More French riots

[Belz...]

Appeasement may be a worse idea.

Yes. Unfortunately there seems to be no correct solution.

 

[Belz...]

And discovering if it is part of the reason or just a positive correlation requires acknowledging and discussing the issue.

That may be true. Discovering if it is true would require acknowledging that atheists are rioting, and then discovering the basis for the positive correlation.

He made a comment on how the media phrased it.

Agreed, then.

 

[BPSCG]

He made a comment on how the media phrased it.

Let's not forget that Reuters, the same organization that describes the current rioters as being predominantly of African and Arab origin, instead of, more accurately, Muslim, has also banished the word "terrorist" from its lexicon.

 

[Darat]

Let's not forget that Reuters, the same organization that describes the current rioters as being predominantly of African and Arab origin, instead of, more accurately, Muslim, has also banished the word "terrorist" from its lexicon.

Why would it be more accurate to describe them as Muslim?

 

[BPSCG]

Why would it be more accurate to describe them as Muslim?

Describing them as "African" is misleading. Can we conclude that they are predominantly Boers from South Africa? Or from Angola? The Africans in France are largely from Algeria and other northern African countries, (as well as former French colonies), countries that are largely Muslim. Identifying the rioters as being predominantly African and Arab immigrants is disingenuously trying to avoid saying they are Muslim immigrants.

Why is Reuters doing that?

 

[Darat]

Describing them as "African" is misleading. Can we conclude that they are predominantly Boers from South Africa? Or from Angola? The Africans in France are largely from Algeria and other northern African countries, (as well as former French colonies), countries that are largely Muslim. Identifying the rioters as being predominantly African and Arab immigrants is disingenuously trying to avoid saying they are Muslim immigrants.

Well describing them of African and Arab descent seems a very accurate and succinct way to provide background of where the families of these youth immigrated from. Using the term Muslim would not provide any equivalent background and therefore would not have helped the reader understand the story.

Why is Reuters doing that?

Which Reuters article? The only one I've read is from the OP http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060530/wl_nm/France_clashes_dc and that doesn't mention African and Arab descent.

 

[BPSCG]

Well describing them of African and Arab descent seems a very accurate and succinct way to provide background of where the families of these youth immigrated from. Using the term Muslim would not provide any equivalent background and therefore would not have helped the reader understand the story.

It wouldn't? Why is the fact that they were from Africa and Arabia more significant than the fact that they were Muslims?

I understand what you are saying. You're saying that where they come from is more important in understanding why they are rioting than the religion the large majority of them share. But you don't know that. It may in fact be true, but it seems to me that turning a blind eye to their religion is being wilfully ignorant, especially if that religion is in fact the root of their rioting. Reuters is in the news business; it's their job to inform, not to obfuscate.

Which Reuters article? The only one I've read is from the OP http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060530/wl_nm/France_clashes_dc and that doesn't mention African and Arab descent.

Fascinating. I went back and had a look, and you're right. But if you look at post #11 here, you'll see I quoted from the original article verbatim, leaving intact a couple of grammatical problems. So now Reuters dares not even mention where they came from. For all the uninformed reader knows from reading the Reuters article, the rioters are from Uruguay, Thailand, Panama, and Finland. Thanks, Reuters! You've helped us all understand the complex world we live in a little better today!

 

[Darat]

It wouldn't? Why is the fact that they were from Africa and Arabia more significant than the fact that they were Muslims?

I understand what you are saying. You're saying that where they come from is more important in understanding why they are rioting than the religion the large majority of them share. But you don't know that. It may in fact be true, but it seems to me that turning a blind eye to their religion is being wilfully ignorant, especially if that religion is in fact the root of their rioting. Reuters is in the news business; it's their job to inform, not to obfuscate.

Er no that wasn't what I was saying. What I was saying that if they described them as being of "African Arab" origin it actually tells me much more about the background to the story then just "Muslim" would. "Muslim" tells me very little, it does not say what country they come from, when their family was likely to have immigrated and so on whilst African Arab does. It goes even further (but this may be because I lived in Algeria) it would perhaps offer some explanation for why they may be rioting e.g. the disgusting way the French treated African Arabs for decades, the terrible discrimination etc.

Saying "Muslim" wouldn't have provided any of that background to the story.

Fascinating. I went back and had a look, and you're right. But if you look at post #11 here, you'll see I quoted from the original article verbatim, leaving intact a couple of grammatical problems. So now Reuters dares not even mention where they came from. For all the uninformed reader knows from reading the Reuters article, the rioters are from Uruguay, Thailand, Panama, and Finland. Thanks, Reuters! You've helped us all understand the complex world we live in a little better today!

Or perhaps Reuters got more accurate information?

After all don't forget all these stories have beem about French people rioting not foreigners in France rioting.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Appeasement may be a worse idea.

Yes. Unfortunately there seems to be no correct solution.

What is the best of the "evil" choices?

I assume the French government will deal with it like the Americans deal with the Los Angeles situation. It seems to be the best of the evil choices. Spend a few million rebuilding their slum, and repeat when the idiots burn it again, but if the fools even think about driving over to Beverly Hills and trying that ◊◊◊◊, they'll unleash the real dogs on them.

Containment.

 

[Morrigan]

The politics of smear has gotten old.

I agree 100% here. Saying that we can disregard what someone says because they are racist reeks of ad hominem and/or poisoning the well. Attack the argument, not the person making it.
Of course, if the source IS rotten, I understand it can be difficult to trust, and so we must be wary... but this is true for anyone, not just the big evil racists.

