Redstate

It is not that they (the French) do not know what to do, nor is their army weak, but do they have the political will to do it?

We incomparably more bloody-minded Americans wouldn't shoot barbarians in the streets of New Orleans, so I doubt that the French will give the rioters the old whiff of grapeshot.

Does the government (France) hope that it does not reach into central Paris,and then become a non-issue?

Sounds like a lot of wishful thinking.

had standing orders that looters were going to be shot on site.

No reports of any looting ever reached my ears. In New Orleans, the police that didn't leave their posts actively let crimes go on right in front of them.

Two examples of Order and Anarchy in recent history to emulate. You choose which one works the best.

guns that needed to be brandished by average citizens in order to 'Escape from New Orleans' unmolested. Without a show of force... deadly force... mob mentality will grow, fester and escalate.

There was a diary up here a few days ago that I think nailed it.  I think dubbing it an Intifada is a very poor choice.  It completely ignores the the underlying problem.  

They are marginalized.  They are in a cycle of generational poverty.  This doesn't appear to be Islamic fascism, it appears to be desperation of an area in total economic collapse.

We have seen it in play out in the US.  LA and New Orleans are an example of what happens when a group of people have become estranged and/or entrenched in poverty.  Eventually an event will spark an explosion.

We saw it in Germany, and it led to the bloodiest war in human history.  We see it happening now in Africa.  We have seen it time and time again in the Soviet Union and now in former USSR territories.   The common factor is not religion or race, the common factor is the loss of economic oppertunity.

Why did we rebuild Germany and Japan after WWII?  Because this is the exact type of problem we wish to avoid.  We are we still in Iraq after toppling Sadam?  Because leaving a country in desperate poverty is the most dangerous thing you can do for the world.  A group of people with little or nothing left to lose is a powderkeg.

I think Villipin has the right idea:

"Once the crisis is over, everyone will have to understand there are a certain number of injustices in some neighborhoods. We are trying to be firm and avoid any provocation. We have to avoid any risk of explosion."

I think drawing religious lines and calling for holy war is a very unfortunate responce to the problem.

Re: No reports of any looting ever reached my ears.

Perhaps you should have read more. At least one of the wrecked casinos in MS was looted, as well there was looting for food and other essentials as in New Orleans.

Dissafected youths of non-christian, non-hebrew, non-hindu, non-athiest, non-taoist, non-agnostic, non-polytheistic, non-druidic, non-wiccan, non-scientology religious origin with non-white, non-black, non-yellow skin.

Happy? I'm sure the AP would be.

There was looting (primarily in Gulfport from what I'm seeing). I still come away with the fact that.

1. States that officially announced that looting was punishable by being shot on sight had less looting. Louisiana did not do this (at least right away... but I don't think they ever did)
   
   
2. Armed people formed loose Militias to protect their communities.
   
   
3. Military forces that were brought in quickly after the passage of the storm to crack down on this sort of activity as well as provide relief efforts. The military forces seemed to 'fix' Gulfports issues of disorder quickly enough that it didn't become front page news. Perhaps it's because New Orleans overshadowed everything else as well.

My main arguement is that France seems to be following the Louisiana/New Orleans model and getting just about the same results.

1. Delaying and impotence rue the day. I think they finally arrested 200-300 people on the 8th day!
   
   
2. No curfew*.
   
   
3. Armed citizens are not a deterrent.
   
   
4. Military forces are not effective. Deadly force is known not to be a threat.
   
   
5. Plan seems to rest of the hope that it will stop by itself.

*I think there was a curfew in New Orleans. I haven't heard of one in Paris.

but exclusive emphasis on economics is misleadingly incomplete.  There are plenty of French people on the dole, too, but they're not rioting.  It's not a mere detail, of no other significance, that the rioters are almost entirely not ethnically French.  Indeed, given the resemblance of this uprising to so many around the world, it is almost certain that while grievances about relative poverty exist, it is racial, ethnic, and/or religious difference between the rioters and the larger society that provide the narrative for their revolt.  Marxist expectations aside, class identity is weaker than racial and cultural identity, as should have been clear as soon as August 1914, when French and German labor unionists marched off to kill each other.  I realize that we Americans are touchy about the subject, but the record since then is pretty clear.  Poor Appalachian whites don't hate the government the way poor urban blacks do.  Indeed, they tend to vote for the GOP and send their sons to fight our battles more than the members of our supposed élites.  Many more examples could be adduced.  It is also obvious that, had the French not undertaken to invite into their midst millions of immigrants in the past thirty years whom they, out of various feelings of guilt and revolutionary sympathy, failed to expect or require to assimilate, they would not be undergoing a nationwide revolt by those same immigrants.  

