@Tony :
Well, that's an excellent question, and I think I'm going to shy away
...because my English is no good enough to write an answer within the next hour (the previous message took me several hours)... I'll maybe write an answer in a few days...
...except if somebody wants to translate my French into English !
Well, that's an excellent question, and I think I'm going to shy away
...because my English is no good enough to write an answer within the next hour (the previous message took me several hours)... I'll maybe write an answer in a few days...
...except if somebody wants to translate my French into English !
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2003
- Messages
- 15,410
Pad said:@Tony :
Well, that's an excellent question, and I think I'm going to shy away
...because my English is no good enough to write an answer within the next hour (the previous message took me several hours)... I'll maybe write an answer in a few days...
...except if somebody wants to translate my French into English !
This might help.
http://www.freetranslation.com
Je suis sûr qu'il y a des autres personnes ici qui parlent le français mieux que moi, et je ne promets rien, mais si vous m'envoyiez votre message dans un PM, je pourrais essayer de le traduire. (s'il n'est pas trop long et trop compliquéPad said:@Tony :
Well, that's an excellent question, and I think I'm going to shy away
...because my English is no good enough to write an answer within the next hour (the previous message took me several hours)... I'll maybe write an answer in a few days...
...except if somebody wants to translate my French into English !
)
I think Pad owes me many many beers. He also has to learn what "pas trop long et trop compliqué" means
This text has been freetranslationdotcomised, and then revised by me, then by Pad, then by me again, etc. etc. It still might not be totally fluent; if there's anything here that makes you furrow your brow, it's probably my (or freetranslation.com's) fault.
Voilà la rédaction de Pad !<HR>The text that follows is just how I see things. It is obvious that each point is subject to controversy. Also, I have a involuntary tendency to darken the picture, as I'm concentrating on that which isn't going well. Obviously, the failures should not mask the successes.
A historic break
Let's start by recalling three truths that no one is unaware of, but that take on a tragic significance when one puts them together:
- The huge majority of the immigrant populations for which assimilation poses a problem in France are originally from Algeria (or other former North African French colonies).
- The history of the relationship between France and Algeria is blemished by a deep break: the Algerian war.
- Although North African immigration is relatively old in France, its peak clearly coincides with the period of decolonization and the independence of Algeria (i.e. the 1960s).
A terrible paradox: hundreds of thousands of Algerians left their country to make their home in the country that had occupied them! They chose the country that they had just rejected so violently during the war, and towards which they often maintained a strong resentment (some of them going so far as to say to their children: "If you become French tomorrow, you will not set foot in this house anymore").
Now, assimilation cannot succeed fully if an immigrant shows hate or resentment towards the host country: how can he receive the inheritance of a country that he rejects? How can he take on its history and culture? How can he wish to share its fate?
The Jews (Ashkenazic or Sephardic) that arrived in France at the start of the 20th century felt such a love for this country that, during the 1914 war, some of them voluntarily enlisted in the army. By way of example, here is an extract from a letter from Henri Lange (killed on the front, joined up voluntarily at 17 at the start of the war) that I have just found while reading the newspaper:
Naturally, the outlook is not all black, not by a long way. A large number of second-generation immigrants like France and feel fully French. Malek Boutih, who holds today one of the highest posts in the Parti Socialiste, is an excellent example.
It is difficult to assimilate populations which are culturally very different from that of the host country.
The crucial lack of French political will
If France was generally open to immigration during the booming post-war years, this was above all for a very simple reason. At this time it badly needed unskilled workers, and North African immigrants constituted an ideal workforce... No-one was really bothered about their assimilation: they were just "workers". It was enough to build, around the big cities, large, monotonous collections of buildings to house these populations. People pretended to believe that school would assimilate them little by little.
It seems to me that these immigrants did not really intend to remain in France. The men often came without their family. They were expecting to work here for a few years, then to return to their countries. But later, they sent for their families and stayed.
When the oil crisis arose, they were hit headlong by the growth of unemployment, that holds sway again. These days, those of them that seek employment or lodgings are again victims of mistrust, indeed of discrimination or racism.
Since the shock that was Le Pen's accession to the second round of the presidential elections, it would seem that the government has at last taken note of all these problems. They have a lot on their plate.
