Paris is burning

Via Roger Simon, an incredible page of links to photos of the destruction coming out of the riots in France, mainly in the outer Paris suburbs.

So what story do you want? If you want your flesh to creep, try DebkaFile, which suggests that Al Qaeda infiltrators may be organizing the riots. You won't find much evidence, although the police finding some petrol bomb factories does suggest that there's a degree of organization involved.

There's no shortage of suggestions that what is going on is an intifada in France.

Or, if you prefer, there's the Eurabia thesis: this is a war between the Muslim world and the western countries which have created a multicultural haven for Muslim immigrants.

And Mark Steyn's variant: the much feared but hitherto quiescent Arab street finally manifests itself. But it's in Clichy-sous-Bois, not Cairo or Damascus.

By way of antidote, there are good blog posts which take issue with these ideas. Greg Drerejian points at fundamental failures of social cohesion. Clive Davis has a good collection of links to more sceptical analyses of the spectre of burning.

Most importantly, there's Theodore Dalrymple and Stephen Schwartz who create similar analyses siting the present riots as the ultimate outcome of years of a statist system which has preserved a higher level of social protection and security for its own, whilst permanently marginalizing the children and grandchildren of the immigrants who were imported to do the work nobody wanted.

When I was just sixteen, in 1960, I won a scholarship to spend three months in France. I had to undertake to speak only French, but I was free to choose where I spent my three months. I had to find families to accommodate me. I think of my mother as having brought me up quite strictly. She refused to allow me to stop attending religious assemblies at school, and she wouldn't let me go on one of the famous Aldermaston ban-the-bomb marches. All this created some hostility on my part. Yet she allowed me to make my own arrangements to find families, showed no curiosity about who I chose, and no apparent concern about having her sixteen year old daughter travelling alone all over France.

I chose a month in Paris, a month in Biarritz and a month in Thonon, in the Haute Savoie, near Lake Geneva. It was the first time I'd ever travelled by myself, and I had a high old time. I had my full complement of teenage belief in my own invulnerability and immortality, and regarded the somewhat dubious and even dangerous situations I got myself into (such as running with the bulls in Pamplona) as part of the fun.

When I was in Paris, I was pretty much left to my own devices by my hostess and took to walking across the city, much as I had done when I acquired a taste for truanting afternoons in London in my previous year at school. I found I constantly got picked up by young Algerian men. It eventually penetrated my consciousness that the reason they made such a beeline for me was that no French girl would so much as look at them, and they were desperate for some sort of social and preferably sexual outlet.

I did begin spontaneously to think about what led to this state of affairs. Previously I would have thought of it as the product of something we in those days called prejudice. But I worked out for myself that it was more than that. There was clearly a system of importing the poor and desperate of actual or former colonies as cheap labour, and that the system would discard this labour as soon as it had served its purpose. It was my first serious independent accomplishment in political and sociological analysis, though it would be another twenty eight years before I got round to acquiring any formal qualifications in either subject.

The impact was powerful enough to have influenced my thinking till this day. The current riots,although they involve Muslims, seem to me to have much more in common with the riots and slogans of the black consciousness movement of the seventies. That manifested itself in Britain over incidents to do with alleged police brutality, or the failure of the police to solve murders or other serious crimes against black people.

The images of the rioters on the streets of Clichy show them sporting T-shirts labelled mort pour rien. [Died in vain] Now what could be more un-Islamic than that? No claiming of martyrdom or dozens of virgins here.

There are not the flags, the typical chanting and sloganizing of Islamism on the marches. It's true that over the last months, many attacks have taken place on Jewish premises, including cemeteries.

But where today rioters are interviewed, they talk of the same types of grievance as articulated by race rioters of the sixties and seventies, of exclusion from jobs and harassment by the police.

And I'll end, to my surprise, by referring you to a good analysis by John Lichfield in The Independent, of which this is a good example:

Talk of an intifada is absurdly misleading. Firstly, the rioters are far from being all Muslim (although more than half are from Islamic backgrounds). Second, they have no sense of political or religious identity and no political demands. Their allegiance is to their quartier and their gang. Their main demand, so far as can be established, is to be left alone by police and the Interior Minister, Nicolas Sark-ozy, to continue with their life of low-level violence and drugs trading. The wider significance is therefore not politico-religious but a warning of what happens if problems of deprivation and violence are allowed to fester.

Comments

[Joanne]

This looks to me like Paris' version of the Watts riots in the 1960s.

[Steve M]

A very nice piece, Judy, and I suspect that your conclusions are about right. Thank you.

[Sunny]

(come here by a link Steve posted on my blog).

Well written Judy, I suspect you've hit the nail on the head. The riots in France have led to people ride their favourite hobby horses rather than evaluate the situation carefully. Every single interview I've seen also has the youth saying they are French but complaining that the state does not seem them as such.

