as a liberal who has "been mugged by reality".

Edited: information about book added.


----------



## tittiugo

It sounds a little as a nazi-word...

Immigration is due to European/American colonialism, so now we don't have to blame it...


----------



## boozer

AirbusA321LR said:


> If Europeans don't stop the mass immigration, their countries will become places like Afghanistan or Pakistan.


It is perfectly fine, crystal-clear and sadly true. In short, it is an excellent example of using the language in a creative and abstract way.


----------



## Keith Bradford

boozer said:


> It is perfectly fine, crystal-clear and sadly true. ...


Sorry, Boozer, it is not "fine" or "crystal-clear" in the least.

When I first read this expression (not having seen it before today) I instantly assumed it meant that Europe is becoming, like Pakistan, a federation of regions.  The word Pakistan is an amalgam of *P*unjab, *A*fghania [North-West Frontier Province], *K*ashmir, *I*ran, *S*indh, *T*ukharistan, *A*fghanistan, and Balochista*n.  *On this analogy a federated Europe might be called "Figabens" (France, Italy, Germany, Austria, Benelux, Spain) or some such.

Whether you believe it's "sadly true" depends on your attitude to dark-skinned foreigners...


----------



## tittiugo

I jut imagine the reactions here in Italy to the name "Figabens"...forget it!


----------



## boozer

It is fine and crystal-clear. All you need to know is the names of several countries that end in '-stan' (you do not even need to know the meaning of 'stan', but I just happen to)

As regards my attitude towards anything, this is not the time or place for me to discuss it with you.


----------



## velisarius

Keith, the_ Londonistan _episode may have passed you  by. Brits who live in Britain will probably remember it well and make the association of ideas.


----------



## Keith Bradford

boozer said:


> As regards my attitude towards anything, this is not the time or place for me to discuss it with you.


If so, it was not the time and place for you to reveal it.

But I agree with Tittiugo in #6 -- this kind of playing around with the names of people's nationality leaves me with a nasty taste in my mouth.  Someone living in Bulgaria might not be aware of the grossly offensive implications of "Paki". For this native speaker, taking the last four letters instead of the first four does little to alleviate the insult.  Citing Melanie Phillips as a model doesn't improve matters.


----------



## natkretep

But why link the coined word to only Pakistan rather than all the -stan countries?


----------



## velisarius

Keith, you said the meaning was not "crystal clear". I provided some evidence that for a Brit living in Britain it is more than clear what is meant.

We discuss many offensive terms here - it's a language forum and language can offend.


----------



## sound shift

natkretep said:


> But why link the coined word to only Pakistan rather than all the -stan countries?


Because most people in Britain have little experience of the former Soviet -stans or of the people from those countries. By contrast, there is a large Pakistani population in the UK.


----------



## boozer

natkretep said:


> But why link the coined word to only Pakistan rather than all the -stan countries?


Generally, the -stan suffix carries certain associations. Those are associations of Orient and everything that goes with it. The most 'shining' examples are, indeed, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The other -stans are mostly former Soviet republics. What is more, those are rich former Soviet republics (gas, oil, minerals, etc.), unlike the first two -stans that spring to mind.


----------



## Barque

boozer said:


> Generally, the -stan suffix carries certain associations. Those are associations of Orient


Central Asia and the subcontinent, not the Orient. The word "stan" (pronounced _sthahn_) is used in Urdu and I believe Persian too and possibly other languages of that region.


----------



## boozer

Keith Bradford said:


> Someone living in Bulgaria might not be aware of the grossly offensive implications of "Paki".


Quite to the contrary. I am perfectly aware. And since this is supposed to be a language issue, this proves once again that the word 'Europistan' does carry the intended undercurrent of meaning. The only problem is that, for your own reasons that do not concern me in the least, you are offended by it. That does not make the word less correct and crystal-clear.


----------



## Loob

velisarius said:


> I provided some evidence that for a Brit living in Britain it is more than clear what is meant.


Actually, veli, I would find the coinage rather puzzling, presumably because my first instinct would be to translate -_stan_ as 'land'.

That said, it's clear from the context in post 1 that the speaker intends it as an insult.


----------



## velisarius

Edit:What "Istanbul"? [deleted response to typo] 

The book's reception  was covered widely in the press at the time.Has London become Londonistan?


----------



## Keith Bradford

It seems to emerge that the people in this thread who find this usage offensive are those who were not originally familiar with the intended meaning; those who are familiar with it don't find it offensive.

Thus it joins the long list of offensive words whose users do not realise the effect they are having on others.

My advice to AirbusA321LR is this:

Is it OK to call Europe "Europistan" in sentences like this?  No.  Some people may think it is "fine and crystal clear", others will be confused and/or offended.


