The Apocalypse Continued...

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

When waves of immigrants came to the US, mostly they went to where their own kind were. Irish went to the Irish neighborhoods, Italians went to Italian neighborhoods and so on. ... When people started moving out of the old ‘hoods to Levittown (suburbs) things really started to coalesce, probably because they had something in common…….crabgrass.

Don't forget, those first and second generation immigrants in the ghetto are not the same people who were the second and third generation - that moved out - maybe into the suburbs. The point was a nation's most productive people tend to be the third generation immigrants. People who are born in that country.

A problem in France: those second and third generation immigrants complain they do not have such opportunities. Complaints so widespread that violence was at least 254 French cities and towns. By numbers, the complaints are too widespread to not be legitimate.

[jaguar]

It's not based on the party line it's based on interviews I've heard over the last few days (and quoted above, there's that selective blindness again), posters I've seen, newsletters I've seen and personal experience. I live on the front line of all this, I watch it every goddamn day. If their first allegiance is to Morocco or Jamacia then no, they're not home, by choice.

Firstly, not "most or all" immigrants are rioting. Those that are are criminals. They are breaking the law, shooting at the police, destroying property and killing people. If that is not criminal behaviour I would love you to tell me what is, if it is, I'd love you to tell me why it should be allowed and not stopped the same way it would if it was anyone else. I would also still like you to tell me how you would stop the riots today.

And for the third fucking time, I'll quote myself, I hope the big block overcomes your selective blindness:

massive investment in culturally-aware policing, education and job creation.

[tw]

Originally Posted by jaguar

It's And for the third fucking time, I'll quote myself, I hope the big block overcomes your selective blindness:

Well I thought you were an intelligent person until you started using words only found in the vocabulary of those who never know; who cannot really learn the facts. Apparently your biases rather than facts are the only big block. This made obvious because you must use profanity rather than facts to justify conclusions.

Denial of fact is demonstrated by a sentence that started "And for the third...". If your really knew the facts, then you knew the underlying ‘whys’ and therefore would never need profanity. To post something intelligent and with credibility, then repost using logic - not using words routine from the intellectually challenged.

The right wing "beat the crap out of everyone who does not agree" claims these riots are only due to "scum". The word "scum" is repeatedly quoted by international news sources when they describe certain government officials in denial - the party line.

Those who warned of these underlying problems have warned that institutional discrimination and segregation has long been a problem in France. Many 'passive' racists even insist that immigrants only conform only to French standards. That means not even using English or American words. Such words are not acceptable to French culture. Other cultures are not acceptable to these Frenchman who insist that France should never conform to or embrace other cultures.

Some numbers. The unemployment rates among Africans and Arabs are three times higher than the national average - per BBC. Other sources say the unemployment rates are 4 times higher. Among technical school graduates of African and Arab descent, the unemployment rate is 5 times higher than the national average. But widespread discrimination does not exist? Explain that contradiction?

But again, the myopic would claim all this disorder is only a few criminal types so as to ignore above facts and numbers. Why are numbers so one sided - and yet ignored? Why do those numbers only demonstrate how widespread the 'institutional' and 'passive' discrimination must be? Those numbers are damning. Reasons for two weeks of public violence are consistent with the numbers - that all Frenchman should have long ago understood, confronted, and demanded change. Those unemployment numbers could only exist with widespread discrimination - a symptom of racist attitudes and public disorder.

Look at those numbers. They are damning facts in contradiction to what Jaguar has posted.

[jaguar]

When the hell were you last in France? Everyone uses anglicisms.

Now remind me, which part of, and now I quote myself for the fourth fucking time:

massive investment in culturally-aware policing, education and job creation.

do you have a problem with because well fuck me with a rake, that comment of mine seems to suggest strategies for dealing with exactly the problems you're pontificating about.

This 'passive racism' you seem to think is the root of all this is hard to dismantle when you're confronted with open racism from the people involved and don't deny it exists, I have and continue to every day see it and hear it and hear the same from people living in France. Faced with open hostility most people tend to be a little stand-offish. Strange.

Noone is denying there are serious problems, I mean christ this has happened every 10 years or so for a while but the situation is hardly black and white. Particularly with unemployment. In many of these areas there are very few if any businesses, French employment law makes it difficult to hire people and in the same way society works everywhere else, those with contacts and friends inside companies are going to have a leg up in getting in. That isn't racism, that's how people work. As for graduates (although you avoid the term so I'd like a source on that) the problem is always going to be pronounced for the reasons above. Is there some racism involved? Certainly, but there is racism on both sides of the fence and both need to be addressed equally severely, anything less merely breeds more resentment. Take a look at the stuff spewed out by sites like Ligali. If I said half of that stuff, I'd be arrested.

