Daily Kos

Paris 'riots': My aunt's building burned yesterday night (UPDATED)

Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 04:59:46 AM PDT

from the European Tribune

One of my aunts lives in one of the cités in the suburbs where the "new Intifada" is taking place - supposedly the new "Baghdad on the Seine". Her building suffered a fire yesterday night, started by the usual suspects in the neighborhood (they blew up two motorbikes in a local on the ground floor), ignored for almost one hour by the police and firemen. The solidarity of the inhabitants helped to evacuate everybody, and provide temporary shelter while the fire raged. Most people went back home the same evening as the fire was doused eventually.

A few cars were also burnt in the neighborood, but hardly more than usual. It's one of those things that happen and that you don't really worry about if you live there. This week, it goes on TV if you do it, so of course more are tempted to do so (last night saw 1300 cars burn, up from 900 the previous night), including in provincial cities. There is no coordination of anything, it's just mostly copycats by bored kids who are suddenly getting a lot of attention.

The police toughness is just plain posturing by Sarkozy, as the police know very well who does what in the neighborood and didn't and do not intervene. One reason is actually that the local gangs don't attack so much the locals (or the police) as they fight other gangs from nearby cities for sometimes trange turf or other arcane reasons. Also, there isn't that much violence, but isolated incidents and the spectacular, but mostly harmless, car fires. Firemen say explicitly that they let them burn out rather than intervene, as their interventions only excite the gangs more and have little use (unless the fire presents any danger of spreading, which is rarely the case).

Now one thing to note is that these neighboroods are not ghettos. My aunt lived there most of her life, she was a teacher in a nearby pre-school and has a mostly normal middle class life. There are lots of minorities, lots of kids with dysfunctional families, an obvious lack of jobs, and decrepit buildings, but it's not a rundown place, it's not cut off from the rest of the country, and there is a lot of solidarity between the inhabitants.

This is not to deny that the situation is tense, and that the events of recent nights don't signal some real problems in these neighboroods, but it's not like it's war, ot the "end of France" or a crippling crisis for the country. UPDATE: Note that the link goes to a site affiliated with the Vlams Blok, the Belgian far right, racist party

What it is is a real political crisis for the government, caught between the Le Pen-light shenanigans and provocations of Sarkozy (which are strongly approved and encouraged by a good part of the 'law'n'order' rightwing crowd in the country, but criticised by a majority today, including the moderate right)) and the silence of the rest of the government, led by Villepin, which was hoping that the crisis would burn Sarkozy but did not expect to be caught in the flames as well. The combination of tough, provocative words to start with, an unstable mix of toughness and conciliatory words, and nonstop coverage of burning cars on TV has led to more. Burning cars are nothing new - there was an average of 100 per day in France throughout the year, and it never made the news beyond statistical reports and an quick image once in a while when there was another incident to talk about. But today, it is having a political impact and the political outcry fuels the phenomenon. (The mayor of my aunt's city duly came to visit and be photogrpahed yesterday - sometimes it seems it's the only thing that bring these people around).

What's real is that social budgets for these cités (those that allow the associations to run sport activities, literacy classes and the like) have been cut in the past 3 years, because, as always, this is the easiest thing to do politically.

What is real is that local police forces have been reduced (in Clichy, where it all started, the police has 15 officers vs 35 in the past) and replaced by national police who do not know the neighborood and are pretty aggressive in their behavior - and especially in their overuse of id controls which target only people of color.

What is real is that France made a choice 30 years ago to preserve the jobs of those already integrated, and made it difficult to join that core. Thus unemployment, or unstable employment (temping, short term contracts, internships) touches only those that are not yet in the system - the young and the immigrants, or those that are kicked out - the older and less educated blue collar workers in dying industries. So in neighboroods where you have a lot of young immigrants, the problems are excerbated.

And finally, what is real is that everybody is aware that nothing serious will be done before the 2007 presidential election. With a lame duck, aging, corrupt President fighting it out with his ambitious interior Ministry (Sarkozy), policy is forgotten to spin, politicking and the like and nothing happens - but people are crying for solutions, and not everybody is willing to wait another 18 months for someone to have a clear mandate and do something. The feeling of fin de règne is pervasise and highly corrosive today.

Sarkozy would likely be an improvement over today, in that he would have a clear mandate if elected, and full powers, but he would be likely to run a Bushist policy of tough posturing, tax reform for the rich - and, this is France, getting the TVs not to talk about the banlieues anymore. He is an opportunist and a power hungry reactionary, I don't even see him "liberalising" the economy. But the banlieues do not need more growth, what they need is for the State to come back in full force - bring back the local police presence, give real support to the schools and all the associations that do integration work (it's criminal to cut subsidies to literacy classes, for instance), and actually get things done on improving the housing stock, instead of shuffling money between departments as emergencies arise, and, where necessary, improving transportation links to the big city where the jobs are.

What is not happening is any "intifada"; France is not burning; I still doubt that its integration model is failing ; what is clearly not tolerable anymore is how an underclass (not necessarily only the immigrants, but where they are clearly over represented, and definitely young and undereducated) has been sacrificed and abandoned in the country's (real and mostly successful) efforts to adapt to increasing international competition. They must be brought back into the fold, and toughness is not the way.

UPDATE Postscript. Just watched the evening news here. The events of last night, naturally enough, took most of the air time. Chirac spoke, saying that restoring order is the only priority right now. There was a lot of coverage in various places. Most of it showed shocked and uncomprehending populations in these cités, half "white" and half "dark". They showed how the whole cité and the teachers came to clean up the school that was burnt overnight, and which will thus be open again tomorrow. They showed groups of citizens that occupy their local infrastructure (unarmed) simply to create a presence and show that it is valued. They showed some youth saying that they were sick to death of not finding jobs because the don't have the right name, and expressing their anger at Sarkozy's words; there was an interview of inhabitants (again, half white and half brown) of one cité complaining about the racism and provocation of the police.

In 20 minutes, there was not a single mention of religion. Again, these events are not motivated by religion, they are motivated by economics, and by the (correct) feeling of these youth that they are excluded from "normal" society. all they want is a job, a car and decent housing, to live their lifes normally. Now a significant proportion of this underclass is indeed of Arab or African origins, and thus Muslim, but they are all French by nationality.

A final word: I am not trying to downplay the significance of these events, but I do think they need to be put in perspective, and the shrillness of the English language press made me want to give another view. Burning cars are not a good thing, but htey are not the end of the world either, and no sign of any Intifada (or the USA and the UK would be in one as well). The violence unleashed in the past two days will not be tolerated much longer, neither by the inhabitants of the cités nor by the State, and a combination of both actions will prevail.

Now the open question is what the political fallout will be. Will the right use it to push tough law and order policies (to shoot the messenger, effectively), or will France take a hard look at its social model and decide that it is high time to do something for these kids and these cités? On this I must admit that I am not so optimistic.