----------



## Loob

velisarius said:


> What "Istanbul"? The book's reception  was covered widely in the press at the time.Has London become Londonistan?


Sorry, veli, the autocorrect got to that line before I hit "reply", and it seemed easier and quicker to edit the whole line out....

What I was trying to say (let's hope it permits me to do that this time) was that I somehow missed the _Londonistan _story.


----------



## velisarius

I forgot to check dictionaries. I would use this definition, so that of "Europistan" would follow by analogy.  I suppose that's what the OP had in mind.

Londonistan definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary


----------



## wandle

According to this article, the term 'Londonistan' was coined around 1995 by French intelligence officials referring to the presence in London of Islamic radicals promoting violence in Europe. That agrees with my own recollection.


> The bombings and attempted bombings, mostly in Paris, in summer and autumn of 1995 by Armed Islamic Group (GIA), killed eight and injured more than 100. The French observed that a number of Muslim radicals from London had connections to these bombings. Around that year, in 1995, the French intelligence had coined the term "Londonistan" for the city of London.
> 
> The perception of "Londonistan" is powered by the strong foothold of Islamic radical fundamentalism in the region.



On this analogy, 'Europistan" would be branding Europe as a centre of violent Muslim fundamentalism.


----------



## Loob

Thanks, wandle


----------



## Glenfarclas

boozer said:


> It is perfectly fine, crystal-clear and sadly true. In short, it is an excellent example of using the language in a creative and abstract way.



I agree with Boozer. To this American, at least, the intended sense was immediately obvious. In particular, the meaning "a federation of regions" seems as implausible as if someone told me that he thought a neighborhood was called "Little Italy" because it had been united by Garibaldi.

As to whether it is offensive, I take it that this is just a case of transference, in which people who are offended for political reasons by a particular view on immigration transfer that offense to a word intended to express it. Nor, I think, does the Cockney-type-slang theory ("It's _stan_ like in _Pakistan_, so it means _Paki_") hold very much water. The word itself is not intrinsically offensive -- it would be very difficult for a new coinage to be -- although of course it is likely to arouse the feelings of people on immigration.

Incidentally, "New Yorkistan" was the title of a _New Yorker_ cover from 2001, and the _New York Times _opined this year that "American Becomes a Stan."


----------



## boozer

AirbusA321LR said:


> Is it OK to call Europe "Europistan" in sentences like this?
> 
> Due to Angela Merkel's open border policy, Europe is becoming Europistan.


And my advice to the OP is this:
Yes, in your context you have left no room for misunderstanding of any kind - everyone is aware of Merkel's open border policy. Even those that say they would be 'confused' immediately raised the issue of people's attitude towards dark-skinned foreigners and immigration. Which means they are certainly not confused. 

As you have seen, the word immediately triggers tensions and debate. If you mean to be provocative in your writing, you are right on target.


----------



## Loob

Glenfarclas said:


> Incidentally, "New Yorkistan" was the title of a _New Yorker_ cover from 2001, and the _New York Times _opined this year that "American Becomes a Stan."


"Stan" seems to be being given a different meaning there, to do with tribalism or cronyism/the cult of personality.


----------



## wandle

AirbusA321LR said:


> Is it OK to call Europe "Europistan" in sentences like this?


It is an emotive term in an emotive context and can be understood in various ways. There are already four interpretations in this thread, each with strong emotional impact. Why not avoid it and try to speak in plain, objective terms?


----------



## boozer

wandle said:


> Why not avoid it and try to speak in plain, objective terms?


Because he may be trying to write an exciting piece, as opposed to a washing-machine user manual.


----------



## wandle

Two problems there: (1) different people will read it differently (result: no clear message); (2) stirring an already boiling pot may have unpleasant consequences.


----------



## boozer

wandle said:


> Two problems there: (1) different people will read it differently (result: no clear message);


Most people will understand it immediately from the surrounding context. And then, there will be those who will interpret it as also saying "Europe will become breeding ground for Islamic fundamentalism". I will not comment on how 'misleading' the latter would be, but either way, it is quite clear that Europe is better than Europistan...


----------



## Packard

I see I am the only American English speaker to post here, quite possibly because we (I, actually) had no idea what "Europistan" referred to.  It is not a word that I think Americans would understand. 


It is not a word
It's meaning is not clear
It's origins are not clear

I would not use it.

Here is a list of "Euro" words.  I have never used any of them in the USA, though "eurokies" sounds useful.


europium.
eurokies.
eurokous.
eurozone.
euroland.
eurocrat.
eurobond.
eurocent.


