Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Social Injustice And The French Riots

Rate this topic


Mandrake

Recommended Posts

The poor of the Paris slums have been torching their neighbors' cars and children's schools for twelve nights in a row now. What originally began as an angry response to the deaths of two teenagers who were supposedly fleeing from police has turned into a battle between the destitute and the State they charge with oppression.

French journalists--people who have seen these slums first-hand and know of the living conditions therein--hardly seem surprised. Brutal police repression and harrassment as well as seemingly institutionalized racism, they say, work together against the inhabitants of the French cités, ensuring that their social position remains nearly insurmountable. They are shunned by their countrymen outside their neighborhood and condemned to a life without opportunity, without dignity.

Obviously, rioting cannot be permitted. This uprising could and should have been quelled much earlier with an immediate and overwhelming response.

While I make no excuses for the rioters I must still ask if perhaps their grievances are legitimate even though their methods most certainly are not. If the root problem is--as it seems to be--endemic French racism toward immigrants which prevents these people from fully integrating themselves into society, from obtaining gainful employment and elevating their own social position then is not government intervention warranted to correct these ills? Isn't some legislation required to ensure that these slum-dwellers be granted equal footing? How would an Objectivist government rectify such a scarred social landscape?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I make no excuses for the rioters I must still ask if perhaps their grievances are legitimate even though their methods most certainly are not. If the root problem is--as it seems to be--endemic French racism toward immigrants which prevents these people from fully integrating themselves into society, from obtaining gainful employment and elevating their own social position then is not government intervention warranted to correct these ills? Isn't some legislation required to ensure that these slum-dwellers be granted equal footing? How would an Objectivist government rectify such a scarred social landscape?
The chickens are coming home to roost in France. Years of welfare state policies created this problem and allowed it to fester. Capitalism is the solution, however, French politicians will urge their people to drink even more of the poison (socialism) that is already killing them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

French politicians will urge their people to drink even more of the poison (socialism) that is already killing them.

So well said. Reading about the creation of the "ministry for equality of oportunity" in France, having just finished Atlas Shrugged, definitely rung a bell.

mrocktor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Years of welfare state policies created this problem and allowed it to fester. Capitalism is the solution [...]

I agree that part of this problem is the result of poor governance but that seems to be only one side of the coin. Racism ingrained in the French psyche plays a very important role in the marginalization of an entire segment of their population. Suppose all socialist initiatives were abandoned today, these people would still be denied employment based on such irrational motives as race, ethnicity, or religion simply because the native French just plain don't like them. They would still be incapable of leaving their ghettos and the problem would fester until some other excuse could be found to set the night ablaze. The real tragedy is that this problem appears in large part to be imposed upon them by a xenophobic population.

Doesn't the State have a responsibility to ensure that all of its citizens be afforded the same opportunity? How can a government prevent the unfair ostracization of a given demographic without encroaching on the rights of employers to choose whom they hire?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't the State have a responsibility to ensure that all of its citizens be afforded the same opportunity?

No. The only responsibility of the state is to ensure that nobody initiates force against anyone else.

How can a government prevent the unfair ostracization of a given demographic without encroaching on the rights of employers to choose whom they hire?

It can't, and therefore it shouldn't try to.

Under Capitalism, they would be free to start their own businesses and nobody could force them to remain unemployed, as is currently the case. (indirectly, through the mechanisms of socialism)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't the State have a responsibility to ensure that all of its citizens be afforded the same opportunity?

No.

How can a government prevent the unfair ostracization of a given demographic without encroaching on the rights of employers to choose whom they hire?

It cannot.

----

We are talking about IMMINGRANTS here. These people were not born in France; they were not forced to go to France; they did not suffer a shipwreck on the shores of France; they chose to live in France--and chose so because of the welfare loot France made available to them. If they want to blame someone for their circumstances, why not start with the person who chose those circumstances for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under Capitalism, they would be free to start their own businesses and nobody could force them to remain unemployed, as is currently the case. (indirectly, through the mechanisms of socialism)

OK, so what you are saying is that the State shouldn't attempt to legislate its people's attitude toward a given segment of the population as that is not its proper function. I can agree with that.

Then you think that this problem is more economic than social? Am I right to presume that you mean to say that the abolishment of the welfare state would spur investment and commercial growth in the blighted cités where these people live thus providing them with the means to take financial control of their lives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you think that this problem is more economic than social? Am I right to presume that you mean to say that the abolishment of the welfare state would spur investment and commercial growth in the blighted cités where these people live thus providing them with the means to take financial control of their lives?

Yes and no. "Yes" in the sense that the socialist state is responsible for the economic situation, to whatever extent it could be said to have caused this. "No" in the sense that I don't think the cause is strictly, or even mostly, economic.

