If you've been paying attention, then you know that riots have been going on in Paris and other parts of France for the past 11 days. The violence began after a few youths were electrocuted while hiding from police in a power plant.

The bigger cause has to do with immigrants who have not assimilated into French culture and instead live a life in ghettos with high unemployment (40% compared to France's average 10%) and little hope of escaping to a better life.

Most of the rioters appear to be Arab immigrants, with a supporting contingent of North African immigrants as well.

One of the big questions about this is what France could have done to prevent this. The immigrants chose not to assimilate into the culture. As such, they weren't able to find employment and live the life that the average French citizen lives. Is that France's fault, or the immigrants? I wonder what the rioters want France to do. Perhaps it is affirimative action or a better welfare system. Perhaps it is a redistribution of wealth. Perhaps it is simply cultural sensitivity.

Unfortunately, people from different backgrounds can rarely live in proximity with no problems. If they can find enough common ground, then things can work out well, but if not, then one group inevitably starts feeling oppressed or alienated and unrest occurs. Look at the world. Nearly everywhere that there are diverse ethnic groups in proximity, there are problems, normally resulting in bloodshed and sometimes years (or even generations) of unrest. Diverse peoples can only live together if they want to. We see many instances in the world of diverse people who don't want to take the necessary steps to live together, and in nearly all of those cases, riots violence and bloodshed are the rule.

Can France, or any national government fix the problem? Will diversity training be enough? I doubt it. Better to:
1) Deport those who won't assimilate (difficult and nobody has the political will)
2) Limit immigration to those who have already taken steps to assimilate (e.g. speak, read and write the language, understand the culture, etc. -- This stops the situation from getting worse, but doesn't solve anything)
3) Admit that forced diversity is a failure and that people need to be responsible for fitting into society.

Honestly, how many of you want to live next door to someone who shares none of your values, none of your civic pride, none of your feelings towards your nation? Next to people with different ideas of right and wrong, different ethics, etc.? Better, how many would want to change all that you believe if you had to move to a different nation because people in that nation didn't believe as you did?

For the immigrant moving into France from the Middle East, they have to learn to deal with a lifestyle where women are not covered up. Where sensationalism is rampant in all media. Where sexuality is not forbidden. Where people don't follow the same faith, practices or rituals. Imagine moving into France and not being allowed to pray as your faith requires because your French boss doesn't want you to stop working to do so.

Imagine the other side. Imagine the school where the children have a new classmate that doesn't dress or act like the others. Imagine the French citizen whose next door neighbor is vociferously offended by the French speech or dress. Imagine the boss who loses productivity during prayer time, and has a grumbling staff because they don't get such permission, but is told that he cannot do anything about it in the name of cultural sensitivity.

There isn't any reconciliation between these viewpoints. Who must bend, France or the immigrant? I submit it is the immigrant only because one cannot expect a culture to change for one (or a few) person. Of course "diversity" tells us that France must change. Diversity tells us that France brought this on itself by keeping the immigrants down and not helping them assimilate (that they don't want do assimilate doesn't matter). Diversity tells us that we must abandon old traditions, ethics, mores, etc. to support our new neighbors. Doesn't sound likely.

And thus, with two sides never meeting in the middle, and with diversity failing, Paris burns.

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

Jacques Chirac supported the EU constitution. He was apparently one of the few. The constitution, in his words, defended "the world's diversity of cultures against the looming threat of uniformity."

It is that same diversity of cultures that France is dealing with today. By adopting a pro-diversity stance, it has not asked its immigrant citizens to assimilate with French society. France bascially told them to be Algerians, Moroccans, etc. even though they have become French citizens. The immigrants accepted this. They remained Algerians, Moroccans, etc. They kept their diverse ideas and practices. This, unfortunately and predictably, limited their ability to exist in French society. French employers didn't understand the new workers. They didn't like that they spoke a different language and didn't accept the viewpoints so "diverse" from their own. In the end, French employers preferred French workers. This, of course led to a gross disparity in the employment rate for the immigrants who had not assimilated into French society. Note, this isn't oppression as some would have you believe, this is simply the human preference for what is understood to that which is not.
Contrast this situation to early immigrants to the United States. The immigrants in the U.S. largely accepted that they were no longer living in their birth countries. They came to the U.S. to become Americans. They willingly assimilated into U.S. culture. They knew that it would take time to adapt, but they worked hard and tried to "fit in". They adapted American uniformity in the workplace and largely succeeded. Those who didn't adapt were relegated to cultural ghettos where people didn't speak English, but instead spoke the language of their home nations. These were the exceptions, however and nobody expected the United States to change for these people, everyone knew that they would have to change somewhat to assimilate into U.S. culture. There are countless stories of immigrants coming to the U.S. and telling their family something to the effect of "We're in America now, we'll speak and act like Americans." This isn't too different from the phrase "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."
I'm not saying that the uniformity approach doesn't have problems. Clearly, the U.S. inflexibility towards diversity has led to problems such as the oppression of black people in the south, the Watts Riots in 1965, etc. That said, the U.S., as a nation of immigrants, has with its uniformity fared much better in the grand scheme than countries that preach diversity. Generally speaking, the U.S. citizens know what is expected for success and can choose a successful path or not. The French diversity plan tells its people to be diverse and they can still succeed (clearly, this isn't the case).

