NationStates Jolt Archive

Link. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1641867,00.html)

Riots are a class act - and often they're the only alternative

France now accepts the need for social justice. No petition, peaceful march or letter to an MP could have achieved this

Gary Younge
Monday November 14, 2005
The Guardian

'If there is no struggle, there is no progress," said the African American abolitionist Frederick Douglass. "Those who profess to favour freedom and yet depreciate agitation are men who want crops without ploughing up the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters ... Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."

By the end of last week it looked as though the fortnight of struggle between minority French youth and the police might actually have yielded some progress. Condemning the rioters is easy. They shot at the police, killed an innocent man, trashed businesses, rammed a car into a retirement home, and torched countless cars (given that 400 cars are burned on an average New Year's Eve in France, this was not quite as remarkable as some made out).

But shield your ears from the awful roaring waters for a moment and take a look at the ocean. Those who wondered what French youth had to gain by taking to the streets should ask what they had to lose. Unemployed, socially excluded, harassed by the police and condemned to poor housing, they live on estates that are essentially open prisons. Statistically invisible (it is against the law and republican principle to collect data based on race or ethnicity) and politically unrepresented (mainland France does not have a single non-white MP), their aim has been simply to get their plight acknowledged. And they succeeded.

Even as the French politicians talked tough, the state was suing for peace with the offer of greater social justice. The government unrolled a package of measures that would give career guidance and work placements to all unemployed people under 25 in some of the poorest suburbs; there would be tax breaks for companies who set up on sink estates; a €1,000 (£675) lump sum for jobless people who returned to work as well as €150 a month for a year; 5,000 extra teachers and educational assistants; 10,000 scholarships to encourage academic achievers to stay at school; and 10 boarding schools for those who want to leave their estates to study.

"We need to respond strongly and quickly to the undeniable problems facing many inhabitants of the deprived neighbourhoods," said President Chirac. From the man who once said that immigrants had breached the "threshold of tolerance" and were sending French workers "mad" with their "noise and smell" this was progress indeed.

"The impossible becomes probable through struggle," said the African American academic Manning Marable. "And the probable becomes reality."

And the reality is that none of this would have happened without riots. There was no petition these young people could have signed, no peaceful march they could have held, no letter they could have written to their MPs that would have produced these results.

Amid the charred chassis and broken glass there is a vital point of principle to salvage: in certain conditions rioting is not just justified but may also be necessary, and effective. From the poll tax demonstrations to Soweto, history is littered with such cases; what were the French and American revolutions but riots endowed by Enlightenment principles and then blessed by history?

When all non-violent, democratic means of achieving a just end are unavailable, redundant or exhausted, rioting is justifiable. When state agencies charged with protecting communities fail to do so or actually attack them, it may be necessary in self-defence.

After the 1967 riots in American cities, President Johnson set up the Kerner commission. It concluded: "What white Americans have never fully understood - but what the Negro can never forget - is that white society is deeply implicated in the ghetto. White institutions created it, white institutions maintain it, and white society condones it." How else was such a damning indictment of racial discrimination in the US ever going to land on the president's desk?

Following the inner-city riots across Britain in 1981, Lord Scarman argued that "urgent action" was needed to prevent racial disadvantage becoming an "endemic, ineradicable disease threatening the very survival of our society". His conclusions weren't perfect. But the kernel of a message black Britons had been trying to hammer home for decades suddenly took centre stage. A few years later Michael Heseltine wrote a report into the disturbances in Toxteth entitled It Takes a Riot.

Rioting should be neither celebrated nor fetishised, because ultimately it is a sign not of strength but weakness. Like a strike, it is often the last and most desperate weapon available to those with the least power. Rioting is a class act. Wealthy people don't do it because either they have the levers of democracy at their disposal, or they can rely on the state or private security firms to do their violent work for them, if need be.

The issue of when and how rioting is effective is more problematic. Riots raise awareness of a situation, but they cannot solve it. For that you need democratic engagement and meaningful negotiation. Most powerful when they stem from a movement, all too often riots are instead the spontaneous, leaderless expression of pent-up frustration void of an agenda or clear demands. Many of these French youths may have had a ball last week, but what they really need is a party - a political organisation that will articulate their aspirations.

If Kerner and Scarman are anything to go by, the rioters will not be invited to help write the documents that could shape racial discourse for a generation. Nor are they likely to be the primary beneficiaries.

"During the 80s, everyone was desperate to have a black face in their organisation to show the race relations industry that they were allowing black people to get on," says the editor of Race & Class, Ambalavaner Sivanandan. "So the people who made this mobility possible were those who took to the streets. But they did not benefit." The same is true of the black American working class that produced Kerner.

Given these uncertain outcomes, riots carry great risk. The border between political violence and criminality becomes blurred, and legitimate protest risks degrading into impotent displays of hypermasculinity. Violence at that point becomes not the means to even a vague aspiration but the end in itself, and half the story gets missed. We heard little from young minority French women last week, even though they have been the primary target of the state's secular dogma over the hijab.

Finally, violence polarises. The big winner of the last two weeks may yet prove to be Sarkozy. The presidential-hopeful courted the far-right with his calculated criticisms of the rioters; if he wins he could reverse any gains that may arise. Le Pen also lurks in the wings.

The riots in France run all these risks and yet have still managed to yield a precarious kind of progress. They demand our qualified and critical support.

Power has made its concessions. But how many, for how long and to whom depends on whether those who made the demands take their struggle from the margins to the mainstream: from the street to the corridors of power.
Looks like some of the forum's anarchists are onto something, hmm? This highlights for me the simple fact that non-violent protest isn't always going to be enough. Those of us who want real change should put aside our squeamishness, perhaps?

I guess sometimes the ends do justify the means.

While I agree with the sentiments expressed, and I'm not an anarchist (regardless of your political cause, sometimes violence is a necessary, albeit immoral and unethical means of expression), I find it curious that when I post an entire article with a link, and a small comment, opponents are quick to jump on it and lambaste me for doing so.

Guess it's ok when someone else does it ;)

[QUOTE=Deep Kimchi]While I agree with the sentiments expressed, and I'm not an anarchist (regardless of your political cause, sometimes violence is a necessary, albeit immoral and unethical means of expression)...QUOTE]

I agree with you as well.

As an aside, the ends always justify the means.
If an end does not require murder to be achieved, then it does not justify those particular means.
However, every end has means that it justifies.
Therefore, provided that the correct means are chosen, the end justifies them and they are not (in an ethical sense) a crime.
When unjustified means are used, they become (in an ethical sense as well) a crime.
As such, the ends justify the means.

"Rioting should be neither celebrated nor fetishised, because ultimately it is a sign not of strength but weakness. Like a strike, it is often the last and most desperate weapon available to those with the least power."

on the other hand, riots, like strikes, have a tendency to increase the political awareness of those involved, allowing the formation of more coherent movements and the growth of solidarity between the opressed. they can give people a sense of their own power in acting together, when power is otherwise denied to them. which is something i find to be worth celebrating.


as for fetishizing, what can i say? riot pr0n is hawt!

I find it curious that when I post an entire article with a link, and a small comment, opponents are quick to jump on it and lambaste me for doing so. Guess it's ok when someone else does it ;)
That's the Liberal Conspiracy for you. Seriously though, isn't it a little illegal to quote an enitre article like that - surely it goes way beyond the 'fair use' provisions of copyright law?

On the other hand, while I see the violence as necessary, I don't believe that the ends justifies the means.

Something can be necessary, or the only option, and still be morally objectionable (unjustifiable from a moral perspective).

It DOES seem that the governments of the world don't listen until they see how truely pissed off the people are.

That's the Liberal Conspiracy for you. Seriously though, isn't it a little illegal to quote an enitre article like that - surely it goes way beyond the 'fair use' provisions of copyright law?

I usually (but not always) quote only part of an article.

But I get different responses.

If I post the whole thing, I get your complaint.

If I post part of it, I get the complaint that I was cherry-picking, and should have posted the whole thing.

All from the same people.

In a democratic society, violence should never be an option or necessity.

While I'll agree with the case of rioting for civil rights it’s a dangerous road to congratulate them.

The moment we disregard the law against violent riots saying its acceptable (for a noble cause). Everyone’s opinion of noble differs and we might one day find some violent extremists on any side feeling the "end justifies the means" and if we can't accept one without allowing others.

While I'll agree with the case of rioting for civil rights it’s a dangerous road to congratulate them.

