unlike france, the US is used to diversity via immigration and indigenous diversity. though far from being perfect, we wont have these issues. we already got thru them. it was called the 60s. remember?
True, we did go through it in the 1960s, but believe me when I tell you we're still going through it, although we have agreed collectively as a society to try and be civil about it. That and government programs (better known as Affirmative Action) that are in place to 'level' the playing field a bet for some minority groups. The French don't have a similar system to ours, they instead prefer to polish over their problems and give us a lecture about poverty.
absolutely. we have severe inequality which showed in new orleans. but i dont think its at the dire point where it obviously was in france. but this scare tactic of saying it could happen here is foolish. and even more foolish is to change immigration policies rather than focus on the economic inequality and correct that.
Not that I agree with Svpernaut, but if the rest of the country is Muslim, I guess one could easily label all those black rioters in LA as radical Christians. Just a thought.
why should the religion play a role when it has nothing to do with religion? 'north african' serves the purpose of identity. why is religious relevant? 'radical christian/muslim/jew' implies that their christianity/islam/judaism is somehow used in justifying/creating riots. whereas its not. their islam is irrelevant. they could be anamists from southern africa instead of muslims from northern africa and the problems would remain.
why not? if you take away the resons behind their anger, both groups were rowdy, and doing illegal and unlawful activities. Why not shoot em dead? There are better ways to get society under control. Retaliation with the army is the worse option, because the more force the military applies, the more hatred towards the country builds up and the more resistence the civillians put up... its a damn crazy cycle
I don't understand why someone would move to a country that they have no desire or intention of assimilating into. If you don't like the French society and culture and don't want to be a part of it, then don't go to France. I have no desire to assimilate into Frence society or culture either, instead of living in an American enclave in France, I just stay here in America where the culture suits me better. If you want to live in a society that is identical to that in Morrocco, why leave Morrocco in the first place, especially to go to a country where you are as likely as not to not find employment and be discriminated against? If you are leaving to look for economic opportunity, are there no countries that better match your cultural ideal while providing similar economic opportunities to France? Also, no one wants to know about the reasons people act like idiots. Everyone has some problems. Everyone can come up with some excuse for any action they take, like the Menedez Bros. Whatever your problems, however you are treated, there is a right and a wrong way to live your life. These people have chosen the wrong way. The same with Hamas. The same with Iraqi insurgents. The same with rioters in LA after the Rodney King incident. The same with people that bomb abortion clinics. If you have legitimate complaints, then talk about them. Write to your representatives. Have a peaceful demonstration. Write to the media. Do not turn to violence and terror. Any good that comes from that path will be tainted. Shame on all of them.
I am honestly as against PC as someone can be. I am not trying at all to be PC. PC is ruining and will continue to ruin our nation. I am not excusing these people for their crimes. Let's say we don't address the issues that I mention. The military comes in and machine guns down every rioter and they stop for now. It will only take one spark to set off more riots. Let's say we do address the immigration and discrimination problems that exist(I didn't have to go out of my way to find out about them.) AND we stop the rioting. By addressing those problems the atmosphere where rioting will be very likely is greatly reduced. Contrary to what people may say, I am not trying to say it is ok for these folks to riot. I am saying there was an environment where rioting could erupt prior to the rioting, and in ADDITION to stopping the rioting, I think those problems should be addressed.
In large part they aren't ever given the opportunity to assimilate, and even their children are still viewed as immigrants and not France.
I have something to add about discussing some of the problems that immigrants face in France. Talking about those problems is not the same as defending the rioters. Look at the U.S. in the 60's. We had the Watts riots, riots, riots in Detroit etc. Was talking about discrimination during the 60's in the U.S. defending those riots? If anybody talked about discrimination at the time were they saying it was ok to riot, or were they looking at larger solutions to the problem? I find it odd that one thing people complain about on this very board is that nobody talks about a solution. Yet in this case when I address the problems that need a solution I am accused of defending the riots. When we talk about being raised correctly and making right decisions and wrong decisions, we need to look at the rioters, but we also need to look at a govt. that excludes a segment of its own citizens.
FB, Weren't you supportive of the use of ebonics? You have been bending over backwards to play psychologist to understand and expain the actions of the rioters. They have been defying the law, hurting people and destroying property. The mayhem they've been causing is inexcusable. Yet you have been playing devils advocate for them. They are scumbag criminals that should be caged and deported.
Just wondering, did the other minorities in France also riot? Like the Chinese and Vietnamese? Or how about the Armenians? Jews?
