What's going on in Paris?

[Orwell]

<nitpick>
I'm also not taking into account the fact that Ken Dryden played goalie for Cornell University before starring for the Canadiens. Show how these considerations 1)better explain the differences in American and European characters than my hypothesis, and 2) how, in any case, some of them are at all different from the American experience. Europe had slavery also, had wars also (just not against Mexico and the American aborigines) and voting restrictions.
Why the scare quotes around blame?

Well, I didn't want to go into insults but, ahhh what the hell... Are you really this obtuse, or are you doing it on purpose? Your main "point" was that Europeans (all Europeans, not just the French) were somehow profoundly different because the French wouldn't shoot to defend their property, and then you speculated based on why this might be so by rehashing a bunch of myths from American history. I, and others, protested at your use of stereotypes and your abuse of history. I personally don't think that there are big systematic psychological differences between Europeans and Americans, and I don't see how I can possibly answer such a question without falling into the anecdotical and the stereotypical. And answering your question gets even worse when I consider the fact that Europe consists of over 40 countries. And I talked about certain facts of American history not to disparage the US, but to point out that there are a certain number of similarities between US history and European history, and that US myths concerning US history (the stuff you're basing yourself on) typically don't address these things.

And if Europeans aren't responsible for the history of Europe, who is?

Modern Europeans are not responsible for their thousands of years of history. That was my exactly my point. Is a modern French responsible for Napoleon? Should he hate the British because of Agincourt? I don't blame modern americans for slavery. I can blame a few modern americans for pretending that slavery din't exist, and a few modern french for their racism... But blame them for stuff their ancestors did? Why?

And how is that relevant to the question, which, let me remind you, is, "Why don't the French defend their homes and businesses with firearms"?

You are the one who brought up the subject of European history, and you are the one who tried to answer this with your little essay on immigration and stereotypes.

Who are you quoting when you put the scare quotes around "tame"? I didn't use that term.

Sorry, I shouldn't have used quotation marks here.

You mean, "As God is my witness, I was simply cleaning my hunting rifle as the rioter drove by and it just went off"?

Chance?

Rioters accidentally have not been shot?

Now you are being really obtuse! Circumstance, contingency, luck, chance, that's what I was talking about. Other possibilities: maybe shots have been fired but no one died. Maybe shots have been fired, someone died, and we don't know about it. Maybe the rioters mostly torch cars, and usually parked cars don't have armed people inside them. I can find tons of possibilities for why rioters haven't been shoot yet that have nothing to do with differences between Europeans and Americans.

Twelve hundred cars torched in one night? Where are the police intervening? Honolulu?

I dunno, maybe the cops are too busy protecting people, so they don't have time to care about cars? Who the hell knows exactly what's going on there and why French cops are doing what they are doing?

It doesn't. But then again, riots don't engulf the entire US. You can bet your last loonie that long before the situation in the US approached what's happening in Europe (I say Europe quite deliberately - I think this intifada is going to spread), there would be lots of crashed scooters and dead looters lying in the streets.

Yeah, and maybe things would get even further out of hands pretty quickly. By the way, you're being very premature, and I believe you are exaggerating the possible extent of this thing.

So they came to power by appealing to the masses' basest instincts.

If you think that WWI and WWII were caused by "perverted affection for emperors, kings, and dictators", you're confusing cause and effect. See, any politician can gain the people's favour by appealing to the "masses' basest instincts", even those working in a democracy. Must I remind you that the Nazis were elected to power? My point was that it is nationalism that creates a perverted affection for a country, an afeection that can then be manipulated, used by, and transferred to, the politician unscrupulous enough to use it.

 

[YoPopa]

Sorry for that. Not all bus riders in France are athletic, martial arts trained, guns carrying, alert young men, on the lookout for everyday acts of violence ...

that being a daily occurrence in France, he should indeed have got out heavily armed ...

Sarcasm not required to discuss an issue with me. My point was that no one needs to be "heavily armed". I only believe that everyone should have the right to be appropriately armed. Not every one can be athletic, martial arts trained, alert young men. The point of carrying an appropriately sized concealed weapon is that it levels the playing field and makes the potential cost of beating an old man to death greater than many young men would risk.

edited for sp.

