Race Riots in France

[Thought]

Lockeownzj00, I fully agree that there are plenty of counter-examples, and counter-examples to those counter-examples. My point was, it is a hasty generalization (see logical fallacies) to claim that "history has proven time and time again that... [a violent] approach often fails." History has a hard time proven that events even happened, let alone drawing a conclusion from them.

now, not there ain't still genocide in the world, of course not

A minor point, but since we are on history anyways...

Actually, one could argue that the modern world is what made genocides possible. Certainly, the worst genocides have only been possible in modern times, just in terms of the technology to facilitate them, though the Cambodian and Rwandan Genocides nicely illustrate that they can happen with somewhat limited equipment. It is unfortunately, but for the worst violence against the most helpless people the world seems to largely ignore it.

As for the Inquisition, two historical points: Not all of them were as bad as the Spanish Inquisition (insert Monty Python quote, as desired), and the basic thinking was that heretics would inherently undermine society and cause a basic breakdown of civilization. While, anachronistically, that seems silly, it wasn't just because these people were annoying.

But again, to the question of France, it is becoming more and more apparent that, sadly enough, force is required. Ideally, France would offer amnesty to the uppity rioters and only then, after a suitable period, move in with force. As long as the violence continues, the French government is failing at one of its basic responsibilities, protecting the "Life, liberty, and property" of its citizens. If the French cannot even protect those rights, then there is little hope that the Islamic-French will have their concerns addressed.

Just a Frilly French-

Thought

[Osterbaum]

Osterbaum, don't forget, riots like this could have very, very negative consequences too. A large segment of the French population already felt that the muslim population of their society posed a security problem, and that segment largely voted for Le Pen in the last election, sending him into the second round. I can't imagine that having a major series of riots in largely muslim neighborhoods (confirming concerns of a security threat) and the fact that the government took 10 days to quell the violence (a demonstration of manifest incompetance in dealing with that problem) is exactly going to hurt his, or National Front's candidate, in the next election. This could be very, very bad for France, and have exactly the opposite of a good outcome.

Yes negative effects are of course also very possible if not even likely. But as to this being treated as a 'muslim rebellion' is not maybe too accurate. The riots have created some tension in the working areas of many other french cities and towns. Working class includes many french too, I'm sure.

And muslims or not, they still are not rioting just for fun, but have a reason.

I find this interesting because I've learned a lot about how poorly these immigrants are treated. If you are from a suburb with a bad reputation, you will have a very hard time getting a job or into a good school. I'm from south Chicago. If that were true for Chicago, I'd be unemployed too.

Exactly what I mean. They aren't rioting just for nothing. And to comment on you wondering why and how the imigrants are treated, I can tell you it is very common. Atleast as far as I've seen and heard. I would have imagined it being rather common in the US too, but atleast it's so in Finland and some other european countries to some extent.

The riots moved closer to down town Paris last night.

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by Luna Santin

Reminds me of another question I was asking. Are they "Sunni terrorist/rebels" or blandly unidentified "insurgents," that are running around killing civilians in Iraq? Why this hesitance to identify the players as they are?

Mainly, because, well, who knows? I mean honestly, any description you get is at best going to be an educated guess.

I mean, in any given act of violence, it could be foreign Iranian or Al Qaeda fighters, it could be Sadrist Shiite discontents, it could be Baathist military elements, it could be local self-interested thugs and strongarm guys, it could be any combination of the above. Maybe they're Sunnis pissed off about the raw deal Sunnis get in the constitution, maybe they're Shiites who just hate America and are using Sunni discontent as cover to operate. Maybe a lot of things, the point here is, we don't know. Nobody has near enough of a view inside the insurgency to be able to say for sure, and anyone who claims to be sure is bullshitting.

As far as 'terrorists' v. 'insurgents' - really, they're pretty much interchangeable, whatever difference exists is more an issue of rhetoric than of accuracy.

[Lockeownzj00]

now, not there ain't still genocide in the world, of course not

I phrased this wrong because I was high--sorry. I meant, "not that there ain't still," as in, there are still genocides.

Also, terrorist is very different from insurgent. A terrorist commits acts of terror on a country--whether they are from it or not. An insurgent is a rebel--and rebels aren't inherently bad. The Colonists in 1776, were, in all actuality, insurgents. Just because people also interchange "

I'm sorry that the history example was "too vague," but I honestly don't think it's a two-way thing. I think there are many things in history you can look back on, and it's not this idealistic (for debate) scale where every bad thing had a counterpart good thing. There have been mistakes, oversights, and I think lessons present throughout much of history. However, two people can look at the same war in history and take different things away from it: failure or success. And in this case of suppression != solution, I think I can come up with numerous examples, modern and historical.