The moment we disregard the law against violent riots saying its acceptable (for a noble cause). Everyone’s opinion of noble differs and we might one day find some violent extremists on any side feeling the "end justifies the means" and if we can't accept one without allowing others.

People who win usually say the ends justify the means, and they get away with it because they won.

In a democratic society, violence should never be an option or necessity.

of course it shouldn't. but it often is. 'democratic societies' tend to have giant gaping holes that they try their damnedest to paper over, ignoring what falls through them. they also tend to be democratic only in a sort of general sense. the choices are fake, the people take no part in deciding what the choices will be, the wealthy hold disproportionate sway, and the powerful jealously hang on to their power and view themselves as above those lacking power.

the institutional power of class societies only understands two things. wealth and collective shows of force and solidarity. lacking the wealth to buy power's attention, the only viable option is often to stand together with either the threat or use of violence to back it up.

That's the Liberal Conspiracy for you. Seriously though, isn't it a little illegal to quote an enitre article like that - surely it goes way beyond the 'fair use' provisions of copyright law?
I haven't the foggiest idea, in truth. But we do it all the time here in General-land.

Deep Kimchi, I usually find I get a slagging before the end of the first page. Just be patient.

of course it shouldn't. but it often is. 'democratic societies' tend to have giant gaping holes that they try their damnedest to paper over, ignoring what falls through them. they also tend to be democratic only in a sort of general sense. the choices are fake, the people take no part in deciding what the choices will be, the wealthy hold disproportionate sway, and the powerful jealously hang on to their power and view themselves as above those lacking power.

the institutional power of class societies only understands two things. wealth and collective shows of force and solidarity. lacking the wealth to buy power's attention, the only viable option is often to stand together with either the threat or use of violence to back it up
The Original Socialist Rockstar speaks true.

Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle! Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will. Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." -- Frederick Douglass, August 4, 1857.

Douglass was agitating for Revolution. I have no real problem with Revolution... but I have major issues with Riots.

#1: Riots almost never do serious damage to "the oppressors" while doing great harm to "the oppressed". How is that beneficial?

#2: Riots almost always involve theft of goods not related to the "oppression" - goods usually owned by "the oppressed".

Therefore, Riots have more to do with unthinking wanton destruction and criminality than agitation or taking up arms against "oppressors".

Douglass was agitating for Revolution. I have no real problem with Revolution... but I have major issues with Riots.

#1: Riots almost never do serious damage to "the oppressors" while doing great harm to "the oppressed". How is that beneficial?

#2: Riots almost always involve theft of goods not related to the "oppression" - goods usually owned by "the oppressed".

Therefore, Riots have more to do with unthinking wanton destruction and criminality than agitation or taking up arms against "oppressors".
Sophisticated rioting - that's what we need.

What this article really shows is that with enough dishonesty, relativism and eloquent wording of what is essentially nonsense, one can mislead people into justifying just about anything.

Looks like some of the forum's anarchists are onto something, hmm? This highlights for me the simple fact that non-violent protest isn't always going to be enough. Those of us who want real change should put aside our squeamishness, perhaps?

I guess sometimes the ends do justify the means.
So revolution is justified if you don't own your own home or have a wide-screen TV in the livingroom? Riiiight! This is a prescription for disaster. Every resentful dweeb on earth has a right to revolt if they don't like the way they live? :rolleyes:

What this article really shows is that with enough dishonesty, relativism and eloquent wording of what is essentially nonsense, one can mislead people into justifying just about anything.
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles." – Jeff Cooper

I'm sure a majority of the rioters are simply "wilding"-malicious mayhem and destruction for the mob-sport of it.

Many dont have any principle or point, just getting washed up in the free for all atmosphere and thrill of it all.
A few may be acting on thier convictions, doing what they think is right. Very,very few.

The rest are animals. Animals with Molotov cocktails. Turn the hoses on them, release the hounds, armored vehicles,mounted police, etc.

Police snipers dropping the odd rioter at random would certainly diminish one's desire to behave that way. How much more personal property needs to be destroyed? How many more innocent civilians need to hide & worry their home or livleyhood will be destroyed by animals?

After a week of total peace on the streets, hold a public forum where the people with a true gripe can express themselves and their concerns. Identify and address the issues.

Overall very interesting and it draws a conclusion i feel i have to at least morally agree with, that violence is [only] necessary when all other alternatives have been sincerely exhausted in the search for progressive change or resistence to oppression and servitude - of cause having just said that i may soon face several years in prison should ASIO or the AFP discover this once the nw legislation on Terrorism passes...

When all non-violent, democratic means of achieving a just end are unavailable, redundant or exhausted, rioting is justifiable. My question then is this: were all avenues exhauted or did radical agitators/criminal elements direct violence on the pretence of retaliation for the initial death of the two young men?

What this article really shows is that with enough dishonesty, relativism and eloquent wording of what is essentially nonsense, one can mislead people into justifying just about anything.
This is clearly justifiable. France has failed its non-white population. It's easy to condemn from a position of dominance.

So revolution is justified if you don't own your own home or have a wide-screen TV in the livingroom? Riiiight! This is a prescription for disaster. Every resentful dweeb on earth has a right to revolt if they don't like the way they live?
No, it's justified when you're failed by the state you live in. It seems you didn't notice, but there are wider issues involved in the paris riots than TV ownership.

Remind me again... how exactly did the US earn its independence? Kow-towing to the British? How did France catalyse European democracy? Hmm?

I'm sure a majority of the rioters are simply "wilding"-malicious mayhem and destruction for the mob-sport of it.

Many dont have any principle or point, just getting washed up in the free for all atmosphere and thrill of it all.
A few may be acting on thier convictions, doing what they think is right. Very,very few.

The rest are animals. Animals with Molotov cocktails. Turn the hoses on them, release the hounds, armored vehicles,mounted police, etc.

Police snipers dropping the odd rioter at random would certainly diminish one's desire to behave that way. How much more personal property needs to be destroyed? How many more innocent civilians need to hide & worry their home or livleyhood will be destroyed by animals?

After a week of total peace on the streets, hold a public forum where the people with a true gripe can express themselves and their concerns. Identify and address the issues.
Treatment of rioters aside, I kind of agree with you. However, without the violence, would anything have been done? I suspect not.

Treatment of rioters aside, I kind of agree with you. However, without the violence, would anything have been done? I suspect not.

The question is, will the government's actions change anything? If history is a guide, I think not.

You can't legislate away racism. Sure, you can pass laws, and hold a few people accountable. But it doesn't change their attitudes or resentments.

It takes decades for things to change, and most politicians don't act on that scale. They want to pass feel-good legislation in order to get the opposition off their backs. Then it's no longer a problem.

My question then is this: were all avenues exhauted or did radical agitators/criminal elements direct violence on the pretence of retaliation for the initial death of the two young men?
Of course not. That was just an excuse. Those who riot in most modern, democratic states do so out of frustration that they don't possess the same things others possess. It's almost inevitably based on envy and resentment.

Of course not. That was just an excuse. Those who riot in most modern, democratic states do so out of frustration that they don't possess the same things others possess. It's almost inevitably based on envy and resentment.

Yeah, because it's entirely their fault that no job opportunities arise in their respective ghettos. :rolleyes:

Those people came to France from Africa seeking opportunities. They got none.

Treatment of rioters aside, I kind of agree with you. However, without the violence, would anything have been done? I suspect not.


And I agree with you- I, as most people, were unaware of this problem until there was violence in the streets. I get the feeling now, before the proof becomes known, that this is a problem that has been simmering for a long time.
The French are now on a tightrope. They have to give the issues attention and try to resolve them. However, they run the risk of encouraging this method of getting attention.

As do all governments everywhere. This is a lesson to all governments that has to be watched carefully. The results will make or break a lot of people.
Large scale problems cannot be ignored or treated with indifference until they explode.
I hope for the sake of France, and all countries that arent a perfect utopia, that this quiets down and gets the positive attention and solutions it needs really quick.
The three week mark is approaching-its gone on way too long.

This is clearly justifiable. France has failed its non-white population. It's easy to condemn from a position of dominance.

No, it's justified when you're failed by the state you live in. It seems you didn't notice, but there are wider issues involved in the paris riots than TV ownership.

Remind me again... how exactly did the US earn its independence? Kow-towing to the British? How did France catalyse European democracy? Hmm?
Specious. Revolution should always be a last resort, as it was in both the American and French revolutions. All other avenues had been exhausted.