The feeling of some young people that they are constantly victimised by France
The individuals I am speaking about here do not represent in any way the main body of the second-generation immigrant population. They are a caricature of a feeling of victimisation, the intensity of which can vary widely from one individual to another, from a mild resentment towards a France that they like all the same (and to which they realise they belong) to a total rejection of this country. The reality, as always, is very complex, very varied, and contains many exceptions. I personally am persuaded that the majority of immigrants do like France.
The feeling of victimisation is particularly prevalent among some teenage children of immigrants, who believe that all their problems are the fault of the French (they do not consider themselves French).
This feeling is sometimes very strong. Some see France quite simply as a "colonialist" country : France "colonises" their neighborhoods, and the police is nothing more than an occupation force which it is necessary to get rid of in order to be able to make their own law...
They say things like this: "We are the victims, you are the guilty ones. We reject you. If we are violent, that is your fault. We are doing nothing but revolting against injustice and racism". Booing the French anthem is for them a way of showing this rejection of France. Evidently, they adamantly refuse the impulse to integrate as they consider it an insult. To like France, to work at school, would be "collaboration".
As they believe they are the victims of monstrous racism and of terrible colonialism, they think that they only have rights and no responsibilities. They are never responsible for their own acts.
They forget that they live in a liberal democracy, that the police does not do anything but make sure the law is respected (when they arrive), that it's up to them to try and get out of their situation by working properly at school, and that the situation in their countries of origin is infinitely worse than here...
On the whole, the equation is simple: France = racist = Islamophobic = colonialist. The most virulent ones add: " = USA = Israel = Zionist = Jewish" and identify with all Muslims (sometimes going even so far as the worst criminals, such as Saddam Hussein).
Delinquance in the suburbs
Just one example: the police and firemen cannot enter certain neighborhoods without having stones thrown at them...
These young louts, of course, only represent a small minority of young immigrants, but they manage to make life in certain neighborhoods impossible all the same. Sometimes, when they feel that one of them has been "unfairly" arrested, they attack the police station...
During the first few years, their parents were not necessarily bothered to see their children bully France a bit: they maybe felt avenged for what they had undergone. But later, they realised that they no longer had authority over them.
From 2002, the government has launched itself into a policy of enforcement and restoration of the rule of law in these neighborhoods. The results are rather encouraging (petty crime has clearly decreased), but the basic problems remain. Oppression would not be enough in any case.
The permissive speech that has long held sway in France
In France "politically correct" speech holds sway, to disastrous effect. The higher social strata (generally the leftist elite...) have an unfortunate tendency to conceal the problems linked to immigration under the pretext that we must not "play the Front National's game".
In my opinion, these people cannot bring themselves to admit that the former victims of colonialism can themselves be guilty. They therefore rely on sociological studies to remind us that violence does not happen randomly, that it always has causes. Spending their time like this excusing the effects by the causes, they end up concluding that the violence is only ever the expression of a malaise or of an injustice. When the Marseillaise was booed, the Socialist Prime Minister Lionel Jospin, who attended the meeting, did not react, and the minister of Youth and Sports, Marie-George Buffet, explained: "These young people are trying to express a malaise. [...] More than ever before, it is necessary to talk".
In other words, these young louts are victims and not the guilty ones. Because in France, every victim is innocent. As violence always has a cause, one ends up believing that it is always right to be violent. At least when one considers oneself "dominated". The xenophobia of the "dominators" is always unforgivable, whatever the cause might be.
When the worries of the population are not systematically talked away as pure fantasy or racism (which they sometimes are) they are reproached for "playing the Front National's game". Yet precisely the opposite is true: the taboo placed on immigration and security has allowed the Front National a monopoly on the debate on these painful questions, thus making an electoral opening for them. People who suffer daily insecurity basically turn towards the only person that talks to them about their problems: Le Pen.
