![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
ddstory.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsAlthough in April 2014 the French Apellate Court recognized the presence of aggravating circumstances, and the validity of the accusations in acts of racism directed against the white French community, a year later the term "anti-white racism" continues to cause problems and controversy. Thus, in March this year the Criminal Court of Paris reached the conclusion that according to the French law, "the so called white French" do not constitute "a separate group of people", and in this relation it dropped the charges against two defendants, a rapper and a sociologist, who had been spreading "a racist narrative directed against the white people of France". Granted, that didn't prevent one of them from serving time for a brutal assault, though.
These controversial decisions reflect the complexity of the situation in France (and in a large part of West Europe). On one side, the elite is evidently feeling diffident when it comes to handling "racial categories", especially when we're talking of the racial characteristics of the majority of the country's population. Because, as per its republican principles and values, France cannot be categorized along ethnic or racial criteria. But in the meantime, there's a very real social phenomenon: there's an increasing drive in the French society toward self-determination, exactly on the basis of those same ethnic and racial categories.
This self-determination is generating strife and even hatred. Which, by the way, is quite logical, since such sort of self-identity is inherently based on a confrontational logic (i.e. "us vs them"). In any case, it's becoming increasingly clear that despite the mythology that has taken shape in the post-colonial epoch, prejudice and racial hatred is far from being the sole monopoly of Europe alone.
The outcome of the lawsuit that started a few years ago against French political activist of Algerian origin Houria Bouteldja who made offensive attacks on the French people, is quite telling in this respect. Both the first court and the Apellate Court in Toulouse rejected the case, and refused to charge the defendant with inciting racial hatred, under the pretext that such a term like "indigenous French" in principle does not exist. The same arguments are being used now, too. Furthermore, quite amazingly, it's being done for two simultaneous reasons. Firstly, it's being assumed that racism could only be directed at a scientifically defined group of people, although the law practically refers to a "real or purported race". And secondly, the fact that Bouteldja's "Les Indigenes de la Republique" movement is literally being obsessed with the race issue, is not being taken into account even one bit.
Suffice to simply read the code of the movement (adopted in 2010), where "white power" and "white Europe" are being mercilessly lambasted. And to remind that it was Houria Bouteldja who wrote the open letter to "the Jew Eric Zemmour" (a famous French journalist, and author of the book The French Suicide, which points to Europe and immigration as the main culprits for France's problems), which, despite all her efforts to deny it, radiates tons of outright anti-Semitism.
By the way, this is far from being the only case in point. Based on racial self-determination, a number of movements have been formed, some of them now banned by the government. But are we talking of marginal formations here? Yes - if we solely look at their radical inclinations; and no - if we look at the character of their activities. For example, there's the so called Representative Council of France's Black Associations (CRAN), which a couple of years ago tried to hold a Miss Black France pageant and demanded a 10% quota for the racial minorities on elections. It may sound paradoxical, but such demands are generally viewed favorably by some representatives of the French political elites, the explicit egalitarian stipulations in the French Constitution notwithstanding.
In May last year, Le Monde dedicated a special investigation to France's new "black elite", i.e. the associations of the leaders who consider themselves black first and foremost, and only then French. It would be interesting how the public would've reacted, had France's "white elite" decided to act in a similar way around the media, and/or held a White Miss France pageant.
I'd say the tension is mostly caused by the display of double standard. On one side, the public in France mostly refrains from calling things with their real names, as is the case with the "indigenous French". On the other hand though, everyone can see perfectly clearly that the French elite is practically stuck on the issues of race, because it keeps constantly saying that a number of minorities are under-represented, while trying to pretend that such a thing like racial identity does not exist. In any case though, the criticism against this under-representation is only possible to debate if we first acknowledge that there's a specified racial/ethnic majority and minority in France, i.e. if we recognize that there's "indigenous population" in the country in the first place.
In this sense, let's view another telling example, related to the French Supreme Council on Audiovision (or CSA, as they call it). That council takes the task of evaluating the diversity of audiovisual media quite seriously. Which is why in 2009, the CSA introduced an entire statistical system. Every year, in the course of two weeks, the council calculates media coverage by four criteria: social position, gender, disability, and "origin" of the participants. While the former two criteria don't present much of a challenge, and even occasionally provide interesting and useful results (due to the noticeably broader representation of the media throughout the higher social and professional categories), the latter two criteria could make things rather complicated. Particularly the latter of the two.
What's actually "origin"? If we adopt the principle that there are no indigenous French, then how could we determine to what an extent the various minorities are represented in the media? Well, in order to avoid this confusion, the CSA only stops at the point of dividing the public into "whites" and "non-whites". The bureaucrats at the council are hypocritical enough to call this "perceived color" - as if there could be any ambiguity there (with the exception of separate specific cases). And therein lies the problem: the "whites" are practically being associated with "indigenousness", although this is often not the case (there are millions of white immigrants in France). In other words, turns out the indigenous French are not supposed to exist, but in the meantime that doesn't stop them from being present in the CSA stats, and even being explicitly criticized for being too disproportionately represented in the media.
