According to The Times of London, “Colour-blind policy has fed Muslim radicalism.”
Under the ethnically colour-blind “French model”, the immigrant workers who came in the 1950s and 1960s from the former colonies in North and black Africa were to be regarded as equal citizens. They and their descendants would take advantage of the education system and generous welfare state to assimilate with “white” France. To promote the idea of assimilation, neither the State nor any other body publishes statistics on ethnic or national origin.
In practice, France turned its back on the minorities….
This article is incredible. I can’t tell if the author really had no idea what he wanted to write but felt compelled to type nonetheless, or if he had a well planned out stealth attack leading to the last sentence.
He attempts to compare the French approach to multiculturalism with the Anglo-Saxon approach, but neither approach is described coherently. The Anglo-Saxon approach apparently involves enabling “ethnic minorities to retain strong bonds in cultural and religious communities.” The French approach, however, involves being “ethnically colour-blind”, which in practice means “shunting” Muslims into suburban areas where they retain strong bonds in cultural and religious communities. The author makes no concrete suggestions about why Muslims are more integrated in the U.S. than in France.
He does, however, have a remarkably simple solution: that most Anglo-Saxon of institutions, affirmative action.
Might not seem related, but I watched part of the History Channel’s series on the Crusades last night.
The series was so replete with agonizing guilt over Western/Christian actions that I had to turn it off in disgust.
Has anybody bothered to tell the folks who produce such programming that the other side refuses to engage in the guilt ridden defeatism that now pervades the Christian West? Why has the intellectual/artistic class of the West decided on unconditional surrender?
Why have they indeed? There is no guilt in the moslem world about the genocide and slavery that they practiced and still practice against black africans. In fact the very idea of race wide or nationwide guilt is a western notion. I used to think it was a good thing, but now I think it has gone too far. What I see happening is that for westerners, for white people really, all pride in inheritance is now up to extremists to uphold. I see that Le Pen is going to gain followers in France. As for the crusades, they came about because moslems took over what used to be christian lands, the entire middle east, north africa. The parts in East Europe that are now moslem used to be christian until they were converted by jihad. Why do western liberals think that is okay? It was not until 1571, I believe, that moslems were beat back from the gates of Venice. Osama Bin Laden talks about that at one of his greatest grievances. I don’t understand the view of western liberals that moslems are better than other people, and that is the message that they are sending. I reject the message and I am a liberal. I can only imagine what other non moslems think.
Seriously, Stephen, what did you expect? The reason they produced a show about the Crusades, as opposed to a show about Muslim conquests, is BECAUSE it lets them harp on about Western guilt.
Why in God’s name have Western countries let in so many non-Western immigrants? Is the Left so blind that they cannot see that this is ensuring our doom?
Blindness. Non-Westerners cannot in general truly assimilate into our culture. They harbor a deep-seated hatred for us rooted mostly in racism and also in bitterness over past grievences and the generally perceived air of superiority that whites have. Case-in-point: Holland, where Dutch filmmaker Van Gogh was murdered and almost beheaded by a Moslem for creating a movie criticizing Islam’s treatment of women. Holland, the land of probably the nicest and most tolerant people on Earth, and this is how they are repaid. Now Dutch emmigration from Holland is at record levels; the Dutch are fleeing THEIR OWN country. This is a sign of things to come in America and in other Western countrie. This incompatibility of cultures will always be this way and the numbers of Moslems in Western countries continue to grow. We are doomed.
Tony —
Some classes of non-western immigrants do quite well here, and do not pose a problem.
Uh, if this guy thinks the Anglo-Saxon model is producing more integrated Muslims than the French model, he hasn’t heard of Londonistan, or the various riots that have been happening in the UK the past several years, or the July attacks…
My fear is that the riots will cause a backlash and lead to increased support for LePen’s right wing, nationalist, anti immigration party. In fact, here in the United States, “Human biodiversity” bloggist Steve Sailer is blaming the riots on the lower average IQ of so called “inferior” Muslim immigrants. What a joke – everyone knows that Islam led the West technologically and in terms of political power for hundreds of years after its foundation in the seventh century by Mohammed. In fact by the eighth century, it was entirely plausible that Islam might conquer the entire continent of Europe.
I think the problem has more to do with the structure of France’s economy. Unemployment is high – according to some reports the unemployment rate for youth in some of these suburbs (Clichy) is over 40%. Idle,anonymous, unemployed males of any background are riot tender.
France and many other countries are now in a tough fix over immigration. Many factors are cited – racism, religion, government policies, unemployment, etc. And it is true, all have some effect.