It's perception of relative postion: people in France and the US mutter "revolt" if their choice for President isn't elected. People in most of Africa revolt because they're being oppressed in some serious way, such as being exterminated, denied food, denied the right to worship as they see fit, etc.

My "State" has failed me many times, in that it hasn't done everything the way I would like to see it done. Does than mean that I'm entitled to riot and revolt? Hardly!

Yeah, because it's entirely their fault that no job opportunities arise in their respective ghettos. :rolleyes:

Those people came to France from Africa seeking opportunities. They got none.

So-France owes them the ideal opportunities? France is already housing many of them and giving them other un-earned stipends.

Maybe, they could have stayed in their own respective shitholes and tried to make conditions and opporotunities there?

And if that didnt work, they could have rioted in the streets there?

Oh, no-where they come from, the military would have already tortured and killed them as well as their families and pets.
Much easier to rise up and act like the uncivil scumbags they are in a civil society.

My "State" has failed me many times, in that it hasn't done everything the way I would like to see it done. Does than mean that I'm entitled to riot and revolt? Hardly!

It's not the state "failing them". It's the state denying them the opportunity to live decent lives.

Yeah, because it's entirely their fault that no job opportunities arise in their respective ghettos. :rolleyes:

Those people came to France from Africa seeking opportunities. They got none.
So explain the riots in Ohio and the looting in New Orleans. Where do they fit into your neat little categories?

So explain the riots in Ohio and the looting in New Orleans. Where do they fit into your neat little categories?

It's quite different. Those people didn't immigrate to a country only to be placed in ghettos with absolutely no job opportunities. They were born in them.

Different, but the same.

Lacking the wealth to buy power's attention, the only viable option is often to stand together with either the threat or use of violence to back it up.
It would be very instructive to ask those who riot or revolt when was the last time they voted, or petitioned their government, or paraded in peaceful protest. None of those things require "wealth" and yet, with patience, many times will yield tangible results.

It's quite different. Those people didn't immigrate to a country only to be placed in ghettos with absolutely no job opportunities. They were born in them.

Different, but the same.
As I understand the problem, it's just a TAD more complicated than that. By adhering to "sharia" and refusing to be integrated into society, they effectively walled themselves off from the rest of society. Many times, "out of sight, out of mind" holds true. Every ethnic group which emmigrated to Amercia was eventually fully integrated into society. Why? Because the opportuity was there to do so, and they knew the value of taking that step.

It would be very instructive to ask those who riot or revolt when was the last time they voted, or petitioned their government, or paraded in peaceful protest. None of those things require "wealth" and yet, with patience, many times will yield tangible results.

Yeah, petitions and peaceful protests will really work when your government is the cause of your misfortune.

As I understand the problem, it's just a TAD more complicated than that. By adhering to "sharia" and refusing to be integrated into society, they effectively walled themselves off from the rest of society. Many times, "out of sight, out of mind" holds true. Every ethnic group which emmigrated to Amercia was eventually fully integrated into society. Why? Because the opportuity was there to do so, and they knew the value of taking that step.

Anti-Islamic sentiments are everywhere, I see.

Of course not. That was just an excuse. Those who riot in most modern, democratic states do so out of frustration that they don't possess the same things others possess. It's almost inevitably based on envy and resentment.
Er, no. Heard of the Brixton riots in Britain? Seems to me that many riots are the culmination of perhaps decades of simmering tension, resentment and mistreatment.

What of the Sikh riots in Birmingham last year? That had nothing to do with envy and lack of material possessions.

... Every ethnic group which emmigrated to Amercia was eventually fully integrated into society...
Rose-tinted spectacles on discount round your way? It's all too easy to pontificate from a position of comfort and dominance. People think that because Martin Luther King is venerated in public discourse, there are no longer any racial issues in the US.

The Paris riots can't just be written off as envious religious maniacs refusing to acknowledge that there is a democratic process. Neither should they be eulogised as a glorious symbol of the masses rising up in solidarity, for that matter. The point of the article I posted is - as I see it - to highlight that conventional means of protest haven't been working. This is only going to become even more of a truism as our lovely deomcratic governments introduce their lovely democratic terrorism and security measures (meanwhile continuting to wage their lovely democratic wars).

Rose-tinted spectacles on discount round your way? It's all too easy to pontificate from a position of comfort and dominance. People think that because Martin Luther King is venerated in public discourse, there are no longer any racial issues in the US.

The Paris riots can't just be written off as envious religious maniacs refusing to acknowledge that there is a democratic process. Neither should they be eulogised as a glorious symbol of the masses rising up in solidarity, for that matter. The point of the article I posted is - as I see it - to highlight that conventional means of protest haven't been working. This is only going to become even more of a truism as our lovely deomcratic governments introduce their lovely democratic terrorism and security measures (meanwhile continuting to wage their lovely democratic wars).

Keep in mind that nations with large militaries that have warehoused people in huge housing projects (ghettos) historically have been able to empty the ghettos by liquidation.

History has a tendency to repeat itself.

Keep in mind that nations with large militaries that have warehoused people in huge housing projects (ghettos) historically have been able to empty the ghettos by liquidation.

History has a tendency to repeat itself.
That's possibly the most depressing thing I've read all week.

Rose-tinted spectacles on discount round your way? It's all too easy to pontificate from a position of comfort and dominance. People think that because Martin Luther King is venerated in public discourse, there are no longer any racial issues in the US.

The Paris riots can't just be written off as envious religious maniacs refusing to acknowledge that there is a democratic process. Neither should they be eulogised as a glorious symbol of the masses rising up in solidarity, for that matter. The point of the article I posted is - as I see it - to highlight that conventional means of protest haven't been working. This is only going to become even more of a truism as our lovely deomcratic governments introduce their lovely democratic terrorism and security measures (meanwhile continuting to wage their lovely democratic wars).


My "comfort and dominance" is relatively young- my father's family came to New York City when it wasnt so great to be Italian.
No one handed them anything. They persevered, worked hard.Learned English. My grandfather went on to be a captain in the US Army in WWII. The rest of them cut and installed marble all over the offices of NYC.
They werent treated well, welcomed with open arms-no social programs whatsoever. They were on their own. Earned everything they got the hard way. They adapted and overcame and each generation of my family has improved, standing on the shoulders of the generation before them.

My "comfort and dominance" is relatively young- my father's family came to New York City when it wasnt so great to be Italian.
No one handed them anything. They persevered, worked hard.Learned English. My grandfather went on to be a captain in the US Army in WWII. The rest of them cut and installed marble all over the offices of NYC.
They werent treated well, welcomed with open arms-no social programs whatsoever. They were on their own. Earned everything they got the hard way. They adapted and overcame and each generation of my family has improved, standing on the shoulders of the generation before them.
Kudos to your family. Unfortunately, I know little of that era of American history so I'm not in a position to compare situations. However, it's my supposition that those who struggle in ghettos today are not necessarily suffering for want of effort.

This is somewhat tangential, but could the war years be said to have been a leveller of sorts, perhaps?

I'm sure a majority of the rioters are simply "wilding"-malicious mayhem and destruction for the mob-sport of it.

Many dont have any principle or point, just getting washed up in the free for all atmosphere and thrill of it all.
A few may be acting on thier convictions, doing what they think is right. Very,very few.

The rest are animals. Animals with Molotov cocktails. Turn the hoses on them, release the hounds, armored vehicles,mounted police, etc.

Police snipers dropping the odd rioter at random would certainly diminish one's desire to behave that way. How much more personal property needs to be destroyed? How many more innocent civilians need to hide & worry their home or livleyhood will be destroyed by animals?

After a week of total peace on the streets, hold a public forum where the people with a true gripe can express themselves and their concerns. Identify and address the issues.

If anyone cares to remeber the riots in LA after that police beating, all they did was burn down their own neighborhoods and businesses. All that does is prove the point that some these people behave like animals. I remeber when the Chicago Bulls won the Championships, people started to riot and flip and burn cars and break into businesses. And for what??

Kudos to your family. Unfortunately, I know little of that era of American history so I'm not in a position to compare situations. However, it's my supposition that those who struggle in ghettos today are not necessarily suffering for want of effort.

This is somewhat tangential, but could the war years be said to have been a leveller of sorts, perhaps?

That is possible, yes. I guess it would take a much more in depth study and could likley be argued either way.

