American "leftism" a threat to France...

Post Reply New Topic

That's just full-blown Islamophobia Bric. Are you out here saying that Zinedine Zidane is "not really French"?

Zidane, of course, is a national hero, and probably widely perceived as white and secular. But then you look at how Karim Benzema and Samir Nasri are treated by the French public compared to Christian/secular counterparts. And France's attempts to outlaw standards of dress it deems to be associated with Islam are fundamentally about the state exercising control over the actions of its citizens.

Ironically, you're doing exactly what Macron is complaining about. The French orthodoxy is that all citizens are equally and entirely French, regardless of their background or religion. You seem to be suggesting that being a Muslim somehow makes you less French. You seem to be suggesting that French Muslims do not speak French (the vast majority have ancestry from former French colonies, so they are fully Francophone). You seem to be suggesting that French Muslims want to change French customs and have laws not apply to them, when actually they just don't want discriminatory laws passed to prevent people from dressing in certain ways, like burkha bans. You are applying your personal ethnonationalist perspective as an attempt to bludgeon your personal opponents but in doing so completely fail to understand the argument being put forth.

Mr Macron would say that all French people have an equal say in how France is run, and would not make this ugly far-right association between Islam and anti-Frenchness, or immigrants and anti-Frenchness. Yes, it is far right, and it's horrible. Instead, Mr Macron would argue that in France, the French interpretation of secularism (making it illegal to be publicly identifiable as a member of a religion) trumps the American interpretation of liberty (outside of some narrow circumstances, the government shouldn't tell you how to dress).

Read this story, and ask yourself whether you feel the reaction to a mother helping on a school trip being abused for wearing a veil is morally just: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/19/worl ... other.html

And your post is just full-blown self-righteousness. Walrus.



It’s interesting how often open borders fanatics focus on sports. Sports and spicy food. Anyway, I digress…



You seem pretty confused here. I myself am ambivalent about burkha bans, but you yourself seem to be acknowledging that France / Macron are attempting to outlaw certain Islamic styles of dress, and that many French Muslims oppose this.

And since you’re a fan of Macron, I can only assume you agree with Macron here. So how is your point of view so different to Britctoria’s here? The difference seems to be that you are pretending not to understand what it means to call Muslims in France “newcomers”, which relatively speaking they are. The fact that Muslims in France are relative newcomers is part of why French politicians are in a position to talk to them about the “secular, French identity” in the first place. Of course, one could even ask whether or not French citizens in “democratic” France were ever given a referendum on mass immigration in the first place, but perhaps that is a subject for another thread (if such a thread would even be allowed).

I myself have lived in a non-Western country, where I (or more so my female relatives) had to abide by the local dress-codes. I wouldn’t have expected that to suddenly change if my family were to be given citizenship, nor if they were to stay there for multiple generations. It’s not a difficult concept to grasp.

You are completely misrepresenting what I was saying...

As you stated: "The French orthodoxy is that all citizens are equally and entirely French, regardless of their background or religion."

What I was saying was that it would be expected, as "guests" that they would seek to become "French", not a member of some other culture living in France. For example, using the national language in public, and following the existing cultural norms (in as much as possible) in public. Were I to move to France, (or any other country), it would be my expectation that I would learn the language spoken there, and follow the existing cultural norms, not carry my own language and culture and expect my new hosts to adjust to suit it. I wouldn't consider these new hosts to be "phobes" for not allowing me to retain my previous culture: I would show my hosts the respect they deserved by seeking to join their culture.

There is a difference between an "Islamophobe" and a "Francophile"...Those being labelled "Islamohobes" may contain a small portion that could be accurately defined as such, but a majority are likely to be "Francophiles" who love their culture as it is and don't want their culture changed but see this possibly happening with the influx of a large number of people with a shared culture, worried their own may be changed as a result. As a note regarding this:

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_France#French_culture

If the culture (and by extension its citizens) is so "protective"\"traditional" (\insular?) that it represses other languages which are native to the country, as being not of its culture, how readily do you think it would be to accept changes to other parts of its culture due to external influences? Instead of taking a pavlovian "-phobe" opinion of this, it could equally be considered a "-phile" situation, although differentiating the 2 requires setting aside pre-conceived biases to try and look at it objectively from both sides.