Many have at last understood this (among them myself
)
The same phenomenon occurs with assimilation. Some have started to believe that the impulse towards assimilation is an injustice; that an immigrant must of course learn to live with the other inhabitants of the host country, but that he is not obliged to take on their culture. This is an grave error. To set up home in a country, in a nation, is not just to take on rights. It is also to take on a certain number of responsibilities. The Jews that came to France learned to let themselves be transformed by France, to adopt her history, her culture, her memory, her inheritance. That is the meaning of assimilation. Never were they obliged to renounce their religion or to renounce their Jewish culture. On the other hand, certain North African teenagers are content to look on their French nationality as something that exempts them from integrating themselves into French culture. That can only prolong the vicious circle they find themselves trapped in.
To finish with this France-Algeria game, I will quote the reaction of an Algerian journalist (Akram B. Ellyas), who does not mince his words:
This text has been freetranslationdotcomised, and then revised by me, then by Pad, then by me again, etc. etc. It still might not be totally fluent; if there's anything here that makes you furrow your brow, it's probably my (or freetranslation.com's) fault.
Voilà la rédaction de Pad !<HR>The text that follows is just how I see things. It is obvious that each point is subject to controversy. Also, I have a involuntary tendency to darken the picture, as I'm concentrating on that which isn't going well. Obviously, the failures should not mask the successes.
A historic break
Let's start by recalling three truths that no one is unaware of, but that take on a tragic significance when one puts them together:
- The huge majority of the immigrant populations for which assimilation poses a problem in France are originally from Algeria (or other former North African French colonies).
- The history of the relationship between France and Algeria is blemished by a deep break: the Algerian war.
- Although North African immigration is relatively old in France, its peak clearly coincides with the period of decolonization and the independence of Algeria (i.e. the 1960s).
A terrible paradox: hundreds of thousands of Algerians left their country to make their home in the country that had occupied them! They chose the country that they had just rejected so violently during the war, and towards which they often maintained a strong resentment (some of them going so far as to say to their children: "If you become French tomorrow, you will not set foot in this house anymore").
Now, assimilation cannot succeed fully if an immigrant shows hate or resentment towards the host country: how can he receive the inheritance of a country that he rejects? How can he take on its history and culture? How can he wish to share its fate?
The Jews (Ashkenazic or Sephardic) that arrived in France at the start of the 20th century felt such a love for this country that, during the 1914 war, some of them voluntarily enlisted in the army. By way of example, here is an extract from a letter from Henri Lange (killed on the front, joined up voluntarily at 17 at the start of the war) that I have just found while reading the newspaper:
On the contrary, in the case of North African immigration, the history of Franco-Algerian relations has complicated matters so much that the sons and daughters of Algerian immigrants still have the feeling of being "the children of an illegitimate couple" (according to Malek Boutih, former chairman of SOS-Racisme); hence the deep identity crisis that some feel. It must also be noted that the extent of this immigration has not facilitated the process of assimilation...
Naturally, the outlook is not all black, not by a long way. A large number of second-generation immigrants like France and feel fully French. Malek Boutih, who holds today one of the highest posts in the Parti Socialiste, is an excellent example.
It is difficult to assimilate populations which are culturally very different from that of the host country.
The crucial lack of French political will
If France was generally open to immigration during the booming post-war years, this was above all for a very simple reason. At this time it badly needed unskilled workers, and North African immigrants constituted an ideal workforce... No-one was really bothered about their assimilation: they were just "workers". It was enough to build, around the big cities, large, monotonous collections of buildings to house these populations. People pretended to believe that school would assimilate them little by little.
It seems to me that these immigrants did not really intend to remain in France. The men often came without their family. They were expecting to work here for a few years, then to return to their countries. But later, they sent for their families and stayed.
When the oil crisis arose, they were hit headlong by the growth of unemployment, that holds sway again. These days, those of them that seek employment or lodgings are again victims of mistrust, indeed of discrimination or racism.
Since the shock that was Le Pen's accession to the second round of the presidential elections, it would seem that the government has at last taken note of all these problems. They have a lot on their plate.
The feeling of some young people that they are constantly victimised by France
The individuals I am speaking about here do not represent in any way the main body of the second-generation immigrant population. They are a caricature of a feeling of victimisation, the intensity of which can vary widely from one individual to another, from a mild resentment towards a France that they like all the same (and to which they realise they belong) to a total rejection of this country. The reality, as always, is very complex, very varied, and contains many exceptions. I personally am persuaded that the majority of immigrants do like France.