Tags: Paris, France, immigration, law and order, police, Nicolas Sarkozy, Dominique de Villepin (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 300 comments

    •  Riots or not riots (4.00 / 22)

      Go read Ritter over at eurotrib:


      The french disturbances are not yet riots, they don't engage in open clashes with the police. They don't even come close to the activities I was involved in when we defied the police in Dortmund, Frankfurt, Bonn and Rome and occupied the town hall, tore out (historic!) cobbles stones from the streets, built barricades, smashed shop windows and invaded the food sections to grab bottles and cans to be used as objects to throw at the police. We went through the classic mano a mano exercise, garnered with clouds of tear gas, police sirens, burning trash containers, flying stones, shattering glass, quaky bullhorn commands, the attack and retreat tactics to 'hold the ground', grizzly water cannons, soaked parkas, burning eyes, police arrests and (the joy) of liberating comrades from police vans, the monotonous tak-tak-tak sound of the rotors of helicopters above the square - all the chaos and emotions of a serious street fight.

      Nothing of that happens now in France. Again: The kids don't engage in frontal clashes with the police.

      And what makes it different to the riots in the US and what happened two weeks ago in the UK:

      There is no looting.
      There are no shop owners with guns and rifles defending their property.
      The police does not shoot at the kids.
      The kids don't carry guns.
      The kids don't target shop owners of a different ethnicity.

      All I see is that the kids have become very media savvy. They know that the most rational way, the manner which causes less harm, is to torch cars. they make for nice, compelling pictures. They are fanals to underline their political message. Which is: Sakorzy has passed a line and he has to go; the government has to enter into a dialogue with the community leaders and offer concrete plans and resources to deal with the degradation of the banlieus and the unemployment of its inhabitants. There is a good chance that they will succeed in this. And mind you: Concrete street action creates strong and long lasting bonds between the folks who are engaged in it. It is where leaders are born. Danny Cohn - Bendit and Joschka Fischer are examples of this. It's where they acquired their 'street credibility'.
      As the song says: A working class heroe is something to be.

      And it makes for good stories to tell your kids.

      •  Missing link (4.00 / 5)

        to Ritter's comment.

        And i might as well provide the European Tribune headlines:

        European Union: the week in (p)review by Migeru - a round up of all the EU does over one week. You'll be amazed!

        Another discussion thread on the French incidents: Europe and racism (there are more)

        and the indispensable Sunday Brunch news review and commentary thread.

      •  Merci, Jerome (none / 0)

        .. for your post.  I had been hoping for your insight and perspective on all this news. It helps sort fact from "film at 11".
             My son is studying in Angers this year and I am woefully uninformed on the workings of French politics..thank you for starting my education.  Looks like I'll have to put European Tribune on my bookmark bar next to Kos.

         

        ...and your little dog, too!

        by kastyh on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 05:36:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  just cars? (none / 1)

        http://www.cnn.com/...

        "Thirteen cars were torched in Paris, including several in the Place de la Republique in the central city.

        In the Normandy city of Evreux, five police officers and three firefighters were injured when two schools, a post office, a shopping center and 50 cars were burned, Hamon said. A child care center was burned in Lille in northern France.

        Two schools in Grigny, south of Paris, were set ablaze and firefighters responded to 30 reports of arson in Toulouse, in southern France, the Interior Ministry said. Several cars were on fire and several trash cans were burning outside public buildings.

        A cultural center in the central city of Nantes was destroyed by fire, and a youth hostel burned in Paris, the ministry said."

        (note I dont disagree with some of your other points)

        onnyturf.com - Political and Community Coverage of NYC

        by atomicBirdsong on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:28:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Um, yeah (none / 1)

          Look, if this torching of cars is ongoing, this is not mere hooliganism. Nor is it some heroic class action thing. Nor is it, quite obviously from what we can see on the news, just cars. Nor is "just cars" some innocent thing; it's significant economic and environmental damage.

          There are several incidents in the US per year where one or two cars are trashed in the course of a sports victory riot or the like. But there is no neighborhood so bad in the States that cars are being burned every night. If there were, the owners and the police would both be out in shoot-to-kill mode.

          The problem in France would appear to be that they've been treating this with beneign neglect up until now. Makes it hard to switch to a shoot-to-kill response if it's been more a slap-on-the wrist offense previously. And yes, jobs and education and the whole nine yards are clearly called for: no immigrant should ever be admitted without being given work, anywhere. And nobody should leave high school without offer of jobs.

          But that doesn't justify buring citizens' cars. The state should make it clear that past a certain date sanity will be installed, and the punks shot if they don't stop these terrorist acts. If they were smashing McDonald's franchises I wouldn't say this; but private citizens' cars, that should receive zero toleration. Whatever the feeling here on Kos, I can assure you that 90%+ of registered Democrats, as well as 100% of Republicans here in the States would support whatever level of action is required to make the punks stop.

          And that's why you don't see that shit here. We also, of course, do a lot better at providing job opportunities for immigrants. Our public housing may be equally bad; but we put far fewer people in it. And our Muslims are much better integrated with the broader culture, such as it is. France has really fucked up on this one.

          •  Car fires in the US and UK (4.00 / 3)

            See that comment downthread to see that cars burning are not a specifically French phenomenon, and do not seem to create big headlines in the countries quoted (the USA and the UK) despite pretty damn big numbers - the quoted statistics below say that there are twice as many cars burned in the UK as in France. I didn't know. Did you?

            Burning a car is a criminal activity. It's not going to topple the Republic is all I am saying.

          •  Shoot-to-kill (4.00 / 2)

            for burning a car? Really?
            •  Yes, really. (none / 0)

              If I saw someone preparing to burn my car over a political dispute, and if I had a gun, I would shoot.  I'm not a good enough aim to go for "just a flesh wound", so maybe it would be shoot to kill.
              •  Honestly? (none / 0)

                That's one of the most terrifying things I have ever heard in my life.

                The merits of owning a gun in any circumstances aside, if you're not a very good aim, you really shouldn't have one.

                •  I don't (none / 0)

                  Mostly because I don't live in places where this sort of thing is likely.  If I did, though, I'd really think about getting a gun.

                  And seriously, which statement is closer to "he most terrifying things I have ever heard in my life":

                  a)  I'm pissed at the government, so I'm going to burn my neigbors car/school/house.

                  or

                  b)  My car/house is being threatened by thugs and I'm willing to shoot to defend it.

                  Can you honestly say you'd just stand by and watch, if you had the power to stop the arson?  Would you confront the thugs and try to talk them out of it?

                  •  For a start (none / 0)

                    your car is very different to your house. I'm assuming that torching your car puts you in no physical harm, whereas of course with your house, there is a good chance someone is inside, etc.

                    But yes, basically I do believe that fatally shooting someone who is causing harm to an inanimate object that you own is far worse than the burning of the car.  Would you still be willing to shoot if someone was stealing your car? I don't believe that defending property is ever an excuse to take a life.

                    We both appear to be dealing with hypothetical situations, and the chances of us convincing the other seem to be fairly slim! I don't want to hijack the diary any more, so I hope we can just agree to respectfully disagree.