However the real cause may be rooted in the goals of humans. When people immigrate they have a reason. It may be to flee, to seek economic gain, to join family, to join a more attractive society, intense dislike of the climate at home…..
Some motives will lead to assimilation and bonding in the new nation. Others have nothing to do with the new nation and these people will not adapt and they also may have views that prevent their children from adapting.
So what have been the motives of the French immigrants in the last forty years? Those motives determine what solutions are possible and trying other things will not help.
“The author makes no concrete suggestions about why Muslims are more integrated in the U.S. than in France.”
affirmative action and counterdiscrimination laws.
actus,
affirmative action and counterdiscrimination laws.
You mean there are no such things as “counterdiscrimination laws” in France? Who knew?
Seriously, actus, I’d say that one major reason we don’t have much in the way of Muslim discontent in this country is precisely that Muslim immigrants who come here do start pretty much from scratch and do not receive preferences. We don’t have a huge welfare state, and such preferences as we have don’t go to Arabs or Pakistanis or Indonesians. In other words, if you come here as a Muslim immigrant, you are likely to get as little help from the government as you would if you were Chinese. Which is to say: some, but not lots.
The Muslim immigrants of Europe have a larger safety net below them, and also a host culture without the US’ universalist vibe. The American position on citizenship (the “ideal” one, I realize, so please don’t lecture me on how often the reality falls short) is that anyone who signs on to the American idea can be an American. The European idea of citizenship is different. Just take the German view of the Turkish Gastarbeiter: there are third- and fourth-generation German-born people who aren’t “really” German. As for the French, well, there’s “French” and “French,” and the latter evidently doesn’t cover Algeria and Côte d’Ivoire.
“You mean there are no such things as “counterdiscrimination laws” in France? Who knew?”
I know they don’t have them in germany. I suspect they don’t have them in france — i’ve been told they have a priggish official attitude that ‘we are all french’ and thus make no official distinctions. Which to me sounds like they wouldn’t have laws barring discrimination on the basis of race — there is no race!
“The Muslim immigrants of Europe have a larger safety net below them, and also a host culture without the US’ universalist vibe.”
The safety net is not the issue. The issue is integration and participation and opportunity. I don’t equate social welfare with opportunity.
actus,
I know they don’t have them in germany. I suspect they don’t have them in france — i’ve been told they have a priggish official attitude that ‘we are all french’ and thus make no official distinctions. Which to me sounds like they wouldn’t have laws barring discrimination on the basis of race — there is no race!
I think that between the French love of logic and the not-so-distant memory of Vichy, there might be an explanation: the French have figured out that, before they can implement race-based benefits or even anti-discrimination law, they’d have to define “race” and set up objective standards for racial categories. Not that such details ever stopped us, of course, either in oppressing racial minorities or in offering them remedies.
“: the French have figured out that, before they can implement race-based benefits or even anti-discrimination law, they’d have to define “race” and set up objective standards for racial categories.”
And in their figuring that out, they have created their stratified society that refuses to take into account their racial ghettoes. See no evil. . . till it burns.
Its an amazingly good example of what is wrong with the conservative impetus for official race blindness.
France and Germany are both part of the EU and the EU passed a race directive that would certainly count as “counterdiscrimination” law. In fact, in some cases at least, the burden of proof is shifted to the accused.
They are supposed to transpose this directive into law. They might not have done that yet, but they are obligated to do so. Also, Germany does have “there shall be no discrimination” clauses in its constitution as well, though maybe nothing to give that clause any enforcement power. Though, again, the EU directive will/has change(d) that.
Muslims in the U.S., on average, came from higher status, more educated backgrounds. Certainly that gave them an advantage in integration issues over Turks in Germany (who themselves did not intend to become German) or Algerians in France.
Actus writes:
>>>”And in their figuring that out, they have created their stratified society that refuses to take into account their racial ghettoes. See no evil. . . till it burns.
Its an amazingly good example of what is wrong with the conservative impetus for official race blindness.”
Truer words have not been said, my friend.
–Cobra
Oops. I does indeed look as if france has implemented the anti-discrimination directive.
However, It looks like violations are considered under hte criminal law and ‘labour inspectors.’ Its unclear to me whether there is a private cause of action, which has give us so many rights.
actus and Cobra,
As you’re evidently agreed, can you please set about defining our own racial terms for us? I, for one, don’t quite know exactly who counts as “Black,” and your guidance in this matter would be a help. We need some sort of . . . what’s it called, “protocol”?
Seriously, to both of you, how the heck do you distribute benefits of any kind (including University admissions preferences) on the basis of race without defining race? At least with economic preferences you have the parents’ tax records to work from. But here, what do you use? Self-description? Father’s stated race? Mother’s stated race?