In the past few days, France has had to institute a state of emergency (similar to martial law) to protect itself and its citizens from the results of this diversity. This state of emergency isn't solving the problem. Sure, the riots are reduced and fewer cars are being burned (possibly because they're running out of cars in the riot area), but nothing has been fixed. When the state of emergency (now extended for the next 3 months) is lifted, the immigrants will still be unemployed and the root causes of these riots won't have been addressed at all. Instead this state of emergency is simply a surrender of the values that Chirac supported when he backed the EU constitution. Chirac supported diversity and wanted it to work. He's now beginning to realize that diversity isn't a panacea. Uniformity, as rough as it is on immigrant cultures, clearly defines what a person must do to succeed. Diversity "lies" to people by telling them that they don't have to change to succeed, in effect it tells them that society will change to accept them, which, as any high school student in a clique can tell you, doesn't happen.

I'm afraid that this state of emergency isn't the end of France's struggles with diversity. It likely also isn't the last time they'll have to surrender their ideals and come to grips with the reality of the world.

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

It has been extended by 3 month. The government is positive : under not far from military rule, only 215 vehicles were burnt last night (35 000 since the beginning of the year). ! That's France today.
Last weekend, police and military police (gendarmerie) were stopping groups of dark-skinned people from getting from the burbs to Paris just like in South Africa in good old days while Chirac was promising big social aid. French administration is already taxing 55% of its GDP. In fact it has been estimated that french police and army are not able to handle more massive riots if ever they happen. They would need US led NATO help in that case.

The interesting fact is that it is much more dangerous today, being white, to walk into big cities suburbs in France than in Baghdad !!!!
Big lesson to prime Villepin who wrote verses against the anglo-saxon anti-social imperialism in the glory of Napoleon, and Jack Chirac laughing at US death toll for freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq.

No need to boycott france. no one wants to visit and everybody knows it's ridiculous to make a long term investment in anything french !!!

__________________
From SR

There is a major threat coming from those millions of french muslims. They say they are waiting to get the power and use french nukes against the western coalition. This is oe of their hidden mood. France has insanely left its army and police unequipped and untrained with one of the lowest budget for conventional army among any developped country. That said they over sized their nuclear strike force. That happened after the Soviet Union collapsed. What is that strategy about if not aimed at the US, UK and allies. This is going to be very helpful for the muslims. No need for Iran to get into nuke business.

__________________
From SR

First, this last post is total BS, IMHO.

Second, my opinion is this, and I quote: "What happened in France, is the product of long years of oppression, and racial discrimination that thousands of those people have lived through. People which the society puts in the level of 'second degree citizens'"

I don't want to start this thread again. Just saying.
I'll let you do the thinking.

__________________

Ok, I'll bite. What kind of oppression have they been under? What type of racial discrimination? Were they prevented from getting jobs because of their race, or because of their inability to function in French society? One is wrong, but the other is perfectly reasonable.

Were they prevented from owning property by French laws? Were they being forced into doing things that didn't match their ethnic sensitivities? Let's see a hard example of this "oppression".

To be fair, I'm certain that there was indeed some discrimination against the minorities in France. After all, Chirac's vision of a diverse but equal France doesn't mesh with reality. Too many people simply cannot accept that which is different. Government cannot force people to accept diversity, it takes a social will to do so (which comes from the people, not the government).

This is no different from what occurs in the United States today. Minorities are discriminated against for various reasons. Sometimes it is because employers are simply unwilling to accept the differences brought to the table, other times it is because of racism, yet other times it is because the minorities have portrayed themselves in a poor image. That said, it is interesting to note that in the U.S. minorities can avoid discrimination simply by portraying themselves as mainstream. A minority applicant for a job, who dresses in a conservative style and presents themselves as a mainstream American, has a much better success rate than one who chooses dress and actions that advertise their ethnicity over professionalism. The employer who chooses the mainstream candidate is making a good business decision, not racially discriminating against or oppressing the other candidate.

