Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
You are right, borders are political in nature. IMO that makes them imaginary things which might muddy up the point I was making. Let me re-phrase.
A car is a thing, a house, a business, your land. 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.
So true, but now one needs to sort out the bigots from the not-bigots. There seems to be plenty of bigotry in this world, and who is a more bigoted than a foreigner who immigrates to a country but pretends he's still in his homeland?
Okay, you've been blowing a hell of a lot of smoke every time I ask you to provide some cogent explanation for the differences between American and European national characters. So I'm going to ask you, point blank: What do you believe is the single biggest reason for the differences between American and European characters? Not asking for the complete list - just what you believe is the most important reason.
If nobody was holding a gun to their heads, then, yes, they were satisfied; they preferred to stay rather than to leave. Else they would have left.
Fine. Let's leave all the judgemental language out. Why did those who left, leave? Why did those who stayed, stay?
Oh, sorry. Had you confused with Badhdad Bob there for a minute.
Nice little sidestep you did there. I was addressing your claim that there may be all kinds of complicated reasons there haven't been reports of shootings. Occam's Razor would force you to conclude there haven't been any reports of shootings because there probably haven't been any shootings.
You have it backwards. Demagoguery, exacerbated nationalism, and manipulation can't survive if the ground isn't fertile for them. That fertile ground is found in a receptive audience.
Where's the American Mussolini?
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
This may seem a digression, but consider Derry, 30th January 1972. There had been regular rioting for some time, which had been made worse by internment (unintentional consequence). As usual in such cases there were those who called for the Smack of a Firm Hand (see also General Dyer at Amritsar), which would see the "scum" and "thugs" slinking back under their rocks. 14 men and boys were shot dead that day - a very firm hand. That very night young men were literally queuing to join PIRA, and violence increased dramatically in extent and intensity.
I see no obvious reason why there wouldn't be a similar result if rioters were shot in France. Some in the immigrant community would appoint themselves as agents of Nemesis and start assassinating policemen. There would be an escalation, not a solution, and Sarkozy's security would have to be seriously beefed-up.
What's needed in this situation is a spell of cold, wet weather and some political action, even if only for appearance's sake. What is not needed is escalation.
Nyarlathotep
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2003
- Messages
- 7,503
You assume that all those who wanted to leave in those could have left. You assume wrong. The French, for example, forbade Protestants from emigrating to the New World entirely (this is one of the reasons that France did not come to dominate North America and thus likely why we aren't having this conversation in French, but that's another story). The Spanish did not encourage colonization, preferring to exploit pre-existing (i.e. Indian) labor for thier American Holdings. Even for the English, who were relatively free to Colonize, it was an expensive proposition that would likely end up with the emigrant being an indentured servant for a long while. It isn't hard to imagine someone being dissatisfied with conditiond in England but not wanting to become some rich guy's slave in order to escape those conditions.
Just thinking
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2004
- Messages
- 5,169
(I'm very sorry for just jumping in on this thread, after all it's been over 6 pages now, but this needes to be addressed ...)
Oh yes, I can see it now. A youth (or maybe two or three) breaks into my home after nearly 2 weeks of violent destruction and deaths (or not, just breaks in) with me standing there with a gun at my side. Do I attempt to stop and or shoot/him? ... no, I politely intrude upon his business with ...
Me: Excuse me, but why are you here?
Youth: Oh, I'm just here to take your TV and perhaps a small item or two that I can carry along before I leave.
Me: Are you going to hurt anyone, or perhaps destroy my home?
Youth: Oh no, don't worry -- you can trust me. I'm only here for the tube. Everyone will be just fine, especially your wife and kid.
Me: Thank you -- for a moment there, I thought you might want to do us some harm, but now that you've explained it all (and I'm positive a character such as yourself is very honest and trustworthy) I'll interrupt your business in my home no longer, proceed. May I get the door for you? Oh, and don't worry, I'll put the gun back where it belongs.
Last edited:
chran
Muse
I'm not talking about not having a right to defend your property, no matter how small it is.
I'm talking about immediately reaching for your gun when you percieve a threat. That is what I'm against.