I think that this is a civil rights matter at its base. They have basically imported workers to make up for their child bearing impotence, forced them to live in certain areas that they basically leave to them, and refuse to allow them to become french. The french are racist to the core.\ That's what being french is.

The superiority of America as compared to France is self evident.

It's 2005. Not 1776, 1860, 1865, 1917, 1941 or 1965. ITS 2005.

France.\ Learn from us or fall.\

American triumphalism is unjustified.  Blacks have lived here for centuries and still aren't fully assimilated, and are as comparatively as bad off as, or worse off than, the immigrants in France.  As to France refusing to allow them to become French, it's perhaps half-true, but there's little to suggest that the attempt was made or expected.  France has absorbed numerous immigrants.  It has Europe's largest Jewish population and Sarkozy is the son of a Hungarian and a Jew.  The difference is that his Hungarian father made an effort to assimilate, Gallicizing his name, marrying a Frenchwoman, and not being a hostile burden on society.  That he was white was no doubt helpful - assimilation is obviously easier if you look more or less like the population into which you're assimilating than if you don't - but that wouldn't necessarily be a burden for many North Africans, who often look similar to the Algerian Jews and to numerous other Frenchmen, particularly in the south.  Is France a racist society?  Probably less so than the United States.  Are they ethnocentric?  Yes, as is perfectly natural, and indeed praiseworthy insofar as it encourages us to love and take care of our societies.  It's more than a little ironic that you would attack French ethnocentrism in the name of what amounts to American ethnocentrism.

Re: They have basically imported workers to make up for their child bearing impotence,

That was never the rationale for easy immigration rule. And indeed, the fact that so many oft hese immigrants are unemployed is proof that they were not needed to make up for any lack of workers; nations with high unemployment rates do not have a shortage of workers. Rather, lingering guilt for the sins of coloniaism (and in Germany's case, Naziism) is what motivated the loose immigration rules. Note that the vast majority of immigrants in the former colonial powers are in fact from their former colonies.

only prejudiced against Black African peoples, then you would be right. But the French are fiercely racist toward other peoples against whom we Americans have less animus. And the Arabs are on the top of that list. Some of the foulest insults in the French language involve various doings with Arabs.

only prejudiced against Black African peoples, then you would be right. But the French are fiercely racist toward other peoples against whom we Americans have less animus. And the Arabs are on the top of that list. Some of the foulest insults in the French language involve various doings with Arabs.

the welfare generations that the libs purpopsefully kept dependant and separate much like their french ideological soulmates, are not economically viable, but are assimilated.

If you can't see that Blacks are assimil;ated and have been to a much greater degree than the muslims in France, even befpore 1965, I would suggest you may have an assimilation propblem. Do you know any blacks? Are you assimilated with them? Blacks i know down here would laugh at such a suggestiopn.\ Would the french muslims? no!

American cul;ture has been shaoped top a great degree by B:LACKS!!!!! That defines assimi;latiopn.

The french cordoned off the muslims in enclaves top be left top themselves.\ We live side by side down here!!!

Good God man. To say blacks aren't assimil;ated. Thats opure blindness.\

You libs still think its 1776 culturally, and 1929 economically.\

WAKE UP AND LOVE THIS EXCEPTIONAL COUNTRY.\ I pity you and those that dont realize the paradise we have.

many hispanics are npot assimilated but are economically viable.

France is defined primariLy by ethnicity

anyone that wants to assimilate in america can.\

not in france.\

my keyboard is messed up

poverty doesn't in and of itself mean people are going to riot, loot etc.

I actually think it is insulting to poor people, who may accept some form of government assistance to assume they would shed any and all morals in order to cause civil unrest.

I just don't buy the "they are poor" reasoning.

workers to do the work they don't want to do and that socialism can accomodate? They do have a low french ethnic birth rate, right?