You have a large group of unassimilated people who have a violent, anti-western culture and the French police and government chose to simply "look away" and pretend that they didn't exist. If law and order had been scrupulously maintained for the past 20-30 years, it wouldn't be so hard to try and establish it now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that part of this problem is the result of poor governance but that seems to be only one side of the coin. Racism ingrained in the French psyche plays a very important role in the marginalization of an entire segment of their population. Suppose all socialist initiatives were abandoned today, these people would still be denied employment based on such irrational motives as race, ethnicity, or religion simply because the native French just plain don't like them. They would still be incapable of leaving their ghettos and the problem would fester until some other excuse could be found to set the night ablaze. The real tragedy is that this problem appears in large part to be imposed upon them by a xenophobic population.

Doesn't the State have a responsibility to ensure that all of its citizens be afforded the same opportunity? How can a government prevent the unfair ostracization of a given demographic without encroaching on the rights of employers to choose whom they hire?

You seem to believe that racism is the cause of these riots. Whether that is the case or not, in a true capitalist society racism cannot be widespread. Does a businessman care about the race of his customers? Does he care about the race of his employees? In a competitive situation, the businessman would sell to any customer able to afford his product and hire the most qualified employee for a given job. Statism, of which there is plenty in France, gives rise to racism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that part of this problem is the result of poor governance but that seems to be only one side of the coin. Racism ingrained in the French psyche plays a very important role in the marginalization of an entire segment of their population.

Correction. Radical Islam ingrained in the rioter's psyche plays a very important role in the marginalization of a whole segment of the french population. Wonder how many of them don't speak French?

Suppose all socialist initiatives were abandoned today, these people would still be denied employment based on such irrational motives as race, ethnicity, or religion simply because the native French just plain don't like them.

Maybe the native French don't like them for good reasons.

They would still be incapable of leaving their ghettos and the problem would fester until some other excuse could be found to set the night ablaze. The real tragedy is that this problem appears in large part to be imposed upon them by a xenophobic population.

Maybe a lot of them are not just unemployed but unemployable.

Doesn't the State have a responsibility to ensure that all of its citizens be afforded the same opportunity?

No.

How can a government prevent the unfair ostracization of a given demographic without encroaching on the rights of employers to choose whom they hire?

It can't.

State your terms and premises.

What are you in favour of and why?

Then you think that this problem is more economic than social?

I think the problem is one of ideas. In this case, the ideas of radical Islam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem is one of ideas. In this case, the ideas of radical Islam.

I don't understand why you think radical Islam has anything to do with these riots. I'm sure Islamic radicals are cheering the riots on but I'm not so sure the rioters themselves are motivated by a desire to spread its ideology. They seem to be little more than an angry, delinquent rabble expressing anger at a perceived injustice.

Say an Objectivist government inherited this situation in France. Once it restored order, what steps would it take to ensure that such an uprising never happened again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why you think radical Islam has anything to do with these riots. They seem to be little more than an angry, delinquent rabble expressing anger at a perceived injustice.

Um, well for starters, they are telling the French police to use real bullets, not rubber ones. Which means they want even more of a fight than they're getting. Sound familiar?

Also, I wouldn't call setting 1000 cars or even PEOPLE on fire delinquency or rabble. !!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Say an Objectivist government inherited this situation in France. Once it restored order, what steps would it take to ensure that such an uprising never happened again?

Strict upholding of individual rights and equality before the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my cursory understanding of history, there once were ghettos (like the "Warsaw ghetto") that had some similarities with the communities of the French rioters: the people who lived there were treated as second-class citizens by the rulers and the majority population outside the ghetto. What makes the French ghettos and the US "urban ghettos" so different? Discrimination? Legal status? Predominant culture?

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why you think radical Islam has anything to do with these riots. I'm sure Islamic radicals are cheering the riots on but I'm not so sure the rioters themselves are motivated by a desire to spread its ideology.

There's a bit of discussion on the socialism vs Islam as the cause in the other thread. Suffice to say, if radical Islam isn't involved yet, it soon will be.

But in addition to that, there is the point that it is a tenet of Islam for its adherants to NOT assimilate into western culture, so in a sense you could say that it was responsible in that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why you think radical Islam has anything to do with these riots. I'm sure Islamic radicals are cheering the riots on but I'm not so sure the rioters themselves are motivated by a desire to spread its ideology.

The newspaper articles rarely say the rioters are Muslims. What they do say is that they are immigrants from Arab and North African nations; nations where Islam is vastly predominant.

I don't think that most of the youths are actively trying to promote Islam. I do think that they come from a culture that condones this kind of violence against infidels -- a term that could be used to apply to anyone, even other Muslims. The fact that they haven't been assimilated into French culture just means that this mentality was allowed to fester.

Oh, and I don't think that it is the influence of radical Islam. Just plain Islam. As I have stated before in previous posts, the Muslims who don't condone violence are the radicals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why you think radical Islam has anything to do with these riots. I'm sure Islamic radicals are cheering the riots on but I'm not so sure the rioters themselves are motivated by a desire to spread its ideology. They seem to be little more than an angry, delinquent rabble expressing anger at a perceived injustice.