          •  and also (4.00 / 2)

            And that's why you don't see that shit here.

            our law and order mentality has also led to 2.3 million people in prison, the highest incarceration rate in the free world by far, along with the massive financial and human waste that entails.

            Just  saying, there are downsides to our shoot to kill mentality. And our crime rate isn't any lower in the end, either.

      •  Worse than "just riots" (none / 0)

        "Police found a gasoline bomb-making factory in a southern suburb of the city, with more than 100 bottles, gallons of fuel and hoods for hiding rioters' faces, a senior Justice Ministry official said Sunday.

        Six youths, all aged under 18, were arrested in the raid Saturday night on a building in Evry south of Paris where the gasoline bombs were being put together, Jean-Marie Huet, the ministry's director of criminal affairs and pardons, told The Associated Press."

        link

        "Most night bus services north and east of the capital were suspended overnight Saturday as a precautionary measure against ambushes which have seen at least two buses set fire to and destroyed.

        Two people were slightly injured and 100 evacuated when an immigrants' hostel went up in flames at Athis-Mons west of Paris. Several other properties suffered fire damage elsewhere, including a McDonald's, two schools and a gym outside the capital.

        In the western suburb of Evreux, four policemen were injured in clashes with a hundred youths, some armed with baseball bats, while dozens of cars and three shops were set ablaze and Molotov cocktails were thrown at a school, according to police and fire crews."

        link

        •  Do they define? (4.00 / 3)

          Do they define "gasoline bomb making factory"?

          I ask because from the little I've seen (we are mercifully TV-free and largely media-free at the moment), bottles of gasoline with rags as fuses are the primary "bomb," so a "factory" for such things could be as simple as a room with a bunch of bottles, rags, and a jug of gasoline.

          Not that the fair & balanced media would ever sensationalize such a thing ...

    •  I recognize my comment is far too simplistic (none / 0)

      But, why hasn't something similar happened over here.

      What has really catalyzed this convulsion?

      What can we learn from it??

      •  2nd Amendment? (3.50 / 4)

        "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
        the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

        Torching cars over here would likely result in getting shot by car owners. if not by the authorities.

        "I read very few books" -- Markos Moulitsas

        by kwyzkl on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:04:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  2nd amendment as 'doomsday weapon' (none / 0)

          to be used to defend life and property with personal weapons when society's traditional resources are ineffective.

          Credit Volokh (where I read it first)for this construct, which may well be what the Founders had in mind when the 2nd was included.

        •  Ah yes, .... (none / 0)

          ...the "well regulated Militia" of car owners...which is about as effective as the "well regulated Militia of drive-by shooters."

          The "well regulated Militia" sure hasn't prevented the many riots we've had in this country in the past and I seriously doubt that's why France is having riots and we aren't.  No doubt we're ripe for some riots of our own soon.

      •  The govenor (2.20 / 5)

        of whatever state this happened in would call out the National Guard, and in the words of Napoleon, would give the rioters a wiff of grapeshot.

        During the LA riots, it was not uncommon for the locals to defend their property with lethal force.

        The French have made no response to this and until they do, we will continue to see this battle continue.

        •  Just curious... (4.00 / 4)

          what is your experience with France? Have you been there? Have you lived there? Have you been outside the US?

          Protesting is a national past time in France. The last one I saw (against privatizing the national railroad) resembled a tailgate party more than a protest (I was given a can of Belgian beer by a soused rail worker in exchange for the opportunity to kiss my wife on both cheeks). In another (doctors and medical workers, I forget the grievances), the national police assumed their positions with something that, to me, more resembled habit than anxiety.

          Granted, the current protests are entirely different. But to look at this through our violent American eyes completely skews one's view.

          •  Probably little or none. (none / 0)

            I browse down - newest first. After reading your comment I had to click the parent link and I'm not suprised to learn which poster you were responding to.

            Just curious... what is your experience with France? Have you been there? Have you lived there? Have you been outside the US?
          •  oh please (1.50 / 2)

            Tailgate party?  This is no tailgate party.  These are violent and often Armed Thugs, destroying all in their wake.

            I suppose the next I'll hear at this site is, if we just give them Israel and hate Bush a little more, all will go back to normal.  What, you say?  You mean Chirac already wants to give them Israel, and Already hates Bush?

            <heads explode>

            Enterpriser; Hard core Libertarian: +6.63 / -4.41

            by jimsaco on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:38:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Goober Peas (regardless of your low UID) (2.50 / 2)

              4 to 5 pounds green (raw) peanuts in shell
              4 to 6 quarts water
              1 cup plain salt

              Wash unshelled peanuts thoroughly in cold water until water runs clear; then soak in cool, clean water for approximately 30 minutes before cooking.

              In a large pot, place soaked peanuts and cover completely with water. Add 1 cup of salt per gallon of water. Cook, covered, on high heat for 4 to 7 hours.

              NOTE: the cooking time of boiled peanuts varies according to the maturity of the peanuts used and the variety of peanuts. The cooking time for a 'freshly pulled" or green peanut is shorter than for a peanut that has been stored for a time.

              Boil the peanuts for about 4 hours, then taste. Taste again i 10 minutes, both for salt and texture. Keep cooking and tasting until the peanuts reach desired texture (when fully cooked, the texture of the peanut should be similar to that of a cooked dry pea or bean).

              Remove from heat and drain peanuts after cooking or they will absorb salt and become over salted.

              Peanuts may be eaten hot or at room temperature, or chilled in the refrigerator and eaten cold, shelling as you eat them. For long-term storage, freeze in airtight containers.

            •  Give us a bone with that one, please. (none / 0)

              Link us, please, to reliable sources stating that the French rioters are armed and widespread,extendsive destruction has occurred (like Watts or Newark), as your description implies.

              Your second paragraph is rather troll-like. Do you want to precipitate discussion or just foam at the mouth? Please precipitate discussion.

              "And tell me how does god choose whose prayers does he refuse?" Tom Waits

              by madaprn on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:45:27 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I studied in France (none / 1)

            for a year in 1968. And again in 1972.

            For 5 years in the late 1990s, my bosses boss was French and in Paris, I had to go there quarterly for meetings and other business.

            I have traveled extensively throughout France and done several bike trips in Provence, the Loire and in Normandy. I know France as well as any American and have many French friends and business colleagues.

            The current protests are very much like 1968, only the opposition is not made up of student leftists, it is made up of Islamofascists.

            •  I disagree, obviously (none / 0)

              with the "Islamofascist" thingy. See my update.

              Daisy, this is about economics, first and foremost. Really. (And it's not a much prettier story for France, btw, because it is of our own making). Of course preachers will try to exploit it, but they do not cause it or encourage it.

              •  Jerome, it is about economics, however... (none / 0)

                the longer this sh*t continues; the more authorities and politicians tend to sit on their hands; the more the French are more likely to call on National Front or like minded idiots (like Sarkozy) to solve this problem of 'immigrants' cum citoyens from les departements.  And then the sh*t will escalate and metastasize into something more lethal, that is, fascism on both sides.

