Anyone else following this story . I have a feeling that these Muslims are not quite as peace loving as some believe.

And what is the government waiting for, when are they going to at least try and stop the riots.

Honestly, I'm not sure why I'm responding to this, but: While the situation in France is terrible I think there's some dreadful oversimplification going on.

- The rioters seem to be motivated by poverty, a sense of desperation, and a sense that they're being persecuted against. The demographic that's burning cars and buildings has a 50% unemployment rate! Note I'm not excusing the violence; I'm merely saying that they're rioting for the same reason people have always rioted.

- While most of the rioters happen to be Muslim, there is no evidence that they are motivated by Islam. Meanwhile, "these Muslims" in France have issued fatwas against the violence. Community leaders have been urging their youth to calm, but it's hard to put the genie back in the bottle. What do they have to do to prove to your satisfaction that this is not some kind of Islamic uprising? Let's note that the group that issued the fatwa, the UOIF, is considered by many to be somewhat radical. And even they think the riots are a bad idea!

- I'm not sure what your point is about the NYPD, since it's hard to deal with large-scale riots and NY has not really distinguished itself in this area. The US had large, long-lasting riots in 110 cities (including NY) in 1968. There were more riots in 1965 and 1964 (the 1964 riot lasted 5 days in NY). Heck, one of the most famous riots in the US was the New York Draft Riot 140 years ago, in which hundreds of people died and the police did nothing to prevent the torching of an orphanage for black children. (There may, to be fair, have been nothing they could do.)

Any police force would be hard-pressed to deal with violence on this scale. The Watts riots only ended when the National Guard cordoned off a huge area of Los Angeles.

My point is: the situation in France is dreadful and I hope the rioting ends soon. But I don't think matters are improved much by (1) demonizing the group of people with one of the better chances to stop it and rebuild the communities, or (2) patting oneself on the back because of a mistaken belief that one police force is so much cooler than another.

You are probably correct about some of the reasons for the rioting. Poverty probably is a factor. I also believe that there are other reasons that could be related to terrorism and terrorists.

You are totally incorrect regarding the NYPD and the handling of civil disturbance. This wouldn't have lasted 13 hours in New York let alone 13 days.

The incidents you cite are ancient history. 1968 and 140 years ago. The NYPD is currently far better at handling civil disturbances and has been for years.

I will cite the recent Republican convention in which anarchists descended on the city and tried to disrupt the convention with violence and civil disobedience. They failed miserably. They were controlled and herded into only the areas designated by the Police.

I realize that the riots I cited are ancient history, but we've been pretty lucky in this country and it's been a long time since we've had riots on this scale. More recent examples would be the LA riots after the Rodney King trial, and the riots in Cincinnati in 2001, but I was looking for recent examples specifically involving NY.

With respect, I'm not really sure you can compare the 2004 Republican Convention to the sad events in France. There, the anarchists were a minority of the protestors; most people there were nonviolent. The anarchists were for the most part not native to NYC; they were the same people who go from city to city looking for trouble at WTO conventions etc. This meant that they didn't know the streets and couldn't melt back into the neighborhoods. Finally, the areas where they were looking to cause trouble were mainly the business and convention districts where the delegates were. The locals in these areas (the people owning and working the businesses) were very unsympathetic, since their property was at risk of being destroyed and they had no ties to the protestors that would mitigate that. It also meant that the most at-risk areas were confined to a relatively limited area of a huge city, and this was known in advance.

What the French are dealing with is a massive number of people destroying the neighborhoods that they themselves live in (which is needless to say stupid and sad). You can't pick out people as not belonging there. You can't put roadblocks between the convention center and the hotels to keep people from inflicting damage. They already are where they want to be, and they already have an extensive network of friends and family there who may be just as wary of the police as they are terrified by the riots. This puts the forces of law and order at a horrible disadvantage! I think the Cincinnati cops, before the 2001 riots, would have thought they were well-prepared for such disturbances; everyone was amazed at how helpless they were for three days, especially when the riots began due to a basic distrust of police.

I don't mean to minimize the achievements of the NYPD in September of last year. I just don't think that the problem surmounted was really comparable to what's going on in France.

I'm trying to think of something to add to this discussion, but CellarDoor just keeps coming out with more relevant comments expressed more succinctly than I could ever hope to!

So I'll just say that I think it is very unfair to even suggest that the riots are being caused by people with a religious agenda. From what I've seen the conditions these people live in are appalling, and if anything the current unrest results from them being discriminated against for their religious and/or ethnic backgrounds in the first place. Again, I don't support or condone their actions in any way, but I think it's very important to understand what their motivations are.

It may not be totally accurate to compare the convention to these riots. I will give you that. That being said, I will still say that given a similar set of circumstances in New York, I can guarantee that it would be stopped in a matter of hours and not days or even weeks.

New York isn't full of French people!

Something I find very appealing about New York.

Though there's never any justification for riots (as opposed to either protests or outright revolution), a revolution needs a good reason such as particularly oppressive regime, persecution, or protests such as our own Poll tax riots (typically one of the only successes the country had from protests was against one of the best rules in my opinion...), and the fuel protests of 2000 which did have a small effect on the prices.