I'm not argueing, really, more just showing an example. My ancestors came here and did live in ghettos. The difference is, there were no public programs at the time. There was no welfare type program to support those with nothing. The kids walked along train tracks picking up odd pieces of coal and wood scraps for cooking/heating fuel. They were poor-as poor as can be. And didnt speak English when they arrived. And people didnt want to talk to,let alone hire, or live near Italians.
Its hard to believe 100 yrs later how well people in my family are doing. I have great respect for the effort and sacrafice my ancestors made coming here and making it work. Would we have been as well off if they stayed in Italy,Sicily, Europe? Who knows? They arrived here and hit the ground running and as far as I know, no one in my family going back to when they arrived has ever benefitted from any welfare or social program.

If anyone cares to remeber the riots in LA after that police beating, all they did was burn down their own neighborhoods and businesses. All that does is prove the point that some these people behave like animals. I remeber when the Chicago Bulls won the Championships, people started to riot and flip and burn cars and break into businesses. And for what??


Thats what I meant in a previous post- some people just love the hooliganistic aspect of it- no cause, no statement, just the thrill of wanton mayhem and destruction.
A small percentage likely feel they are just.

The rest are scum bags.

When my mother moved here from Poland with my father,
she hardly knew any English, and she learned herself. There was no one else here that gave a free government handout and a job. She got it by going out there and learning the leg of land. She learned to speak english very well, and my parents have prospered with hardly any help. This was about twenty or so years ago. I dont recall her ever getting mad at the government for not giving her or my father any freebies.

Whats even more sadder is the fact that in an article that was written about the riots in France, they interveiwed an Algerian woman, who lived in France for 25 years, and still could not speak the language, and she was wondering why she couldnt get a job, or her son who spoke very little. If I find the link, I'll clip it on so you can see for yourselves. I'm not joking. 25 years in a new nation and you cant speak the language? Thats why I cant stand it when people come over here and dont learn English. All I can say is "Welcome to America, now SPEAK ENGLISH!"

When my mother moved here from Poland with my father,
she hardly knew any English, and she learned herself. There was no one else here that gave a free government handout and a job. She got it by going out there and learning the leg of land. She learned to speak english very well, and my parents have prospered with hardly any help. This was about twenty or so years ago. I dont recall her ever getting mad at the government for not giving her or my father any freebies.

Whats even more sadder is the fact that in an article that was written about the riots in France, they interveiwed an Algerian woman, who lived in France for 25 years, and still could not speak the language, and she was wondering why she couldnt get a job, or her son who spoke very little. If I find the link, I'll clip it on so you can see for yourselves. I'm not joking. 25 years in a new nation and you cant speak the language? Thats why I cant stand it when people come over here and dont learn English. All I can say is "Welcome to America, now SPEAK ENGLISH!"

So your story of success is even fresher than mine.

Its not that those others you refer to "cant " speak the native language, but more that they "WONT" speak it.

I have nothing against immigrants-As I've said, I knew the immigrants in my own family. They became citizens. They brought the value and skills of their homeland and contributed to this land and became successful-they didnt have their hand out demanding to be handed part of the dream.

Wow, I am actually going to (generally) agree with Eutrusca and Carnivorous Lickers on this point.

Something just told me I was never going to agree with them.

Yeah, petitions and peaceful protests will really work when your government is the cause of your misfortune.
Each of us creates our own version of "misfortune," and some choose to blame it on anyone but themselves.

Anti-Islamic sentiments are everywhere, I see.
Whatever. :rolleyes:

This is clearly justifiable. France has failed its non-white population. It's easy to condemn from a position of dominance.
Or did this population fail France? How come the same problems never arose with the Jewish or the Armenian communities, despite the horrific mistreatment both groups have suffered?

Er, no. Heard of the Brixton riots in Britain? Seems to me that many riots are the culmination of perhaps decades of simmering tension, resentment and mistreatment.

What of the Sikh riots in Birmingham last year? That had nothing to do with envy and lack of material possessions.
I'm not familiar with those. Care to enlighten me as to their "real causes?" :)

My "comfort and dominance" is relatively young- my father's family came to New York City when it wasnt so great to be Italian.
No one handed them anything. They persevered, worked hard.Learned English. My grandfather went on to be a captain in the US Army in WWII. The rest of them cut and installed marble all over the offices of NYC.
They werent treated well, welcomed with open arms-no social programs whatsoever. They were on their own. Earned everything they got the hard way. They adapted and overcame and each generation of my family has improved, standing on the shoulders of the generation before them.
[ Whistles, stomps feet, cheers wildly! ] GOOD for them! What a shame that so many now think that because they don't have all they want, "the government" ( meaning taxpayers ) owes them, won't "pay up" and is therefore the "cause" of all their ills. :rolleyes:

If anyone cares to remeber the riots in LA after that police beating, all they did was burn down their own neighborhoods and businesses. All that does is prove the point that some these people behave like animals. I remeber when the Chicago Bulls won the Championships, people started to riot and flip and burn cars and break into businesses. And for what??
"Rvolution for the hell of it." - Jerry Rubin

Wow, I am actually going to (generally) agree with Eutrusca and Carnivorous Lickers on this point.

Something just told me I was never going to agree with them.


Thanks.

Everyone agrees with me sooner or later.

I have great respect for the effort and sacrafice my ancestors made coming here and making it work. They arrived here and hit the ground running and as far as I know, no one in my family going back to when they arrived has ever benefitted from any welfare or social program.
As do I! The next time you get a chance to talk with them, tell them they have my undying admiration. :)

[ Whistles, stomps feet, cheers wildly! ] GOOD for them! What a shame that so many now think that because they don't have all they want, "the government" ( meaning taxpayers ) owes them, won't "pay up" and is therefore the "cause" of all their ills. :rolleyes:

Well- you have to admit-All of us are unfairly victimized in some way by the system. Sometimes, you have to roll with the punches and deal with it. Make it work for you. Take the good with the bad.
And say to yourself "Thank God I'm here, where I have a chance to do better, if I try."

Thats why I spent the past weekend putting so much time and effort into the Scout food drive. And encouraging others to as well. And will again next weekend.
Me or my family may need a little assistance or slack somewhere, someday and maybe someone will be there to give us a chance.

I'm a big believer in contributing to society.

Well- you have to admit-All of us are unfairly victimized in some way by the system. Sometimes, you have to roll with the punches and deal with it. Make it work for you. Take the good with the bad.
And say to yourself "Thank God I'm here, where I have a chance to do better, if I try."

Thats why I spent the past weekend putting so much time and effort into the Scout food drive. And encouraging others to as well. And will again next weekend.
Me or my family may need a little assistance or slack somewhere, someday and maybe someone will be there to give us a chance.

I'm a big believer in contributing to society.

And why I take in victims of domestic violence.

I'm not waiting for the government to do something...

As do I! The next time you get a chance to talk with them, tell them they have my undying admiration. :)

Thanks, Eutrusca. I value your appreciation and opinion. My last grandparent passed away a long time ago, but their spirit, values, work ethics all are in my father as well as me. I am working to pass them on to my children. Personal responsibilty, self reliance, charity, education. Trying to improve ourselves with each generation.

Ya know, there sure are alot of pissed off people if France. If only there was some way to that they could get their voices heard non-violently. HHmmmm
If only it were legal for them to all learn French, and then VOTE in elections.

That would work if there weren't armed gaurds that stop them from learning the language of the country they live in and who keep them home with guns to their heads during elections. [/SARCASM]

Ya, violence was the only way.:rolleyes:

In no way are the riots in Paris justified, you do not have the right to burn someones car because you are angry, violence never solves anything. it just leads to more hate and more violence. However, i'm not defending the French govtm either. By ignoring racial differences, they have made the problem worse. The govt needs to take this opportunty to address these problems and break the circle of hate and violence

And why I take in victims of domestic violence.

I'm not waiting for the government to do something...

Providing a safe haven for a victim has got to be in the top 5 selfless and charitable things you could do for a fellow human. You've always had my respect there.

While not of the same caliber, we have had my wife's grandmother live with us for 15yrs now. She is 90 and would otherwise be in a nursing home. She is sound minded and my wife acts as her nurse. She is safe and well fed here, her belongings and future are safe. She lives with her great grandchildren. She needs assistance with a variety of things,some of which isnt pleasant or easy, but in my mind, thats what family is for. She also maintains her dignity here.
My wife has recently started shopping for and doing odds and ends for an elderly neighbor. her husband was recently stricken by a stroke and is on his way out in a home. We noticed her walking all the time. I insisted on giving her a ride one day last summer when it was clear she wasnt walking for health and fond out the husband did everything and now she is lost. Walking two miles each way each day to visit him. Now my wife and I alternate taking her daily, as well as a weekly trip to the store.