[Lord Bitememan]

Yes negative effects are of course also very possible if not even likely. But as to this being treated as a 'muslim rebellion' is not maybe too accurate.

It's probably not a muslim rebellion in the strictest sense. It's too disorganized to rise to the level of rebellion, and it is not being undertaken along the ideological grounds of Islam so much as racial and social realities in France. That said, we can't deny that a large element of these riots is comprised of, indeed, perhaps the majority of the rioters are immigrants and the children of immigrants. This is not to say all immigrants are rioters, but certainly this is a riot steeped in the issues of the immigrants and French society at large will make social choices with regards to the issue framed in this respect.

The riots have created some tension in the working areas of many other french cities and towns. Working class includes many french too, I'm sure.

Yes, and in many ways the concerns of the French working class are no different from those of the immigrants; huge unemployment rates, little economic power, inadequate social institutions (French schools these day are dismal). I'm sure some are casting their lot in with riot. However, you're also going to have very large portions of the native French population who were ambivilant beforehand about this large immigrant population, and they're not only not participating in the riots, but furious with both the rioters and the inept government response. I doubt they will have any sudden epiphanies between now and election day that "hey, we had riots from a population some political voices were warning us were a security threat, but it's all good, I'm voting Green." I think the more likely best-case scenario is that the French are furious with both Chirac and the rioters, but shrug it off because they can't bring themselves to vote NF en masse.

And muslims or not, they still are not rioting just for fun, but have a reason.

Too generalized. . . some are probably out because they are furstrated to the point of violent reaction, some probably are just going "hey, things are burning, wouldn't it be fun to go torch a car?" It's the same sort of mentality you see in any riot. Just like in LA, it wasn't a desire to strike back at the man that caused mass looting, it was the desire to get a TV for free because they could.

Archbio: Have you ever read Jean Francois Revel? He articulates many of the issues of assimilation and France's immigrant population from a neo-liberal perspective. I think you might find it worth your wild to take a look at it.

[Deck Knight]

Perhaps the French government should just surrender to the rioters. Surrender is a large part of French military tradition, There is no way their military can stand up to low-income, ostracized members of society armed with gas and matches.

OK, enough joking.

In all seriousness, I wonder exactly what was going on in France to make this happen. Last I heard, France was a social-welfare state with one of the highest standards of living in the world. This begs the question, in most simplistic terms: "WTF, mate?".

There needs to be a government response here that does not involve filling French prisons to the brim with rioters. This is a plight that seems to come from xenophobia mixed with French elitism in the high ranks. The only way to solve this problem is with reforms meant to target the plights of these individuals.

I'm fairly certain they'll be plenty of jobs available in the refurbishing field after they are done burning up no-longer-gay Paris.

[Xal]

The best guess I've heard as to why this is happening is that it's a problem of a hypocritical system. The French social model is based on saying "Hey, you're here, you're French, absolute social equality!" Meanwhile, though, Pierre's a LOT more likely to get a job than Abdul is... the argument the guy went on to make was that what France needs is some kind of affirmative action program. I'd take the focus back; what France needs is some kind of way to actively include 'em in society.

[Psycho Mantis]

Apparently they're using mass deportation as their main weapon against rioters.

Basically, if you're caught rioting they send you back to whereever you came from. Which I think has deterred a lot of rioters, especially the ones that had to flee their country to avoid being killed...

[Lockeownzj00]

I read a very interesting article in the NYT today, detailing the thoughts of an adult black man, who was French--the issue was that French people didn't consider him French, really, despite the fact that his wife was French, he was born in France, he spoke French, and the like. It went on to say that the riots are a release of emotions on the same level of being fed-up with the social marginalising.

In this sense, I think, so what if property is damaged? If this brings any sort of awareness to this issue, yes, through physical 'violence,' then so be it. The closer the bourgeois come to realising that they ain't the only ones on the globe, the better.

[Osterbaum]

And that which you people are describing doesen't exist only in France. Many european countries, and I don't doubt some other coutnries around the world, have the same kinds of problems. Including Finland, so I know to a degree what I am talking about. I really have never understood why it is so hard to just let 'foreigners' live in our country. I understand the feelings and events that might lead to such an attitude, but I still don't find it the least bit more acceptable.

Staying in France, the riots have now stopped completely. Now remains to be seen if anything will actually be done to improve things or will all the rioters just be treated like criminals and the issue dismissed just like that.