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

Keith Bradford said:


> When I first read this expression (not having seen it before today) I instantly assumed it meant that Europe is becoming, like Pakistan, a federation of regions.  The word Pakistan is an amalgam of *P*unjab, *A*fghania [North-West Frontier Province], *K*ashmir, *I*ran, *S*indh, *T*ukharistan, *A*fghanistan, and Balochista*n.  *



Almost, but not quite accurate.  Here is Wikipedia (yes, I know, but in this case they got it right) on the topic:


> The name _Pakistan_ literally means "land of the pure" in Urdu and Persian. It is a play on the word _pāk_ meaning _pure_ in Persian and Pashto; the suffix ـستان (_-stān_) is a Persian word meaning the _place of_. The word also coincides with a similar sounding word of different language, the Sanskrit word _sthāna_ स्थान.
> 
> The name of the country was coined in 1933 as _Pakstan_ by Choudhry Rahmat Ali, a Pakistan Movement activist, who published it in his pamphlet _Now or Never_, using it as an acronym ("thirty million Muslim brethren who live in PAKSTAN") referring to the names of the five northern regions of the British Raj: _P_unjab, _A_fghania, _K_ashmir, _S_indh, and Baluchis_tan_. The letter _i_ was incorporated to ease pronunciation and form the linguistically correct, meaningful, and colorful name.


Pakistan - Wikipedia


----------



## Keith Bradford

One of several explanations I've found -- probably the best.  An acronym in any event, which is what I first thought.


----------



## natkretep

sound shift said:


> Because most people in Britain have little experience of the former Soviet -stans or of the people from those countries. By contrast, there is a large Pakistani population in the UK.


But in the context of Angela Merkel and Germany? Not many Pakistanis there.


----------



## Glenfarclas

Packard said:


> I see I am the only American English speaker to post here



Almost, but not quite accurate.


----------



## Packard

Glenfarclas said:


> Almost, but not quite accurate.



Yeah, but "Glenfarclas" sounds Scottish (or maybe Irish).  I did a quick scan and I missed "Chicago".  Sorry.  But this has been lacking in AE posts with exceptions of your post and the later GreenWhiteBlue post.


----------



## Keith Bradford

I've just realised why I took against this term so.  It strikes me that the original quote is just a posh way of saying: "_Due to Angela Merkel's open border policy, Europe is becoming Pakiland_".

(Or if not, why not?)


----------



## boozer

natkretep said:


> But in the context of Angela Merkel and Germany? Not many Pakistanis there.


No, not traditionally, it seems, but looking at some recent figures... A high percentage of -stan countries here
File:Countries of origin of (non-EU) asylum seekers in the EU-28 Member States, 2015 and 2016 (thousands of first time applicants) YB17.png - Statistics Explained


----------



## JulianStuart

Packard said:


> I see I am the only American English speaker to post here, quite possibly because we (I, actually) had no idea what "Europistan" referred to.  It is not a word that I think Americans would understand.
> 
> 
> It is not a word
> It's meaning is not clear
> It's origins are not clear
> 
> I would not use it.
> 
> Here is a list of "Euro" words.  I have never used any of them in the USA, though "eurokies" sounds useful.
> 
> 
> europium.
> eurokies.
> eurokous.
> eurozone.
> euroland.
> eurocrat.
> eurobond.
> eurocent.


In this context I am also an AE speaker - I had never heard of Londonistan until this thread.  I grew up in the UK, with its attendant racism against (among others) “The Pakis” and perhaps if I’d stayed in the UK, I might link -stan with Pakistan or terrorists in general (post #24).  However, today, I only associate -stan with its meaning of land country and not with any particular one or its activities, so you can add me to the list of those who would completely miss the intended meaning.


----------



## bibliolept

I personally see no problem with the usage, particularly given the context: I would immediately associate the suffix "-stan" with countries known as the "The Stans." The meaning is brutally clear.


----------



## JulianStuart

bibliolept said:


> I personally see no problem with the usage, particularly given the context: I would immediately associate the suffix "-stan" with countries known as the "The Stans." The meaning is brutally clear.


Enquiring minds need to know: Do you mean all seven -stans? And what is the “brutally clear meaning” you have in mind? 

The first entry from a Google search on “The Stans” (using quotes) is:

Afghanistan, Kazakhstan — How many “stans” are there and what does it mean? - Everything After Z by Dictionary.com


> If you guessed the meaning of the suffix –stan, you're correct. The suffix –stan is Persian and Urdu for “place of,” or “where one stands.” It is found in the names of seven countries: Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.


----------



## Packard

Everything I know about world geography I learned by playing "Risk", the board game.  There was only one "-stan" on that map.


