Gangs of La France
Here are some commentaries on the French riots that probably won’t be linked on rightie blogs.
Jonathan Freedland writes for The Guardian:
The riots themselves are not hard to fathom; several French commentators have said the only mystery is why they didn’t break out 15 years earlier. If you corral hundreds of thousands of the poor and disadvantaged into sink estates and suburbs in a misery doughnut around the city, expose them to unemployment rates of up to 40%, and then subject them to daily racial discrimination at the hands of employers and the police, you can hardly expect peace and tranquillity. Cut public spending on social programmes by 20% and you will guarantee an explosion. All you have to do is light the fuse.
And this fire has been building for decades. It was after the second world war that - just as health minister Enoch Powell went recruiting for NHS staff in the Caribbean - France went shopping among its foreign colonies for labourers and factory workers. It brought these mainly Arab migrants in, then dumped them on the outskirts of the big cities. It did the same to the Harkis - Algerians who had collaborated with the French colonial authorities - and the next waves of North African immigrants, warehousing them like an unwanted commodity in high-rise ghettoes on the périphérique, out of sight of the white folks of the city. And there they have stayed for a half century.
Their anger could not stay pent-up forever. And the official reaction to the first outbreak of violence clearly inflamed it. Interior minister Nicolas Sarkozy promised to “Karcherise” the “scum” who were burning cars and torching buildings: Karcher is the brand name for a kind of sand-blaster, the sort of machine one might use to remove bird droppings from a wall. According to former Libération columnist Doug Ireland, to speak of Karcherising the North African youth on the streets was “as close as one can get to hollering ethnic cleansing without actually saying so”.
The motives of the man they call Sarko are not hard to divine: he wants to run for president in 2007 and has clearly decided his constituency is the white right nurtured by Jean-Marie Le Pen. His hardman language during these last 10 days has been a nakedly Powellite bid for those National Front votes.
Now his rival, prime minister Dominique de Villepin, has taken the initiative, reviving a 1955 curfew law which allows local authorities to impose a state of emergency. He may succeed where Sarkozy failed, restoring a semblance of calm. But the move itself has caused disquiet. For the 1955 law was passed to quell Algerian unrest at the height of the independence struggle. That the same legislation should now be used to put down the children and grandchildren of the Algerian rebels has prompted some glum reflection in France - as if that bitter war never really ended.
Freedland goes on to describe France as a deeply racist society that refuses to recognize its own racism. French law treats everyone equally, which is commendable. But French law makes no provision for the effects of racism; it simply pretends racism doesn’t exist. “France’s refusal to see the ethnicity of some of its people as relevant translates into de facto racism,” Freedland says. “If human beings were free of prejudice, the French republican ideal would work beautifully. Because we are not, it allows racism a free hand.”
France is in flames because the French made all the mistakes American conservatives wanted to make since the 1950s. Righties fought desegregation; they fought antidiscrimination laws; they are still fighting Affirmative Action. Fortunately, they didn’t get their way. Yes there are still racial tensions in the U.S., as we saw recently in New Orleans. And this takes us to another perspective, by Olivier Roy in today’s New York Times.
THE rioting in Paris and other French cities has led to a lot of interpretations and comments, most of them irrelevant. Many see the violence as religiously motivated, the inevitable result of unchecked immigration from Muslim countries; for others the rioters are simply acting out of vengeance at being denied their cultural heritage or a fair share in French society. But the reality is that there is nothing particularly Muslim, or even French, about the violence. Rather, we are witnessing the temporary rising up of one small part of a Western underclass culture that reaches from Paris to London to Los Angeles and beyond.
To understand why this is so, consider two solid facts we do have on the riots. First, this is a youth (and male) uprising. The rioters are generally 12 to 25 years old, and roughly half of those arrested are under 18. The adults keep away from the demonstrations: in fact, they are the first victims (it is their cars, after all, that are burning) and they want security and social services to be restored.