Here's also the place to point out that such a research could practically wield any results you may prefer, and lead to any conclusions you might've pre-selected. Thus, if the result shows 85% of the respondents are white (respectively, the "non-whites" are 15%), this does not necessarily reflect their real share in society. And neither does it provide a pretext for making generalizations on their "over-" or "under-representation" in the media.
Many believe that this refusal to acknowledge the existence of reverse racism directed against whites alongside the admittedly prevalent white-on-black racism, is actually pouring more fuel into the engine of populist parties like the Front National. In truth, the notion, justified or not, that's been present among the indigenous French (extant or not), that they've been left at the mercy of fate, could really vastly improve the FN's election results - because in their everyday life, the French often become witness to a clash of different cultures and mores, and that tends to cause anxiety. Let me remind as well that, as researches by famous demographics Michele Tribalat and Bernard Obry indicate, in some French municipalities, the supposed majority could actually turn out to be a minority. Nevertheless, due to what they call "territorial separatism", a significant part of the population is still managing to avoid confrontation somehow. This is mostly valid for the wealthier layers of society, whose luxurious residence neighborhoods are often de facto "shielded" from incoming migration due to the high real estate prices.
In the mind of these people, the "reverse racism" that's directed against whites, is an ideological construct that's devoid of real basis. It's almost as if they're completely blind to anything that's happening right in front of their noses. For example, that group seems to have no notion of the conflicts between the many various minorities, which are forcing some social services to take drastic steps to prevent escalation. It's this diversity of real-life situations that explains the "threshold" that the FN doesn't seem capable of surpassing, come election time, and which prevents them from expanding their voter base, and win the second rounds of presidential elections. Pierre Martin, a political scientist, described this phenomenon very succinctly back in 1996: the FN continues to be a "powerless force". The result of the last election in France again confirms this. Yes, the Front did win quite a few extra points thanks to the prevalent sense of social insecurity that's currently reigning across France - but Le Pen's folks could hardly rely on anything more than 25-30% of the vote. Of course that's not little at all, but it's hardly sufficient to bring them to power. And this will continue to be so, unless something truly extraordinary happens.
Still, the question of racial self-identification, along with that of religion, is shaping up to be one of the major problems of tomorrow. For the time being, the French government is stubbornly refusing to honestly analyze the situation, because it's been doing its best to run away from anything remotely related to race and ethnicity. "Ethnic" statistics keep being frowned upon and avoided, and the state willfully shuts its eyes to any racial differences, even when they slap it right into the face. For example, in his election campaign, president Francois Hollande even used to propose the removal of the word "race" from the Constitution, under the pretext that it was "a term emptied of meaning". A lot has been done by his cabinet to make sure that no one would recal that moment nowadays, and that it's not being mentioned any more. Because right now, such a decision would've been justified by the necessity to at least symbolically confirm, despite all demands (like the one about the introduction of ethnic or racial quota in elections), the existence of racial and ethnic divides in the French society. The French republic would've never recognized racial self-identification on those terms, and for a reason.
In any case, the drive to never budge to such demands is commendable, because it re-confirms the republican character of the French nation as a community of citizens, united by a shared fate, and adhering to the same laws. The crux of the matter is, today this ideal is being put to test by the increasing diversification and stratification in the French society. This is of course sad, but the truth is, race and religion are becoming increasingly important criteria for identity for an increasing share of the population, which in turn is becoming increasingly influential, due to the increase of the well-educated and politically literate and politically active people.
I'd say there are radical changes coming up to that society, and hence, to West Europe in more general. And society would hardly be able to avoid the open discussion of the question how the state should be reacting to what's happening - not any longer.
For example, is it worth primarily focusing on cultural diversity, if that approach inevitably tends to stimulate and accelerate the dynamics of self-determination, and thus further stratification? Which is the exact opposite of the "melting pot" model, and creates prerequisites for widening the already existing rifts. And also, should people's origin be put first and foremost as the number one issue in education and culture, and the media? All of these are controversial questions that need public addressing.
By the way, the French government is still sitting on a very ambiguous position on these issues. On the one side, it emphasizes on its dedication to the republican ideal, which stipulates that there are "only citizens", and they're all to be treated the same. On the other hand, the rulers are evidently often tempted to subtly or overtly play the racial-ethnical card, especially around election time - in order to score cheap political points. For instance, why did Hollande say that "the Republic recognizes all religions", although the current law of the land, which has been in existence since 1905, explicitly says that the state does NOT recognize ANY religion? Was that a mere slip-up, or conversely, a very deliberate act? In any case, the advocates for the secular egalitarian French society probably do have a lot of cause for concern.