----------



## PaulQ

In common parlance, "-stan" is a general suffix to indicate a country or area of which little is known other than that there is a general perception that it has an under-developed economy, abysmal standards of human rights and equality, usually ruled by a brutal dictator fond of nepotism (and/or a fundamental religion) steeped in corruption, and is accompanied by a backward, peasant population who are unlikely to integrate in the West and will continue their primitive habits to the annoyance of the locals.

This sense comes from all those countries of Asia, that have not been as fortunate as the West and from which the only news is of lives that are short and brutish. *It is important to understand that merely because a country has "-stan" in its name, it does not necessarily equate to a "stan", but it will probably have one or two elements of a "-stan".
*
"*Europistan*" therefore indicates a Europe over-run by such populations and bowing to their demands. Although it is derogatory, most people see that it is so far from the truth of the matter that it is not taken seriously - however, there are those of the far-right who would use the term seriously. It would be wise not to use it.

(A friend once pointed out that a lot of countries that end in "-ia" are similar to "-stans".)



Packard said:


> Everything I know about world geography I learned by playing "Risk", the board game. There was only one "-stan" on that map.


 "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." Ambrose Bierce.


----------



## Packard

PaulQ said:


> [...]
> 
> "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." Ambrose Bierce.



True.  Lately I've been learning all about North Korea.


----------



## Juhasz

AirbusA321LR said:


> Is it OK



As sdgraham says, the answer depends entirely on what you mean by "OK."  As others have pointed out, if you use such a word, many will assume that you are far-right, xenophobic, and uninformed, or just unconcerned with details like geography, history, and politics.  If that's OK, then by all means.


----------



## bibliolept

JulianStuart said:


> Enquiring minds need to know: Do you mean all seven -stans? And what is the “brutally clear meaning” you have in mind?



A generalization across several countries is implied, one that paints in purposefully broad and quick strokes, crude yet effective. Hence, "brutally clear."


----------



## JulianStuart

bibliolept said:


> A generalization across several countries is implied, one that paints in purposefully broad and quick strokes, crude yet effective. Hence, "brutally clear."


I understand what “brutally clear” means but I’m still unclear on the meaning itself.  Is it close to what PaulQ wrote that (all) -stans are generally known as having “an under-developed economy, abysmal standards of human rights and equality, usually ruled by a brutal dictator fond of nepotism (and/or a fundamental religion) steeped in corruption, and is accompanied by a backward, peasant population who are unlikely to integrate in the West and will continue their primitive habits to the annoyance of the locals.”


----------



## se16teddy

Keith Bradford said:


> The word Pakistan is an amalgam of *P*unjab, *A*fghania [North-West Frontier Province], *K*ashmir, *I*ran, *S*indh, *T*ukharistan, *A*fghanistan, and Balochista*n.  *


That's not exactly what Wikipedia says. Pakistan - Wikipedia


----------



## Miss Julie

I'm an American, and I immediately took the term to mean that the person using the term (whoever it is) believes that Europe is being "overrun" by immigrants from primarily Muslim countries.


----------



## boozer

Juhasz said:


> As others have pointed out, if you use such a word, many will assume that you are far-right, xenophobic, and uninformed, or just unconcerned with details like geography, history, and politics.


And then, many will assume that the author is aware of population densities and sizes, their relation to national prosperity, given limited resources and unlimited demand, as well as compatibility of civilisational values, and realises that Europe cannot raise the Third World from poverty without becoming Europistan.
And we do not have to agree on anything. Indeed, all European societies are divided on this, as is the Union itself. What matters is that we both understand the meaning.
And, as Veli has rightly pointed out, a language can offend, among other things it can do. <Reference to deleted post removed. Nat>


----------



## RM1(SS)

PaulQ said:


> there is a general perception that it has an under-developed economy, abysmal standards of human rights and equality, usually ruled by a brutal dictator fond of nepotism (and/or a fundamental religion) steeped in corruption, and is accompanied by a backward, peasant population who are unlikely to integrate in the West and will continue their primitive habits to the annoyance of the locals.
> 
> This sense comes from all those countries of Asia, that have not been as fortunate as the West and from which the only news is of lives that are short and brutish.* ... *"*Europistan*" therefore indicates a Europe over-run by such populations and bowing to their demands.


This is how I understood the word the moment I saw the thread title.


----------



## Loob

RM1(SS) said:


> This is how I understood the word the moment I saw the thread title.


How, then, do you account for the use of -_stan_ in the links in Glen's post 26?
....
It's also a rather different -_stan _from that in the 'Londonistan' mentioned by veli and wandle.


----------