This "traditional" approach to its culture can also be seen both in the way they have an institute dedicated to keeping their langauge intact\"pure" rather than allowing it to be altered through outside influences, as well as in the fact that one of the more famous cultural buildings in the country (Notre-Dame de Paris) there was a law passed to ensure that the restoration must "preserve the historic, artistic and architectural interest of the monument", rather than allowing "modernising"\altering its design, as would be likely to occur in other countries.

Alternatively, it could simply be viewed as "Culture shock" (from both sides):
On one side, you have a large group of people, in a new culture, so they group together for "Security", and try to keep their shared culture alive among themselves as part of this security.
On the other side, you have the members of the existing culture suddenly seeing portions of their country suddenly have the dominant culture altered and are worried about this happeneing to the rest of the country.

As a side note: It is interesting that certain cultures are always portrayed as the "phobe" when a new culture arrives and segregates itself rather than integrating: Wouldn't that equally indicate a "phobic" attitude from the newer arrivals? Or are only certain groups allowed to be the "-phobes" while others are automatically the "-philes" for their cultures?

Your post rests on a faulty assumption which is plainly faulty based on my posts in this thread. I know racists aren’t renowned for your love of reading but in this case it would have helped you a lot.

For the benefit of all - no, I don’t support burka bans. I think Macron is the best of a bad bunch in France but I have been disappointed by many of his positions on a whole range of issues, especially social issues.

To be absolutely clear, Bric: I have not misrepresented you. The issue is that you are defending base racism. You are explicitly describing French Muslims as “guests”, saying that they “don’t integrate”, saying that persecution of Muslims is justified if it is to “preserve culture”. Then when I debunked one of those claims, you simply repeated it as if it was true! It is sickening, it is racist, and it is proof positive that all the people who have described you as racist we’re making fair and accurate descriptions. If you keep saying monstrously racist things then people will conclude that you are a racist.

It is bloody bizarre that you would claim that French Islamophobia is justified because France also persecuted indigenous minorities. Have you never heard the phrase “two wrong don’t make a right”? It reminds me of a user on here who claims there is no racism in his country, just a load of criminal indigenous people. Put it another way - you could just as easily say that Apartheid wasn’t about “hating black people” but about “loving white people”. White supremacy doesn’t become morally justified because you phrase it in a positive way!

And yeah, it’s equally morally wrong when countries mandate the wearing of hijabs. In fact I’ll happily say that mandating the hijab is worse than banning it but allowing everything else. But we’re not talking about those countries. We’re talking about France. A country which is apparently “threatened by American intellectualism”, although you’ve still not been able to substantiate that claim.

Last edited by magz on 15 Feb 2021, 2:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

Using the "home" metaphor - yes, if you invite someone into your home, the guest has some obligation to respect the rules of your house. SOME obligation. It's one thing to ask someone to remove their shoes - it's something else to make them renounce their native culture, learn a new language, and put on clothes that you've approved.

Furthermore, France isn't "someone's house". It's a NATION. It's not the singular domain of any one person, unless you're implying that ALL of France belongs to Macron, or any one single person, as a house would be.

A nation is a very large community, largely of public spaces. You can whine about your "house rules" all you want, but they don't apply to someone on the sidewalk. And if you're going to allow the government to force people to "be french", how is that any different from fascism or thought policing?

Of course, Australia DID prohibit their native people from practicing their traditions if they wanted to become citizens. If they were caught doing anything related to their native culture (y'know, the culture that was there BEFORE British people stomped it out) they could have their citizenship revoked. This was up to the 1960's. To this day, some people are still desperate to point to the natives and blame them. "How dare you contaminate this land we stole with your NATIVE culture that we forcibly and violently replaced!"

High horse, low bar.

"Nationalism" is just xenophobia with a smile.

There definitely is a double standard at play.

I have the view that migrating to a new country is a privilege, not a right.
Yes, I am an old fart.
I don't fancy your chances of changing my mind.

BTW, If you go to some Muslim countries, a woman has no option but to adhere to the rules or they are assaulted or even put in jail.
Are we in double standards country again?