                I don't agree with Colorado Daisy, I see something where the wrong politician could make hay about.

                An untypical Negro...since 1954.

                by blksista on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 12:49:53 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  no one has died , though (none / 0)

          Considering the play thse riots are getting, it's worth noting that no one has died during them. Compare that with the death and injuries during Rodney King. Our riots are shorter, but much more explosive I'd say.
    •  Thanks Jerome (none / 1)

      I wondered what you might have to say about this.  I think it's terrible how there is so little effort made to provide opportunities for the young people in the cités.

      I haven't been to most of these banlieues myself, but have been to some of the outskirts of Paris and out by Clignancourt where you'd see some burned-out cars normally.  And I have crossed paths with some angry young people on the RER (and their very big dogs.. not pleasant).  But perhaps not knowing the car torching thing has gone on for years and years leads to overreaction on the part of the media.  In my old DC neighborhood, sometimes people would smash car windows for no reason or snap off antennas.  In France, sometimes cars are burned.  It's just what happens.  

      The Washington Times had a front page above the fold headline last Thursday or Friday, "Muslim youths battle police."  I thought, they don't know what they are talking about, really.  I don't know very much myself, but it seems so much more complicated to me.  I think, what can it be like to grow up as the French-born child of immigrants, to not have citizenship (and what about the risk of being deported for criminal offenses to a country where you've never been and don't know anyone?), to face racism, lack of opportunity, lesser quality public schools, and living in some of those depressing HLM blocks where you are quite far away from the city and it costs beyond your means to go there often?  

      And really, aren't several of these suburbs truly very bad and very dangerous, and the police rarely or never even go there?    

      Finally, I recommend to all to go watch La Haine, directed by Mathieu Kassovitz.

  •  Thanks for the insight Jerome (4.00 / 2)

    As our leaders cut more from the bones of our social need budgets to pay for wars and tax cuts in the states there we are no doubt in store for similar unrest in the future..

    I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's. - Mark Twain

    by route66 on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 05:09:10 AM PDT

  •  really sad (none / 0)

    I was there in late August and something happened then.  Perhaps that was the start and no one noticed.  Anyway I hope they don't burn down Montmatre.  I liked it better that La Marais, even though I'm gay and I'm supposed to like la marais better.  
    •  the point is (none / 0)

      something is always happening. 100 cars per day burn throughout the year, it's become a kind of (mostly harmless) game.

      What's different is that it's been shown, and that the political guerilla within the French right and the provocative comments by Sarkozy have amplified the story and made it a front page story instead of the local news.

      •  A mostly harmless game (none / 0)

        Does the government or insurance pay replacement value on the cars or their contents, and cover the car's owner for miscellaneous espenses notably time in replacing his or her car?

        This does not sound very harmless to the 100 victims.

        •  well (none / 1)

          a good number of the burnt cars have been stolen before, so they are in principle covered by insurance for that (and the number of car thefts has been decreasing in recent years).

          The worst situation is people that have a pretty old - but functioning - car, with limited insurance value, so they get a small amount of money instead of a working car. But from what my aunt told me, the kids know who the cars in their neighboroods belong to and they choose specific cars to be burnt.

          •  rationalizing? (4.00 / 6)

            not that I am unsymapthetic to the larger economic forces at play here, but this rational is not compelling at all.  you seem to suggest both that this incidents are not of serious concern and that the youth who are buring cars can be trusted to burn ones that deserve it.  I dont think this is really going to get you were you want to be.

            Burning cars anywhere are a serious public safty threat, a threat largely to innocent people. Im not saying the government of France hasn't had this coming to it. It needs to be stopped and it needs to be stopped by addressing the underlying economic problems.  But to try to rationalize the basic behavior as somehow ok in general doesn't make sense.  

            onnyturf.com - Political and Community Coverage of NYC

            by atomicBirdsong on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:40:38 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Jerome, I am surprised (4.00 / 5)

            that you making light of the situation.

            I think what is happening is that the "democracy solves everything and so we have to impose it at gunpoint everywhere in the world" concept is going up in flames.

            There's Muslim insurgencies in Thailand, Indonesia, Phillipines, India, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, China, Central Asia, Caucasus, Russia, and now across Europe (Netherlands is seeing rioting too, Italy, Britain, Spain have their own problems). Even Australia down south has started to have problems with the Hizb-ut Tahrir. And none of these nations are even in the Middle East, where the Bush administration has focused itself after 9/11. And many of these nations are democratic.

            Iraq, and the "democratization" push has served to fan the flames of many of these conflicts. Some of them were of course raging before, but what is going on now is much more broad-based and linked globally.

            A rethinking of how we solve problems across the world needs to take place. And its not going to be by invasions, or democratic revolutions. I don't think the world even understands the breadth and the magnitude of the problems.

            •  We can thank 'lil georgie and his friends... (none / 0)

              for this "legacy" they're leaving us all.

              Instead of trying to make the world a better place they're managing to make it a meaner place. Problems were inevitable IMO because of population pressures but there was no need to "fan the flames" as you say. If anything there was a need to "cool the waters".

              Iraq, and the "democratization" push has served to fan the flames of many of these conflicts. Some of them were of course raging before, but what is going on now is much more broad-based and linked globally.
              •  Oh please (none / 1)

                this reminds me of a Saturday Nite Live routine where they were blaming Clinton for everything from teenage acne to the increase in unwed mothers.

                Bush and company are responsible for a lot of bad things in this old world, but the sad state of unassimulated Muslims in France is not one of them.

            •  How incredibly myopic of you (4.00 / 2)

              to lump these incidents in Paris with some of the other "Muslim insurgencies" occuring by organized terrorist groups elsewhere in the world....

              This situation is economically and socially motivated, and is akin to comparing the riots that occured in LA to "Black insurgency".....  These riots are happening for a SPECIFIC reason, in this case, because these areas of France, these suburbs are being neglected by the government simply because of the colour of skin of the people that live there.  These people are 'allowed' into the country in order to work, but are subsequently treated like second or third class citizens.  I don't agree with their methods of attaining a little attention for these issues, but the fact is, France has alot to be ashamed of.  To simply 'lump' these people in with other actual "INSURGENT" movements simply because many of them happen to be African Muslim immigrants is not only innacurate, it smacks of an 'overgeneralization' bordering on racism.

              "Be the change that you want to see in the world."- Gandhi

              by hopefulcanadian on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:48:15 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Maybe I am being myopic (none / 0)

                but a lot of these "insurgencies" started out with "unrest" and "riots". There is always a "specific reason" for each one of these conflicts.

                Yes, there's plenty of blame to be laid on all sides. There is indeed ethnic differences, and racism, and lack of integration into new societies. But I am saying instead of invasions and regime changes, we need to recognize that worldwide there are issues that are catching on fire under our noses. These issues threaten to start a conflagration that will be hard to contain. And the narrow tactic of "democratization" is worthless to deal with these problems.