I didn't defend teaching Ebonics as a second langauge. I was undecided whether they should get a solid ESL time during the day to give them more practice learning STANDARD ACADEMIC ENGLISH. I did say that it does have its own linguistic structure and is different than just slang. That is true, and it is important to know that when teaching STANDARD ACADEMIC ENGLISH. That is afterall the goal. Do you want all students to learn STANDARD ACADEMIC ENGLISH? Then the more you know about speech patterns the easier it is to teach them, and give them opportunities to practice. Again during the Watts riots of the 60's was anyone who spoke about segregation and discrimination bending over backwards to defend the rioters? Or were they addressing real problems that helped create the environment where the riots happened. I am not opposed to stopping these rioters at all. I am opposed to thnking that is the end of it, and not addressing the conditions that allowed the riots to grow, and fueled them. I think I am addressing the whole problem and not just one tiny part of the problem. If nothing had changed during the 60's regarding civil rights. And all we did was deport, cage, and imprison the rioters would more riots have happened? Frankly I think trying to chastise people for looking into a deeper solution is short sighted.
So you are saying the French govt. has a policy of excluding a segment of its own citizens? Yes we need to look at both, but it seem you spend 90% of your time looking for reasons other than rioters themselves. This will only promote the "it's not my fault, I am the victim attitude" Plus I don't think they are in the same situation as the U.S. in the 60s. There are a lot more criminal elements involved in the French riots. People need to take some responsibility for their actions. As for solutions, how about some stronger leadership in their commnities, how about better parenting.
I spend most of my time talking about that, because 90% of the posts in here are exclusively talking about the riots. That is an obvious problem to me. I would rather go deeper. I don't see how addressing the needs that happens would lead anyone to be absolved of responsibility. I think personal responsibility should be a given, and not something that would require any debate at all. I don't see how you can say that there are more criminal elements involved here than in the Watts riots of the 60's. I don't have any hard facts one way or the other, but I haven't seen anything presented that would lead to that conclusion. As an aside I do enjoy this discussion with you, and it has been refreshingly civil even though we disagree.
I hear you, FB. As someone who remembers the '60's, some would say too much, at that time the US had done what France is guilty of doing and paying the price for now... "we" largely ignored the ghettos and the endless cycle of poverty most Blacks in our country were subjected to. They went to substandard schools. They were discriminated against attempting to get jobs they had struggled to be qualified for, despite the substandard schools. They were pulled over and treated badly by the largely white police for no reason except the color of their skin. The list goes on and on. I remember seeing Blacks riding in the back of Houston public buses, going downtown with my grandmother. I remember going to my local park in Southeast Houston to play, and swim at the pool, and there were whites only restrooms, and blacks weren't allowed in the pool. One could go on and on. If what these people are experiencing in France is similar, then it's far past time that the French should have done something about it. Here, in this country, some brave people took to the streets and protested, risking, in many cases, their very lives. Many of them, in the heat of the moment, did things they probably weren't proud of when they reflected about it later, but no one can say they weren't provoked. What did we do about it? Some brave politicians, prodded into action, finally, by what was happening in the cities of America, passed laws that ultimately led to the destruction of the power of their own party, but was the right thing to do. They did it with help from some equally brave Republicans. France could learn from us. We still have a long way to go, but we've made great progress since the '60's. Keep D&D Civil.
Deckard - I basically agree with your post. But that is not how I recall historical reality. The Committee Chair where Civil Rights legislation would have come from was James Eastland of Mississippi. Needless to say...not much real legislation was proposed there. If you want to really see how Civil Rights was promolgated in our country review Supreme Court cases involving the Heart of Atlanta Motel v US (1964) and the Alabama case of Ollie's BBQ (Katzenbach v McClung). To really put "teeth" into Civil Rights, the Supreme Court invoked the Interstate Commerce Act. Needless to say, the SC was none to happy with the legislators.
I was referring to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Proposed by JFK in June of '63, it was pushed through by LBJ, over the attempts of Southern Democrats to kill it, with the help of Republicans like Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen. This was back when the Republican Party had moderate as well as conservative leadership, and moderate Republicans were not considered "outcasts" by their own party. To be sure, Dirksen was a conservative. He decided that passage of the bill was good for the country. Imagine that. Keep D&D Civil.
There is no justification for random violence such as wanton destruction of life and property. Trying to explain an act of random violence as a response to injustice won't get anywhere - because that's not how you address it. The watts riots didn't do anything for the black people but serve as a stain. It was the work of people like MLK that brought attention to discrimination. Because he spoke AGAINST violence and made it clear that violence was not a justified response. The same that Ghandi did. When you say that violent behavior is truly a root cause of something else, all you are doing is encouraging more of that violent behavior. The people in France without jobs have no justification to riot. Obviously it's because they don't have jobs. But you know what - buring down cars isn't going to address discrimination - it's going to intensify it - so they are really shooting themselves in the foot. The same thing is being done by terrorist groups like Al Qaeda - the result isn't to bring the plight to the Palestinians or whatever - all it does is increase hatred and discrimination against Muslims. Clearly this is one of Al Qaeda's objectives - that by further isolating Muslims from the rest of the world, a clash of civilizations will truly begin. This is the ironic thing with these groups - they aren't really trying to achieve the objective their leaders claim (like destroy Israel or whatever) - but rather gain greater power and influence for themselves.