We dont see these things as a big deal- small sacrafices that help people. If everyone reached out and did a small thing, society would benefit tremendously and people would start to share trust and admiration, instead of bias and suspicion and jealousy.

Ya know, there sure are alot of pissed off people if France. If only there was some way to that they could get their voices heard non-violently. HHmmmm
If only it were legal for them to all learn French, and then VOTE in elections.

That would work if there weren't armed gaurds that stop them from learning the language of the country they live in and who keep them home with guns to their heads during elections. [/SARCASM]

Ya, violence was the only way.:rolleyes:
Heh! And here I thought *I* was good with sarcasm! Tsk! :D

Firsty, I don't think that beggars can be choosers. These people fled Africa escaping poverty. No matter how much relative poverty they're in now they're in better conditions than they were back home. They're even given benefits, paid for by the average Frenchman. These people should be considered lucky that they were even let in, that more than I would ever have done.

As for the second or third generation immigrants, I wouldn't have too much sympathy for them. They cling onto a pathetically backward culture and religion. They'll hate the average Frenchman regardless of how well they're treated. They want nothing to do with mainstream society, but they're more than happy to demand that the rest of society pays for the wonderful priviledge of keeping them there to commit crimes. Then they wonder why society wants nothing to do with them.

But when looking at things from a purely pragmatic angle, the 20th century especially has countless examples of riots succeeding to bring about a change in society. That's undeniable. But these victories for disorder and criminal behaviour have only been won because of governmental weakness. If a riot happens, the government should refuse to even acknowledge the rioter's concerns for at least another 10 years. Only then could society truthfully say "Rioting doesn't work".

Providing a safe haven for a victim has got to be in the top 5 selfless and charitable things you could do for a fellow human. You've always had my respect there.

While not of the same caliber, we have had my wife's grandmother live with us for 15yrs now. She is 90 and would otherwise be in a nursing home. She is sound minded and my wife acts as her nurse. She is safe and well fed here, her belongings and future are safe. She lives with her great grandchildren. She needs assistance with a variety of things,some of which isnt pleasant or easy, but in my mind, thats what family is for. She also maintains her dignity here.
My wife has recently started shopping for and doing odds and ends for an elderly neighbor. her husband was recently stricken by a stroke and is on his way out in a home. We noticed her walking all the time. I insisted on giving her a ride one day last summer when it was clear she wasnt walking for health and fond out the husband did everything and now she is lost. Walking two miles each way each day to visit him. Now my wife and I alternate taking her daily, as well as a weekly trip to the store.

We dont see these things as a big deal- small sacrafices that help people. If everyone reached out and did a small thing, society would benefit tremendously and people would start to share trust and admiration, instead of bias and suspicion and jealousy.


Although there are a lot of people who think the movie is trite, "Pay It Forward" is a good idea.

http://www.payitforwardfoundation.org/get_involved.html

Start a revolution--it begins with you!

The premise of the novel Pay It Forward is one that any person can implement in his or her own life, at any time. It begins with doing a favor for another person-- without any expectation of being paid back. Indeed one would request that the recipient of that favor do the same for someone else: ideally for three other people. The unconditional favors can be large or small. As Trevor observes: it doesn't have to be a big thing. It can just seem that way, depending on whom you do it for.

So explain the riots in Ohio and the looting in New Orleans.

ohio against nazis or ohio against cops shooting unarmed teenagers with darker skin tones?

and anybody that doesn't find looting while a city drowns and no help is in sight to be justified or excuseable cares a bit too much about property rights and a bit too little about human ones.

It would be very instructive to ask those who riot or revolt when was the last time they voted, or petitioned their government, or paraded in peaceful protest. None of those things require "wealth" and yet, with patience, many times will yield tangible results.

i seem to recall going to the single largest protest event ever held in human history back in feb of 2003. as i recall, we were opposed to the u.s. going on some stupid imperial adventure. it sure was a stunning success, what with the stopping those in power from going to war and such. oh wait...

i seem to recall going to the single largest protest event ever held in human history back in feb of 2003. as i recall, we were opposed to the u.s. going on some stupid imperial adventure. it sure was a stunning success, what with the stopping those in power from going to war and such. oh wait...
Pffft. I know the protest you speak of, but it barely got coverage in the US.

Looks like some of the forum's anarchists are onto something, hmm?... Those of us who want real change should put aside our squeamishness, perhaps?

'Cause baby, I'm an anarchist,
You're a spineless liberal.
We marched together for the eight-hour day
And held hands in the streets of Seattle,
But when it came time to throw bricks
Through that Starbucks window,
You left me all alone.

Pffft. I know the protest you speak of, but it barely got coverage in the US.

indeed. which was strange in itself as there were like 100,000 people out for it in new york, and in san fran, and in l.a., with other really big things in seattle and chicago and philly. hell, we got a couple thousand out for it in wausau, wi even though it's up in the middle of nowhere and it was damn cold (i wound up in the photo on the front page of the local paper even).

Looks like some of the forum's anarchists are onto something, hmm? This highlights for me the simple fact that non-violent protest isn't always going to be enough. Those of us who want real change should put aside our squeamishness, perhaps?

I guess sometimes the ends do justify the means.

Then you would cheer if all the rioters and violent protesters were to have a bullet put through their eye, right? :rolleyes: After all, 'the ends justify the means' means that society is completely justified in whatever it wants to do to scumas well, right? :D Or didn't it occur to you that 'the ends justify the means' gives your rivals and your enemies moral permission to do whatever they want to *you*? :p

In the meantime here's a closer look at these rioters you seem to adore...

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005787.php

Isn't it typical of the leftists that they would be the first to welcome their new jihadi overlords? ^_~

If it's acceptable for protestors to burn, vandalize, assault, and kill to express their opinions, then it's perfectly acceptable for the police to use deadly force and beat them in to submission through violent tactics. It's also acceptable for an army to invade another country to "express their opinions regarding their territorial status".

They should, and I sincerely hope will, be executed in summary field executions. Rioting upon this scale is neither laudable nor with purpose, it is merely a violent outburst of dissent, a dissent held by many, yet only expressed by a few, and it ought to be met with brutal suppression.

It DOES seem that the governments of the world don't listen until they see how truely pissed off the people are.

Except for Brasil.

Or didn't it occur to you that 'the ends justify the means' gives your rivals and your enemies moral permission to do whatever they want to *you*?

that's not what that phrase means.

So-France owes them the ideal opportunities? France is already housing many of them and giving them other un-earned stipends.

Maybe, they could have stayed in their own respective shitholes and tried to make conditions and opporotunities there?

And if that didnt work, they could have rioted in the streets there?

Oh, no-where they come from, the military would have already tortured and killed them as well as their families and pets.
Much easier to rise up and act like the uncivil scumbags they are in a civil society.

Most of the people rioting came from, or are descended from immigrants from Algiera, a former French colony. The French came in 1830, killed their leaders, didn't allow them to be French citizens for 35 years (and only on the condition that they give up their Islamic laws), but then allowed automatic French citizenship for all Jews in 1870 (which angered the Muslims even more). Despite this, like the Indians for England, the Algerians fought bravely for the French during WW2. Then the French arrested the most popular Algerian leader in 1945, and violently supressed demonstrations against the arrest. While the French were celebrating Germany's unconditional surrender, the Algerians tried to rise up for independence. Once again, they were put down, with about 7,000 being killed.

Then, the Algerian War of Independence. From 1954-1962, Algeria was torn mostly between Pro-French and Pro-Algerian Independent factions. Algeria finally won independence, but Algerians with partially European (read: Christian or Jewish) heritage (pieds-noirs) and Muslim Algerians (harkis) who fought for the French were keen to leave the country, as they would most certainly be killed. France, whom I consider to be racist, allowed the pieds-noirs to enter the country, providing transportation, but not providing means of lodging. The non-European Algerians weren't allowed into France, but they managed to smuggle themselves in.

Why does that all matter? Because when the Algerians came in, after fighting for France for about 8 years were shuffled off into metropolitan France to fend for themselves. Where could they go? They had no possessions, no home, no money, no nothing. They had been promised at least a roof over their head.

This isn't a case of people slacking off and living off the teat of welfare. The Algerians, like the blacks in the favelas in Brasil, are a forgotten people within their own promised land. Like I said, I consider France to be racist. Demographically France is the most mixed European country, similar to the United States. That being said, a majority of the population is white. Similar to the US, heavy social sanctions are placed against the blacks in France, who speak a different language, worship a different religion, and are largely confined to their own neighborhoods. These people live in slums. Most are probably uneducated, and I have no doubt that a sizeable population of them don't speak French.