Yet older residents also resent what they see as the unnecessary brutality of the police toward the rioters, the merry-go-round of officials making promises that they know will be quickly forgotten, and the demonization of their communities by the news media. Second, the riots are geographically and socially very circumscribed: all are occurring in about 100 suburbs, or more precisely destitute neighborhoods known here as “cités,” “quartiers” or “banlieues.” There has long been a strong sense of territorial identity among the young people in these neighborhoods, who have tended to coalesce in loose gangs. The different gangs, often involved in petty delinquency, have typically been reluctant to stroll outside their territories and have vigilantly kept strangers away, be they rival gangs, police officers, firefighters or journalists.
Gangs, did he say? As in Crips and Bloods?
Now, these gangs are for the most part burning their own neighborhoods and seem little interested in extending the rampage to more fashionable areas. They express simmering anger fueled by unemployment and racism. The lesson, then, is that while these riots originate in areas largely populated by immigrants of Islamic heritage, they have little to do with the wrath of a Muslim community.
France has a huge Muslim population living outside these neighborhoods - many of them, people who left them as soon as they could afford it - and they don’t identify with the rioters at all. Even within the violent areas, one’s local identity (sense of belonging to a particular neighborhood) prevails over larger ethnic and religious affiliation. Most of the rioters are from the second generation of immigrants, they have French citizenship, and they see themselves more as part of a modern Western urban subculture than of any Arab or African heritage.
Just look at the newspaper photographs: the young men wear the same hooded sweatshirts, listen to similar music and use slang in the same way as their counterparts in Los Angeles or Washington. (It is no accident that in French-dubbed versions of Hollywood films, African-American characters usually speak with the accent heard in the Paris banlieues).
But … but … aren’t the French riots part of worldwide Islamic jihad?
There is no reference to Palestine or Iraq in these riots. Although these suburbs have been a recruiting field for jihadists, the fundamentalists are conspicuously absent from the violence. Muslim extremists don’t share the youth agenda (from drug dealing to nightclub partying), and the youngsters reject any kind of leadership.
Although the violence is the result of France’s rigidly unicultural policies, Mr. Roy does not believe a shift to multiculturalism would do much good. Like Crips and Bloods, the French rioters are essentially de-culturalized. They feel no sense of belonging to French culture, Muslim culture, or any other culture but gang culture.
An editorial in today’s Washington Post:
THE RIOTS in France have provoked their own mini-storm of misinterpretation, outside the country and among some of the French. So it’s worth noting what 12 days (so far) of car-burning, looting and occasional shooting in the poor suburbs of Paris, and now dozens of other towns, is not about. It’s not the European version of an intifada: Islamic ideology and leaders play no role in the disturbances, and many of those participating are not Muslim. But not all the demonstrators are hoodlums and drug dealers either, as some senior French officials portray them; anger over high unemployment and racism has been building in these ghettos for years.
It’s also too facile to say that French authorities have ignored the problems. Billions have been spent on urban renewal: High-rise projects have been torn down and enterprise zones created, much as in some American inner cities. As in the United States, interlinked problems of jobs, schools, crime and discrimination have not easily yielded to government solutions. Yet until now, many in France assumed that what they regard as a superior “social model” protected them from the eruptions of lawlessness that in recent years have touched Los Angeles, Miami and New Orleans.
Caught by surprise, slow to react, plagued by political posturing and finger-pointing, the French leadership is demonstrating that poor crisis response is also not unique to U.S. administrations. Yet beneath the disarray — embodied in the simultaneously laconic and belligerent behavior of President Jacques Chirac — some fresh thinking is evident. Ironically, some of it comes from Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, who has been pilloried by the demonstrators and left-wing press for his own ugly rhetoric. Mr. Sarkozy recently suggested that France abandon the pretense that all of its citizens — including an estimated 5 million Muslims — are treated equally, and adopt affirmative-action policies. He has also promoted the idea of a peaceful and tolerant “French Islam” to compete with imported ideologies of extremism.
See also Interviews in The Independent. A lot of the comments should sound very familiar to any American.
November 9th, 2005 at 12:31 pm
Although the violence is the result of France€™s rigidly unicultural policies, Mr. Roy does not believe a shift to multiculturalism would do much good. Like Crips and Bloods, the French rioters are essentially de-culturalized. They feel no sense of belonging to French culture, Muslim culture, or any other culture but gang culture.
This de-politicization is something that the power elite fosters among the underclass in the US. It’s a very dangerous attitude to encourage as we saw during the Rodney King riots and are seeing now in Paris. Count me among the people who are wondering why it doesn’t happen here more often.
November 9th, 2005 at 2:03 pm
But € but € aren€™t the French riots part of worldwide Islamic jihad?
But…but…Michelle Malkins says it is. It’s France’s payback for not supporting Bush in invading Iraq.
November 9th, 2005 at 6:56 pm
Is not France the country you folks on the left so admire?
November 9th, 2005 at 7:28 pm
Bagley: Only according to rightie mythology. Like most places, France has its good points and its bad points. You righties are the ones who want everything to be black or white; all good or all bad. Lefties generally are not that stupid.
November 10th, 2005 at 12:58 am
I make it a point to sample commentary on many blogs, “rightie” (as you call them) included. Whether I find comments persuasive of not, it’s helpful to understand all aspects of issues. That said, there are 3 main complaints directed toward France on “rightie” blogs in addition to the resentment of France’s ineffectual leadership style, arrogance, playing footsie with Saddam (oil for food, etc.) and not joining in the Iraq adventure. They are: (1) France’s sactimonious posturing (”nothing like that could happen in OUR humane and enlightened society”), (2) French assumptions that conciliation and appeasement is the default position when confronted, and (3) disdane for a socioeconomic model that is antiquated and unrealistic in the global competitive environment. As one whose ancestry is French, it hurts a little to say it, but they are dead on with these observations. It doesn’t matter that they are “righties”, if they are correct they are correct.
Now… whether or not this is all part of some loose knit (or even “implicit” Muslim attack on traditional Western values and society is open to debate. It might not start out that way, but it could easily morph in that direction. At the very least, the French reaction and prreparedness is something the jihadists are certainly learning from. To ignore THAT possibility (simply because the observation comes from “the right”) is the height of foolishness.
I lited what follows from Edward Morrissey, in this case under the banner of The Weekly Standard:
+++++++++++
INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH the Washington Post warned its readers just three weeks ago that Islamist groups had targeted France for the next stage of their war.
In September, the Algerian Islamist terror group GSPC issued a communiqué describing France as “enemy number one” and called for Muslims to conduct attacks on France. Agence France Presse reported this threat without great fanfare, but the French authorities took it seriously enough to round up over a dozen suspected terrorist cell members throughout the country. The Post took a different look at the Algerian threat, noting that the training for terrorists had focused on younger French citizens, with a greater ability to move unrestricted through the streets of Paris and other target-rich environments. Among the training areas that intrigued the Post was the urban-warfare areas of Iraq:
French police investigating plans by a group of Islamic extremists to attack targets in Paris discovered last month that the group was recruiting French citizens to train in the Middle East and return home to carry out terrorist attacks, sources familiar with the investigation said.
One French official said the extremists were using a virtual “underground railroad” through Syria to spirit European and Middle Eastern citizens into and out of Iraq. A senior French law enforcement official, who declined to be quoted by name because he was speaking about classified information, said French citizens had undergone terrorist training at camps in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
“There’s always been an enormous jihad zone to train people to fight in their country of origin,” the official said. “We saw it Afghanistan, in Bosnia, in Kosovo, and now we’re seeing it in Iraq.”
+++++++++
Now, you can choose to differ, but I find that potential connection troubling. Don’t you?
November 10th, 2005 at 5:24 am
Terry Ott: I find many things troubling. As an eyewitness to the collapse of the WTC towers I take terrorism very seriously. But 49 percent of the commentary on the rightie blogs regarding the French riots is gleeful jubilation that “liberals” and “socialists” are wrong (about what is not entirely clear, since French leadership is neither liberal nor socialist), and another 49 percent is gleeful jubilation that the “ragheads” are moving jihad to France in spite of France’s non-participation in the Iraq war. But, according to knowledgable people, the riots in France have next to nothing to do with either jihad or Iraq. If 2 percent of rightie commentary manages to be a little more nuanced that’s fine, but don’t pretend it’s any kind of standard.