These controversial decisions reflect the complexity of the situation in France (and in a large part of West Europe). On one side, the elite is evidently feeling diffident when it comes to handling "racial categories", especially when we're talking of the racial characteristics of the majority of the country's population. Because, as per its republican principles and values, France cannot be categorized along ethnic or racial criteria. But in the meantime, there's a very real social phenomenon: there's an increasing drive in the French society toward self-determination, exactly on the basis of those same ethnic and racial categories.
This self-determination is generating strife and even hatred. Which, by the way, is quite logical, since such sort of self-identity is inherently based on a confrontational logic (i.e. "us vs them"). In any case, it's becoming increasingly clear that despite the mythology that has taken shape in the post-colonial epoch, prejudice and racial hatred is far from being the sole monopoly of Europe alone.
The outcome of the lawsuit that started a few years ago against French political activist of Algerian origin Houria Bouteldja who made offensive attacks on the French people, is quite telling in this respect. Both the first court and the Apellate Court in Toulouse rejected the case, and refused to charge the defendant with inciting racial hatred, under the pretext that such a term like "indigenous French" in principle does not exist. The same arguments are being used now, too. Furthermore, quite amazingly, it's being done for two simultaneous reasons. Firstly, it's being assumed that racism could only be directed at a scientifically defined group of people, although the law practically refers to a "real or purported race". And secondly, the fact that Bouteldja's "Les Indigenes de la Republique" movement is literally being obsessed with the race issue, is not being taken into account even one bit.
Suffice to simply read the code of the movement (adopted in 2010), where "white power" and "white Europe" are being mercilessly lambasted. And to remind that it was Houria Bouteldja who wrote the open letter to "the Jew Eric Zemmour" (a famous French journalist, and author of the book The French Suicide, which points to Europe and immigration as the main culprits for France's problems), which, despite all her efforts to deny it, radiates tons of outright anti-Semitism.
By the way, this is far from being the only case in point. Based on racial self-determination, a number of movements have been formed, some of them now banned by the government. But are we talking of marginal formations here? Yes - if we solely look at their radical inclinations; and no - if we look at the character of their activities. For example, there's the so called Representative Council of France's Black Associations (CRAN), which a couple of years ago tried to hold a Miss Black France pageant and demanded a 10% quota for the racial minorities on elections. It may sound paradoxical, but such demands are generally viewed favorably by some representatives of the French political elites, the explicit egalitarian stipulations in the French Constitution notwithstanding.
In May last year, Le Monde dedicated a special investigation to France's new "black elite", i.e. the associations of the leaders who consider themselves black first and foremost, and only then French. It would be interesting how the public would've reacted, had France's "white elite" decided to act in a similar way around the media, and/or held a White Miss France pageant.
I'd say the tension is mostly caused by the display of double standard. On one side, the public in France mostly refrains from calling things with their real names, as is the case with the "indigenous French". On the other hand though, everyone can see perfectly clearly that the French elite is practically stuck on the issues of race, because it keeps constantly saying that a number of minorities are under-represented, while trying to pretend that such a thing like racial identity does not exist. In any case though, the criticism against this under-representation is only possible to debate if we first acknowledge that there's a specified racial/ethnic majority and minority in France, i.e. if we recognize that there's "indigenous population" in the country in the first place.
In this sense, let's view another telling example, related to the French Supreme Council on Audiovision (or CSA, as they call it). That council takes the task of evaluating the diversity of audiovisual media quite seriously. Which is why in 2009, the CSA introduced an entire statistical system. Every year, in the course of two weeks, the council calculates media coverage by four criteria: social position, gender, disability, and "origin" of the participants. While the former two criteria don't present much of a challenge, and even occasionally provide interesting and useful results (due to the noticeably broader representation of the media throughout the higher social and professional categories), the latter two criteria could make things rather complicated. Particularly the latter of the two.
What's actually "origin"? If we adopt the principle that there are no indigenous French, then how could we determine to what an extent the various minorities are represented in the media? Well, in order to avoid this confusion, the CSA only stops at the point of dividing the public into "whites" and "non-whites". The bureaucrats at the council are hypocritical enough to call this "perceived color" - as if there could be any ambiguity there (with the exception of separate specific cases). And therein lies the problem: the "whites" are practically being associated with "indigenousness", although this is often not the case (there are millions of white immigrants in France). In other words, turns out the indigenous French are not supposed to exist, but in the meantime that doesn't stop them from being present in the CSA stats, and even being explicitly criticized for being too disproportionately represented in the media.