But I accept your point as valid.

and his gang, the islamo-facist ideology has an appeal to educated muslims precisely due to the facist vision of granduer.

to say France has not prejiduce or racism isn't true.

Also, I think some of the failure of many blacks in the US to succeed is they have been sold the "you are a victim and the government owes you something" bill of goods.  I think one needs only compare African immigrants and how well they do to realize your argument isn't quite spot on.

We were very good friends with a family from Kenya while we lived in NC.  Their view of the America was completely different from the view sold by Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Mfume.  These friends arrived in the US with two suitcases, and nothing else, but they didn't believe anyone owed them anything, and they were thankful to be here.

birth rates.  Most are below replacement with several right at replacement.

I don't know exactly what France's is.

Wal Marts were looted, other stores were looted, and of course the casino in Mississippi was looted.  But the reports of the looting were also overblown, and made more people seem like looters than actually participated in it.  I would be very surprised if we could conduct an accurate headcount (through some miraculous mechanism) today if more than 1-2% of the population in the affected areas actively looted stores and other homes (if that).  It simlply wasn't the anarchy that the media portrayed it as.  Most people wanted to survive, stay in their homes, or leave -- not loot or steal.  There was a tremendous feeling of desperation at the Convention Center and at the Superdome, but even there, the violence and theft was less than had been widely reported.  There were a lot of desperate, dispossessed and anxious people, but the biggest lesson was that the media unfairly stigmatized more people than it accurately reported on.  

Our's is better than most all of europe though and is still above the replacement rate.

I think comments above downplaying the Moslem background of the rioters are wrong. DeVillepan and Chrirac thought that by following a policy of appeasement toward Iraq and the Palestinian Arabs this would innoculate the French from violence from their local moslem youths.  Obviously, this did not work.  The rioters see the French as weak, as dhimmis.  

France has about 3+ million Muslims, about half of them citizens.  If even as many as 1% of them were out in the streets comitting arson right now, you'd see far worse damage than is occurring.  The Moslem population, like any other, is not monolithic in its views.  There's also been a march for peace.

I find a call to limit the population of a group of human beings based on their religion disturbing.  Let's not use hyperbole to tar a whole faith with the violence of a minority.  

It's my conviction that a constant throughout history is that societies collapse from internal strife when they lose control of their young males, who are more prone to violence than any other segment of human beings.  Rome, the Maya, Easter Island, Kampuchea, Liberia, Somalia...all involved young males being marshalled for mass violence that spun out of control.  It's not simply a particular religion, but a defect of we the beast.  

The French are discovering what happens when too many young males are idle and disconnected from the larger society.  This doesn't excuse their behavior, which is profoundly immoral, but it does help explain it.

It's not simply a particular religion, but a defect of we the beast.

That's not a bug. It's a feature. Nature is full of creative destructions of various kinds.

has, can, and is now a driving force in many violent movements, ie facism, communism and now islamo-facism, which  at present has captured the minds of tens pof thopusands opf muslims and most terrorism and wars in the world now are due to these ideolougues.

No doubt that the general muslim community has been treated shabbily in France. But, if France cannot or will not assimilate a particular group then they should restrict immigration to those they can or will assimilate

for the sake opf the natiopn and wopul;d be immigrants.

No one has a right to move to france or any other nation.

Yes, most muslims are not terrorists.\ But most terrorists are muslim.\ And it is mainly a muslim duty to  reform the radicals for their own sake.\

A nation should be cautious when considering immigrants from anywhere, but especially from the group that is now reeking havok nearly everywhere it touches non-muslims.

we dont allow diseased populations in for our own self propection even if all of the citizens from a particular locale is not infected until we get a handle on the situation.

Haha.  Assimilation may not be the most precise term to use with respect to American blacks, but it is correct to say that that they have not been inducted into the mainstream of American society to the same extent that the descendants of German or Irish immigrants have been.  We can endlessly debate the reasons for that, but as an observation, it is indisputable.  

assimilation that was imprecise.

I agree that a higher percentage of people of differing ethnic backgrouds could be said to be in some definitions of the "mainstream" but so are most blacks.

There simply is no comparison between blacks, who have been here for 300+ years, fought the british and defended the nation in every war, are integral in the shaping of the culture since 1865 and whopse baptist ministers led the movement to make us live up to our ideals,

and a generation or two of muslims living in isolation in france.