But that isn't going to solve the problem, what is, and what I said before is to try and break up the ghettos, properly educate the kids and create jobs for the young men and women with nothing better to do than turn to crime, a problem that crosses racial boundaries both here and in France, you cannot over-emphasise the economic center to most of this. Only then you'll have a long term solution. What it comes down to is that I've never seen an integrated society with large socioeconomic disparity and I've never seen an unintegrated one with socioeconomic disparity.

How you deal with people who openly and actively hate the country they've moved to though is another question, if they feel like that and are so keen to let it be known it's time to send them back where they came from. I'm sorry, but if people don't want to be here, I don't see why we should keep them, be they violent rioters, terrorists or hate-preaching islamic scholars.


Now, please, finally, answer each of these questions:

Are people who riot, kill people, burn cars and shops and shoot at police criminals or not?

If they are, should they be dealt with the same way as other criminals? If not, why not?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

Don't forget, those first and second generation immigrants in the ghetto are not the same people who were the second and third generation - that moved out - maybe into the suburbs. The point was a nation's most productive people tend to be the third generation immigrants. People who are born in that country.

True but the immigrants that came here and settled into their respective "ghettos", had their own economy and created their own opportunities.

A problem in France: those second and third generation immigrants complain they do not have such opportunities. Complaints so widespread that violence was at least 254 French cities and towns. By numbers, the complaints are too widespread to not be legitimate.

But this could be a symptom of something we've seen in this country and discussed recently. Waiting for somebody (government) to come to their aid while sitting on their asses complaining rather than working toward a solution.

I have to agree with Jag, that people that resort to this kind of mayhem are criminals. No matter what the frustration level is or if they never broke a law before......now they are criminals.

[lookout123]

holy crap. never before have i read a post from jag and said "rock the fuck on my righteous brother! " without exception to each and every point. i generally have had deep appreciation for Jag's viewpoint while in complete disagreement - but today 11/11/2005 Jag and I are of one mind. either he will have to slit his throat because he has become a conservative or i'll be sharpening my blade, please let us know which course of action is most appropriate.



PS - i really miss living in the cellar with you all.

tw - i love your consistency man. i just don't agree with you.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I have to agree with Jag, that people that resort to this kind of mayhem are criminals. No matter what the frustration level is or if they never broke a law before......now they are criminals.

Jaguar is saying more than that. Jaguar is saying French rioting is only by criminals. He is saying this violence is not a result of decades of discrimination. He is saying as the French minister is saying - they are all scum. Jaguar is also invited to correct this - how I read his posts.

What did comments from French minister Sarkozy create? It triggered riots all across France when he blamed the victims for discrimination. Suddenly these minorities are “scum” as Jaguar would maintain? How can that be? Suddenly there is a massive increase in criminal types? Nonsense.

Nothing posted says the violence is acceptable. Jaguar either ignores or denies underlying reasons for the riots. But again, quote this sentence to properly respond to my posts. "Nothing posted says the riots are acceptable." To not include that sentence in any reply is to completely misrepresent everything I have posted here.

To say all those rioters are scum or criminals is to say same about vast cross sections of America's own black communities. Are you also saying that massive numbers of America's blacks are also scum? You cannot have a double standard. Did America suffer race riots because blacks were scum - or because of widespread discrimination, lack of jobs, and denial of opportunity?

There is no proper way of addressing French riots without citing its root cause. Posted were damning numbers. Unemployment rates of 3 and 4 times higher among those who, somehow, are not being discriminated against? African and Arab technical graduates have a 5 times higher unemployment rate. Again, posted are damning and not quoted numbers. Does one reply and simply ignore those numbers? Instead these people are scum and criminals? How do you just ignore numbers that suggest nationwide institutionalized racism?

Which is it? Is the root cause criminals and scum? Or is the root cause institutionalized racism? Somehow you instead have me saying that government should come to their aid. You would post what I never said? Stick only to what was posted, without jumping to conclusions or assumptions.