That being said, rioting is the only option they have left, despite being completely detrimental to any long-term goal. Compare France now to the United States in 1968. What did the Kerner Commission say?

"Violence cannot build a better society. Disruption and disorder nourish repression, not justice. They strike at the freedom of every citizen. The community cannot—it will not—tolerate coercion and mob rule.

Violence and destruction must be ended—in the streets of the ghetto and in the lives of people.

Segregation and poverty have created in the racial ghetto a destructive environment totally unknown to most white Americans.

What white Americans have never fully understood—but what the Negro can never forget—is that white society is deeply implicated in the ghetto. White institutions created it, white institutions maintain, and white society condones it."

Just replace white American with white Frenchmen, and it all applies.

Douglass was agitating for Revolution. I have no real problem with Revolution... but I have major issues with Riots.

#1: Riots almost never do serious damage to "the oppressors" while doing great harm to "the oppressed". How is that beneficial?

#2: Riots almost always involve theft of goods not related to the "oppression" - goods usually owned by "the oppressed".

Therefore, Riots have more to do with unthinking wanton destruction and criminality than agitation or taking up arms against "oppressors".

I agree, whose cars did they destrioy? Their neighbors(who are also poor and bad off).
Whose Nurseries did they destroy (and injured babies)? The poor/bad off people.

The riots are only in their own neighborhoods: they never extend out to actually hit the Oppressors. Why is beating up your neighbor=fighting for freedom...doesn't your neighbor want freedom too?

Ends will never justify the means: find me a example; Till than nope.

France has 3.3 million people classified as immigrants. 6 million or so people in France are Muslims.

The French law allows anyone to start a political party. The French population is 60 about million.

If an immigrant-started new voting alternative was to go to the polls in the next election, I would confidently predict about 10% or so of the votes.

That is much better than a few thousand burned out cars.

I agree, whose cars did they destrioy? Their neighbors(who are also poor and bad off).
Whose Nurseries did they destroy (and injured babies)? The poor/bad off people.

The riots are only in their own neighborhoods: they never extend out to actually hit the Oppressors. Why is beating up your neighbor=fighting for freedom...doesn't your neighbor want freedom too?




This is where they lost my sympathy, if - say - a tobacco company - say Marbolo[spelling?] came out with a cyanide cigarette, and we were rioting - I'd take it to their office, not burn my neighbors car or a local school..

</rant>
</example>

Sure, it's an expression of rage and frustration, but how does burning down one's own neighborhood do any good?

That's the major problem with rioting--it mainly hurts the oppressed, not the oppressor. Because of such, it's a stupid and ineffective tactic.

Now if you could organize it to actually strike at the oppressor, then you'd have something.

I'm mostly inclined to agree with the anti-riot people on this. It wasn't justified, and if after 25 years you still don't know the language of the country you live in, you can't simply blame the government.

I bet some of them will want the government to replace the cars that they burned, too.

Now if you could organize it to actually strike at the oppressor, then you'd have something.

Maybe there local government building? Perhaps?

It wasn't justified, and if after 25 years you still don't know the language of the country you live in, you can't simply blame the government.

Agreed, but wasn't the problem poverty, bad housing, no jobs, bad education? ext.?


I bet some of them will want the government to replace the cars that they burned, too.

:rolleyes: Your probobally dead on, but I bet they get shot down.:p

Some of you people are insane. People go on a destructive rampage and your reaction is to figure out how you can make their lives better. If I believed in ancestor worship I would make daily sacrifices to mine for getting my family to the other side of the world from you people.

Some of you people are insane. People go on a destructive rampage and your reaction is to figure out how you can make their lives better.


We want to discuss motive & prevention, and besides - none of us are french officials.

Or are we?

*hears Fiddlebottoms echo of : Zomg t3h c0nsp1racy! *

I'm not familiar with those. Care to enlighten me as to their "real causes?" :)
Birmingham - senior (traditionalist) members of the Sikh community staged a semi-violent protest against a play that was to be performed in Birmingham (West Midlands, not Alabama). They claimed the play (written by a Sikh woman) was blasphemous and gratuitously offensive for portraying a rape in a Sikh house of worship (I forget the proper name for such a place). Protests were semi-violent (not on the same scale as in Paris) and the play was forced to close.

I didn't support that protest - indeed, I was appalled that the play closed - but it's an example of a protest that turns to violence and is not motivated by envy.

Brixton - have a read of this summary (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/25/newsid_2546000/2546233.stm).

To those who have argued that the rioters had other channels they could have used, i.e. the democratic process and so on: would anything have come of such action? I've been on many peaceful protests (and a couple that have turned violent), I've lobbied Parliament, I've performed quite a few respectable non-threatening actions in order to put across my views. It's got me pretty much nowhere. Luckily for me, my personal situation is not desperate. Others don't have the luxury of such security.

As it happens, I don't support the actions of many of the rioters in Paris. What I do acknowledge, however, is that some form of violent protest may well have even necessary to put across the point that the French system isn't working for these people and that this can't simply be dismissed as the failings of these people themselves.

Finally, this isn't about left and right, so the 'leftist' tags being bandied around can stop right now, thankee kindly.

Or did this population fail France? How come the same problems never arose with the Jewish or the Armenian communities, despite the horrific mistreatment both groups have suffered?
Were, for example, the Jews and Armenians ghettoised in the same fashion as the Algerians? I'll be completely honest: I don't know, but I'm very wary of attributing failings on a racial basis.

Here's another take on violent "protests" (i.e. Criminal Riots):

After the Summit's Over: Who pays for damages?
By Ana Isabel Eiras

Nov 15, 2005

In the weeks before the Americas' Summit, ex-soccer player Diego Armando Maradona, along with some other Argentine celebrities and a few members of the Argentine Congress, organized a motley crew to protest the presence of George W. Bush in their country. Why not? One of the benefits of living in democracy is people's right to dissent.

There was a real problem, though, in how Maradona and his gang exercised that right. It was fine to hold signs expressing their views. And it was perfectly legitimate for them to exploit Maradona's access to the media to spread their message. But the reasonable use of democracy stopped there.

Discarding the peaceful demonstration method, the group organized by the celebrity protesters--baptized for the occasion as "punketeers"--stepped over the line. Flouting the rule of law, they destroyed about 70 retail shops along 13 blocks in one of Mar del Plata's main avenue.

When asked about his ideology and why the violence, one of the punketeers told the local media, "I hated all this trash, Bush, the [Argentine] government, the military...all of this is a great lie, and we come here so that everybody knows that we don't believe in none of this [the summit, I suppose.]"

Not a very articulate explanation, granted. But riots are never well articulated. How is destroying 70 workplaces and other private property a demonstration that you hate George Bush, the Argentine government and/or the Americas' Summit? What do the owners of the bakery, the supermarket, the bank, the dry cleaner, or the fast food restaurant have to do with Bush, the government or the Summit? In what way are their employees or customers in league with these "evil" forces, that they should suffer? More pointedly, who should be stuck with the tab for the punketeers' criminal behavior and hatred of anything that is productive?

When asked about who would pay for the damages, the Mayor of Mar del Plata-the host city of the summit-blithely responded that "the government will take care of everything." If it does, it would mean that government subsidizes the punketeers hatred and violence. Worse, it would use the property taxes-paid by the victims themselves, as well as others-to "make it all right."

But we know who's responsible here, and it's not the victims or the taxpayers at large. It's a group of violent punks, organized and encouraged by the same celebrities and government officials who eagerly stood before the cameras before and during the rampage.

Let's get things straight. Peaceful protest is great. Destroying other's property and livelihoods in the name of anti-Americanism isn't. If there is any justice left in Argentina, the people responsible for all this mayhem-- each and every punketeer and their aiding-and-abetting celebrity ringleaders-will be called to make the shop owners whole.

Let the "activists" create a "kitty", as an Argentine friend of mine suggested, and pay for the damage they cause to innocent, hard working, people. If the participants refuse to take responsibility for their acts, the victims of this violence should personally sue Maradona and the others that incited and carried out this violence. Maradona needs to know that he can freely shout in a megaphone, but inciting physical violence has consequences.

The irony is that the violence and destruction of property probably did not affect Mr. Bush. He gets this kind of stuff wherever he travels. Those most affected by this stupid public act are innocent people, who wake up every day to go to work, pay taxes, deal with excessive regulation, and make "the necessary payoffs" just to make ends meet. Maradona and his team shot well wide of goal.