                I am saying that we need to have a global dialogue among all parties, bring the major powers in every region together and start understanding, and then addressing the issues. Without that, and just classifying each situation as due to a "sepcific reason" we are headed for trouble.

                This is what needed to be done after 9/11, other than capturing and bringing to justice the perpetrators. The longer we wait, the problems will be more difficult to deal with and more entrenched.

                •  that's fine... (4.00 / 6)

                  your arguments against 'democratization' are valid... but the application of them somehow to this situation would be very innacurate.... you have to understand that there IS a difference among "Muslims" all over the world in terms of culture, and even political intent as well.... much the same as "Christians" in the US are very different than Christians in Rome, or England, or in Jerusalem.

                  This situation is NOT the same thing as "Islamic insurgencies" that are occuring in nations where the US is trying to 'nation-build' or bring democracy..... which is what irked me so about your comparison.  

                  This is no different than ANY other socio-political struggle internally within a country that has one group of people at a considerable disadvantage because of discrimination, and socio-economic neglect by the country that has 'recruited them' for work.  The people that have immigrated to France (or should I say, encouraged at first to come to provide cheap labour) are African.  They are visible minorities, and are literally put in areas to live that separate them from the rest of society not unlike ghettos.  These people just happen to also be Muslim (very different culture may I add than that of Arab-Muslims, who are subsequently very different than Muslims that live in lets say, South East Asia)...

                  So that is something that must not be allowed to be the 'label' for this problem, as it being a "Muslim insurgency" in some way... this is not occuring in the name of Islam (as some terrorist activities are SELF-labelled by Islamic terrorists)(also inaccurate because nothing in Islam condones that kind of terrorism anyway)...

                  These are disenfranchised youths... this is urban unrest not unlike urban unrest that occurs all over the world among 'minorities' that are kept in positions of economic and social inequality by the 'majority' governments..

                  "Be the change that you want to see in the world."- Gandhi

                  by hopefulcanadian on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:32:45 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  "Happen to be Muslim"? (none / 0)

                    I don't think it is all a grand coincidence that there is violence all over the world being committed by people who "happen to be Muslim." It seems more likely that this is all tied to the dismal failure of middle eastern governments to provide for their people, which has led to persistent unrest in the middle east itself and massive immigration to other nations. I'd like to see people who are concerned about oppression of minority communities in Europe get half as concerned about the oppression that drives these people to run from their homelands in the first place.
                    •  asdf (none / 0)

                      Increased economic opportunity (in the form of guest worker programs or other economic incentives) drove most of the North African Muslim immigration to France, and likewise most of the other Muslim immigrants in Northern Europe, rather than political or religious oppression.

                      "And tell me how does god choose whose prayers does he refuse?" Tom Waits

                      by madaprn on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:52:29 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  You are ignorant on this topic I'm afraid... (none / 1)

                      The terrorist activities that are occuring in the world by people that claim to be Muslim are occuring by people in an ORGANIZED movement all over the world yes, but by the SAME GROUP.....  The events that are occuring all over the world are all linked to Al Quaida.... that is ONE group of religious fanatics, they are NOT representative of all Muslims all over the world.

                      YES, the people in France right now HAPPEN to be Muslim..  But do you realize how INCREDIBLY different Muslim people are from one another in different countries, culturally, and politically?  There are European Muslims in the Balkans, (ie/ Croatia) VERY different culture than those that are born and raised in Saudi Arabia.  Who are in turn VERY different than the Muslim people of Somalia.  Very different 'political goals' as well... these people do not LOOK the same, do not EAT the same food, they all happen to be Muslim though YES.  

                      To assume, that Muslims ALL over the world, are behind terrorist activities, and that the youth in Paris that are rioting right now have some sort of "Islamic" agenda is INCREDIBLY ignorant.

                      The WORLD events, that are occuring, are occuring because of ONE (or maybe a few offshoots) terrorist group.....  there are people that live in South East Asia ie/ Bali that are Muslim, but its not as if many people from BALI are involved in Al Quaida....

                      You need to get more educated my friend, on Islam, and realize people that are "Muslim" all over the world are just as varied as people that are Christian.  There are Christians in America, that are very different than Christians in Rome, who are very different than Christians in Jerusalem.  If tomorrow, a "radical Christian group" in Israel were to form, would people in America that also happen to be Christian be automatically linked to this group WHENEVER this group were to be active in any country???  This is the same argument you are making, its completely off-base.

                      "Be the change that you want to see in the world."- Gandhi

                      by hopefulcanadian on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 09:05:11 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You are ignorant I'm afraid... (none / 0)

                        1. All islamic terrorists do not belong to the same organization. That statement is profoundly ignorant. Maybe you are the one who needs more education.

                        2. I did not claim that all Muslims are the same in any way. Apparently you are ignorant of the content of my post.

                        3. I did not claim that the protesters in France have an Islamic agenda. More evidence that you are ignorant of the content of my post.
                        •  I'm (none / 0)

                           ignorant to the content of your post????

                          You're literally claiming somehow, that ISLAMIC nations are responsible for poverty in their countries.... like THAT characteristic somehow the fact that they are Muslim, is directly responsible for their poverty; you said:

                          "I don't think it is all a grand coincidence that there is violence all over the world being committed by people who "happen to be Muslim." It seems more likely that this is all tied to the dismal failure of middle eastern governments to provide for their people, which has led to persistent unrest in the middle east itself and massive immigration to other nations"....

                          So, by that argument, because SO many poor people migrate to the US every year (who happen to be Roman Catholic Mexican/Guatemalan/Cuban immigrants) their CATHOLIC countries are not providing for them, which has lead to persistent emmigration to America.....????  Is it because the societies in South America are Catholic that so many countries in South and Central America struggle with poverty???

                          Why are you bringing RELIGION into it???  These countries are POOR.... guess what, many countries all over the world ARE... doesn't matter what religion their home countries are...

                          this is a SOCIO-ECONOMIC struggle that is occuring in France.... these youths are visible minorities, not unlike the people involved in the LA riots, that are protesting an inequality in their country.  Their religion has NOTHING to do with it.... and the fact that you are somehow trying to compare what is going on in France, to terrorist activities that are occuring by Islamic terrorists, DOES lead me to believe you are ignorant about Islam....

                          "Be the change that you want to see in the world."- Gandhi

                          by hopefulcanadian on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 09:39:51 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  asdf (none / 0)

                            "You're literally claiming somehow, that ISLAMIC nations are responsible for poverty in their countries.... like THAT characteristic somehow the fact that they are Muslim, is directly responsible for their poverty."

                            Yes, I do think that middle eastern nations are responsible for poverty in their own countries. What a radical concept! Not every problem is some outsider's fault!

                            I did not state that the fact that they are Muslim is directly responsible for their poverty. You made that up all by yourself.

                            •  I made it up myself??? (none / 1)

                              you stated you didn't think it was a COINCIDENCE that the violence that was occuring in the world was often happening by people that "happened to be Muslim".... you specifically pulled that sentence of mine out of my post, to highlight that you disagreed with it......