[Neal]

Judy,

An interesting article. I note that the underlying issue with France is its agreement with the Arab League not to integrate Muslim immigrants but, instead, to keep such people acculturated with their places of origin.

I might also note that the evidence is not quite the simple grievance evidence suggested in the articles you have uncovered. Moreover, I would not take the evidence from The Independent seriously. That paper is committed to fantasies about the Arab and greater Muslim regions.

How would the reporter know whether 50% or 90@ or 99% of the rioters are Muslims? Did they take a poll? I doubt it but the stated view fits the hopes of Europeans as filtered by the politics of The Independent.

More importantly, the main demand, according to The Independent is exactly religious in character - if one considers religion as a question of identity -, namely "to be left alone by police and the Interior Minister, Nicolas Sark-ozy, to continue with their life of low-level violence and drugs trading." Translated: they demand to develop an identity apart from France. And the basis of that demand is personal political identity which, for the most part, is Muslim.

Now, I do not think people are rioting to spread a faith - which evidently is the brain dead newspaper test for the issue being about Islam -. I do think, however, they are rioting because of the policies put in place (and, despite minor differences in different EU countries, all EU countries have agreed not to integrate the Muslim immigrants but instead to keep them acculturated toward their places of origin.) that teach such people that they are not really French. Such people understand the reality and are acting on it. And, in the end, France will likely be another Yugoslavia, as the dispute is, in that sense, about religion in the sense of being about identity. And, frankly, that is more important than whether or not the goal is to spread the faith.

If you doubt me about the details of the agreements in place - and, as I said, such agreements are in place all across the EU -, read Bat Ye'or's book Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis. One can disagree with her politics and opinions. However, the facts regarding the agreements in place are black and white and not really subject to any serious doubt.

[Inna]

I would like to note the obvious. The kids doing the rioting are teenagers.

Now, perhaps some of you have (like me) nightmares about that "wonderful" time and perhaps you don't. But I think we will agree that the teenage years are pretty messed up--and that's the best case scenario for most of us.

Now throw in social isolation and societal perception that you're a loser and will never amount to anything. Add to that (for some of the rioters) a socio-religious background in which they, as children, were taught that they and their faith were superior to the unbelievers. Sprinkle with governmental incompetence and I think you have to ask yourself--how come it didn't happen sooner?

Regards,

Inna

[Judy]

Joanne, Steve, Sunny-- thanks...

Neal- I don't underestimate the significance of the links between the Arab League and the EU that Bat Ye'or has documented. I did some years of research into the impact of EU agreements of various sorts some years ago, and came to the conclusion that they lay behind many apparently national policy changes. However, I don't think they provide the reason for these riots. They are one element in a fairly complex background, but for me the bottom line is a combination of the statist/alienation thesis.

Inna-- I don't think it's correct to say the rioters are all teenagers. If you look at the Mort Pour Rien photo of the demo in Clichy sous Bois which I referred to, they are clearly not

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/051029/481/ena10310291205

And as far as I can see from that photo they are clearly not all Muslims either. And it's not a Respect type usual-suspects parade either. That's what's so striking for me.

[Animal]

The terror apologists are working overtime on this one. What a clever bunch of 'teenagers' to have a little bomb factory. Obviously there's no religious or anti-gov't overtones, but it is strangely coincidental that they are terrorizing Jewish businesses, schools and synagogues along with gov't post offices and vehicles.

[Tatterdemalian]

Keep in mind, though, that Muslims will happily tell any lie to justify their actions.

They will riot at the slightest hint that an American put a Koran in the toilet, yet when one of the Guantonomo detainees uses a Koran to try to plug the toilet, they salute his ingenuity.

They proclaim that it is a crime against Islam to carry weapons into a mosque, yet use them as ammunition depots and even bunkers from which to fire on other Muslims.

They claim they have no economic or social opportunities, yet they have the money to build factories for manufacturing petrol bombs.

The sad fact is, they are proclaiming their victimhood not because of any actual discrimination they have suffered, but because it helps keep the infidel from organizing against them by sowing discord among our ranks. If they thought we would fight more amongst ourselves than against them by saying that water is not wet, they would be declaring that they were fighting against dry water the next day.

They can't be negotiated with, because they have no real demands. The ones they claim are constantly changing, because they only claim them as long as they are useful in the war against the infidel. And, most frustrating for the French, they cannot be surrendered to, because they keep changing the terms of surrender to keep the battle going.

[JohnM]

The AP photograph you link to shows the demonstration on the Saturday to remember the deaths of the two teenagers, not the actual riots. Since your article concerns knee jerk responses, it is only fair to note that such a demonstration would have attracted the usual knee-jerk left wingers eager to blame anyone but the rioters. It is not possible from that picture to claim any knowledge of the enthnicity of the rioters.