The term "mainstream" is vague, and in some ways ypu may be unconciously defining it in a racial way that is not significant. People will always more often hang out with their "kind". In that way, whites are not in the black main stream. But that is irrelevant except in some utopopian sense.

But compared to most any other society and what truly matters as one pursues hapiness, America shines. and people come

We share the same values. that's wht MLK's mesage worked.

I think the "to the same extent" observation is amorphous, irrelevant and of no consequence, considering the extent to which they ARE one with all americans. heck, when I see a black person on TV, I see an american .\

I admit, that I have a reat advantage being a southerner in an area where 30% of the population is black.\ When I go up northsee a

b;lack prson, I;m more confident that I will;share values and communicate betterwith a black than the avrerage white up north!!!

sop it copul;d be that even the mainstream term is nopt hel;opfu;l

mainly because we are in np way like france in 2005

this aint 1968

and even then

it wasnt like what we see over there now

The term "mainstream" is vague, and in some ways ypu may be unconciously defining it in a racial way that is not significant. People will always more often hang out with their "kind". In that way, whites are not in the black main stream. But that is irrelevant except in some utopopian sense.

For most of our history, the mainstream was consciously racial, and remains subconsciously so in much current discourse.  But that's beside the point, which, simply expressed, is that American blacks, taken as a group, and measured on various axes, don't cluster close to the American average in attributes such as income, educational attainment, political participation and affiliation, etc.  They tend not to marry outside of their group (neither do whites, for that matter), or live with members of other groups, and so forth.  Were you to graph, say, the descendants of Italian or German immigrants, on the other hand, you would find that their attributes and affiliations would much more closely match the statistical average.  That is how I meant assimilation, and by that definition, blacks remain to be assimilated into American life.  

Good night.  I must away.

Replacement rate is somewhere around 2.23 per woman. American's rate is near that with 2.02.

Countries with imploding birth rates are usually 1.8 or less.

there was little looting in those two states, so perhaps the "standing orders" you mention were effective.  But there was still some looting there.

I also find the call to limit a particular group's immigration into a country disturbing.  However, the opposite of this is to say that France (or any country) cannot choose which groups to allow to immigrate into their countries. Given the world-wide war with radical islam, which will continue for decades, what are non-muslim countries to do?  One constructive suggestion I and others have made (for years now) is that radical muslims (those who believe in violent jihad, establishing sharia law in their host country, etc.) be deported as a matter of public policy.    

the MS Gulf coast suffered immense destruction but it was not permenently flooded. Police and national guard could still function in the aftermath of the storm. The New Orleans flooding made it rather difficult for anyone to accomplish anything in the aftermath. Police cars and even Hummers tend not to work under water.

is above replacement only because of immigration. Native born Americans have fewer children than required for replacement too.

not only that... recent immigrants that are US citizens have a higher birth rate over 'average' americans as well. I believe the only people 'breeding' at an accelerated rate tend to live in Utah.

for LEGAL immigration to the extent needed. I would also suggest that an end to abortion on demand would help remedy the situation as well, but my opposition to abortion is morally based.

abortion on demand too, I don't see that as having any effect on the birth rate, since most people would avoid unwanted pregnancies by other means.

birth control use and/or abstinence? come now. there would be more shotgun weddings!

But the main effect will be to exalt marriage and child rearing and to return a level of shame to hedonistic singleness.

millions of abortions since 1973

millions

no effect

no way

the looters had gills?

They were as constrained to the dry areas as the police.

the famous 'lack of induction into the mainstream' syndrome. This is precisely why there are more black millionaires in this country than there are millionaires in most other countries.

People, regardless of the color of their skin, who are not 'inducted' aren't 'inducted' because the barriers are too high. They are not inducted because we have created a system of dependence and victim-hood that encourages some groups of people to believe that they aren't capable, or are being held back, or ... And the major proponents of this philosophy of dependence are alive and well just where they have always been: on the left side of the aisle; in the halls of academe; in the salons of the more 'enlightened' among us; and yes, in the 'leadership of the black community'.