                              THEN you pointed towards the 'oppression' in these countries that is 'driving them to immigrate' to places like France.  So I will put it to you again.... why did you highlight that part of my post specifically, the sentence "happen to be Muslim", the coincidence I was claiming, as being something you took objection to???  If you didn't mean to imply that it was because these countries are Islamic, that their people leave/immigrate to other countries, or 'cause violence', please clarify why you singled it out then...  

                              what emphasis were you then trying to make by singling out that sentence of mine ??

                              "Be the change that you want to see in the world."- Gandhi

                              by hopefulcanadian on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 10:09:15 AM PDT

                              [ Parent ]

                    •  Which repub talking point memo did that come from? (4.00 / 3)

                      Are the Mexicans and Central/South Americans in the U.S. "fleeing from oppression" too? Probably 95% or more of these people migrate for better economic opportunities, they're not running from oppression.

                      'd like to see people who are concerned about oppression of minority communities in Europe get half as concerned about the oppression that drives these people to run from their homelands in the first place.
                      •  I agree, but (none / 0)

                        isnt lack of oppertunity the same as/related to repression?

                        Momma, who are we voting for? Big momma gon' vote for Rod Blagojevich.

                        by your friend steve on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 12:11:41 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Oh please (none / 0)

                        people can disagree with you without being Republican. Get over it.

                        I did not argue that all immigrants are fleeing from political oppression. I am arguing, however, that immigrants from middle eastern nations are fleeing an ugly combination of economic stagnation/lack of opportunity and political oppression which fosters said economic stagnation. Instead of blaming France for the failure of its assimilation/integration policies, I think our policy should focus on encouraging middle eastern nations to develop economic policies that make them attractive places to live.

                    •  no violence by the US, though ? (none / 0)

                      your definition of violence seems selective. State violence is OK, and approved ? Look at what's going on in Western Iraq right now, as residents flee their towns under US military attack.
                      •  not really responsive to my comment (none / 0)

                        Where did I say state violence is "OK and approved"? I don't think I managed to even peripherally imply such a thing. I didn't raise the issue because it seems unrelated to the topic of this diary.
                    •  Sorry, wrong answer. (none / 0)

                      You're misconstruing what hopefulcanadian was saying: the fact that these rioters are Muslim is arbritary to the extent that these riots were not religiously based.  It'd be like blaming the New Orleans riots on Catholics.  

                      You claim, I don't think it is all a grand coincidence that there is violence all over the world being committed by people who "happen to be Muslim."  

                      Really?  How does your "coincidence" explain recent events in the United Kingdom, Ireland, and even here at home?

                      And that's only over the last two months.

                      Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

                      by pico on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 01:55:34 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I'm (none / 0)

                        not really clear on what your question was (or even if your question was honest or rhetorical), but I'll try to answer.

                        My point was that there is a tremendous amount of violence being perpetrated around the globe by Muslims, which should lead us to ask why. Hopefulcanadian does not argue, but seems to imply, that it is wrong to even ask the question. I disagree. I think it is very important for us to ask why Muslims are so disaffected that they are time and time again implicated in violence. I suspect it can be traced back, not to religion, but to the policies of oppressive middle eastern nations. They haveleft the middle east with a large population of educated but underemployed young people who have no economic opportunity and no way to express themselves. Some of these people have reacted by emmigrating and find themselves impoverished and alienated in their new countries. Others have fallen prey to radical versions of Islam that glorify violence and direct their anger towards infidels. I don't know enough about Islam to venture a guess as to whether there is any connection between that the current manifestation of that religion and the rise of oppressive disctatorships in the middle east, so I wouldn't say the violence is caused by religion.

                        •  I was referring... (none / 0)

                          to statements like this: "there is a tremendous amount of violence being perpetrated around the globe by Muslims, which should lead us to ask why."

                          The rebuttal: why are you trying to read meaning into separate acts of violence in which Muslims were involved, but you don't do the same with riots in the UK, the US, and Ireland?  We could just as easily ask why Christians have been so violent lately.

                          You'd probably respond that those riots (Toledo, the UK, for example) had nothing to do with Christianity per se, but the rioters just happened to be Christian.  And that is, in essence, what hopefulanadian was saying about the French Muslim rioters.

                          Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

                          by pico on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 03:54:23 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  asdf (none / 0)

                            I guess I'm trying to read meaning into the acts in which Muslims are involved because there's a reasonable argument that they stem from the same root causes whether they are religiously-motivated or not (i.e. oppressive regimes in the middle east). I'd be open to the same sort of plausible argument about violence by Christians, but I'm not aware of one.
                            •  but.. (none / 0)

                              if a lot of the Parisian youth are Algerian by origin, what does that have to do with oppressive middle-eastern regimes, especially when some of the Algerian families have been in France for a good two or three generations?  

                              It seems you're the one with the burden of proof here - why does this violence connect with what's going on elsewhere in the world, especially when the motivators seem so specific to their situation?

                              I'm not disavowing the fact that they're not connected - you may be totally right here - but if you're going to make that claim, please give us some background.

                              Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

                              by pico on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 04:11:08 PM PDT

                              [ Parent ]

                              •  Algeria (none / 0)

                                Algeria has a 25% employment rate and 25% poverty rate, so I don't think we can hold it up as a successful Islamic state. It seems to fit right in with my hypothesis that the failure of middle eastern states is a root cause of violence by Muslims. I don't know the facts about why there was so much emigration from Algeria, but I'm guessing that it is a combination of economic displacement and flight from ongoing civil war. I don't really think the fact that the emigration took place decades ago undermines my hypothesis.

                                "why does this violence connect with what's going on elsewhere in the world, especially when the motivators seem so specific to their situation?"

                                Of course, the protestors in France have grievances specific to their situation. I was speculating about what got them into that situation in the first place. I don't doubt that French policies are a proximate cause of the violence even if the ultimate roots of the problem can be traced back to the failure of middle eastern regimes.

                                As an aside, let me just note a personal pet peeve - "burden of proof" arguments. Often when a Kossack disagrees with me, they announce that I have "the burden of proof." This legalistic term gives an air of legitimacy to an underlying but unstated idea that "you must present evidence for your views, but I do not." In a court, someone has to have the "burden of proof" in order for the jury to know how to go if they think there is a tie. In a free-wheeling discussion, there is no need for the majority view or the minority view to have "the burden of proof." We are all responsible for backing up our assertions with facts or representing them accurately as hypotheses/speculation. Thus, while I agree that I need to present facts, I do not agree I have a greater responsibility to do so than you do.

                                •  I'm sorry, (none / 0)

                                  but you do have the burden of proof, because you're the one making an interpretation - and I'm sorry if other kossaks throw that term at you baselessly, but I don't use it in order to sound more "legitimate."  It's simply the correct criticism in this situation.  

                                  Consider:

                                  Every day, a lot of events occur around the world.  If we select some of those events and try to link them together - causes, meanings, predictions - we have the burden of proof to explain how we reached those conclusions.  The derivation of meaning here is yours, not mine.  You took the subset of "violence by Muslims" and claimed that they were linked: I'm questioning your ability to make that link - so you do, indeed, have a burden of proof here.  I haven't made any interpretations: I have nothing to proove.