 

[YoPopa]

Dude, it's a car. A thing.

A car is a thing, a house, a business, a border. All these are just things. If you have no fundamental right to defend the small things then you have no right to defend the big things.

 

[BPSCG]

That's exactly what we're trying to achieve, but if a 15 y. o. is shot now, you bet the parents will certainly not be willing or able to keep the others quietly at home.

They won't? Really? If I knew that my child (okay, I don't have any kids, let's assume a virtual child for the sake of the argument) was planning on going out to torch cars, I'd lock him up in the onion cellar (also virtual) rather than let him out.

And if I knew that other 15-year olds had gotten killed doing what he was contemplating, I'd not only lock him in the onion cellar, but I'd make sure he was heavily sedated.

You're saying that a French parent's natural reaction to children being shot is to send out more children to be shot?

And shooting a teenager to protect material goods is certainly not going to restore "common civil order". It may give the shooter the warm glow of having protected (for a while) his goods and taught a lesson to the rioters, but it solves nothing at all in the longer term.

Okay, now you're getting silly. Much as I am in favor of using force, even deadly force, if necessary, I've also thought about what the consequences would be. They start with vomiting for a couple of hours.

"Warm glow"? You can't be serious.

It is far from an insurrection yet,

How is it different from an insurrection?

and there are no leaders that we know of.

Then to repeat my earlier question, who is the government supposed to sit down and have a dialogue with?

And what makes you think that the force used now is not what it takes to restore civil order ?

Um, maybe the fact that it's been going on almost two weeks now?

 

[Orwell]

A car is a thing, a house, a business, a border. All these are just things. If you have no fundamental right to defend the small things then you have no right to defend the big things.

Well, I think that's a load of dingo's kidneys. Different "things" have different values, since different people value different "things". I might shoot at soldiers who try to invade my country, but that doesn't mean that I would shoot someone who tries to B&E my home to steal a TV.

 

[Orwell]

They won't? Really? If I knew that my child (okay, I don't have any kids, let's assume a virtual child for the sake of the argument) was planning on going out to torch cars, I'd lock him up in the onion cellar (also virtual) rather than let him out.

And if I knew that other 15-year olds had gotten killed doing what he was contemplating, I'd not only lock him in the onion cellar, but I'd make sure he was heavily sedated.

You're saying that a French parent's natural reaction to children being shot is to send out more children to be shot?
Okay, now you're getting silly. Much as I am in favor of using force, even deadly force, if necessary, I've also thought about what the consequences would be. They start with vomiting for a couple of hours.

"Warm glow"? You can't be serious.

How is it different from an insurrection?
Then to repeat my earlier question, who is the government supposed to sit down and have a dialogue with?
Um, maybe the fact that it's been going on almost two weeks now?

And here's BPSCG, armchair riot quencher, telling the French authorities how to do their jobs from a continent away! What a tough guy!

 

[YoPopa]

Well, I think that's a load of dingo's kidneys. Different "things" have different values, since different people value different "things". I might shoot at soldiers who try to invade my country, but that doesn't mean that I would shoot someone who tries to B&E my home to steal a TV.

I respect that you might want to shoot at soldiers who try to invade your country. My point was that if the government of your country has already taken away your right to own the means, then all the wishing in the world isn't going to make it possible.

 

[Orwell]

I respect that you might want to shoot at soldiers who try to invade your country. My point was that if the government of your country has already taken away your right to own the means, then all the wishing in the world isn't going to make it possible.

If I wanted to shoot at people invading my country, I would join my country's armed forces. And I would only join my country's armed forces if I was convinced that my country's cause was just.

 

[YoPopa]

If I wanted to shoot at people invading my country, I would join my country's armed forces. And I would only join my country's armed forces if I was convinced that my country's cause was just.

What would you suggest for the people who are too old, too young, or physically unable to join the armed forces but who also might want to defend the homeland, or just their home?

And do you have any advice for the old man who has been knocked to the ground and is about to be beaten to death because he wished to put out a fire?