Al Qaeda has had membership in Europe for some time; some of the 9/11 highjackers had lived in Europe (German mostly). Muslim residents of Europe have traveled to the Middle East to terrorist training camps for several years. This is not a new development. If you are trying to tell me that a bunch of gang punks setting fire to their parents’ cars are doing this because terrorist leaders in the Middle East are “training” them, however, I suggest you change your meds.
I like this:
€œThere€™s always been an enormous jihad zone to train people to fight in their country of origin,€ the official said. €œWe saw it Afghanistan, in Bosnia, in Kosovo, and now we€™re seeing it in Iraq.€
Yes we are seeing it in Iraq, because of George Bush’s dumbass war. Ironically, there was little or no such training in parts of Iraq controlled by Saddam Hussein before we deposed him; yes he was a real bad guy, but his presence actually discoraged the spread of jihad into his little acre of the Middle East. But let’s go on … it’s been going on in Afghanistan for a long time. But most of the “information” available on the web about “jihad” in Bosnia and Kosovo is coming from rightie blogs and news sources, which means probably it’s mostly bullshit. I’m not saying that no jihadist ever showed up in Bosnia or Kosovo, but Bosnia and Kosovo never turned into THE training ground for anti-American terrorists like Iraq , did they?
November 10th, 2005 at 1:22 pm
Barbara:
I may not have been clear, based on your reply. It is exactly because most of the strident “right” and strident “left” blogs are NOT nuanced that I take the extra time to consider what both are saying. I came to this site from Memeorandum, which is where I start a couple times a day BECAUSE it leads you to differing opinions.
You go on to say: “If you are trying to tell me that a bunch of gang punks setting fire to their parents€™ cars are doing this because terrorist leaders in the Middle East are ‘training’ them, however, I suggest you change your meds.” Thanks for the counsel, but I have a pretty good shrink looking after that (although your rates are way more reasonable, apparently).
I reread my post to see if I could detect where that idea came from. Actually, in the part that quotes the Washington Post is where I find reference to France being a sweet target for jihad, according to those who should know. No way could I responsibly assert that the current rioting is a part of that jihad; but what I would assert, because it is just common sense, is that if you have a huge cadre of disaffected and alienated mostly Muslims openly and violently defying (for whatever reason) the “establishment” throughout the whole country of France it would indicate that the jihad, if it were acted out in France, would have no shortage of foot soldiers. If it doesn’t already do so, the “training” of Muslims who are focused on “converting” France, probably now would have a module on “the Muslim army that is waiting to be equipped and led by us, and how to get them organized”. Is this too big a leap for you to make? I find it an unfortunate “natural extension”, especially when coupled with a perception that France would not exactly be perceived as being expert in how to defend itself in a forceful way.
The Iraq war has nothing to do with this, in my opinion. You choose to close your post with a comment about that “dumbass war” (fine, but irrelevant to this discussion). I see the struggle between Muslim extremists and western society predating that by a large margin. There are plenty of places for terrorists to be harbored and trained. I suspect the ones in Iraq have their hands pretty much full with events all around them, rather than planning what they might do in the suburbs of France when and if that signal is given.
Back to the start point of my post about “righty blogs”. One thing that came through on them, pre-election, was despair about Mr. Kerry’s predeliction to try to collaorate with the French to find answers to the world’s problems. I happen to share that concern, as relying on the leadership of France for much of anything seems a very suspect and naive strategy. Bush may be inadequate and misguided and ill-informed (which is why I wouldn’t vote for him), but one thing he is NOT (to his credit) is smitten with the French.
I see a stronger parallel in France, so far, to Katrina than to Iraq. Everyday French people are the “victims”, not only of the rioting but of the ineffectual governance to which they are routinely subjected. Kind of like the citizens of Louisiana, they get hammered by “the perfect storm” when multiple conditions conspire against tham, as they have recently,