                                  And the part that still doesn't convince me is this: I don't see the natural link between "Muslim states" and violence by Muslims who don't live in Muslim states.  Let's compare the 2002 riots in Argentina: they had a failing economy and state, so Argentina fits all your criteria except "Muslim."   What makes them different?  

                                  This is especially problematic when you make statements like, "...why Muslims are so disaffected that they are time and time again implicated in violence."  My response was: so are Christians, so I don't understand why you treat Muslims as a subset.  

                                  Furthermore, I don't think you've made a particularly compelling link between French-born Muslims and the failure of Islamic states in the Middle East.  

                                  Convince me.

                                  Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

                                  by pico on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 05:36:32 PM PDT

                                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Glad you are hopeful :-) (none / 0)

                    Not being flip at all.

                    Another problem we are facing globally is that of migration. There are areas of the world that are in serious trouble economically, which is driving these migrations.

                    I don't know that there is a solution to all of the problems that are confounded into this mix. But at least the world has to start talking about it, and not get distracted into misadventures like Iraq.

                    I am all for not getting lost in generalizations and 30 second soundbite solutions. Ideally we should be able to separate local disaffection from global issues, and be able to resolve them locally. The danger is when the two get confounded. I don't think we as a world even understand yet what we are facing.

                    •  well thank you for the dialogue.. (4.00 / 2)

                      my whole point to this conversation was to distinguish the people that are in France right now, from 'radical Islamic terrorists' that are causing havoc in other places in the world.  Just because the two groups of people (the French) and the Islamic terrorists like Al Quaida happen to be Muslim, does not mean they are the SAME.....

                      What I was trying to say is, just because these youths happen to be Muslim, does not mean that they in any way, shape or form look like, or act like, or think like Muslim terrorists....

                      These are a group of immigrants from Northern Africa, NOT the same people as the "Muslim insurgents" that are behind Al Quaida....

                      sigh...  this is a very different situation, and I just wish people would see PAST the religion.  These people are no more similar to the Al Quaida crazies than someone from a Southern Baptist Church would be to them..... two completely different situations...

                      "Be the change that you want to see in the world."- Gandhi

                      by hopefulcanadian on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 09:09:44 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Yeah hopeful is right (none / 1)

                    France encouraged these people to emigrate and then ghetto-ized them as soon as they got off the boat.

                    Malcolm X said, whe asked about JFK's murder, "Kennedy never foresaw that the chickens would come home to roost so soon." I don't agree with punks terrorizing the streets but where is the government mediation? During the Rodney King "no justice no peace" riots there was a National Guard and a political presence that I think stopped the riots after three days and 40 dead. BushI went to LA the second day and gave a speech in the streets, Mayor Bradley was black.  

                    I thank Jerome for the diary, nothing like this point of view on this very important story, I regret that I hadn't heard much about the riots until the fourth or fifth night. I also like the "fin de regne" perspective. Is there no hope for a national leader to step forward and attempt to mediate the dispute, Jerome? Call Jimmy and Rosalyn they'll be the next plane from Atlanta, he's promoting a book anyway. As Americans from Georgia they're experts in racism, not necessarily at getting it right, but at dialogue and root causes and attempts to build a common ground that everyone can stand on together.

                    Something that Jerome refers to in his post is "the integration model". This is a term for assimilation. Does anyone know that assimilation is a necessary condition of French citizenship? That means denounce your culture or stay in the ghetto. That doesn't sound good to me, especially if I didn't get that particular memo until I got off the boat. Do you have anything to add on this point Jerome? It's a very different perspective on immigration from what we have in America. Can you elaborate? Did I get it all wrong?

                    Gandhi was once asked what he thought of Western civilization. He responded: "I think it would be a good idea."

                •  Hopeful Canadian is right (4.00 / 3)

                  I think it is myopic to make such a simple connection between this and militant Islam.  If we take the dialogue global we get more myopic and that doesn't help anyone.  There is a long history of racism and colonialism in play here.  If I were to make a comparison I would say it is more like gang violence and has absolutely nothing to do with organized militant Islamic groups.  When I lived in Paris I listened to a lot of (fantastic) French hip hop that talked about life in the cités.. violence in the community, drug dealing, racism, and so on.  It's like what you hear in American hip hop about life in the projects.

                  These kids were born in France and grow up dealing with racism and lack of opportunity, plain and simple.  They have exactly zero ties to the Middle East.  If their parents' country of origin is a Muslim country in North Africa that probably doesn't mean a whole lot to them either, they are alienated from that too, because all they know is life in France.

      •  I saw a school that was torched today (none / 0)

        on TV; hopefully, this was just an isolated incident. Is this happening in a limited section of France? Or is it happening in several cities?
        •  Its not (none / 0)

          there are reports of malls being burned, post offices, youth centers and lots of other businesses according to this Wapo article.

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

          •  cost of advertising (none / 0)

            I wonder if these incidents are the work or the original protestors or the work of copycats?

            No doubt these protests do considerable economic damage. But do they do more damage than the policies being protested? The brunt of the economic damage is probably borne by insurance companies. Individuals are certainly inconvenienced, but another post suggests that some care has been exercised in the selection of cars. What role do these organizations play in the policies? Of course, the insurance companies will probably pass the cost on to consumers though at that point it will be spread pretty thin through society. And the cost will be borne by those who can afford cars. And there will be jobs building and selling replacement cars and buildings. The resource destruction is unfortunate. Burning 1000 cars at $20,000 (in US terms) costs $20 million dollars. That is as much as 40 ads on the TV show Friends here in the US. For the cost of one typical car, you couldn't buy a single 30 second advertisment on any prime time show in the US. Advertising can have some benefits (free tv, product info, jobs) but it has a financial cost that is ultimately borne by the working people, not really the corporations. And the cost to freedom of speech and information of advertising incluence over media is considerable. Not to mention the ultimate costs of social policies that result from advertisers influence over media. Apparently, some of the very same policies these people are protesting. Every household in the US pays an average of $2450 per year on advertising. Burning a car is "crime" but the actions of psychopathic corporations are "business". Both externalize the costs onto others.

            Here in the US, cars were burned for protest in car dealership lots. This minimizes the cashflow problems to individuals and the dealership gets full replacement cost, less deductible, from insurance. Burning fleet vehicles (corporate or government) would be another way to minimize concentrations of burden. And would get the attention of the corporations as well as the media. It would make costs that have been externalized at least make some showing on the balance sheet.

            Mass violent protests are likely here in the US soon. I would rather see the restrained violence of car burning than LA riot type situations.

            Maybe I should get a bumper sticker that says

            Don't burn this car, I voted for Kerry.

            --
            -6.25, -6.36 Worst. President. Dictator. Ever.

            by whitis on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 02:25:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  I've read stories where they've burned a woman (none / 0)

        who couldn't leave the train fast enough, and pelted rescue workers who are trying to do what they do - rescue....

        from Canandian MSN...  http://www.cbc.ca/...

        and this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/... from the UK's Telegraph...