In Paris it is true that the parents of the rioters chose to move to France for a better life, and I always say that if people come to the worst part of France or Britain by choice, it must be a heck of a lot worse where they come from. An insider from Paris was quoted on the radio saying the real reason for the riots was simply turf wars, which made far more sense to me as people who choose to survive from organised criminal gangs are more likely to riot than anyone else once they start fighting amongst themselves (as if the Jewish relatives I had used poverty as an excuse to do it).
Maybe a trip to their parents' countries of origin for a few days to see the alternatives their parents were only too happy to leave behind, and thousands of others queue up to leave every day to get into Europe from North and East Africa would show them if they wanted to France must offer them more opportunities than there. In England riots are the exception and apart from a gang underclass in some West Indian communities (largest next to me so I do know) the Muslim communities in equivalent areas have no such attitudes and work extremely hard. I know far less about the motivation of the French Muslims at the moment but as I said, setting things on fire is only a level below terrorism, and I am sure there's no totalitarian regime or racial oppression causing any true desperation to try to understand it from their side. Just a bunch of people following the few lunatics who started it like sheep (except sheep aren't violent...).

>>>> I think it is very unfair to even suggest that the riots are being caused by people with a religious agenda

"Muslilm" wasn't even used in the early reports here ... I know little about French immigration stats and care even less but wasn't until a few days into it that I heard a FOX news reporting the cause as a religious issue.

It seems to have gone off the news for the most part - has it all settled down or has it just become too mundane to reoprt now?

Scrap that, just saw about it on the news. Only 500 cars set alight last night ....

Here in Britain, the riots in France have been reported as a social, economic and ethnic problem. In particular, quite a lot has been said about the very high unemployment rates among the young in many of the worst affected areas near Paris. It's said to be about 30%, which is way above the national average. Some commentators have added that in many areas the young feel 'excluded' from French society.

The only relevant reference to religion I've heard is a brief report that older people in some of the areas affected have expressed fears that the riots may wrongly be seen as an expression of Islamic militancy and have pleaded with the younger people to think about the implications of that.

Obviously, I'm just repeating what has been reported here in England and my emphasis reflects that of the original report.

I'd just like to add that contrary to what at least one person has suggested, the French police and above all, the French riot police, certainly don't have a reputation for being soft - quite the contrary!

Edited to add:

In reply to the question about 'immigration stats', it's generally reckoned that France's Muslim population numbers at least 5 million out of a total population of about 60 million (in other words, about 8.3% of the total population). The majority were born in France and aren't in fact immigrants.

I wasn't necessarily blaming the Police. Sometimes others restrict the Police in times like these. It takes backing in order to get the job done. I still think it is ridiculous how long this is going on. Whether or not this is or isn't a religous issue is meaningless to me.

It occurs to me, not that this is actually what's happening, but is a possible factor, that perhaps some European Frenchmen are inclined to allow those of another ethnic group to work out their own problems... I know that at times in the US, now for instance, some things are seen by some bigots as being either A) the ethnic group's own problem or B) a way for the problem of ethnic groups to take care of itself or both. In other words, as some people have suggested that inner city violence would best be handled by just keeping them all in the inner cities and letting them kill themselves (I won't justify that sentiment with my own opinions on the matter) the same sort of attitude may be having an effect on how quickly this matter is righting itself.

Well if that is the case at least they are protecting the taxpayers.

Quote:

---

In reply to the question about 'immigration stats', it's generally reckoned that France's Muslim population numbers at least 5 million out of a total population of about 60 million (in other words, about 8.3% of the total population). The majority were born in France and aren't in fact immigrants.

---

So is it primarily second generation immigrants that are rioting?

Yes, it's overwhemingly the second and even third generation that are rioting. Is there anything particularly odd in that? Surely, the first generation was (to some extent still is) largely preoccupied with trying to find its feet in France and with keeping out of trouble. I'd have thought that was a fairly standard pattern ...

I think the fact that these second and third generation immigrants are regarded by everyone (including themselves, it appears) as "not French" has something to do with the problem. This kind of marginalization is bound to lead to trouble, if for no other reason than that it is hard to care what happens to a society that you do not feel yourself to be a part of.

There's a further problem. Traditionally, the French have urged new arrivals to integrate and become 100% French, at the latest in the second generation. So, in school these kids have been strongly urged to be completely French. However, when they leave school, when they start looking for jobs, many just can't find employment. (In a recent TV report it was said that with an unemployment rate of 30% there are some kids who, even 3-4 years after leaving school, have never had a full-time, permanent job - just odd scraps of employment). Obviously, part of the problem is, no doubt, that many have left school with poor qualifications.

To many it must seem that they have honoured their side of the bargain and 'become French' (in the cultural sense) and that mainstream France still discriminates against them - or to put it bluntly - just kicks them in the teeth for their efforts.