I read reports claiming that rioters were heard shouting "allahu ackbar". Of course it's quite possible that these were troublemakers, or a minority.

I tend to agree with you that commentators have rushed to reinforce their own prejudices. Nevertheless I would say the following. I lived in Moss Side briefly and in inner Leeds for a very long time. The rioters then, who were mainly young men, certainly wanted the police to keep out of their areas. However older residents had a different view. In normal life they were unlikely to be mistreated by the police and their idea of prejudice was that they couldn't get the police to deal with the crime that they were suffering from.

The Paris riots have this in common with the UK riots. I've not seen one interview with a decent ordinary person who has had his car torched, or with someone running a marginal, probably uninsurable business, now wrecked.

The media report either the clash of civilisations or the romantic rebel harbingers of revolution.

[Juan Paxety]

As an American who lived through the riots of the 60s, I see a fundamental difference.

Blacks were, for the most part, rioting because of their lack of inclusion in mainstream U.S. society.

The rioters in France are rioting to remain excluded and segregated into their own society.

[Sunny]

The rioters in France are rioting to remain excluded and segregated into their own society.

Clearly you haven't watched a single interview with any of the rioters then.

[Sunny]

In the above comment, I was quoting Juan in the first line.

[Sundown]

But it's true. The muslims in the Paris cites want their own zones of administration. That will guarantee eternal segregation, and it is what the community leaders say they want. Listen to them! They want to be separate and govern themselves inside France. Do they really want to be on the reservation? Think Gaza.

[Yaron]

I agree with your basic analysis, although I do have to say that by the standards of Islamism, even the intifada wasn't an intifada. The Palestinians adopted some of the rhetoric of Islam and martyrdom, and the Islamists certainly co-opted their cause, but the Palestinians themselves not especially known for their devoutness. At its core, the intifada, too, was (is?) an aimless "revolutionary" extended riot.

[Tatterdemalian]

There are as many interviews with rioters demanding increased integration into French society, as there are interviews with rioters demanding increased segregation from French society.

When are the people going to realize that both demands are lies? Probably not until it's way too late.

As for this agnostic, all I can say is, if it takes a fervent belief in Judeo-Christianity to fight back against the coming worldwide Caliphate, then praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition!

[Jonathan]

I was one of the people who drew a parallel between the French riots and the Intifada. There are obvious similarities in tactics -- violence just short of the level that would elicit a decisively harsh official response. And the socio-political contexts are at least superficially similar as well, since 1980s Israel could fairly be accused of having made similar blunders in dealing with the Arab population of Judea and Samaria as the French government seems to have made WRT Muslim immigrants. The big question, however, is whether the French government will quash the riots forcefully or attempt to appease the rioters. If the latter, the way appears open for the current disturbances to morph into something even worse. I hope that I am wrong about this and about the Intifada parallel, since the Israeli attempt to appease the Palestinian leadership culminated in a second Intifada that was much worse than the first one and required much more force to suppress.

[Rob Read]

"There are as many interviews with rioters demanding increased integration into French society, as there are interviews with rioters demanding increased segregation from French society."

What's for certain is that they ALL want to make taxpaying French people work harder for their welfare.

Socialism is Slavery.

[Inna]

Judy writes "And as far as I can see from that photo they are clearly not all Muslims either. And it's not a Respect type usual-suspects parade either. That's what's so striking for me."

I know. That's what I said "some". I should probably have said "a few".

Regards,

Inna

[big dirigible]

Pundits and commentators are conflating several different populations, with different motives. Interviews with a member of one population tell us nothing about the other players.

Recall Russia circa 1917. Communists had agitated for years, making no notable progress - an assassination here, a strike there - nothing much. But during the first World War, the Russian transport industry was overwhelmed, transporting supplies to the Front. So food was no longer being transported in sufficient quantities to feed the larger cities. Crowds of ordinary citizens gathered in the streets, looking for nonexistent food to buy, loot, or whatever. Finally the Communists had their chance - people trained to harrange and manipulate crowds suddenly had crowds to harrange and manipulate. We may be seeing something similar in France. Most of the rioters may be nothing more sinister than confused teenagers - but that doesn't mean that they're not doing the dirty work for opportunistic manipulators.

[Neal]

Judy,

The issue here is what drives the various sociological problems as they relate specifically to a certain class of immigrants and their offspring.

One of the important factors has to be the Euro-Arab Dialogue (now Mediterranean Partnership), a central force in European politics, spilling across innumerable aspects of society (from business, to politics, to culture, to education and to the press) as such is a rather key manufactured basis for the agreed upon unity among the European states in their formation of the EU (and, on a different topic, is, in considerable measure, part of what lurks behind the anti-Israel trend in Europe). As it relates to the violence in France - but not only in France -, such is important because of the agreements the Dialogue put in place which correspond with the very sorts of problems with the Muslim community which is, Europe-wide, occuring.

