21 November 2005 Blog Home : November 2005 : Permalink
Despite knowing that non-Europeans were viewed with suspicion, I was arrogant to claim that I understood his frustration. Understanding how the "other" was "constructed" was not a substitute for their experiences and identifications. The rioters in the suburbs and cities are inarticulate youths who have not really tasted the frustration experienced by their older brother and sisters and their parents. As much as the "fires" must be put out, all segments of French society must turn to the population that it continually constructs as "the immigrants" to see it for what it is. They are not unassimilated, as the right would see them, or carriers of the Revolutionary tradition, as socialists have recently described them (do they really want to justify the Terror?). Hearing Villepin call for more education and more support to community groups to integrate young "immigrants," I know that Johnny is laughing.
Echoing this is a post by Joel Shepherd, who lives in Paris, who makes the excellent point that the countries that complain the loudest seem to be the ones who are most insecure. I'm not completely convinced (the Netherlands is perhaps the exception that proves the rule), but I do think that there is a good deal of truth in it. I also agree with his concluding sentences, and rather like the metaphor:In France, the government is just clinging even more tightly to the policies that got it into such trouble in the first place -- like that old story about the skydiver who freezes in terror on the way down, and clings ever more tightly to the ripcord, thus preventing his buddy from pulling the ripcord and saving his life. Open societies don't freeze or cling. One day soon, France will have to thaw, before it hits the ground.
Presenting a somewhat contrasting view is this Ha'aretz interview with Alain Finkielkraut that was mentioned by Powerline, Melanie Phillips and probably others. Finkielkraut says some things that I agree with, such as the remarkable closed mindedness of the debate going on in French media and political circles about the causes and fixes for the riots. And for that matter about how the same circles lable alternative views as "extremist" or similar without investigating whether there is any truth to them. He is also I think correct in his explantion that the back and African immigrants have become a "victim" group and therefore allowed, indeed expected, to act out in protests in ways that the rest are not:"Imagine for a moment that they were whites, like in Rostock in Germany. Right away, everyone would have said: `Fascism won't be tolerated.' When an Arab torches a school, it's rebellion. When a white guy does it, it's fascism. I'm `color blind.' Evil is evil, no matter what color it is. And this evil, for the Jew that I am, is completely intolerable.
"Moreover, there's a contradiction here. Because if these suburbs were truly in a state of total neglect, there wouldn't be any gymnasiums to torch, there wouldn't be schools and buses. If there are gymnasiums and schools and buses, it's because someone made an effort. Maybe not enough of one, but an effort."
The difference in attitude was IMO exactly what Sarko was trying to fix and which, if you like to pin the blame on Sarko, is why the rioters rioted. They didn't like the idea that their mayhem would no longer be tolerated. Likewise it is true that compared to Africa the banlieues are not exactly poor or deprived. However the poor chap was a socialist and an enarque and therefore despite his rejection post modernism and political correctness he still has problems with the idea of the limitations of the state and of the dirigiste model. He makes, for example, an excellent point in discussion of small businesses and their hiring practises:"But imagine that you're running a restaurant, and you're anti-racist, and you think that all people are equal, and you're also Jewish. In other words, talking about inequality between the races is a problem for you. And let's say that a young man from the suburbs comes in who wants to be a waiter. He talks the talk of the suburbs. You won't hire him for the job. It's very simple. You won't hire him because it's impossible. He has to represent you and that requires discipline and manners, and a certain way of speaking. And I can tell you that French whites who are imitating the code of behavior of the suburbs - and there is such a thing - will run into the same exact problem. The only way to fight discrimination is to restore the requirements, the educational seriousness. This is the only way. But you're not allowed to say that, either. I can't. It's common sense, but they prefer to propound the myth of `French racism.' It's not right.
But he also misses the obvious point about the discipline of the free market. If the hypothetical "young man in the suburbs" were going to starve if he didn't get a job you could expect him to learn on about day 2 of his job search to do his very best to speak properly and lose the chip from his shoulder. Another example near the end of his seeing diagnosing the problem but missing the root cause is this:"But if they have a French identity card, then they're French. And if not, they have the right to go. They say, `I'm not French. I live in France and I'm also in a bad economic state.' No one's holding them here. And this is precisely where the lie begins. Because if it were the neglect and poverty, then they would go somewhere else. But they know very well that anywhere else, and especially in the countries from whence they came, their situation would be worse, as far as rights and opportunities go."
But the problem today is the integration into French society of young men and women who are from the third generation. This isn't a wave of new immigrants. They were born in France. They have nowhere to go.
"This feeling, that they are not French, isn't something they get from school. In France, as you perhaps know, even children who are in the country illegally are still registered for school. There's something surprising, something paradoxical, here: The school could call the police, since the child is in France illegally. Yet the illegality isn't taken into account by the school. So there are schools and computers everywhere, too. But then the moment comes when an effort must be made. And the people that are fomenting the riots aren't prepared to make this effort. Ever.
"Take the language, for example. You say they are third generation. So why do they speak French the way they do? It's butchered French - the accent, the words, the syntax. Is it the school's fault? The teachers' fault?"
I'm sorry to say but there is a reason why these young men (and women) don't make the effort to study or to work, complain about racism but don't leave, and so on. It is brutally simple: they can get away with it. They get away with it because of the welfare state and its safety net which allows them to survive while making no effort. The only way to fix this is to remove (or drastically lower) the safety net. The problem is that I don't see how the white French, particularly the morons in the state sector, will ever agree to such an anglo-saxon approach. Thus I regret to say that I think that his conclusion is correct, denial is apparently a river running through the middle of Paris:And what will happen in France?
"I don't know. I'm despairing. Because of the riots and because of their accompaniment by the media. The riots will subside, but what does this mean? There won't be a return to quiet. It will be a return to regular violence. So they'll stop because there is a curfew now, and the foreigners are afraid and the drug dealers also want the usual order restored. But they'll gain support and encouragement for their anti-republican violence from the repulsive discourse of self-criticism over their slavery and colonization. So that's it: There won't be a return to quiet, but a return to routine violence."
So your worldview doesn't stand a chance anymore?
"No, I've lost. As far as anything relating to the struggle over school is concerned, I've lost. It's interesting, because when I speak the way I'm speaking now, a lot of people agree with me. Very many. But there's something in France - a kind of denial whose origin lies in the bobo, in the sociologists and social workers - and no one dares say anything else. This struggle is lost. I've been left behind."
However Finkielkraut doesn't really address the racism that is prevalent in France. I want to tie the racism in with the welfare state and the PC educational system because I think they are related. The political elites recognise that many of their citizens are racists and they therefore try to compensate, but because they are unwilling to actually stamp down on the racists if they keep quiet in public no one ever explains why racism is wrong or details how nationalism can be both positive and negative. Furthermore because racism still exists, rather than try to fight it the elites prefer to compensate by cutting their victims some slack. The result is that the victims remain victims and indeed become totally dependant on the elite for their survival and have no incentive to make an effort to do anything believing that they can get whatever they want through protest and government handout rather than through work. Given that this same attitude appears to be held by the rest of France it is hard to see how they will ever learn otherwise until the government finally admits that it is in fact completely bust.