But this is not just Argentina's problem. The rest of the world bears some guilt as well, particularly the governments of wealthy countries sending aid to Argentina-ostensibly to help the poor.

For example, the "Social Protection VI Project-Jefes de Hogar (Heads of Household)" funded by a World Bank loan, reportedly finances the monthly handouts for the piqueteros (now punketeers), under the thin veil of helping the unemployed. The wealth nations floating that loan should demand that the money stop flowing until the Argentine government gets it act together and begins punishing effectively those responsible for inciting violence.

The IMF has a chance to make a statement, too. Recently it announced its willingness to open talks with the Argentine government for more support [read money]. If the IMF has any decency, it will not release a penny go to this government unless it affirms its commitment to the rule of law and stops overlooking violence. The victims of these violent protests deserve no less. (Linky) (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/AnaEiras/2005/11/15/175554.html)

I agree, whose cars did they destrioy? Their neighbors(who are also poor and bad off).
Whose Nurseries did they destroy (and injured babies)? The poor/bad off people.

The riots are only in their own neighborhoods: they never extend out to actually hit the Oppressors. Why is beating up your neighbor=fighting for freedom...doesn't your neighbor want freedom too?

Ends will never justify the means: find me a example; Till than nope.

The riots were actually all over France, and spread into Spain, Belgium, Germany, etc.

How is destroying 70 workplaces and other private property a demonstration that you hate George Bush, the Argentine government and/or the Americas' Summit? What do the owners of the bakery, the supermarket, the bank, the dry cleaner, or the fast food restaurant have to do with Bush, the government or the Summit? In what way are their employees or customers in league with these "evil" forces, that they should suffer?

Easy. Mar del Plata is a tourist town. Its assumed that tourists = Americans, so by destroying the place where Americans go, Americans won't go, and no more Americans in Argentina.

Of course, that logic is about as crooked as a politician.

France has 3.3 million people classified as immigrants. 6 million or so people in France are Muslims.

The French law allows anyone to start a political party. The French population is 60 about million.

If an immigrant-started new voting alternative was to go to the polls in the next election, I would confidently predict about 10% or so of the votes.

That is much better than a few thousand burned out cars.

It most certianly is not, can one imagine the utter lunacy of affording such degenerate rioters a considerable political influence> Would the interests of true France, or immigrant France and its elf aggrandising self interest be served?

Yeah, because it's entirely their fault that no job opportunities arise in their respective ghettos. :rolleyes:

Those people came to France from Africa seeking opportunities. They got none.

Hence, begone to your original nation, since you are for the most part an unwelcome burden on society.:)

Hence, begone to your original nation, since you are for the most part an unwelcome burden on society.:)

They were welcomed by the French government from Algieria into France, or at least a majority of them.

Hence, begone to your original nation, since you are for the most part an unwelcome burden on society.:)
Yes, the smiley really does make everything you've just written fine and dandy.

'Cause baby, I'm an anarchist,
You're a spineless liberal.
We marched together for the eight-hour day
And held hands in the streets of Seattle,
But when it came time to throw bricks
Through that Starbucks window,
You left me all alone.

Perhaps you are right, but I'd rather avoid Starbucks altogether. I am very glad that we do not have them here in my country, anyhow. Ecopoeia (more or less) brought this thread to my attention and I thought I might fancy a post on this issue even if I do not really have any ready answers.

I find myself sharing the feelings of Margot Wallström (http://weblog.jrc.cec.eu.int/comments/wallstrom/Weblog/riots_in_france) in that there are no ready solutions to this very structural problem.

The dillemma of the thread (is violence justified if it gets things done?) is a difficult one: violence is inherently incompatible with democracy, but democracies should be responsive to the needs of its citizens. On the whole, however, I think that it is a false dillemma because it implies a false choice.

The issue of the French "suburbs" is not new, and most sensible people will agree that governments (in this case the French one) ought to have a policy mix of repression (short-term) and preventive action combined with endorsing initiatives from within these communities (long-term). With these sustained riots, the French politicians have pledged to do just that. It would appear that the youth has been successful in getting attention for their issue (as well as attracting €50 mln in EU funds!)

However, I am not convinced at all that these measures will actually help. The "concessions" the rioters got are all no doubt well-intended but they will not alter fundamentally the divisions in French and indeed European societies. They are small plasters to cover up bleeding core arteries. Frankly, I do not know how these problems can be solved as they seem to be inherent in contemporary European society. I certainly endorse the measures proposed by the French government and the European Union (every bit helps) but I'm less optimistic about the future results.

In fact, I think the rioters have shot themselves in the foot. Aside from the small plasters they are getting (and which should have come anyway) the backlash in Nationalistic French society is much bigger. The Front National of Le Pen is making big gains, and French society is becoming more xenophobic as a result. This will likely bring about more radical anti-immigrant policies either from the FN itself or from parties seeking to neutralise the danger from the right by appearing "tough", as is the case here in the Netherlands. Deporting 26.000 people who have been long-term Dutch residents is being done by a minister of a nominally "right-liberal" party here.

To anarchists on this forum I would ask therefore: is waking these sleeping dogs really worth it?

Rose-tinted spectacles on discount round your way? It's all too easy to pontificate from a position of comfort and dominance. People think that because Martin Luther King is venerated in public discourse, there are no longer any racial issues in the US.

The Paris riots can't just be written off as envious religious maniacs refusing to acknowledge that there is a democratic process. Neither should they be eulogised as a glorious symbol of the masses rising up in solidarity, for that matter. The point of the article I posted is - as I see it - to highlight that conventional means of protest haven't been working. This is only going to become even more of a truism as our lovely deomcratic governments introduce their lovely democratic terrorism and security measures (meanwhile continuting to wage their lovely democratic wars).

"Oh, oh, oh it's a lovely war!" (http://www.firstworldwar.com/audio/ohitsalovelywar.htm)

I agree with your analysis. I really do. The issue I'm taking it, though, is whether this will not produce more of a political response from the Right (anti-immigration, xenophobia etc) than it will from progressive forces that want to actually solve this problem instead of just cynically using it for electoral gains.

Both democracy and violence aren't very good means of securing minority rights.

There is always a choice when it comes to violence. You know, when people gather in numbers to voice thier oppositon via a picket sign they gather plenty of attention without all the catastrophy. Attention is what it boils down to. You want someone to hear you and to act upon what they hear. Understandable considering the circumstances presented.

Riots are just a mere sign of ignorance. It is like a group of children throwing a tantrum and eventually having their way because of their behavior. However dark the circumstances, violence should only be used when your life is threatened or the life of your country. When that is threatened...then do whatever you need to survive.

There is always a choice when it comes to violence. You know, when people gather in numbers to voice thier oppositon via a picket sign they gather plenty of attention without all the catastrophy. Attention is what it boils down to. You want someone to hear you and to act upon what they hear. Understandable considering the circumstances presented.

Riots are just a mere sign of ignorance. It is like a group of children throwing a tantrum and eventually having their way because of their behavior. However dark the circumstances, violence should only be used when your life is threatened or the life of your country. When that is threatened...then do whatever you need to survive.

well done, Renaesia!

It's usually the people who bitch and moan the most (especially in an office setting.. lol.. you know, like when 90% of the people think the temperature is fine but the few who complain about it being too cold get the heat jacked up to 90 and most end up sweating profusely because the blanket-wearing geriatric club can't handle normal room temps) who get what they want... whether it's deserved or not.

But this violence is retarded. These people need jobs to keep them busy/off the streets.

If France has so alienated businesspeople (or those who might otherwise go into business) that there aren't enough jobs, then France needs to do something to encourage entrepreneurialism. Boredom (and the resulting poverty/hunger) breeds discontent -- these people should be working... being productive, making a positive contribution to the health of France's economy, making positive contributions to themselves and their families, and (apropos of this riot discussion) staying off the streets where they won't be damaging people's property (cars).

I'm not so sure if the comparison to office heating works. Attributing the problems to a lack of businesspeople seems questionable as well, at best.

Because burning down schools and sports centers is always a good idea. Don't forget public transportation, we gotta wreck that too.

Because burning down schools and sports centers is always a good idea. Don't forget public transportation, we gotta wreck that too.


And drop out of school, not learn the language, quit what jobs there are, etc....

And drop out of school, not learn the language, quit what jobs there are, etc....

Many if not most of them have school education, almost all of them speak French... and what jobs are you talking about with 40%-50% youth unemployment for some categories?