Is somebody stealing your Tamagotchi? Kick him! Is your car being burned? Hit him! Is your wife being raped? Kill him!
Proportionality. Simple, really.
richardm
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2001
- Messages
- 9,248
In fact I've seen more than one correspondent stating that it was Sarkozy's hardline attitude to the first night or so or riots (calling the participants "scum") that helped to fan the flames in the first place.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
Emancipation wasn't even a war-aim in 1861. The war was about the union - for and against. Was there to be one nation, from sea to shining sea, or a patchwork? That was most definitely a land-issue.
Yeah - largely for the purpose of setting other men free - not land-grabbing.
The question of slavery being extended into the West was a proximate cause, but the underlying difference was over the scope of federal authority. Had the South been beaten quickly, not one slave would have been freed by the war.
The purpose? That assumes Intelligent Design of history. In the Great War, Germany's aims were to annexe Russian Poland, destroy the Russian Army as a credible threat and prevent economic encirclement by France, Britain and Russia. France's were to counter the above, while getting revenge for 1871 and stopping Germany's inexorable rise to economic dominance of Europe. Austria's was to obliterate Serbia, thus becoming imperial successor to the Ottomans in the Balkans. Russia's was to counter Austria, thus becoming imperial successor ... Britain's was get a decent pop at the Kriegsmarine.
Many purposes. WW2 in Europe was basically a continuation of the Great War after a pause for breath.
Appearances to the contrary, I don't have an explanation for everything.
The 'Murrican Experience has been one without significant constraints on resources, until quite recently when it finally filled up. Europe has been filled up for a long time, and constraints on resources - particularly land - are long-standing. The 'ME has often been one of lawlessness, whereas the European one has been one of too much law. Europeans are not used to taking the law into their own hands, because there are authorities and police to enforce it. This has not always been the case in the US.
Of course, this applies to white 'Murricans, from European migrant stock. The experience of involuntary migrants from Africa has been different. For them there were extreme constraints, and they never did get their 40 acres-and-a-mule. A lot of them only got the vote forty years ago. (Some "democratic model" that is.) The experience of Hispanics in the territory annexed from Mexico is different again. The Chinese experience in the West is inscrutable, but certainly different. And the aboriginals have had a very bad experience.
Not a complete explanation, but it's a start.
Bjorn
Off Topic
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2002
- Messages
- 2,968
I know your question wasn't directed at me, but anyhow: I'm not sure if the "American and European characters" are stereotypes or real. On the willingness to shoot/kill to defend your property, your theory goes like this:
As I've posted before, I think you are wrong about the reasons for emigrating, at least for the vast majority. Poor people hoping for a better life in a country with land to spare (well, you might have to get rid of some indians) were the typical emigrants.
Finland:
Germany:
Poland:
Norway:
And so on .... poor people left.
To explain why Americans are more likely to have and be willing to use guns, this theory might be just as good:
They came to a land that was a lot more 'lawless' than the one they left, and many of them found themselves in places where calling the police wasn't an option, where they had to protect their property themselves if they wanted to keep it. They weren't used to rattlesnakes or indians either, and had to realize that guns were necessary to feel safe. Soon most of them had guns and got used to it.
If your theory was correct, that the difference in willingness to use guns was somehow based on who emigrated and who stayed (those too scared to go, stayed), how come there are huge differences in the use of firearms between different European nations today? Did all the brave guys leave Ireland, while only the whiners left Scotland?
davefoc
Philosopher
I don't think CD's reference to Derry was a digression. It goes to exactly the kind of issues that a police force needs to think about when it moves to quell riots.
I would put up the LA riots as another example. My brief cut at the LA riots:
The not guilty verdict for police officers involved in the video taped violent arrest of Rodney King triggered a violent reaction in parts of the Los Angeles black community.
The police were slow to react to the violence. The slow reaction may have been a kind of reaction to the criticism that the police were taking for various actions including a small riot that they had put down roughly in Westwood some time earlier.
The slow reaction of the police seemed to embolden the rioters and the violence quickly became much more widespread.
The violence quickly became more about theft than any grievances. In the end more of the people arrested were people of Latin ethnicity than blacks who I don't think were particularly energized by the Rodney King incident.
