Working On A Groovy Thing

I’m reluctant to embrace the Victor Steyn Hinderaker death-throes of Eurabia thing, since it looks more like your run-of-the-mill broke people rioting, combined with massive state incompetence. The cheerful schadenfreude on this issue from the right is unseemly. “Remember when they mocked our social system because something terrible happened to us? Now something terrible is happening to France! I bet they wish they could go cry on the shoulder of their old friend—Saddam Hussein!”

Hang on, didn’t you get the CT talking points? The approved rhetorical judo is to claim that Chirac and Bush can’t stand each other because they’re so much alike, you see, and that the only reason France, as a whole, doesn’t act like the U.S. is because they lack the man and firepower–but in their dark imperialist hearts you know they want to. France is to be pitched over the transom, not defended (even obliquely).

Sorry — sudden, uncontrollable snark attack.

OK, no I don’t accept the ‘death throes of Eurabia’ thesis or the ‘run-of-the-mill broke people rioting’ thesis either. These are weird riots — riots without crowds that are not confined to any geographic area. Hit-and-run, guerrilla riots, you could say. And the riots themselves don’t seem to be Islamist in nature, but depending upon how they are resolved, they may end up benefitting conservative Islamic elements in the Banlieus if order ends up being reimposed through some kind of arrangement with the mosques or ‘community leaders’.

Whatever happens, though, I don’t see France emerging from this experience unchanged. Whatever you want to call this episode, I don’t think it will turn out to have a been a run-of-the-mill anything.

I think the schadenfreude you describe is a perfectly understandable response to the reaction of many europeans to US difficulties such as Katrina, though I’m not excusing it.

Coming from Britain I am not sure exactly what to make of the French riots– and I am especially suspicious of hasty judgements about cultural factors. I would like to make 1 small point about economics however.

I think we can agree that long term youth unemployment is an important contributory factor. This is much higher in France than in the UK, and I would contend that this is because their social model protects the rights of those in work but makes employment very expensive.

Whilst the French eschew globalisation and Anglo-Saxon economics, I would argue that their own model is not entirely progressive as it serves the middle classes (can I say bourgeois?) at the expense of the socially excluded (I don’t think I can say working class).

Anyway I don’t want to say that is the whole problem– just a strand, and I don’t want to sound preachy though Im not sure how to avoid that.

“we never tried to pretend that we could be one people, so we never stumbled into the French model.”

E pluribus unum? Must have been some other guys.
English tests for immigrants (the Marvellous H*Y*M*A*N K*A*P*L*A*N), citizenship classes, melting pot, one nation under God…

(also: giggles hysterically at spectacle of American lambasting France for its racial segregation)

“In fact, they don’t have to work at all.”

Very droll.

Just a random question: how many countries do NOT have an official language that is used in all official documents and the like? I come from a nation of immigrants and no-one has ever thought that children of immigrants should have the right to receive (public) education in their own language, or parents to receive communications in a language other than Spanish. Schools are widely known to be the way immigrants are incorporated into the (somewhat precarious) “nation”.

So, what is the most common policy?

what if young Muslim men in France have an overall 45% unemployment rate (not that I’m saying they do, after all, since no one knows). but if that were true, then the French polity might want to try and do something about it.

Why would they want to do something about specifically Muslim unemployed men and not about unemployed people in general? I don’t understand.

What if, say, middle-aged women who like science fiction have 45% unemployment rate?

Belle, Why are you so great!?

FWIW, “E pluribus unum” refers not to a melting pot image of different peoples becoming one in America, but rather to the thirteen colonies / states becoming a single country.

On the other hand, at various times, the melting pot image — in which many different peoples are forged into a single American people — has been the dominant way in which Americans have understood how immigrants are supposed to fit into the American experience.

The highwater mark for this kind of thing was probably the 1910s, as the Great War was beginning in Europe and the the huge wave of transatlantic immigration was entering its fourth decade. Here, for example, is Woodrow Wilson on immigrants and their national cultures:
A man who thinks of himself as belonging to a particular national group in America has not yet become an American. And the man who goes among you to trade upon your nationality is no worthy son to live under the Stars and Stripes.