“As you’re evidently agreed, can you please set about defining our own racial terms for us?”
I’m confident that we can leave it up to the jury to figure out if the the alleged discriminator was discriminating on the basis of race. And that includes what the discriminator’s views of race are.
As to university admissions, I’m not so convinced race is as good a factor as other indications of disadvantage. I’m pretty sure that self-description works well. Has so far right?
–>>>”And in their figuring that out, they have created their stratified society that refuses to take into account their racial ghettoes. See no evil. . . till it burns.–
Or they do what they’ve been doing for 1000 years, same old, same old.
Elites and peasants.
actus,
As to university admissions, I’m not so convinced race is as good a factor as other indications of disadvantage.
Universities have been remarkably reluctant to let go of race, as opposed to “other indications of disadvantage.” (In fact, of course, the schools insist that racial preferences aren’t about “disadvantage,” but diversity. But you know that.)
I’m pretty sure that self-description works well. Has so far right?
Depends somewhat what you mean by “works.” It “works” exceedingly well if you’re a PR person for a college, given that you can confidently describe every entering student self-identifying as Black as “Black,” every entering student self-identifying as Hispanic as “Hispanic,” &c.
actus, let me ask you candidly. Is there anything, anything at all, that would cause you to think that a student’s racial self-identification was fraudulent? Because the moment you admit the possibility of a fraudulent self-identification, you have to admit also that there must be a true yardstick against which to measure the claim. And we don’t actually have one — and, more to the point, should not.
“(In fact, of course, the schools insist that racial preferences aren’t about “disadvantage,” but diversity. But you know that.)”
I know. I think they do that because of the law.
“Is there anything, anything at all, that would cause you to think that a student’s racial self-identification was fraudulent?”
If, say, george bush were to say he was black I would say that self-identification was wrong. So I guess there is sometihng at all that would cause me to think that.
“Because the moment you admit the possibility of a fraudulent self-identification, you have to admit also that there must be a true yardstick against which to measure the claim.”
But I don’t have to admit that it is a perfect yardstick. It could be an imperfect one with imperfections that are not of enough consequence.
actus,
If, say, george bush were to say he was black I would say that self-identification was wrong. So I guess there is sometihng at all that would cause me to think that.
But how would you go about demonstrating that George Bush isn’t Black? In all seriousness, how would you prove it? Put him in a lineup and ask representative citizens whether he looked Black to them? Or what? Would that be a reasonable way of assessing any other ethnicity? Could you use the same technique to demonstrate that George Bush is not Hispanic, Asian-American, or Native American?
“But how would you go about demonstrating that George Bush isn’t Black? ”
I would just say it. And people would either agree or disagree with me. What do you think would happen? Do you think he’s black? Do you agree with me that he is not black?
Michelle writes:
>>>”Could you use the same technique to demonstrate that George Bush is not Hispanic, Asian-American, or Native American?”
That wouldn’t be advantageous for the Republican “Southern Strategy.” I think what is being portrayed here is that being a “non-white” gives you an “insurmountable advantage” in life. This belief is ludicrous based upon a simple review of history and current society. If, as painfully acknowleged on this very blog, Affirmative Action programs only effect the LOW SINGLE DIGITS of percentage of the population, then this debate should logically shift from feelings of “white guilt” to feelings of “white entitlement.”
–Cobra
So, actus and Cobra, I regard your comments basically as threats.
Give us (blacks) what we want or we’ll resort to violence.
Do blacks have any responsibilities as citizens or do they have some sort of magisterial right to resort to violence whenever they are frustrated? Do blacks have any responsibility to remain peaceable and to observe the law?
Why shouldn’t the society respond to these threats with maximum force? Why shouldn’t these threats of violence simply be regarded as criminal?
“So, actus and Cobra, I regard your comments basically as threats.”
When people are marginalized don’t be surprised when they act on the margins.
“Why shouldn’t the society respond to these threats with maximum force? Why shouldn’t these threats of violence simply be regarded as criminal?”
Go ahead. Won’t change the fact that when people are marginalized they will act on the margins.
Well, no, actus, you are wrong.
I grew up in poverty. I’ve been punished my entire life by quota systems that assume that, because I am a white man, I was endowed with some sort of privilege. It’s cost me plenty.
I haven’t responded with threats of violence. I’ve just put up with it and done my best.
Are you saying that black people don’t have the moral restraint, decency or respect for the law to do the same? Or are you simply refusing to exercise moral restraint, decency and respect for the law because black people as a group know how to intimidate white people?