The violence was exacerbated by the pandering of a few black leaders to the rioters.
The violence was brought to an end in a few days after the governor of California brought in the National Guard.
About 50 people were killed in the LA Riots.
Overall, the communities in the area of the riots suffered significantly. Many stores closed permanently, Many businesses closed permanently making employment harder to come by in these areas. Property values were depressed for years.
I am not exactly sure how this plays into the French Riots, but there are similarities and differences.
1. The violence was much more geograpically isolated in the LA riots. There were not any significant civil disturbances in the rest of California or the rest of the US.
2. IMHO, the slow reaction of the police led to a much larger civil disturbance than otherwise would have occurred in the LA riots. I wonder if the limited reaction of the French police to the problem with car arson hasn't emboldened the rioters by making them realize that they can get away with it.
3. In the end the LA riots were principally driven by short term gain for the rioters through looting. Are the French rioters still principally engaging in acts of destruction or is successful looting becoming a driving factor?
4. Some black leaders in the LA riots were on the edge of encouraging the rioters and were very slow to criticize the violence. Is this true of the north african community leaders or for the most part are they taking a strong stand against the violence?
I would put up the LA riots as another example. My brief cut at the LA riots:
The not guilty verdict for police officers involved in the video taped violent arrest of Rodney King triggered a violent reaction in parts of the Los Angeles black community.
The police were slow to react to the violence. The slow reaction may have been a kind of reaction to the criticism that the police were taking for various actions including a small riot that they had put down roughly in Westwood some time earlier.
The slow reaction of the police seemed to embolden the rioters and the violence quickly became much more widespread.
The violence quickly became more about theft than any grievances. In the end more of the people arrested were people of Latin ethnicity than blacks who I don't think were particularly energized by the Rodney King incident.
The violence was exacerbated by the pandering of a few black leaders to the rioters.
The violence was brought to an end in a few days after the governor of California brought in the National Guard.
About 50 people were killed in the LA Riots.
Overall, the communities in the area of the riots suffered significantly. Many stores closed permanently, Many businesses closed permanently making employment harder to come by in these areas. Property values were depressed for years.
I am not exactly sure how this plays into the French Riots, but there are similarities and differences.
1. The violence was much more geograpically isolated in the LA riots. There were not any significant civil disturbances in the rest of California or the rest of the US.
2. IMHO, the slow reaction of the police led to a much larger civil disturbance than otherwise would have occurred in the LA riots. I wonder if the limited reaction of the French police to the problem with car arson hasn't emboldened the rioters by making them realize that they can get away with it.
3. In the end the LA riots were principally driven by short term gain for the rioters through looting. Are the French rioters still principally engaging in acts of destruction or is successful looting becoming a driving factor?
4. Some black leaders in the LA riots were on the edge of encouraging the rioters and were very slow to criticize the violence. Is this true of the north african community leaders or for the most part are they taking a strong stand against the violence?
Well, the French may not be sure who to surrender to, but they're trying to surrender just the same.
Villepin: 'If you guys stop, we'll give you goodies.'
Villepin: 'If you guys stop, we'll give you goodies.'
As a tiny data point, my mother's grandfather emigrated to America because he was the youngest son whose whole inheritance was a couple of hectares of poor forest. Fortunately he came back after he had earned enough money to buy a farm.
Last edited:
Nick Bogaerts
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 617
The French riots are much lower in intensity. If things continue as they are, the riots will have to go on for two full years before the death toll equals six days in LA.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
From the Guardian : "Founding principle called into question"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,,1636671,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,,1636671,00.html
I wouldn't shoot at him because I don't have a gun and I don't intend to get one. If I was living in one of those rioting suburbs, I would take my family away (with a few precious possessions of emotional value) after reenforcing my place as much as possible... And then I would hope for the best. I wouldn't put my family nor myself at risk to defend possessions. I believe that this is the rational thing to do in these particular circumstances. I don't believe in putting people at risk just so I can play hero.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
No stomach for the kill, them Frenchies. Too full of fine food and wine. Pussies.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
Ireland :