Provided are underlying facts and numbers. Jaguar simply provided his opinions without facts. Do you just ignore those numbers? Which is it? Which one is the root cause? Criminal types, or a nationwide denial of widespread racial discrimination of people born in France? Which is the fundamental problem that has caused all those riots?

[lookout123]

maybe i have a terminal misunderstanding of reality, so feel free to point it out.

when i was down on my luck, partly due to choices, partly due to circumstances... my wife was on bedrest for a problem pregnancy, one month i made $600 GROSS income i was already delinquent on my mortgage, had surrendered one of my vehicles, was 30+days late on every single bill, i met with the "hardship coordinator" for the local power company to hear i wasn't eligible for assistance, was laughed out of the public assistance office, and was literally selling blood to pay for groceries... would i have been justified if i had vandalized, looted, or otherwise harmed another citizen, or would i have been a criminal?

i think i would have been a criminal. background is irrelevant. current decisions are within one's control. good bad or ugly we each control our own actions and there is no excuse for harming another individual's person or property, short of open warfare.

[jaguar]

Do you have some kind in intellectual disability?
No, I'm serious. How can you get the semantics of what I've posted so badly wrong?
Which part of the following series of statements is incorrect?
Burning cars is a crime.
Burning shops is a crime.
Shooting at police is a crime.
Committing a crime makes you a criminal.
Thus, Rioters are criminals. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Now based on a considerable amount of anecdotal evidence I'd say most of the rioters were well aquatinted with the wrong side of the law before these riots but that's beside the point.

The cause is neither institutionalized racism alone or criminal elements. The cause is a complex mix of socioeconomic and cultural factors which do, unquestionably, and as I've said all the way though, need to be dealt with. That however does not excuse rioting, which is still crime and should be dealt with as it would anyone else. Anything less is racism. Violence is never an acceptable answer.

As for your number, I did reply. Read it. It's not black and white. I'm getting sick of repeating myself. Maybe it seems to goddamn crystal clear over there because, hey, you have no idea what it's like on the ground.

Lastly I have never used the word scum, I never said the root of the riots was not social factors though I debate which and to what degree. If anyone is putting words in people's mouths and jumping to conclusions it's you, you want to quote me, do it properly. And answer my questions.

Here's some examples of me, and I quote, "Ignoring the underlying reasons for the riots"

....that isn't going to solve the problem, what is, and what I said before is to try and break up the ghettos, properly educate the kids and create jobs for the young men and women with nothing better to do than turn to crime....

Noone is denying there are serious problems

Is there some racism involved? Certainly, but there is racism on both sides of the fence and both need to be addressed

force isn't a long term solution but it is a short term one while you implement a long term one. And as I also stated above and you also conveniently ignored that should revolve around massive investment in culturally-aware policing, education and job creation.

[Undertoad]

Part of the reaction is censorship:

Mr Dassier said his own channel, which is owned by the private broadcaster TF1, recently decided not to show footage of burning cars.

"Politics in France is heading to the right and I don't want rightwing politicians back in second, or even first place because we showed burning cars on television," Mr Dassier told an audience of broadcasters at the News Xchange conference in Amsterdam today.

"Having satellites trained on towns across France 24 hours a day showing the violence would have been wrong and totally disproportionate ... Journalism is not simply a matter of switching on the cameras and letting them roll. You have to think about what you're broadcasting," he said.

No wonder Bargalunan (and many Frenchmen in my experience) believe in conspiracy theories. In France, there really ARE people trying to stop you from learning the truth.

When the French get all their information from blogs, Mr Dassier will lament the loss of the control that he once enforced over the official, politically-incorrect facts. I understand that blogging is really going full force in France. One sees why.

[jaguar]

wow.....On the upside, it's not government censorship, it's an ass who thinks he should dictate the news, market forces will eventually remove or reform him and his misguided organization.

[Trilby]

jag-I think you are tops. Really, I do; which is why I understand that you care very little for me: that said: Jag--your freak flag is flying. We've all been there:
US=BAD Europe=GOOD.

you support french right wing shit when it appeals to you. You hate americans without even knowing us. Yeah. You'll soon be a force to contend with.

[jaguar]

Hey I've got nothing against you, I react to insults from anyone equally. As for Americans, sure, there's plenty I dislike but hardly all by a long shot, plenty of europeans I dislike too. However I fail to find the connection in all that.

[lookout123]

maybe i missed something here, but i thought jag was being less of a eurocentric elitist jackass than usual.

[jaguar]

hey, I did too.