But at least since the 1940s, the very “hyphenated Americanism” that folks like Wilson were railing against in the 1910s has become the dominant way many Americans think of themselves. (This change was in part underwritten by the virtual ending of European immigration in the 1920s.) And less homogenizing metaphors — e.g. America as an ethnic quilt — have become popular in recent decades. Still, concerns about the cultural integration of immigrants are alive and well, especially concerning latinos from South of the border (which was, not coincidentally, the most important group whose immigration was basically unrestricted in the 1920s).

One other thought: I’m puzzled by all this talk about a “European model.” On this issue of multiculturalism, despite European integration, different countries have had wildly different policies and attitudes. To begin with, Europe is still divided between countries with an explicitly ethnic notion of citizenship (e.g. Germany), and countries with a more ideological notion (e.g. France). And of course beyond the question of citizenship lie a host of other attitudes and policies. Thus France, which in principal accepts people of all backgrounds as French, has in fact grappled less with questions of multiculturalism than just about any other Western European nation.

Why would they want to do something about specifically Muslim unemployed men and not about unemployed people in general? I don’t understand.

Because it’s a possible indicator of discrimination.

First, after reports from Katrina (many now proven false) proved to Europe that the US was a third world country after a storm larger than all of the UK hit–it is rather unshocking to find people in the US a bit less than sympathetic.

Second, this is missing something rather importnat: “Finally, and I mean this in the nicest way, and I don’t want people to die, but doesn’t this seem like some kind of pussy rioting, frankly?”

This is the model of the start of the intifada against Israel. Violent enough to get lots of media attention but not quite violent enough to ‘justify’ a crushing police/military response. Violent enough to recruit more to the violence with your success, without being violent enough to have the police crack down on your neighborhoods while the world watches. This is a tactical replay of 1987 Israel. It wasn’t called the “war of stones” for nothing. France had best hope that no Arafat emerges.

I think the schadenfreude you describe is a perfectly understandable response to the reaction of many europeans to US difficulties such as Katrina, though I’m not excusing it.

Was that reaction in turn perfectly understandable because of the US reaction to the deaths in the French heat wave in 2003?

You’re all missing the real point, which is that Daniel Davies got it completely, howlingly wrong when he wrote, back on September 18th, 2003:
‘ Friedman is possibly wrong, by the way, in claiming that “France, with its large Muslim minority”, would necessarily see its “social fabric” hugely affected by Islamic militancy; as a French acquaintance pointed out to me recently, the Islamic population of France is heavily concentrated in metropolitan Paris and Lyon, and France is actually a country of small towns.’

(https://crookedtimber.org/2003/09/18/war-on-france-huzza/ )

Of course, I agree that the current rioting has a damn sight more causes than ‘Islamic militancy’, but the idea that France could just shrug off a lot of riots so long as they were concentrated in its urban areas was always a silly one, as some wise fellow noted at the time.

Jesus H. Christ. I assume that that is the real Chris Bertram and not some cruel rightwinger holding him up to ridicule.

Chris, when making mildly ironic remarks in future, shall I:
a) Individually email each member of the CT collective alerting them to the presence of a possible joke?
b) Write ‘!IRONY! IRONY! IRONY!’ at the beginning and end of each sentence?
c)Travel down to Bristol with a magic marker and write the dictionary definition of irony on your freaking forehead?

Seth: represssion is, of course, relative. This underclass has better health care provided to it than at least half of America – and it is free.

Chris Bertram continues: ‘I don’t even know why anyone is commenting here anyway, this post is written by an evil woman who is bemoaning the lack of riot-related deaths. (Brow furrows)…You’re saying she maybe didn’t mean it? Life is strange…’

Petty? Why do you say a squabble about a semi-literate misunderstanding of a weak joke is ‘petty’? Would you rather we talked about such trivia as the massive wave of riots gripping France? Talk about missing the real point…

Atrios had the best response, on Sunday: “I bounce back and forth between amusement and disgust at the right wing’s bizarre and uninformed reaction to the events in Paris. Without getting into the of course important subtleties, think “60s race riots” as your comparison point, not “al Qaeda terrorists.”

Put it this way — in a year or two or five, after these riots are history, will we see Banlieus that are more or less influenced by conservative Islam? Greater integration? Or beur communities that are even more isolated? Will it be safe for an uncovered woman to walk the streets? From last year:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/13/60minutes/main617270.shtml

To pretend this is only about race and economic opportunity and that Islam is not an important part of the explosive mix is just ridiculous however overblown the rhetoric of some right blogs may be.

Because it’s a possible indicator of discrimination.

Everyone knows there’s plenty of discrimination and racism. If I could have a dime every time I heard “we have a lot of problems with these people” from a French, I’d have a 5-course dinner tonight.

Now what? I know it’s useful to drill down to education level, age, local community, social status, etc., but how do stats based on ethnic or religious idenitity help?

“Wow, that last comment from Sebastian was priceless …”

Wow your analysis is even more priceless. Or might be if you had any.

I don’t want to get sucked too much into the kind of unproductive discussion that can happen whenever Israel comes up, so I will try to be very narrow in my discussion of it.

In very brief, the general understanding on crookedtimber about Israel/Palestine is that if you want to talk about motivations for violence against Israel by the Palestinians the following tend to be considered more important:

Restrictions which cripple the economy of the Palestinian territories;

Racial animosity played out against Palestinians;

The physical separation of Palestinians into non-contiguous and non-autonomous areas (often called apartheid by commentors here);

while other factors tend to be considered not that important for analysis, like:

Palestinians might want to destroy all of Israel;

Many Muslim sects in the Middle East demonize Jews enough that killing them might be a religious ‘good’;

A clash of civilizations style problem where Muslim cultures feel a need to explain their ‘apparent’ lack of success compared to decadent Western Cultures–of which Israel is the nearest example.

I’m not going to try to attack or defend these positions, but I do think it is fair to note that on Crooked Timber the first set is considered much more important than the second.

With respect to France, problems in the realm of the first set are also present. The degree of the problems may be relatively less, but in absolute terms the problems of the first set in France are still found in a very high degree. In other words, an analysis of Israel for the types of things that are typically considered legitimate analysis in wondering about violent unrest leads to similar underlying issues existing in France.

Furthermore, calling it an ‘intifada’ is not a description solely of motivation, but of tactical effectiveness. An innovation can be adopted in an arena somewhat different from its first instance. Like the early intifada, the French ‘riots’ rarely interface directly with large numbers of police or troops. Like the early intifada, violence is used to a degree that it provokes notice without quite ‘justifying’ a harsh crack-down response. Like the early intifada, violence is used to a degree which attracts new recruits without getting many of the recruits killed. Like the early intifada the response shows the new recruits that it isn’t really that personally dangerous to enage in the violence.

Unlike the early intifada, this is taking place in Europe.

(I presume a possible objection to this analysis is that the Palestinians have a ‘right’ to the land). This may or may not be true from an international law perspective, but I suspect that the distinction of international legal rights isn’t that important to a 2nd generation immigrant to France. He has his complaints, and they are deeply important to him.)

I do think it is fair to note that on Crooked Timber the first set is considered much more important than the second.

Probably because the “first set” contains demonstrable government policies while the second set involves speculation and ignores issues of how representitive an idea or sect might be.

To say that the CT crowd isn’t sufficiently bowled over by the emotional impact of the potentially marginal isn’t exactly an indictment. That our critics have missed this (repeatedly) is why we’re unimpressed with their criticism.

Actually, truth be told, we’re unimpressed with them personally. .

Sorry, for “representitive,” read “representative,” and for “critics” read “critics” read “people who can’t fathom why we don’t want to be as systematically wrong as they have been for the past several years.”
.

France has been arresting “bloggers” who post encouragement to run riot at particular places and times.

Watts meets flash-mobs? Neato! Now: what are they after?
.

massive unempolyment among bored young men,

Ok for the massive unemployment, but they are not really bored young men. It’s just that it says “french” on their i.d., and it’s always these ones that the cops search in the subway -on top of everything you said. They’re rathe fed up young men that a minister just called “scum”.

Well ok, maybe they are bored sometimes, but then they go play PES4 on their friend’s Playstation. Those youngs don’t play on ‘puters anymore. Sheesh. But i digress.

By the way, could someone tell the intifada/muslims-from-hell bozos that the Uoif (french muslims organisation) issued a fatwa against the riots? So they can, like, stop being knowledgable and all about the situation? Can’t mouse-wheel out of their peoductions fast enough. … Or maybe ask them about the wmd? Always fun, that.

Apparently, for American rightwingers hatred of France now trumps substantive policy concerns and even ideology.

Well, you can take violent young hoodlums and lock them up and that will work for a while, but if the cause is still there then eventually you’ll start running out of jail cells. Around that time your former education secretary and the author of “The Children’s Book of Virtues” will start fantasizing about aborting every black baby in the country. Now what?

“Around that time your former education secretary and the author of “The Children’s Book of Virtues” will start fantasizing about aborting every black baby in the country. ”

Funny how showing how awful purely utilitarian decision-making could be turns into ‘fantasizing about’.

About the gathering of racial data in France :

Don’t forget that the last time such a thing was done was in 1941.

I prefer the monstrosity of forbidding race-mentioning population files.

What about all that midnight basketball stuff and other liberal solutions? Certainly there are ways to spend all that hoodlum energy other than terrorizing people and torching vehicles.

Personally, I can’t stand basketball, but evidently there are lots of people who prefer it to blogging–that’s why lots of kids play basketball even though Blogger is free.

Likewise, there are evidently a great many youths who prefer terrorizing people and torching vehicles to playing basketball. Offering them free alternatives simply isn’t enough to dissuade them–you need substantial disincentives.

Europe seems to be at roughly the same stage, with respect to its major minority group, as America circa 1965.

A breataking statement since

(1) Europe is lots of different places with lots of different attitudes to ethnic and religious minorities. Hence the French _horreur_ at the _communitarisme_ supposedly adopted by the _Brittaniques_ .

(2) The “major minority group” is actually lots of different groups and only appears as one group through the prism of paranoia about Muslims.

Dan H: I would only be wrong if riots were something completely alien to French culture, which they are not; they’re an essential feature of French society and the only innovation here appears to be that the rioters are brown.

Meanwhile, this is beyond priceless at #39

Put it this way—in a year or two or five, after these riots are history, will we see Banlieus that are more or less influenced by conservative Islam? Greater integration? Or beur communities that are even more isolated? Will it be safe for an uncovered woman to walk the streets?

Ohmigod. We’re being menaced by French Islamofascist terrorists … FROM THE FUTURE!!!

Affirmative action is appeasement.

If the French fix their social welfare system and adopt policies to reduce unemployment and promote social mobility, then the rioters will have won.

(1) Europe is lots of different places with lots of different attitudes to ethnic and religious minorities.

…As is America, as a matter of fact. In practice, though, the process of resolving the “race issue” was remarkably similar across the US. I conjecture that Europe will similarly evolve in approximate lockstep–whether at the same pace, I don’t yet know. (I hope it will be faster, and fear that it will be even slower.)

The “major minority group” is actually lots of different groups and only appears as one group through the prism of paranoia about Muslims.

….Again, as with American “Blacks”. Since I was talking about the evolution of majority attitudes to the minority group(s) in question, though, this detail isn’t particularly relevant. In Europe today, as in America in 1965, such subtleties are completely lost on most people.

I think part of the riots has to do with this kind of discourse. The “noise and smell” part never ceases to amaze me.

The problem with this reasoning is that M. Chirac has said some very objectionable things about a great many different groups of people. The vast majority of those groups of people, however, have not reacted by rioting.

In fact, even the current flock (pack? herd?) of rioters are obviously a tiny percentage of the population of which M. Chirac spoke so unkindly–a percentage consisting overwhelmingly of young unemployed males, many of them already involved in crime. Why, if M. Chirac’s insults are the cause of the rioting, are there hardly any middle-aged women rioting in the streets? Oughtn’t they feel at least as insulted as a scattered few of their teenaged sons by Chirac’s remarks?

A simple alternative hypothesis: people riot because they like to riot, and because they have reason to believe that nobody’s going to stop them. Unfortunately, it’s often the case that nobody is going to stop them–especially if it’s widely believed that rioting is a quasi-legitimate response to perceived slights, and therefore ought to be at least somewhat indulged.

In short, Maria, if you want to understand why these riots are taking place, perhaps you might first look in the mirror.

What about all that midnight basketball stuff and other liberal solutions? Certainly there are ways to spend all that hoodlum energy other than terrorizing people and torching vehicles.

My vote’s for a new video game called Grand Torch Auto, distributed gratis by the French government.