They are the Ted Kennedys, the Nancy Pelosis, the Jesse Jacksons and all the rest. They are the wonderful, enlightened folks who brought us the Great Society and affirmative action and set-asides and all the other programs that are responsible for the sapping of the will to succeed and, ultimately, the destruction of entire generations of young black men and women.

--------------------------

what I have struggled to say.

I would also add

OPRAH!

No, I just observed what is indisputably true.  

I don't think you 'blamed anyone.' And I too think it is indisputably true, I just attempted to put a philosophy, names and a political persuation to it as I see the cause.

These Americans aren't 'outside the system' (uninducted?) by choise or by barrier. They are outside by virtue having the desire to succeed 'sucked out of them' by people who think they 'know better', 'care more', 'understand more' than their victims or the rest of us.

But in fairness this is not the proper diary for this discussion.

the looters were not exactly sensible to the threat posed by putrid, diseased water.  Many could be seen walking around knee or waist deep in it carrying beer, CDs, electronic equipment.

Besides, the police also looted in New Orleans (sad but true), so there was general lawlessness all around.

As I said in a different thread, I don't believe that the unrest is all that serious. And I'm basically in sympathy with the OP's point that some serious force is in order. In fact, it may have already been applied. If and when this happens, I expect that the news will be spiked so we won't really find out much about it.

The disorders in 1968, which were far more widespread than this year's and also had the support of much of the people of France (a climactic moment was a general strike), were dissipated by de Gaulle's threats to call out the Army, and also by the arrival of warmer weather in late May.

Additionally, multi-day waves of arson have become rather common in France's immigrant enclaves in the last several years. This is the first one that has risen to the level at which the charged word emeute (riot) is used in the press accounts. (Chirac, Villepin and the other frogmeisters are sticking with violences and disordres for now.) But the underlying dynamics appear similar to the earlier ones.

Firing on the flics and pompieres is a new feature of this unrest. I read a report last night from Agence-France-Presse that 30 cops had been struck by grenaille (shotgun pellets), but this morning that has been revised down to 10 struck with 2 in the hospital. If the marauders succeed in actually killing a cop or two, then France will have a serious emeute on its hands and I would expect a serious response and a rapid end to the situation.

For those who believe that Jihad is starting in that streets of Paris, my response would be to urge moderation. The moment for Jihad will not come until the US government drops its commitment to the GWOT. Perhaps sometime after President Clinton issues her first executive orders in 2009.

that people who have children ought be married (with obvious exceptions for people whose spouses have died), the idea that everyone must be married or be branded a "hedonistic single" is pretty offensive. Any social movement that herds people into poorly conceived marriages will end boosting the divorce rate.

American birthrates are quite a lot lower for white people of European ancestry than for all the other groups present here. IIRC, they are in fact comparable to birthrates among native western Europeans. The extremely high fertility of American nonwhites skews our reported birthrate upward. I don't know if reported birthrates for places like France, Germany, Britain, Italy and Spain include their now-substantial immigrant populations. Interestingly, birthrates are quite high in places like Ireland and Poland that have intelligent, pro-business governmental policies.

A man fighting a fire was beaten to death in a suburb north of Paris last night. Still trying to find exactly where it happened.

Also, at least 30 policemen were injured last night, although only 10 had injuries caused by birdshot fired from pistols.

the riots have officially caused their first fatality:

A 61-year-old man beaten into a coma by a hooded youth in the northern suburb of Stains died in hospital, according to his widow, who called for the aggressor to be "punished".

It was the first death recorded since the troubles began.

A French perspective can prove to be very enlightening.  I'm not saying France doesn't have its problems.  Every country does.  But this is NOT an "Intifada." It's not about religion.  It's not even about Muslims.  It's about France's economic choices.  You are correct in saying that we can't rescue France from this.  But just remember, France has been dealing with the Islamic world before the United States was discovered.  I think they can handle it on their own.

Quotas already exist and are based on country of orgin, not religion.

A particular problem with this is the asylum cases do not have to adhere to the quotas. I'm not sure what the exact statistics are on asylum immigration from Africa are but I imagine they are pretty high.

Add to that the fact that we cannot deport illegal immigrants where there is no functioning government to take custody of them (as is often the case with Africa) and it greatly skews the demographics.

I'm sure they have the same issues in Europe.

I have no problem at all setting immigrant quotas and visa policies based on country of orgin.