 

[chran]

A car is a thing, a house, a business, a border. All these are just things. If you have no fundamental right to defend the small things then you have no right to defend the big things.

This thread is about personal property being threatened by punks (well, it evolved into that). Borders are politics. Two very different things.

 

[BPSCG]

Well, I didn't want to go into insults

Of course you did. It's what you do best.

but, ahhh what the hell... Are you really this obtuse, or are you doing it on purpose? Your main "point" was that Europeans (all Europeans, not just the French) were somehow profoundly different because the French wouldn't shoot to defend their property,

You need to go back and look at what I wrote. I didn't say that Europeans were somehow profoundly different because the French won't shoot back. I said that the French refusal to use physical force in this case reminded me of a hypothesis I'd been working on for some time regarding why Europeans and Americans are so different.

and then you speculated based on why this might be so by rehashing a bunch of myths from American history. I, and others, protested at your use of stereotypes and your abuse of history.

Well, you certainly called my motivations into question ("right-wing bias" was in there somewhere IIRC, as well as some others), but despite my repeated requests for evidence - empirical or logical - that my reasoning was somehow faulty, you simply persisted in slinging a bunch of irrelevancies, liberally sprinkled with insults.

I personally don't think that there are big systematic psychological difference between Europeans and Americans,

And you know what? I don't think the differences between Americans in general and Europeans in general are the most dramatic psychological differences we have. I probably have much more in common with a Greek systems analyst than an Iranian rug merchant, and he with me. The difference between a German auto mechanic and an American one is probably tiny compared to the difference between either of us and an Ethiopian goatherd.

But you can't dispute that there are some significant cultural, and (maybe) psychological differences between Americans and Europeans. One European here wrote, in response to something either Freakshow or I had written, "How very American..." If we're so similar to each other, then what's so typically "American" about how we think?

I'm saying that it might be fruitful to inquire as to why, especially since so many of us here have our roots there.

there are a certain number of similarities between US history and European history, and that US myths concerning US history typically don't address these things.

You really gotta stop using that "myths" meme. Millions of people who arrived here from overseas really did come over with almost nothing, and really did leave because of dreadful conditions in Europe, and really did leave their families behind.

And, to get back to the point you're making, all you've done is address what you perceive to be weaknesses in my hypothesis, without addressing what other factors might have caused the differences we see today. A laundry list of stuff like "you didn't consider the fact that the US made war with Mexico" is meaningless if you don't show how the things I failed to consider had a greater impact than the things I did.

Modern Europeans are not responsible for their thousands of years of history.

But Europeans today are the product of thousands of years of Euopean history, history that was made by Europeans. Do you think that what is past was not prologue? Europeans and Americans are both largely the products of what their forebears passed down to them. And in the 19th and 20th century, tens of millions of Europeans left for America. The ones who left were not the kings and princes, not the bankers and factory owners, not the rich and comfortable. They were largely the poor. They didn't make their decisions to leave their families and their native tongues and their homes lightly. I don't know if history shows a greater social upheaval, where millions of people from one social class cleaved off from the rest, dividing tens of millions of dissatisfied people from tens of millions of satisfied ones.

Now you are being really obtuse! Circumstance, contingency, luck, chance, that's what I was talking about.

Yeah. A nation of 40 million people is being systematically trashed and the explanation for why nobody's gotten shot yet is "circumstance, contingency, luck, chance."

Other possibilities: maybe shots have been fired but no one died.

Are you saying the French are all bad shots...?

Maybe shots have been fired, someone died, and we don't know about it. Maybe the rioters mostly torch cars, and usually parked cars don't have armed people inside them. I can find tons of possibilities for why rioters haven't been shoot yet...

Oh I'm sure you can. You need to look up Occam's Razor (he said, thoughtfully providing a link).

(I say Europe quite deliberately - I think this intifada is going to spread)

By the way, you're being very premature, and I believe you are exaggerating the possible extent of this thing.

Perhaps. You notice I said "I think..."

Must I remind you that the Nazis were elected to power?

And yet you persist in your claim that the German people didn't have a perverted affection for dictators. What was in the Nazi party platform that got Hitler elected? Promises of liberty and justice for all?

 

[BobK]

Edit: ignore this post. Somehow it ended up in the wrong thread.

 

[richardm]

Are you saying the French are all bad shots...?

Well, have you seen their historical war record?

Just joking, French folks, please do not fling onions they are surprisingly hard and painful

 

[Elind]

Pops is still sore at me, it seems...

Hey "elder"! I thought you were too "good" to "engage" me, you know, one of them "betters"! Still taking this internet thing way to seriously, aren't we?

Not sore just bored. It's you I don't take seriously.

 

[Chaos]

*snip*
And yet you persist in your claim that the German people didn't have a perverted affection for dictators. What was in the Nazi party platform that got Hitler elected? Promises of liberty and justice for all?

Promises of getting rid of the evil communists.

 

[Orwell]

Not sore just bored. It's you I don't take seriously.

Well, I don't take you seriously either...

 

[Nick Bogaerts]

Do you have some statistics you can post here that support this?

Sorry I missed your post, you must think me incredibly rude not to respond. 'Just as likely' was a figure of speech, to be more exact I should say that by confrontiation involves a significant risk of death, which ought to be contrasted with the value of the property saved. If you look for instance at the L.A. riot deaths I linked to on the other thread, you'll see a number of deaths from people defending themselves, including one case of two Korean self-defense groups mistaking one another for looters, and a security guard killed by a stray bullet from his employer.

 

[Orwell]

Of course you did. It's what you do best.

Well, someone has to call a spade a spade.

You need to go back and look at what I wrote. I didn't say that Europeans were somehow profoundly different because the French won't shoot back. I said that the French refusal to use physical force in this case reminded me of a hypothesis I'd been working on for some time regarding why Europeans and Americans are so different.
Well, you certainly called my motivations into question ("right-wing bias" was in there somewhere IIRC, as well as some others), but despite my repeated requests for evidence - empirical or logical - that my reasoning was somehow faulty, you simply persisted in slinging a bunch of irrelevancies, liberally sprinkled with insults.

As usual, you're arguing in bad faith. Or you're just to dumb (or proud) to admit that your little "hypothesis" doesn't hold water. You are re-interpreting history in a way that flatters you and your country.

And you know what? I don't think the differences between Americans in general and Europeans in general are the most dramatic psychological differences we have. I probably have much more in common with a Greek systems analyst than an Iranian rug merchant, and he with me. The difference between a German auto mechanic and an American one is probably tiny compared to the difference between either of us and an Ethiopian goatherd.

Well, you sure got me fooled there. You were talking about "differences" as if they were night and day.

But you can't dispute that there are some significant cultural, and (maybe) psychological differences between Americans and Europeans. One European here wrote, in response to something either Freakshow or I had written, "How very American..." If we're so similar to each other, then what's so typically "American" about how we think?

I'm saying that it might be fruitful to inquire as to why, especially since so many of us here have our roots there.

Yes, there are differences, but I think you are exaggerating those differences, and you are exaggerating them in a way that is flattering to you and your country.

You really gotta stop using that "myths" meme. Millions of people who arrived here from overseas really did come over with almost nothing, and really did leave because of dreadful conditions in Europe, and really did leave their families behind.

Yes, but you were talking as if these people had some kind of innate superiority relative to those who staid behind, which is that part of the "founding myth" to which both I and others here have alluded.

And, to get back to the point you're making, all you've done is address what you perceive to be weaknesses in my hypothesis, without addressing what other factors might have caused the differences we see today. A laundry list of stuff like "you didn't consider the fact that the US made war with Mexico" is meaningless if you don't show how the things I failed to consider had a greater impact than the things I did.

Now you're confusing things: I was making my little "laundry list" in the hopes of showing you that the Europeans who "staid behind" did not all have a perverted affection for emperors, kings, and dictators, and that the US (like Europe) has had its share of follies, thus demolishing your little hypothesis about European vs. American characters. I thought my purpose was clear, but I guess I "misuderestimated" you.

But Europeans today are the product of thousands of years of Euopean history, history that was made by Europeans. Do you think that what is past was not prologue? Europeans and Americans are both largely the products of what their forebears passed down to them. And in the 19th and 20th century, tens of millions of Europeans left for America. The ones who left were not the kings and princes, not the bankers and factory owners, not the rich and comfortable. They were largely the poor. They didn't make their decisions to leave their families and their native tongues and their homes lightly. I don't know if history shows a greater social upheaval, where millions of people from one social class cleaved off from the rest, dividing tens of millions of dissatisfied people from tens of millions of satisfied ones.

More "founding myth" stuff. Many of those who stayed behind were not satisfied. If I believed in your kind of logic, I could easily argue that those Europeans who left for America were cowards who were too afraid to fight for a better life in their home countries, that they left because they're were chickencrap. Those that "staid behind" and fought were the better ones. Of course, I don't believe in that kind of logic, so I don't make these kinds of abusive generalisations.

Yeah. A nation of 40 million people is being systematically trashed and the explanation for why nobody's gotten shot yet is "circumstance, contingency, luck, chance."
Are you saying the French are all bad shots...?

There's no "systematic trashing". According to my morning newspaper and french media, the riots are mostly circumscribed to the streets of the poor suburbs. In my morning newspaper, they quote a french journalist saying that the city of Paris has been totally unaffected, that you wouldn't know that these riots are going on if you don't go to the suburbs.

Oh I'm sure you can. You need to look up Occam's Razor (he said, thoughtfully providing a link).

To put it simply, Occam's razor states that "All things being equal, the simplest explanation is the best one." Your "hypothesis" for why the French don't shoot at rioters (the differences in character between Europeans and Americans) is actually much more complicated than the stuff I have proposed.

Perhaps. You notice I said "I think..."
And yet you persist in your claim that the German people didn't have a perverted affection for dictators. What was in the Nazi party platform that got Hitler elected? Promises of liberty and justice for all?

Demagoguery, exacerbated nationalism and manipulation is what causes the "perverted affection". Also, the "perverted affection" that the Germans showed for their demagogues is not a typically European trait, it's a human trait, and americans too can succumbed to it.

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Flo
think everybody agrees on the combination of problems. However, I don't think your order of things is right: bigotry clearly precedes jobs (and housing) problems when it comes to second generation immigrants, or even the poorest segments of French society that is parked in the suburbs.

Well it took over a 100 post to come to that agreement but at least we are there.

I am go into the dangerous terroritory of analogy but here are my thoughts:
1) Bigotry is the log for the fire. It is long lasting and relatively stable.
2) Unemployment is the tinder for the fire. It can increase or decrease rapidly and it is the easiest for government to change.
3) Once the logs and tinder are set up, almost anything can be the spark. With long term unemployment, a spark is almost inevitable.

I'm not certain at all (nor are most European leaders) that the adoption of the US economic model would remedy the current employment situation in France and Europe at large (I know, I know, I'm most certainly wrong and should repent ).

The US is not the only viable economic model for low unemployment. Scandinavia and the UK have effective models which would be easier for the French to adopt. Some of the new EU members also have systems which appear to be working as well but it is too early to tell if they are long lasting.

But France, Germany and Italy have to modify their system to one that provides jobs to youth. If they were smart (and politicians rarely are), they would look at the low unemployment nations and pick and choose the appropriate measures for their own country. Unfortunately, most politician prefer to make political points rather than brave stands that would help the country. And most people are not will to put up with short term costs for long term benefit.

It would be nice, but unlikely, if these riots cause France to examine its economic system and make changes.

CBL

 

[CBL4]

Orwell,

Please sit down because I do not want you get hurt when you faint.

I absolutely agree with you!!!!

It seems logical to me: the more power you have , the greater number you can harm. The greater the number of those you can harm, the greater your responsibility. If you are powerful and you abuse your power, chances are you will harm a lot of people.

Therefore, the greater the power, the greater the responsibility; and greater responsibility implies a more severe judgement if the power is abused.

I have been thinking about starting a thread on this sometime.

CBL