“Are you saying that black people don’t have the moral restraint, decency or respect for the law to do the same? ”
Nope.
And I don’t think this is just an economic question. I think official france’s racism against colored peoples is greater than any you may have faced.
“I grew up in poverty. I’ve been punished my entire life by quota systems that assume that, because I am a white man, I was endowed with some sort of privilege. It’s cost me plenty.”
I’m so so sorry. Really.
Yes, actus, I return the favor.
I’m so, so sorry for French blacks. I’m so, so sorry for you. Whatever ails you in life, well… you won’t see me crying over it.
Maybe I should cop the thug attitude, too. I don’t care about you either.
And, now I will exit this discussion. You can have the last word as usual.
“Maybe I should cop the thug attitude, too.”
You could like, just start saying racist things. Like your past comments about innate white male chivalry. That would be pretty marginal.
Yes, actus, you have convinced me.
I have the right to be as thuggish and racist as you.
Goodbye.
“I have the right to be as thuggish and racist as you.”
u frontin?
yeah, actus and cobra are threatening. the question they should ask is will the threats get us what we want? and what is it that we want? is it less racism or is it to impose their racism on others. but such threats should not be idle. at some point it becomes like pointing a gun at someone, don’t do it unless you intend to shoot.
Stephen writes:
>>>”Do blacks have any responsibilities as citizens or do they have some sort of magisterial right to resort to violence whenever they are frustrated? Do blacks have any responsibility to remain peaceable and to observe the law?”
Maybe the same question should be asked of the unquestionably white Founding Fathers regarding the American Revolution.
Anita writes:
>>>”yeah, actus and cobra are threatening. the question they should ask is will the threats get us what we want? and what is it that we want? is it less racism or is it to impose their racism on others. but such threats should not be idle. at some point it becomes like pointing a gun at someone, don’t do it unless you intend to shoot.”
Exactly who is being threatened by myself and Actus? Right now, a “colour blind” policy in France isn’t working, and the country is burning down. We’re both against this mythological “color blindness” because, at least IMHO, it’s simply a wink and nod to continue racial discrimination under the table.
If you have a problem with “my racism” then you must be OUTRAGED about American history and society concerning racism, because there is just NO comparison whatsoever.
–Cobra
Cobra,
Maybe the same question should be asked of the unquestionably white Founding Fathers regarding the American Revolution.
But, Cobra, the Founders anticipated that question and answered it, with a rather famous document you have possibly read.
We’re [Cobra and actus] both against this mythological “color blindness” because, at least IMHO, it’s simply a wink and nod to continue racial discrimination under the table.
I’m amused to see that both of you apparently think French racial policy is to the right of the US’s.
But I am curious more generally about French immigration. I can’t even imagine Mexican immigrants to the US spending two weeks setting other people’s cars on fire — not because they haven’t legitimate grievances (they do), but because it’d be a waste of time and would make them look bad.
And the main thing, which is that Mexican immigrants come here to work, whereas evidently France’s immigrant population is there mostly to collect unemployment. Seriously, why would people move from a country of their own people, speaking their own language, to (apparently) hyper-racist France of all places, except for the prospect of money? It takes a lot of nerve to be ticked off when France’s dicky economy doesn’t serve up the “EU Dream” on a platter. But, hey, Molotov cocktails, despite the high price of gasoline, remain cheap.
Michelle writes:
>>>”But, Cobra, the Founders anticipated that question and answered it, with a rather famous document you have possibly read.”
Yes I have read it. Again, here’s a quote from it:
>>>”When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm
Does this revered document, the Declaration of Independence only apply to white anglo-saxon protestant males? Were the white colonists who violently rebelled concerned about “looking bad?” Did they feel it was a “waste of time?”
>>>”And the main thing, which is that Mexican immigrants come here to work, whereas evidently France’s immigrant population is there mostly to collect unemployment. Seriously, why would people move from a country of their own people, speaking their own language, to (apparently) hyper-racist France of all places, except for the prospect of money?”
Wasn’t taxation without representation the main greivance of the Colonists who rebelled?
–Cobra
“I can’t even imagine Mexican immigrants to the US spending two weeks setting other people’s cars on fire — not because they haven’t legitimate grievances (they do), but because it’d be a waste of time and would make them look bad.”
Can you imagine an urban underclass doing it about 40 years ago? I think that’s where race relations are in France. Not comparable to 2005 america. But comparable to 1965 america.
“And the main thing, which is that Mexican immigrants come here to work, whereas evidently France’s immigrant population is there mostly to collect unemployment”
I’d say a lot of the rioters are in France because they’re born there. Their parents moved there for work in the 50’s and 60’s.