Here's also the place to point out that such a research could practically wield any results you may prefer, and lead to any conclusions you might've pre-selected. Thus, if the result shows 85% of the respondents are white (respectively, the "non-whites" are 15%), this does not necessarily reflect their real share in society. And neither does it provide a pretext for making generalizations on their "over-" or "under-representation" in the media.
Many believe that this refusal to acknowledge the existence of reverse racism directed against whites alongside the admittedly prevalent white-on-black racism, is actually pouring more fuel into the engine of populist parties like the Front National. In truth, the notion, justified or not, that's been present among the indigenous French (extant or not), that they've been left at the mercy of fate, could really vastly improve the FN's election results - because in their everyday life, the French often become witness to a clash of different cultures and mores, and that tends to cause anxiety. Let me remind as well that, as researches by famous demographics Michele Tribalat and Bernard Obry indicate, in some French municipalities, the supposed majority could actually turn out to be a minority. Nevertheless, due to what they call "territorial separatism", a significant part of the population is still managing to avoid confrontation somehow. This is mostly valid for the wealthier layers of society, whose luxurious residence neighborhoods are often de facto "shielded" from incoming migration due to the high real estate prices.
In the mind of these people, the "reverse racism" that's directed against whites, is an ideological construct that's devoid of real basis. It's almost as if they're completely blind to anything that's happening right in front of their noses. For example, that group seems to have no notion of the conflicts between the many various minorities, which are forcing some social services to take drastic steps to prevent escalation. It's this diversity of real-life situations that explains the "threshold" that the FN doesn't seem capable of surpassing, come election time, and which prevents them from expanding their voter base, and win the second rounds of presidential elections. Pierre Martin, a political scientist, described this phenomenon very succinctly back in 1996: the FN continues to be a "powerless force". The result of the last election in France again confirms this. Yes, the Front did win quite a few extra points thanks to the prevalent sense of social insecurity that's currently reigning across France - but Le Pen's folks could hardly rely on anything more than 25-30% of the vote. Of course that's not little at all, but it's hardly sufficient to bring them to power. And this will continue to be so, unless something truly extraordinary happens.
Still, the question of racial self-identification, along with that of religion, is shaping up to be one of the major problems of tomorrow. For the time being, the French government is stubbornly refusing to honestly analyze the situation, because it's been doing its best to run away from anything remotely related to race and ethnicity. "Ethnic" statistics keep being frowned upon and avoided, and the state willfully shuts its eyes to any racial differences, even when they slap it right into the face. For example, in his election campaign, president Francois Hollande even used to propose the removal of the word "race" from the Constitution, under the pretext that it was "a term emptied of meaning". A lot has been done by his cabinet to make sure that no one would recal that moment nowadays, and that it's not being mentioned any more. Because right now, such a decision would've been justified by the necessity to at least symbolically confirm, despite all demands (like the one about the introduction of ethnic or racial quota in elections), the existence of racial and ethnic divides in the French society. The French republic would've never recognized racial self-identification on those terms, and for a reason.
In any case, the drive to never budge to such demands is commendable, because it re-confirms the republican character of the French nation as a community of citizens, united by a shared fate, and adhering to the same laws. The crux of the matter is, today this ideal is being put to test by the increasing diversification and stratification in the French society. This is of course sad, but the truth is, race and religion are becoming increasingly important criteria for identity for an increasing share of the population, which in turn is becoming increasingly influential, due to the increase of the well-educated and politically literate and politically active people.
I'd say there are radical changes coming up to that society, and hence, to West Europe in more general. And society would hardly be able to avoid the open discussion of the question how the state should be reacting to what's happening - not any longer.
For example, is it worth primarily focusing on cultural diversity, if that approach inevitably tends to stimulate and accelerate the dynamics of self-determination, and thus further stratification? Which is the exact opposite of the "melting pot" model, and creates prerequisites for widening the already existing rifts. And also, should people's origin be put first and foremost as the number one issue in education and culture, and the media? All of these are controversial questions that need public addressing.
By the way, the French government is still sitting on a very ambiguous position on these issues. On the one side, it emphasizes on its dedication to the republican ideal, which stipulates that there are "only citizens", and they're all to be treated the same. On the other hand, the rulers are evidently often tempted to subtly or overtly play the racial-ethnical card, especially around election time - in order to score cheap political points. For instance, why did Hollande say that "the Republic recognizes all religions", although the current law of the land, which has been in existence since 1905, explicitly says that the state does NOT recognize ANY religion? Was that a mere slip-up, or conversely, a very deliberate act? In any case, the advocates for the secular egalitarian French society probably do have a lot of cause for concern.
(no subject)
Date: 24/6/15 19:44 (UTC)The French people should stop being coy about the new realities and meet them head-on. Otherwise the likes of Le Pen will continue to thrive.