Ing, an interesting comparison. It has to be very difficult to be in that situation, even if you aren't blatantly different, or in other words, easily pre-judged. My Oma was a German war bride. My mother's father married her and she moved to the US in 1946. The discrimination against Germans at that time was heavy. (Despite the fact that huge portions of the european-descended US popultion incorporates German into their heritage somewhere, many in large amounts from both sides of the family.) But my Oma was not an American, she was a German. My mother and her siblings were sheltered somewhat from the cultural backlash by the fact that my grandpa was American. Unfortunately, my mother was only five when he died. My Oma was forced to take what work she could, which amounted to janitor for my grandpa's church (this was also the only way the church agreed to let her children continue to attend) from which she was quickly dismissed because she was falsely accused of stealing. They waited for her to give them an excuse to fire her and when she didn't, they made one up, and not only did they fire her, but they kicked her children out of the church, of which their father had been a member of good standing his entire life. When she moved to America, she thought she was coming to a better life. Imagine her disillusion. I can't imagine how it must be for people who are even more easily pre-judged. People who look different, who believe differently. My Oma was at least not obviously an immigrant until you heard her speak. Her children ARE Americans, with an American father. I certainly don't consider myself a third-generation immigrant. I'm an American. What kind of pressures and attitudes must be present for even third-generation immigrants to feel so unwelcome in their own country?

The current instabiliy in France is primarily cultural built on a foundation of strong anti-Islamic sentiment.

France has long had examples of excluding groups for various reasons. I could go back to the 1700s when French Protestants were persecuted and banned; I'll spare you the details. Suffice it to say that France was, and is, a Roman Catholic country; this can foster an 'us versus them' mentality. More recently there has been unrest in Martinique and Guadeloupe in the Caribbean. These two islands are considered 'departements' of France just like the Ile de France where Paris is located, but that's just on paper. Rioting has occurred in Tahiti as well; its citizens claim that their 'Frenchness' is recognized and appreciated only when France wants to test another nuclear device in the area.

The end of colonization exascerbated France's immigration problems. Giving up Algeria started the influx of 'French foreigners'; black Africa soon followed with a heavy importation from, for example, the Ivory Coast.

As with the early United States, a ghetto system developed with like cultures/nationalities seeking like living and worshiping geographical areas. As this melting pot simmered, France took no concrete action to help assimilate these 'Frenchmen' and 'Frenchwomen' into the mainstream. No programs were developed to assist with the skyrocketing unemployment in the ghettos. Some of the actions France did take were considered discriminatory and oppressive, like banning head scarves for Islamic women and girls.

Jacques Chirac has been indifferent to the growing signs of discontent and disaster, preferring to realize, like Louis XIV, "apres moi, le deluge."
("After me, disaster").

Vendome thankyou for the background info. It is so easy to get caught up in the proximate causes for situations like this, and I feel it's important to be reminded sometimes of the long historical lead-up to "current events".

Lothruin if someone asks me I will say, without hesitation, that I am Australian. Heck, I was born here and have never left (not even for a holiday! I know, I seem so cosmopolitan, but it's true!) If the conversation goes deeper, it usually doesn't take long for me to clarify that I am, as I said, a first-generation Australian. But in terms of "pedigree", I am hardly Australian at all. As far back as we've been able to trace my father's family it was Latvian, so I consider myself 'half Latvian'. My mother's side is more complicated, but to cut a long story short the furthest back I've managed to trace an Australian-born ancestor with Australian-born parents is a single great-grandfather, and I'm not even 100% sure his father was born here. And I know that in Australia, at least, my story is not unusual.

I guess my point in relation to all the racial/ethnic/religious tensions the world experiences is that very few people are 'pure' anything. And even if they are, so what? You could argue that people who stay in one place for generation after generation, only marrying within that small or large community are loyal and perhaps have some 'right' to the land, but you could just as easily argue that they lack spirit and are missing out on all sorts of experience by staying put and not embracing strangers. Why value one set of choices over another?

I was just thinking about this today, Ing, when faced with the prejudice of some of my corworkers' families. The idea of "foreigners". It made me wonder what right people have to call some people, even ones who were born here and educated here, and may be several generations in this country, "foreigners" when they themselves are probably not far removed from their immigrant ancestors. Usually "foreigner" is reserved for anyone who isn't of European heritage. I, for instance, am as close to my ancestral immigration as many of the "immigrant" families here that happen to be of obviously different ethnic heritage. Yet I am not considered a foreigner. It's just all very odd.

I think perhaps those of us from countries with a strong immigrant tradition - Canada, US, Australia - might look at this differently than those from countries where national identity is strongly tied in to ethnic identity.
Part of being a Canadian, at least an English-speaking Canadian, is having a mixed ethnic background. I am extremely unusual in being a third generation (second? My grandparents came here, anyway) Canadian with a single cultural and ethnic background. Most people whose parents were born here are already becoming part of the mosaic (or melting pot, or whatever image your country uses). My childrens' generation fits the Canadian model better - they and their cousins have a heritage covering the globe, and represent all races.
The situation is different in Europe, and it is not surprising that issues of ethnicity, which have been more or less worked out in the immigrant countries, are far from resolved.