        I don't know Jerome....is this the norm?  Is it standard for several nations to issue travel alerts (including Russia)?...

        I'm glad you feel reasonably safe, though.  

        Blogging locally, acting globally 4&20 blackbirds

        by jhwygirl on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:38:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Has a single person been killed? (none / 0)

        The violence seems loud by not deadly -- very much like the riots I used to see living on the Lower Eastside in NYC at Thompkins Square Park. Lots of fires and garbage strewn about, lots of sturm and drang, but no one got killed and frankly, only a handful of people got hurt.

        One other question, why so little actual reaction from the authorities?

        The Book of Revelation is not a foreign policy manual.

        by Dont Just Stand There on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:16:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  riots in alphabet city (none / 0)

          I agree that for the most part the violence sounds loud but not deadly, however that shouldn't mean it's somehow ok. I live a few blocks from Thompkins Sq. Park and I'm pretty damn glad it's not as dangerous as it used to be. Of course the reason for that is largely NYC law enforcement getting proactive about stopping violence, however small, in the city. The neighborhood is now relatively safe and clean and I'm not complaining.

          I'm surprised by the casual reaction to car burnings, because if that was happening here it would be a huge deal. And it should be a big deal because something like that is almost always symptomatic of a larger problem.

          I think there's sometimes a certain hesitancy among liberal Americans to admit that we're doing anything better than a European country. But it seems to me that we are handling integration more smoothly. Areas with large immigrant populations (I'm thinking Astoria in Queens here) are generally not known for being violent or repressed.

          Certainly we've had race riots in the past, and we probably will in the future. While equally bad, it seems to me that our riots are a bit of a different animal as they usually involve African Americans as opposed to immigrants. I'm absolutely not saying that makes things better. What I'm saying is that the circumstances are somewhat different so the events need to be approached in a different manner.

          •  Alphabet City (none / 0)

            I lived there in the late 80's on 9th and B. The neighborhood always looked much worse than it was though it did have one authentic serial killer at the time and the IRA owned a few neighborhood buildings. I likewise lived in an Islamic ghetto in Bruxelles during the first year of the Iraq War which, just the opposite, was much worse than it looked. (You could tell two generations ago it was a fantastic neighborhood.)

            The big difference isn't crime control per se as much as who lives in these neighborhoods. The poor are being priced out of Manhattan, as they are in DC where I live now. Crime in nearby P.G. county Maryland is up 5 fold from a decade ago because the poor simply can't afford to live in the District of Columbia.

            P.S. "I think there's sometimes a certain hesitancy among liberal Americans to admit that we're doing anything better than a European country. But it seems to me that we are handling integration more smoothly."

            This I agree with, but I has a lot to do with our social origins. The same applies to Canada and Australia. As a nation of immigrants, we absord immigrants more readily. These things go in funny circles though. In the 80's America was often evil to the Euro left because it had failed to incorporate African Americans. Now, Europe is bad because it cannot integrate it's Islamic populations.

            The Book of Revelation is not a foreign policy manual.

            by Dont Just Stand There on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 12:18:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  nation of immigrants (none / 0)

              I think, when it comes to areas like the lower east side there's a bit of a "what came first the chicken or the egg" element. Quality of living goes up, so prices go up, so the income level of residents goes up. It's a big cycle.

              I do agree that the reason we absorb immigrants more readily is our origin as an immigrant nation. I just think it's worth noting because it might provide a step forward. E.g. What does a country like Canada do right when it comes to immigration and how can other countries emulate this?

              •  Immigration & Globalization (none / 0)

                And mass movement will probably be the key issues of the 21st Century. Not that there haven't been waves of migrants before (from Goth tribes, to Atilla's huns, to the colonists who grabed the "new world" from its native peoples, but cheap transportation, over-population and a mass-media allow people to know (or more importantly, think they know) what it's like "over there." Friedman's the world is flat is BS on this account. How we prepare for it is critical.  

                The Book of Revelation is not a foreign policy manual.

                by Dont Just Stand There on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 12:44:24 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Jerome, I'm just not buying it (4.00 / 3)

        Is your aunt of North African ancestry? Is Arabic your aunt's primary language? Is she from the Mahgreb? You mentioned that your aunt lives in a building in a banlieue (suburb), but that's hardly specific. My question is, does she live in your France, or in theirs? Really, Jerome, do I even have to ask the question?

        I lived in Paris for four years. I'm quite sure it's business-as-usual in my former (mixed) neighborhood, and for the vast majority who live within the péripherique. The 'riots' are very unlikely to touch the lives of most Parisians, and for that matter, of most middle-class assimilated immigrants. The difference, as you point out, is that it's making the news these days, but no, Paris is not burning...

        In saying that you "still doubt that [France's] integration model is failing," you must at least acknowledge that it has failed for many, and that the pace of that failure of "integration" is accelerating for a lot of people born in France of North African descent. Maybe the title of your diary, contrasted with the rather airily detached commentary within, is what put me off. You make a lot of good economic points, but I wish you would write a more nuanced take on France's "integration model" and why you think it's working. (I don't think it is.)

      •  Stupidest comment EVER on dKos (none / 0)

        Jerome, I respect a lot of the analyis you've provided on dKos, but I call bullshit here.

        "100 cars per day burn throughout the year, it's become a kind of (mostly harmless) game." This is one of the very worst and stupidest comments I've ever read on Daily Kos, with the possible exception of some trolls.

        Maybe you have a point in saying the media is over-reacting in calling the riots a French "intifada".  The very best thing that can be said about burning cars, though, is that one buch of assholes (disenfranchised youth) is feuding with another bunch of assholes (reactionary politicians) and, as usual, the people who pay the price are innocent bystanders.  Defending burning someone's car as an "innocent game" is just pure bullshit.  It's very real, and very personal - especially if you're correct in stating that the arsonists know whose car they're torching.  Schools, day-care centers, buses and shops have been burned.  Is that just good fun, too?

        Frankly, it sounds to me like you're mostly interested in scoring points against Chirac and his cronies, and you're doing so by defending arsonists.  By minimizing their crimes, you try to emphasize the government's overreaction.  Pretty shameful.

        (I don't doubt this comment will be troll-rated into oblivion, but feel free to check my long history on the site)

        •  A bit harsh? (none / 0)

          I explained what I meant a bit better, I hope, in my update to the diary.

          The thing is, burning 200 or 400 cars when all the TVs of the world are watching is not a lot more significant than burning 100 when they are not. It's not a good thing in either case.

          •  Maybe (none / 0)

            but just a bit.  My point was that calling arson a "harmless game" is pretty, well, inappropriate.  

            I allowed that calling the riots a French "intifada" may be going too far.  How about I remove the "may be" from that statement and we can agree that the media and French government is over-reacting?

            That said, you're still defending arson commited as a personal attack on members of the arsonits' own community.  And that's indefensible.