Really. :rolleyes:

Many if not most of them have school education, almost all of them speak French... and what jobs are you talking about with 40%-50% youth unemployment for some categories?

Really. :rolleyes:

Roll your eyes somewhere else:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051111/ap_on_re_eu/france_where_are_the_parents__fr1

Highlights:

Some parents even blame the recent riots on a French law that prohibits them from hitting their kids, which they say renders them powerless to assert control.

"Life is very difficult here," Fatna said in Arabic. She, like her husband, is illiterate and doesn't speak French despite having lived here for more than 25 years.

Khaled, who dropped out of school after failing his high school exams, is unemployed. He worked for eight months and then stopped, but his mother said she didn't know what kind of job he had.

Parents complain their children don't listen to them, often lie and sometimes threaten to report the parents to police for abusing them if they can't have their way.

Yay anecdotal evidence from Yahoo works really well for replacing an in-depth analysis of the problem. Puh-lease.

The people who are protesting now are not the first generation immigrants who came to France themselves, they are rather second or third generation Frenchmen who have been born in French, educated in French schools and speaking the French language.

What your 'highlight' about hitting kids is supposed to mean, I do not know. You agree with the illiterate muslim lady that this would be a solution? :confused:

Yay anecdotal evidence from Yahoo works really well for replacing an in-depth analysis of the problem. Puh-lease.

From a French based AP source. If you can't counter the arguement, attack the source, right?

The people who are protesting now are not the first generation immigrants who came to France themselves, they are rather second or third generation Frenchmen who have been born in French, educated in French schools and speaking the French language.

Raised by illiterates who can't/won't speak the language.

What your 'highlight' about hitting kids is supposed to mean, I do not know. You agree with the illiterate muslim lady that this would be a solution? :confused:

Yeah, move the goalposts some more instead of actually trying to debate the problem. I can see why you're confused.

First of all, I don't do the thing where people snip up posts. I hate it because it reduces debate to pointless one liners.

That said, I actually wrote a bit of analysis myself (Gasp! See above.) instead of making a derogatory remark blaming whatever-problems-there-are on youth for being collectively lazy/useless. In doing so, you ignore the issue at question posed in this thread to score a cheap anti-immigrant point.

I felt the need to call you on your bullshit (because it is populist bullshit) but I am not going to fall for the trap of discussing googled anecdotal evidence with someone who clearly doesn't know what he is talking about. Social and economic exclusion are arguably part of the problem of French suburbs, not illiteracy (which is very low) or the (inherent? You tell me?) "laziness" of Frenchmen of foreign origin.

So whatever.

First of all, I don't do the thing where people snip up posts. I hate it because it reduces debate to pointless one liners.

That's nice. I'm sure you feel special.

That said, I actually wrote a bit of analysis myself (Gasp! See above.) instead of making a derogatory remark blaming whatever-problems-there-are on youth for being collectively lazy/useless. In doing so, you ignore the issue at question posed in this thread to score a cheap anti-immigrant point.

Your "analysis" had no backing and your "question" had nothing to do w/ the post but moved the goalposts in order to change the topic. Just like I never said anything about being "collectively lazy/useless". That's just your imagination.

I felt the need to call you on your bullshit (because it is populist bullshit) but I am not going to fall for the trap of discussing googled anecdotal evidence with someone who clearly doesn't know what he is talking about. Social and economic exclusion are arguably part of the problem of French suburbs, not illiteracy (which is very low) or the (inherent? You tell me?) "laziness" of Frenchmen of foreign origin.

So personal attacks and lack of any sources of your own besides your opinion makes for an arguement?

Have a nice day troll.

Have a nice day troll.
Oh, bollocks. Go back and read his extensive commentary a few posts back.

They were welcomed by the French government from Algieria into France, or at least a majority of them.

French government, nots its populace, for the most part any native populcae resents a mass intrusion of immigrants, ostensibly when they increase their tax bills, degrade society, and raise unemployment levels.

Paris riots: the violence was necessary
Yes. People are becoming more and more aware of the muslim threat every day.

French government, nots its populace
And the same is true for the rest of Europe as well.

And the same is true for the rest of Europe as well.

Thankyou so much:)

a kindred spirit

Thankyou so much:)

a kindred spirit
That depends. On what exactly your spirit is spiriting about.

That depends. On what exactly your spirit is spiriting about.

immigration generally, I just can't see it

immigration generally, I just can't see it
Well. If you realy want to see it. I hear Arizona is the place to be.

French government, nots its populace, for the most part any native populcae resents a mass intrusion of immigrants, ostensibly when they increase their tax bills, degrade society, and raise unemployment levels.

What are you trying to say?

The majority of the rioters were Algerian immigrants, or descendents of Algerians (or, other North Africans)

What are you trying to say?

The majority of the rioters were Algerian immigrants, or descendents of Algerians (or, other North Africans)

That immigrants are an unwelcome imposition upon native societies

That immigrants are an unwelcome imposition upon native societies

depends, we in America welcome most immigrants with at least indifferent arms and we reap the benefits/ consequences of that

other countries don't particularly care for immigrants and they're upfront with that and that’s cool

the Africans in paris were told they were going to be welcomed when in reality they were not - I think if they knew france would be like this when they came over they wouldn't be so hostile

Someone please explain to me how non violent demonstrations in the center of Paris by the same group of people would not have been MORE effective than a bunch of idiots destroying property for a month .

That immigrants are an unwelcome imposition upon native societies

Immigrants from Algeria (pied-noirs) fought for France in the Algerian War of Independence. They lost. They came to France with no record of citizenship (as the records were left in France) and with no possessions. They came, and weren't welcomed by the French people. De Gaulle had promised to give them housing, but didn't expect the amount of immigrants (about 1,025,000). With no place to go, no money, and no citizenship papers, they were spread throughout France. That was 1962. Since then, France has experienced an influx of immigrants from Tunisia, Mali, and other North African countries. A majority were stuck in banlieues, poor suburbs that resemble American ghettos; high crime rate, drug trafficking, etc. The biggest immigrant population is in Seine-Saint-Denis, where the riots started. There are 5 million Muslims in France, and are concentrated mostly in banlieues in or near Paris, Marseille, Lyon, and Strasbourg.

The immigrants live in conditions that have always precluded violence. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_situation_in_the_French_suburb)

They can't get jobs. They can't rent property. They can't recieve an education. They haven't been able to do all this since 1962. So, was the violence necessary? No. Was it inevitable? Yes.

[ Whistles, stomps feet, cheers wildly! ] GOOD for them! What a shame that so many now think that because they don't have all they want, "the government" ( meaning taxpayers ) owes them, won't "pay up" and is therefore the "cause" of all their ills. :rolleyes:

i could not have said it better, eutrusca

it appears that some people actually believe that everyone is OWED whatever they want.

Socialism is a disease. People should be taught from a very early age that they are owed NOTHING and that they must work to support themselves... make it their life's work to put food on their table instead of expecting others to do it for them. This "i deserve your money" ideology of socialism is, imo, shameful.

France has 3.3 million people classified as immigrants. 6 million or so people in France are Muslims.

The French law allows anyone to start a political party. The French population is 60 about million.

If an immigrant-started new voting alternative was to go to the polls in the next election, I would confidently predict about 10% or so of the votes.

That is much better than a few thousand burned out cars.

that's a great idea.

but no, it would require too much thought, too much discipline, too much reading (etc.)

it's far easier, and far more emotionally gratifying, to burn some poor guy's car.

people who are pissed off can either

a)count to ten, simmer down, and think about how to bring about the end of their anger in a reasonable, legal manner

or

b)take their aggression out on a car

it's been eons (anthropologists can interject here) since we were cavemen... and yet when we get angry, what do we do? We burn things and stomp around and holler like spoiled children.

hehe (sort of)

i could not have said it better, eutrusca

it appears that some people actually believe that everyone is OWED whatever they want.

Socialism is a disease. People should be taught from a very early age that they are owed NOTHING and that they must work to support themselves... make it their life's work to put food on their table instead of expecting others to do it for them. This "i deserve your money" ideology of socialism is, imo, shameful.
That doesn't sound like the philosophy of the socialists I know.

if you do not " deserve" the money you get from people with more skill and earning power than the poor you are subsidising , how exactly do you justify TAKING it from them ( those who earned it ) ? How do you explain giving money to someone who did not earn it and may not even deserve it when it gets " redistributed " from those that did earn it and do deserve it ?