Perceived is the correct term. We are dealing with a profound mysticism and a primcay-of-consciousness metaphysics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...] there once were ghettos (like the "Warsaw ghetto") that had some similarities with the communities of the French rioters: the people who lived there were treated as second-class citizens by the rulers and the majority population outside the ghetto.

I assume you are referring to the U. S. in past years. If so, you are right. I grew up in Houston and went to school in New Orleans. That whole period was 1944 to about 1967. In both cities, there were definitely ghettoes in the loose sense of that term. (The strict sense of "ghetto" comes from a neighborhood in Venice 800 years or so ago -- a neighborhood where Jews were required to live, by explicit statement of law. See Frederic C. Lane, Venice: A Maritime Republic.)

Ghettoes in the U. S., based on what I saw, were indirect ghettoes. No particular law said, "If you are Negro ("Colored"), you must live between Street X and Street Y." but indirectly, the government, which was partly racist, did push blacks into certain areas. How? One example is refusing to issue business licenses to black-owned businesses proposed for construction outside "their" neighborhood. Another example is using police power (and police neglect) to tend to herd blacks into certain areas. This use of police power wasn't lawful, but was uncodified policy: Be much more strict in enforcing the law against blacks outside "their" area than in it.

Were blacks politically treated as second-class citizens? Certainly. Some blacks were threatened with death if they voted. That's one example. Another example I saw in New Orleans: In the better areas, even downtown, most bars were white-only, but some did serve blacks through a side window, somewhat high above the sidewalk, so that anyone buying a drink that way would be in the physical position of a beggar -- a humiliating position. So, why didn't the blacks open their own bars? Not allowed to because the racist government controlled licensing. (There were plenty of "black bars" in "their" neighborhoods.)

At one time, "Jim Crow laws" legally enforced racial segregation in some aspects of life. I will never forget seeing water fountains side by side: one for whites and one for blacks. Blacks were required to sit in the back of the city buses. They would be arrested if they violated the law. And arrest for a black person without a lot of money could mean a beating, rape, torture, or death -- with no recourse.

I love America. I detest the rivulets of evil that have run through U. S. history.

America and the U. S. are not the same thing, just as Western Civilization (in the philosophical sense) and European culture are not the same thing.

Edited by BurgessLau
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent post Burgess. Actually, I was not referring to the "ghettos" of U.S. history. When I read the questions about the French and their discrimination, I did think "people would say the same of ghettos that existed in the U.S.". Then, I began wondering about the ability of someone in a ghetto to act get out. That's when the thought struck me: what about the Jews? The Jews have a history of being persecuted. I've even heard that Poland had a "Warsaw Ghetto".

That's what led to my question. If we assume that there was genuine private irrationality and injustice in both cases, what is the key difference between the old black ghettos (or even today's "projects") and the ghettos in which the jews lived?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Racism ingrained in the French psyche ......... such irrational motives as race, ethnicity, or religion ..... a xenophobic population.
May I ask how you know that the French are racist, xenophobic and Islamophobic? The rioters are making these claims, but do you have any supporting evidence?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

May I ask how you know that the French are racist, xenophobic and Islamophobic? The rioters are making these claims, but do you have any supporting evidence?

No hard evidence, no. I based that judgement solely on anecdotal evidence provided me by an African friend of mine who lived in France for several years while studying economics and on various articles culled from the internet.

I have found this piece, written in 2002, to be particularly enlightening. It paints a horrifying picture of the cités and points a finger squarely in the face of the State. I found this passage to be especially telling:

"They therefore come to believe in the malevolence of those who maintain them in their limbo: and they want to keep alive the belief in this perfect malevolence, for it gives meaning—the only possible meaning—to their stunted lives. It is better to be opposed by an enemy than to be adrift in meaninglessness, for the simulacrum of an enemy lends purpose to actions whose nihilism would otherwise be self-evident."

Edited by Mandrake
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try this link:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=20131

"As Paul Belien, writing from Brussels this weekend, observed: "It is not anger that is driving the insurgents to take it out on the secularized welfare states of Old Europe. It is hatred. Hatred caused not by injustice suffered, but stemming from a sense of superiority. The 'youths' do not blame the French, they despise them." As Mr. Belien reports, look what a typical radical Muslim leader, Dyab Abou Jahjah, the leader of the Brussels-based Arab European League, says: "We reject integration when it leads to assimilation. I don't believe in a host country. We are at home here and whatever we consider our culture to be also belongs to our chosen country. I'm in my country, not the country of the Westerners." Or consider the statement of a German radical Islamist that I recounted in my book (based on a National Public Radio news-story broadcast): "Germany is an Islamic country. Islam is in the home, in schools. Germans will be outnumbered. We [Muslims] will say what we want. We'll live how we want. It's outrageous that Germans demand we speak their language. Our children will have our language, our laws, our culture" (The West's Last Chance, page 75). "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...