Now, there are obviously other factors such as racism, social ostracism, poverty, discrimination, lack of education, minimal socialization, etc., etc., which are certainly causal. But, these things cannot possibly be sufficient causes for the sorts of problems that have occured. Otherwise, the violence would involve poor people more generally, not predominantly immigrants from Arab countries.

The keys must be found in the decisions which make relations with European Muslims track very, very differently. And for that, one must look at the Dialogue as the starting point. This is becuase the Dialogue is the central basis for the entry of the immigrants in issue and for the process of integration that the various EU countries (and, before that, the European Community countries) have established.

Now, another key factor that could be examined regards how Islam teachers Muslims to deal with non-Muslims. That, combined with how Christianity (not to mention the ethnic based societies which, unlike the US, characterize European nationhood), teaches even nominal Christians and works in even nominally Christian society, creates the desire for separatism on both - not just the Muslim - side.

Now, the Dialogue, since it includes provisions precluding EU countries from integrating the immigrants somehow must be a causal factor and, in fact, a primary cause of why basically all European countries have been so remarkably careless (a) in permitting massive immigration of people with a different culture while (b) doing pretty much nothing to integrate such people into society. Were such people better acculturated, even if there were discrimination and poverty, separatism and the desire, as with the London bombers, to be part of the ummah and not British society, would not be quite the element that it clearly is.

[Dwight in IL]

I've said before in other forums on this issue that I think both views ("Muslim intifada" and "secular riot") are largely accurate. Not in a wishy-washy sense of "a little of this and a little of that" but in the robust sense of "both....and".

That is, there are those rioting out of a sense of Islamic identity, some even directly in league with Islamist elements. There are others rioting in the hopes of securing secular concessions. And there are probably many rioting simply because they can.

When you take people, keep them locked away in separate enclaves, take active measures to make assimilation hard, and provide no real economic opportunity, what do you expect? These areas became little (largely Islamic) states unto themselves as a direct result of French immigration policy, economic stagnation, and multi-culti sentiment.

Then, one French minister decided that having vast areas where rape, robbery, assault, and arson are simply the rule of the day was not acceptible and tried to end the lawlessness. Naturally this provoked a riot: from the drug dealers, from the thugs, and from the Islamic activists. And with over a third of the 18-22 year old men without work, there were a lot of people with nothing to do but riot all night.

France, and Europe, now face very hard questions. How can they provide the economic opportunity and culture that will marginalize the criminals and jihadists and bring the bulk of these folks into mainstream society? Is it even possible? I think the lack of dynamic economies really hurts here, since in the US one of the main avenues for immigrant assimilation has been economic opportunity. Without a dynamic sector in which lots of jobs and opporutnities are "up for grabs" I don't know how the problem can be solved.

[Steve M]

I would like to refer once more to John Lichfield writing in The Independent:

"Talk of an intifada is absurdly misleading. Firstly, the rioters are far from being all Muslim (although more than half are from Islamic backgrounds). Second, they have no sense of political or religious identity and no political demands."

I believe it would be a serious error if the authorities were to 'Islamicize' the rioters. Rather they should follow the example of Lord Scarman who was employed to report following the Brixton riots in the UK.

Lord Scarman reported that the riots were caused by serious social and economic problems affecting Britain's inner cities. Describing the riots as "the worst outbreak of disorder in the UK this century" he blamed the "racial disadvantage that is a fact of British life".

The report both criticised police and the government but also said there was no excuse for the violence and disorder.

It would be better to diffuse the situation in France than to inflame it and thus play into the hands of both the far right and the Islamic extremists.

[JC]

Thanks for your article, and for the many thoughtful comments that have followed. I have been trying to develop a clearer personal understanding of this situation, as I have only thus far seen the two opposing views of the root causes of the riots: racism and socioeconimic problems vs. muslim intifada. I think the truth contains elements of both theories, and it seems unwise to me to completely discount either in the interest of furthering a particular ideological agenda.

[Tatterdemalian]

Problem is, either way you look at it, one of the left's sacred cows is going to get gored. The French riots are either a failure of socialism, or a failure of multiculturalism, or (worst of all) a failure of both.

Which is why the French government and international media are, with mounting hysteria, declaring that it is a failure of neither, when they are forced to admit that there is a riot going on. If you pay attention, in between the constant denials that the rioting is based on race or religion, they assert that it is actually France's remaining capitalist enterprises, and Skorzy's cultural insensitivity, that are the true cause of the riots.

I suspect that, if anyone does prove that Al-Qaeda is organizing the riots, the media will accuse the Bush Administration of being responsible.

[DWPittelli]

"no political demands.... Their main demand... is to be left alone by police ... to continue with their life of low-level violence and drugs trading."

So autonomy from the State is not a political demand?