Sure, it is easy for the minorities to cry oppression, but have they made the attempts to integrate with society? Well, in France, at least, Chirac promised that they wouldn't have to (so they haven't). Unfortunately, that clearly didn't work out so well. If they want to live in a given society, they need to adapt to that society to gain all the benefits that the society has to offer. If they don't want to adapt, then they will be marginalized and will have only themselves to blame. This is the real result of forced diversity.

To be clear, I'm not saying that they need to change their lives 100%, but in dealings with the rest of society, they need to appear to be making the attempt.

Come on, Skan. You've done this in your last two posts. You make a statement and then back away. If you want to take a stand, feel free. That is what such a board is for. Don't post and then say you don't want to discuss. Step up and let's discuss.

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

Ok, lookie here:
I am just too busy. And too lazy. That doesn't mix well.
I am sympathetic to their situation, but I am not going to bother to defend it. Not now anyway.
Btw, you make a point. But you're missing a point of view.
What you need to do is do some research and find answers to your questions from different sides. You usually don't get the same story. That should help you understand.

Sorry that I'm not gonna engage in this discussion. I'm starting university this January 4th. And since I don't live in the U.S. I've got some preparing to do. So I really don't have the time.

__________________

If I'm missing a point of view, then elighten me. Oh, by the way, I am a member of a minority ethnic group in the United States. I'm also quite successful in my career and in my life and haven't experienced the "oppression" or discrimination that others in my ethnic group have experienced because I've made choices in my life to avoid those experiences. I've done this without abandoning my heritage or ethnic background.

As to research, I do this on all of my posts. I have posted from my answers on both sides. I admit that it is wrong for the French people to expect immigrants to be instantly French. I've said that racial discrimination is wrong. I've also said that it is unrealistic to expect the French to willingly accept the immigrants as they are. It would be nice, but it is unrealistic, and I live in a realistic, not idealistic, world. The immigrants need to recognize that France belongs to the French. That the French aren't going to change for them. That French society is unashamedly what it is. Immigrants and minorities cannot expect the majority to change for them (this is one of the failings of diversity). I've read the accounts of oppression, but what I see boils down to minorities wanting advantageous treatment. Not fair treatment, but advantageous. I'll give you an example: If I am interviewing someone and they come into the office dressed in traditional clothing from any given ethnic group, and if they come in acting differently from the "societal norm", I have to consider that they aren't really conscious of the need to integrate with their co-workers and the mainstream environment. I hire for a place of business, and I demand that my employees are businesslike. While their mode of dress may be businesslike in other societies, if it isn't businesslike in the society that I live in, then I cannot hire that person. If that person does the same in 10 interviews with 10 different companies and is rejected from all of them, the person cries racial discrimination, but what they mean is that they want the advantage of dressing and acting in a special manner. They don't want equal treatment (which would require that they dress according to society's rules), they want special treatment.

In the United States, not long ago, there was a lawsuit because a certain jusrisdiction would not issue a drivers license to a woman who wouldn't remove her veil for an identification photograph. The law required that the ID photograph would show facial features and even hair, but her ethnic form of dress forbade that. Given that the purpose of the photograph was for identification, it would be unreasonable for her to not comply with that requirement (a photo of a veiled woman would simply not identify her appropriately). She didn't want equal treatment, she wanted special treatment. She wanted to be veiled and for the identification photograph to effectively be anonymous. This isn't racial discrimination, it is simply acknowledging that the society that she lives in has its own rules which are different from the rules of her nation of origin.

Umm, what does not living in the U.S. have to do with preparing for university? Just curious. Oh, and congrats on starting in the university. If I may be so bold as to ask, which university? What are you going to be studying?

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

You have to prepare to go to uni 3 months before it starts?

That doesn't qualify as 'busy' to me, people throw the word around to losely.

Shane, and zteccc (what does that mean anyway?), I am preparing for university in a WHOLE OTHER COUNTRY than my own. And I'm leaving to the USA in less than a month. So, I'm buying what I'll need, studying for a placement test, trying to spend as much time with my friends and relatives, etc etc etc.

You offer a fair and decent point Jeff. But there's also discrimination in...jobs for example, that was based on ethnicity. Not choice of clothes. ANYWAY, like I said I just wanted to offer a point of view. Not discuss it.

Thanks! And yes you may ask. It's Michigan State University. I'll be studying computer engineering, all the way to a doctorate hopefully. And I've got some friends in Chicago nearby, so I'll be stopping there as well.

__________________