In the absence of a causal link, there is no need to mention any of the things Masson is silent about, for they are simply relevant.

If Bertram thinks the Masson piece is wrongheaded, it is up to HIM to produce an argument that enumerates its shortcomings.

I don’t agree with that. Two-ness is nearly supposed, in my opinion : between private (religion, heritage, stamp collecting, whathaveyou) and the social (all equals).

Apart of that, the biggest underestimated explanation, imho, is haschich. France consumes a lot, and it’s a few billions each year that go to advertise social rot in these suburbs. Legalizing that stuff is urgent, and it won’t happen.

So as to not be a complete sulk I will add something first about the “gender difference” between (North) African culture and the so-called Republican model, ie the respective weight in the family of men and women. Traditional male “Little Kings” whom their mothers or elder sisters are not expected to control logically have a lot to lose by becoming just another Joe Blow Citizen. Which also explains why female North Africans are much more keen to join the French model either through education or marriage.

OK now back to the future: There is a form of historical retribution at work here. The Gaullist party of Chirac, Villepin and Sarkozy built its wealth on corrupt practices such as attributing building contracts in exchange for kickbacks. This started when De Gaulle was in power in the sixties and the gentrification of inner cities combined with the arrival of cheap immigrant labour led to the construction of the dismal blocks of estates which encircle all major French cities.

In terms of the population of these outlying working-class areas, it’s worth noting that the dominant force there in the sixties and early seventies was the (Stalinist) French communist party. So the question is: why did then-president Giscard d’Estaing, after the oil shock of 1973 and the ensuing economic downturn, enable the “regroupement familial” (allowing the families of the mostly male Algerians-Tunisians-Morrocans to join them in France), instead of facilitating their return to their countries of origin?

Some commentators (see Alain Soral for example) suggest that this could have been a machiavellian ploy to shatter the unity of the relatively multicultural (Italian, Portuguese, and don’t forget other Catholics like the Polish, etc.) “banlieues rouges” by bringing radically different peoples with very little in common with the others and – most important – in the context of globalisation and mechanisation – ie no job prospects for the less-well trained “truly disadvantaged” underclass.

It’s also worth noting that the State Left (if Mitterrand and his Socialists can be called that) bear some responsibility with their cynical use of the National Front bogeyman since the mid-eighties to embarrass and divide the traditional right; and with their dubbing “racist” anyone who argues that the French Republic cannot do its secondary job of integration through education (besides its primary one of reproducing the elite) if it also makes room for repugnant sexist traditions. I don’t mean wearing a headscarf but rather the dominant position of males in North African societies and attendant practices such as arranged / forced marriages. I also don’t mean to say that French society isn’t racist, just that there have been effective limitations imposed on public discourse which ultimately helped no-one, except perhaps the Far-right’s demonisation of immigrants.

“Then there’s the rise in an aggressive Islamic consciousness in the ghettos, which … is not only a religious but a political attitude. The truculence this combination produces in some highly vocal members of the community is hardly attractive to private-sector employers … the government, know[s] it can’t possibly … force the hand of private-sector employers”.

Unionism made exactly the same argument, in the same insinuating manner. Lord Brookeborough:

“A man’s religion is entirely his own affair. The point is, there are loyalists and disloyalists.”

A Young Unionist (who bizarrely later became a Civil Rights leader):

“employers could not be blamed if they preferred to employ people with Unionist affiliations on the grounds that they received more loyal support from them.”

It stank then, and it stinks now. The pseudo-’commonsense’ assertion that the state “can’t possibly … force the hand of private-sector employers” is balderdash. The state can force the private emploers’ hand, thank goodness. It’s called fair employment legislation, and I know of a good many people who have cause to be grateful for it.

Second, the great gap between the experience of the first-generation african immigrants of the 1950s and 1960s and that of their grandchildren today has to do with the disappearance of the unskilled factory work that was so abundant during the early phases of France’s trente glorieuses due to foreign competition and technological and economic change. The first generation were grateful to have work at all, and had strong memories of the hellholes they left behind. The current generation has no economic opportunities to speak of, but also has no memory or real awareness of the even worse situation in the ir grandparents’ homelands.

Third, there is no space in French culture or under the French conception of citizenship for “twoness”, the notion that one can be proud of one’s non-French or “ethnic” heritage while still being loyal to the Republique.

All of the above have left the african kids in the projects in an impossible position, lost between two cultures, neither of which offers them anything attractive, with an unemployment rate of ~40% and little to do about it.

Because as I am/look, and at the latest when I have to open my mouth, I would be recognized as a “francais”. That means, the guy who would win hand on in any school exam, job contest, whatever. The anger is directed against me.
However, if I was white and had grown in a cite, as long as not the turf next door I could think of it, and would rely on my instinct/mouthwork for dealing with troublemakers. If cité-grown and black, no problem.
And if I was Black/beur looking, but with my education/dress code, I should go through trouble free, even if I would avoid to start a discussion for fear of revealing myself.

Race matters, and made and will make for a while of the integration problem a “baton merdeux” to handle. Now that ethnic ghettos have come up, how can you persuade a young living in it that he has a chance: the one around him struggling are black/beur, so in his logic he inferes that they struggle because they are black/beur. We can discuss, but definitely not a virtuous circle.
On the other side, a vicious circle too. Suppose a salesman or a policeman wanting to give a kid a sermon , who who has to hear that he does it because he is a racist aside of being or not to the point, it’s quite the standard rhethoric for explaining any problem away by street youngs, and can leads easily to quite unnerving arguments and not because the kid stole a pair of sneakers. I can guess he is not pleased at it, and few people are wise philosophs who will reach next time to the ethnic looking guy for the sake of the french integration model.
When the immigrant were portuguese or italian and white looking, there was a chance at least to start some interaction at every new encounter, instead of having the fence going up at the first sight.
As every marketing course says, one bad experience outbalances easily a hundred good experiences. Perception matters (skin screened ID- control anyone?).

So I suspect that at the very least, integration of the rioting youth will take more time that for the preceding waves of immigrant. Short me: I’m convinced that skin is much more a problem than religion, at least in France.

I don’t know for sure which new policy in France could increase the good experiences and limit the bad ones. How do you eradicate xenophoby in the mankind? Progress exist, race superiority has lost supporters, but they are slow.

And what can concretely help?
introduce PCness in France (I shudder;-)? positive discrimination? finally, intimely realize that “foreigners” won’t go away, and everyone would be better to adapt? Zero tolerance policy? bye-bye to laicity? distribute equally public housing between cities and between downtown and banlieue?

By the way, is someone aware of a racially mixed society (let say, more than10-20% minority), fully and really integrated? I mean, power, profession, money and social class evenly distributed through the ethnic lines.
Maybe Taiwan comes in mind, but I am not even sure, maybe it’s just because I don’t know it enough…

I stand by my point that the North Africans are not just another minority and that the Algerian war and its aftermath are part of the explanation for that. I could draw parallels by mentioning the historical reasons why Native Americans and Blacks aren’t “just another” minority in the US. But probably someone would take me to task for bashing the US to appease someone.

I fear for this discussion not that Israel has been introduced, so I’ll end it here.

I think “coming to terms” means accepting something in the past was wrong, and adjusting behaviour and thought accordingly.

But to ask anyway, because it must be asked, in what way do you think Germans have not adjusted, or “come to terms”?

Are you aware of how they financed Israel?