By the way: I had scrolled down completely to find your quote, and wondered why I had typed something so poorly and with such bad grammar... then I remembered I had typed it all in French initially and so you must have used Babelfish. *lol* A part of the meaning was lost in translation, though not too much, but I'm sure you're taking that into consideration when you ran the translator.

 

[Huntster]

...I had typed it all in French initially and so you must have used Babelfish. *lol*....

No, I didn't use babelfish. My French sucks. My parents & grandparents were coonass, but I was raised in California and learned more Spanish than French. But I sure remember my dad cursing me and my mom praying at night in French.

 

[Ziggurat]

What is the best of the "evil" choices?

Loosening up their restrictive labor laws and welfare benefits which make it both unnecessary and close to impossible for those kids to get jobs. But they won't do that, because that would upset those Sorbone kids who like to burn things in downtown Paris (not just the slums) when their privileges are threatened.

 

[Rob Lister]

Er no that wasn't what I was saying. What I was saying that if they described them as being of "African Arab" origin it actually tells me much more about the background to the story then just "Muslim" would. "Muslim" tells me very little, it does not say what country they come from, when their family was likely to have immigrated and so on whilst African Arab does. It goes even further (but this may be because I lived in Algeria) it would perhaps offer some explanation for why they may be rioting e.g. the disgusting way the French treated African Arabs for decades, the terrible discrimination etc.

Saying "Muslim" wouldn't have provided any of that background to the story.



Or perhaps Reuters got more accurate information?

After all don't forget all these stories have beem about French people rioting not foreigners in France rioting.

You make good points Darat but my conclusion (which may be in error) is that the reason they riot has little or nothing to do with their nationality and everything to do with their religion. Thus, the description as 'mostly african or arab' adds no value and confuses the issue.

I'm talking culture, not color. It ain't about the nationality, it's about the [muslim] culture. I can't prove it, but Occum suggests it to me. Heck, they (the ones that riot) may have a valid gripe (cultural racism is something even I practice) but facts is facts. Let's understand them.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
What is the best of the "evil" choices?

Loosening up their restrictive labor laws and welfare benefits which make it both unnecessary and close to impossible for those kids to get jobs. But they won't do that, because that would upset those Sorbone kids who like to burn things in downtown Paris (not just the slums) when their privileges are threatened.

Not being as familiar with the immigration situation there, would "loosening up their restrictive labor laws and welfare benefits" end up like the illegal alien situation in the U.S.?

 

[Ziggurat]

Not being as familiar with the immigration situation there, would "loosening up their restrictive labor laws and welfare benefits" end up like the illegal alien situation in the U.S.?

Only if they let it. Our problem isn't so much loose labor laws, but completely unenforced labor laws.

But restricting the "generosity" of welfare benefits would act to discourage immigration.

 

[Mycroft]

You make good points Darat but my conclusion (which may be in error) is that the reason they riot has little or nothing to do with their nationality and everything to do with their religion. Thus, the description as 'mostly african or arab' adds no value and confuses the issue.

I'm talking culture, not color. It ain't about the nationality, it's about the [muslim] culture. I can't prove it, but Occum suggests it to me. Heck, they (the ones that riot) may have a valid gripe (cultural racism is something even I practice) but facts is facts. Let's understand them.

I would add further that if you're wrong about your conclusion, get it out in the open where someone can tell you why you're wrong.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Not being as familiar with the immigration situation there, would "loosening up their restrictive labor laws and welfare benefits" end up like the illegal alien situation in the U.S.?

Only if they let it. Our problem isn't so much loose labor laws, but completely unenforced labor laws.

But restricting the "generosity" of welfare benefits would act to discourage immigration.

Excellent points. I agree completely.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

I'm talking culture, not color. It ain't about the nationality, it's about the [muslim] culture. I can't prove it, but Occum suggests it to me. Heck, they (the ones that riot) may have a valid gripe (cultural racism is something even I practice) but facts is facts. Let's understand them.

I would dispute using Occam would result in that conclusion. Given the evidence we have i.e. different segments of the French population rioting over hundreds of years of history then a conclusion that doesn't take that into account isn't actually using Occam since it is discarding evidence that any hypothesis has to account for.

If I extend the net I can point to another "old European" country - my own the UK, and again I see a history of many different sections of the population rioting at different times. With the UK I am much confident in saying the common element that many (but not all) of these groups share is that they are groups that at certain times have been discriminated against resulting in disproportionate disadvantages e.g. extreme poverty, not being able to own land and otherwise being disenfranchised from the rest of the society.

So it may well be that the current riots are predominately by Muslim (French) youths (that is certainly my view) but you can only conclude that their religious beliefs are the cause of the riots by ignoring a lot of other evidence.

 

[BPSCG]

So it may well be that the current riots are predominately by Muslim (French) youths (that is certainly my view) but you can only conclude that their religious beliefs are the cause of the riots by ignoring a lot of other evidence.

That may well be, but it still doesn't get at my two primary questions:

1. Why is the rioting predominantly by Muslims?
2. Why did Reuters try to hush that fact up?

How can you deal with a problem if you deliberately exclude important information from your investigations? The rioters may very well not be rioting out of a sense of religious duty, but their religion is a unifying thread. Why is that fact not worthy of reporting?

 

[Belz...]

[*]Why is the rioting predominantly by Muslims?

We've established that this IS a good question, I believe.

[*]Why did Reuters try to hush that fact up?[/LIST]

I'm not sure you've shown that they did.