The feeling of victimisation is particularly prevalent among some teenage children of immigrants, who believe that all their problems are the fault of the French (they do not consider themselves French).
This feeling is sometimes very strong. Some see France quite simply as a "colonialist" country : France "colonises" their neighborhoods, and the police is nothing more than an occupation force which it is necessary to get rid of in order to be able to make their own law...
They say things like this: "We are the victims, you are the guilty ones. We reject you. If we are violent, that is your fault. We are doing nothing but revolting against injustice and racism". Booing the French anthem is for them a way of showing this rejection of France. Evidently, they adamantly refuse the impulse to integrate as they consider it an insult. To like France, to work at school, would be "collaboration".
As they believe they are the victims of monstrous racism and of terrible colonialism, they think that they only have rights and no responsibilities. They are never responsible for their own acts.
They forget that they live in a liberal democracy, that the police does not do anything but make sure the law is respected (when they arrive), that it's up to them to try and get out of their situation by working properly at school, and that the situation in their countries of origin is infinitely worse than here...
On the whole, the equation is simple: France = racist = Islamophobic = colonialist. The most virulent ones add: " = USA = Israel = Zionist = Jewish" and identify with all Muslims (sometimes going even so far as the worst criminals, such as Saddam Hussein).
Delinquance in the suburbs
Just one example: the police and firemen cannot enter certain neighborhoods without having stones thrown at them...
These young louts, of course, only represent a small minority of young immigrants, but they manage to make life in certain neighborhoods impossible all the same. Sometimes, when they feel that one of them has been "unfairly" arrested, they attack the police station...
During the first few years, their parents were not necessarily bothered to see their children bully France a bit: they maybe felt avenged for what they had undergone. But later, they realised that they no longer had authority over them.
From 2002, the government has launched itself into a policy of enforcement and restoration of the rule of law in these neighborhoods. The results are rather encouraging (petty crime has clearly decreased), but the basic problems remain. Oppression would not be enough in any case.
The permissive speech that has long held sway in France
In France "politically correct" speech holds sway, to disastrous effect. The higher social strata (generally the leftist elite...) have an unfortunate tendency to conceal the problems linked to immigration under the pretext that we must not "play the Front National's game".
In my opinion, these people cannot bring themselves to admit that the former victims of colonialism can themselves be guilty. They therefore rely on sociological studies to remind us that violence does not happen randomly, that it always has causes. Spending their time like this excusing the effects by the causes, they end up concluding that the violence is only ever the expression of a malaise or of an injustice. When the Marseillaise was booed, the Socialist Prime Minister Lionel Jospin, who attended the meeting, did not react, and the minister of Youth and Sports, Marie-George Buffet, explained: "These young people are trying to express a malaise. [...] More than ever before, it is necessary to talk".
In other words, these young louts are victims and not the guilty ones. Because in France, every victim is innocent. As violence always has a cause, one ends up believing that it is always right to be violent. At least when one considers oneself "dominated". The xenophobia of the "dominators" is always unforgivable, whatever the cause might be.
When the worries of the population are not systematically talked away as pure fantasy or racism (which they sometimes are) they are reproached for "playing the Front National's game". Yet precisely the opposite is true: the taboo placed on immigration and security has allowed the Front National a monopoly on the debate on these painful questions, thus making an electoral opening for them. People who suffer daily insecurity basically turn towards the only person that talks to them about their problems: Le Pen.
Many have at last understood this (among them myself
)The same phenomenon occurs with assimilation. Some have started to believe that the impulse towards assimilation is an injustice; that an immigrant must of course learn to live with the other inhabitants of the host country, but that he is not obliged to take on their culture. This is an grave error. To set up home in a country, in a nation, is not just to take on rights. It is also to take on a certain number of responsibilities. The Jews that came to France learned to let themselves be transformed by France, to adopt her history, her culture, her memory, her inheritance. That is the meaning of assimilation. Never were they obliged to renounce their religion or to renounce their Jewish culture. On the other hand, certain North African teenagers are content to look on their French nationality as something that exempts them from integrating themselves into French culture. That can only prolong the vicious circle they find themselves trapped in.
To finish with this France-Algeria game, I will quote the reaction of an Algerian journalist (Akram B. Ellyas), who does not mince his words: