What's going on in Paris?

[Freakshow]

Right and wrong are also measured in terms of political and historical context, they often are not absolute things. One can do something that is wrong, but still deserve some sympathy because of "mitigating circumstances" i.e. context.

Context certainly matters. But I'm not so sure "political and historical" context matters to the extent that you are crediting with.

When considering the morality of an action, or of participants in a disagreement, do you put a large emphasis on the power held by the persons/ogranizations involved? For example...do you judge the US by a different set of standards, because it is such a powerful nation? And do you judge these rioting youths by a different set of standards, because they have little or no power?

That is something I don't do when evaluating right and wrong. Power makes no difference to me.

 

[Orwell]

Those who have power can do a lot more damage than those who are powerless. That's why they're powerful! And that's why they should be judged more severely if they abuse their power: their responsibility is greater.

 

[Freakshow]

If they so wish, those who have power can always do a lot more damage than those who are powerless. That's why they're powerful, and that's why they should be judged more severely when they abuse their power.

I understand. I don't agree, but I understand. I figured that might have been the case, as it is a common thing. I find (this is just anecdotal evidence, so take it for what it is worth, which is not much) that such a view is typically more often held by those towards the political left. It seems to be a large part of the different thinking between the right and the left (I'm all over the place, actually; but on this one issue, I am far from being leftist).

 

[Orwell]

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.

 

[Flo]

Surely that can't be true?
[/SIZE]

Unfortunately, it is. It's vandalism more than riots, though, and it doesn't concern the whole country. There's even been a spate of cars burning in Geneva (Switzerland !) this Spring, obviously copycats.

 

[Flo]

It' s kind of funny how internet discussions go.

Clearly the problem is a combination of youth unemployment, bigotry and cultural values that prevent integration into French society.

IMO, the biggest problem is French laws that discourage employment which exacerabate the other two- e.g. unemployed, immigrant youths act are more likely to adopt values that prevent their integration in society and excessive amount of unemployed youths are likely to increase bigotry. And also bigotry and values increase the unemployment of the immigrant youths.

However, most people insists on focussing on their pet issue instead of acknowledging the combination of problems.

BTW, I think started well (from post #13
but, in the face of resistance to acknowledgement of the obvious unemployment problem, I stopped looking for consensus - just like everyone else.

CBL

Sorry I didn't answer to your first intervention. I 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.

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 ).

 

[Flo]

Well, I read now that it's not just Paris, they firebombed a bus in Toulouse, which is almost as far from Paris as you can go and still be in France.

So, now that you've left your shop to the arsonists and hoped for the best, what are you going to do when there's no place left to hide?

At what point do you say,"Enough!" and start shooting back?

When it is certain that the authorities are unable or totally unwilling to do anything, which is not the case. Over here, even the most hot-headed people (and the police, and even Sarkozy) are considering the possible consequences of a 13 years old shot dead in order to protect material goods.

Having copycats in Toulouse is bad enough. Having widespread insurrections in all the suburbs of France because some guy considers shooting young rioters is the glorious thing to do is another thing ...

The prime minister has reactivated a law dating back from 1955, allowing for curfews, indicting parents who don't collaborate in disciplining their minor children, etc. In addition, a number of citizens (most of them resident from the affected areas), are starting to react and organize, to the point that some rioters have been turned down to the police, teachers are staying at night inside schools to protect them, etc.. There's been more than 600 arrests, and a number of rather stiff sentences dealt on the spot (4 months in jail for stoning a police car, for example). French TV this morning was reporting that violence had abated a bit around Paris.

All in all, we're not seeing a repeat from the Prise de la Bastille, not even of May '68.

 

[BPSCG]

Less languages (ignoring the Spanish irritation for the moment).
Less established locals (apologies to the Seminoles and relatives).
Less crowding.
Less immigration from any one source (culture).
Less rules.
Less royalty.
Less tradition.
Less religion (relatively speaking).

Mostly just less = more.

Okay, you've given a list of ways in which America is different from Europe (less religion???), but you haven't shown how those differences translate into willingness or unwillingness to shoot someone to protect one's property. Yes, America has less royalty. How and why does that make us more willing to shoot bomb-throwers? Yes, America is less crowded (on average) than Europe. How and why does that make us more willing to shoot bomb-throwers? You'd think that where people are more crowded together, they would be more aggressive in the protection of their property, not less.

Draw me the links between the differences you observe and the differences in behavior.

 

[BPSCG]

Because I'm a second generation immigrant

<nitpick>
If you're second generation, your grandparents were the immigrants, not you.
</nitpick>

You are not taking into account all the revolutions, armed struggles and political upheavals cooked up by those "tamed europeans". You are not considering the fact that the US was not, for a long time, "the land of liberty for all", you are not considering slavery, indian wars, Mexican wars, that initially property qualifications were required for voting and officeholding, etc.

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.

You are also looking at Europe as if it was some kind of unit, and equally "blaming" all Europeans for their long history.

Why the scare quotes around blame?

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

The US is barely 200 years old. Most European nations have histories that go back more than 5 times that.

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"?

So I'll change tack: we both don't know why there haven't been more shootings. But it isn't because the French are "tame",

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

Maybe chance hasn't allowed it to happen yet.

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?

Maybe the police is intervening in time?

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

If I recall correctly, rioters getting shot by civilians is something that didn't happen very often in the US, but I dunno why things work out that way.

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.

BPSCG: And how did Hitler and Mussolini come to power in the first place? Puppets placed by the US to combat international bolshvism...?

Orwell:
They got into power by manipulating fear and prejudices, by using demagoguery, by appealing to nationalist feelings, by stirring anti-communist hysteria, by talking incessantly about their country's humiliation (the Italians felt they didn't get enough recognition for their WWI efforts, the Treaty of Versailles caused lasting resentment in Germany), etc.

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

But earlier, you said:

Yes, Europeans nearly destroyed themselves twice in the last century, but it wasn't because of their "perverted affection for emperors, kings, and dictators".

 

[YoPopa]

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 ).

Adoption of the US economic model would be a bitter pill to swallow and I'd be very surprised if it could ever happen given the entrenched special interest groups. Both the powerful unions and the welfare recipients would howl like stuck pigs. The unions would bring the country to a full stop with strikes. It might be the best thing for the country in the long run but I don't see either group valuing the country over their own interests.

I think it goes something like, the worst time for a corrupt system is when it tries to reform itself.

 

[BPSCG]

Over here, even the most hot-headed people (and the police, and even Sarkozy) are considering the possible consequences of a 13 years old shot dead in order to protect material goods.

What would be the consequences?

Having copycats in Toulouse is bad enough. Having widespread insurrections in all the suburbs of France because some guy considers shooting young rioters is the glorious thing to do is another thing ...

So the rioters get extra leeway because of their age? If you're 15 years old, you can torch a bus, but the police will beat you senseless if you do it as part of your 21st birthday celebration?

The prime minister has reactivated a law dating back from 1955, allowing for curfews, indicting parents who don't collaborate in disciplining their minor children, etc. In addition, a number of citizens (most of them resident from the affected areas), are starting to react and organize, to the point that some rioters have been turned down to the police, teachers are staying at night inside schools to protect them, etc.. There's been more than 600 arrests, and a number of rather stiff sentences dealt on the spot (4 months in jail for stoning a police car, for example). French TV this morning was reporting that violence had abated a bit around Paris.

All in all, we're not seeing a repeat from the Prise de la Bastille, not even of May '68.

En revanche, en région parisienne, le nombre de véhicules brûlés est retombé à 426 contre 741 la veille et 656 dans la nuit de vendredi à samedi. A Paris même, il y a eu 18 incendies de véhicules, au lieu de 35 la nuit précédente.

Well, thank heaven (or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as the case may be) for small favors.

 

[hammegk]

... Whatever, I find your premises regarding the nature of US immigration simplistic and erroneous. More a national foundation-myth than actual history.

Myths tend to be simplistic and erroneous, yet myths, not history, have as I read history always decided the future for nations, and their citizens.

 

[YoPopa]

"Why don't the French defend their homes and businesses with firearms"?

Could it be that hunting rifles make lousy self defense weapons? I'm very glad to know that no one is firing into large groups of fast moving hooligans. That might happen if there were a full scale revolution but that is not going on yet, praise FSM.

I'm more interested in how the hooligans can stop a bus, get everyone off the buss and harass or beat the passengers. In that case the passengers should have the right and the ability to defend themselves. Or the fellow who was trying to put out a car fire and was beaten to death. Carrying a hunting rifle with you on the bus or while you are fighting a fire is not going to work. Unless you are wearing a uniform that clearly identifies you as one of the good guys the rifle is just going to make you a target.

Having a concealed handgun could work but I'm under the impression that French citizens aren't allowed the option.

 

[Flo]

What would be the consequences?

It wouldn't be 13-15 years olds anymore, but their older brothers, their fathers, mothers, cousins and even the neighbors, in the streets of the cities themselves, not only the suburbs ...

So the rioters get extra leeway because of their age?

Of course, it deprives some nut jobs from some target practice, and baffles (some) Americans that we might deprive ourselves of a just revenge for having our cars and busses burnt and prefer to ride the storm until there is a chance to settle problems on the long term through dialog, but it's the way we cowardly French prefer to do things

 

[Flo]

I'm more interested in how the hooligans can stop a bus, get everyone off the buss and harass or beat the passengers. In that case the passengers should have the right and the ability to defend themselves.

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 ...

Or the fellow who was trying to put out a car fire and was beaten to death.

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

Carrying a hunting rifle with you on the bus or while you are fighting a fire is not going to work. Unless you are wearing a uniform that clearly identifies you as one of the good guys the rifle is just going to make you a target.

Having a concealed handgun could work but I'm under the impression that French citizens aren't allowed the option.

Thing is that, allowed or not, it is usually not needed in France, and the current thinking is that this particular crisis should be resolved in a way that makes having to carry weapons in order to go to your usual occupations remains unneeded in the future.

 

[Freakshow]

It wouldn't be 13-15 years olds anymore, but their older brothers, their fathers, mothers, cousins and even the neighbors, in the streets of the cities themselves, not only the suburbs ...




Of course, it deprives some nut jobs from some target practice, and baffles (some) Americans that we might deprive ourselves of a just revenge for having our cars and busses burnt and prefer to ride the storm until there is a chance to settle problems on the long term through dialog, but it's the way we cowardly French prefer to do things

It is not revenge, it is defense. Do you not see the difference?

 

[BPSCG]

It wouldn't be 13-15 years olds anymore, but their older brothers, their fathers, mothers, cousins and even the neighbors, in the streets of the cities themselves, not only the suburbs ...

Or might it be, fathers and mothers demanding to know where their 15-year-old thinks he's going with that can of gasoline at 11:00 pm on a school night?

Of course, it deprives some nut jobs from some target practice, and baffles (some) Americans that we might deprive ourselves of a just revenge

Please, Flo, you usually make a lot of sense. Revenge has nothing to do with it - or shouldn't, anyway. OTOH, revanchism is a French term... Anyone who prefers revenge to common civil order should get back on his medications.

for having our cars and busses burnt and prefer to ride the storm until there is a chance to settle problems on the long term through dialog, but it's the way we cowardly French prefer to do things

Emphasis mine. And what if "the storm" perceives your lack of action as weakness, and thus encouraged, redoubles its fury? What do you do if the storm's fury gives you no chance to settle the issue through "dialogue"?

And, in any case, who do you have the "dialogue" with? Who are the leaders of this insurrection? Why isn't the government talking with them? (Or more properly, arresting them?)

Again, at what point do you say, "enough!" and use whatever force is necessary to restore civil order?

 

[chran]

Of course, it deprives some nut jobs from some target practice, and baffles (some) Americans that we might deprive ourselves of a just revenge for having our cars and busses burnt and prefer to ride the storm until there is a chance to settle problems on the long term through dialog, but it's the way we cowardly French prefer to do things

:laugh:

Hey! I want that dog-thing! <pout>

It is not revenge, it is defense. Do you not see the difference?

Dude, it's a car. A thing.

 

[Freakshow]

:laugh:

Hey! I want that dog-thing! <pout>

Dude, it's a car. A thing.

A thing that represents a lot of my life's time and energy. I put time, effort, planning, and energy into earning it. It is an extension of what I have accomplished in life. My property is not just "things". If someone stopped by my house and just gave me all this stuff for nothing, you'd have a point. But since I earned all of this stuff by sacrificing time and energy, you don't.

 

[Flo]

Or might it be, fathers and mothers demanding to know where their 15-year-old thinks he's going with that can of gasoline at 11:00 pm on a school night?

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. Having the members of the community who are not rioting accept to collaborate in identifying, talking to, calming, and policing the rioters implies to accept sacrifices, among them looking weak for a while.

Please, Flo, you usually make a lot of sense. Revenge has nothing to do with it - or shouldn't, anyway.

Yes, shouldn't, but do, unfortunately. 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.

Emphasis mine. And what if "the storm" perceives your lack of action as weakness, and thus encouraged, redoubles its fury? What do you do if the storm's fury gives you no chance to settle the issue through "dialogue"?

We'll see if we get there.

And, in any case, who do you have the "dialogue" with? Who are the leaders of this insurrection? Why isn't the government talking with them?

It is far from an insurrection yet, and there are no leaders that we know of. It doesn't take all that many people to burn cars and run in a rather densely people suburbs. And the government is talking with as many of the actors as they can find and are willing to talk.

Again, at what point do you say, "enough!" and use whatever force is necessary to restore civil order?

And what makes you think that the force used now is not what it takes to restore civil order ? The fact that nobody is shooting at rioters ?