Are you a pom?
If so, look at your history of abusing citizens of conquered countries.

Are you a yank?
If so, look at your history of abusing the native Amerikans.

Hypocrisy is a very nasty word.

Do you believe in “collective guilt” now Pepe? Do you believe that you are responsible for the Holocaust because of your German ancestry? Do you believe you are responsible for sandpaper gate because you are Australian?

Brits and Americans criticising France’s burka ban are not engaging in hypocrisy because their countries have done bad things in the past. They would be engaging in hypocrisy if they supported a burka ban in their country but opposed it in France. In reality, good people oppose burka bans everywhere.

It’s also completely valueless to bring up that other countries have worse restrictions upon standards of dress. Again, the people who criticise the burka ban almost always are even stronger opponents of compulsory veiling. It’s a red herring.

Last edited by The_Walrus on 15 Feb 2021, 3:12 am, edited 1 time in total.: Fixed quote

There are two problems with your position. The first relates to calling muslim migrants "guests". They are citizens and I imagine the French government does not make any claims/distinction that different religious groups have a different status within their country. I think that's entirely your projection.

The second problem is that old "nugget" that "certain cultures" don't assimilate thus attributing the suffix "phobe" to these cultures. Almost all European dominated countries had strict immigration policies prohibiting the entry of non-white applicants purely on the basis of their skin colour. Despite the fact France and other western counties (including Australia) removed such barriers, it hasn't mean't the locals have welcomed them with open arms.

Both Australia and the UK were rather dangerous places for newly arrived migrants who were faced discrimination and physical harassment (the UK was certainly much worse than Australia with no-go zones where non-whites would be physically beaten if they dared to trespass). This was not the case for Germans, Italians, Greeks and eastern Europeans who were allowed to assimilate easily. Wanting to assimilate and being accepted are two different things.

The recent "hijab ban" (which dates back to 1989 and the beginning of a ban on conspicuous signs of religious expression in state schools), as an example of Islamophobia, rather than a desire to retain "traditional" French culture does sound an interesting hypothesis...

Under this hypothesis, as I understand what has been put forward, banning a portion of a given "culture" to preserve that "culture" which already existed in the area (a country in this case) is termed a "-phobia" (fear) of that other culture, as opposed to a "-phile" (love) of the existing culture, how would you define what is described here:

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_language#Modern_French
Or:

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breton_language#History_and_status

Does this not indicate that the French, in seeking to maintain a shared, common French "culture" are "Francophobes" (afraid of "France") too, given "modern France" was formed by 1789, with each of the former Counties, Duchies, etc. having been brought into the Kingdom by then (some centuries earlier), and so they were suppressing "French" culture\language?

Based on its history, the French culture gives the appearance of a very "insular" one (potentially this "insularity" could be considered to be a component of the culture), which is resistant to any "external"\forced change as shown by the repression of other "internal" cultures\languages (along with an institute established in 1635 and based around the idea of "eliminating the 'impurities' of the language"), as the population linked to them were a sizeable portion of the population, and so liable to trigger a change, or worse, a fracturing of the dominant culture (and possibly the country). Given Islam has existed in a large enough quantity to be considering building a first Mosque in Paris since at least 1842 (The first Paris Mosque eventually commenced construction in the 1920's), it is not a "new" culture, but with mass immigration since the 1960's the size of the population linked to this "culture" has been steadily increasing, and has likely simply reached the level where it is considered in a similar way that the cultures of the former Counties, Duchies, etc. were in the early 18th century, but with a different portion of this culture seen as most "alien" to the existing culture, and so needing to be "restricted" (attire, rather than language (and related cultural components such as stories\poetry\etc.) as was the issue with the Counties\Duchies).

Other things to consider before making the pavlovian "Islamophobia" claim:


Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_France#Accepted_French_citizens
So, either those surveyed have all held a minority opinion, or what is reported may not match the reality in the country (Which would "sell more copies" in the media?)
Similarly:

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_France#Religiosity
Again, this could indicate either the respondants hold minority views, or that members of this "culture" are less interested in taking on the values of their country, and resistant to the countries "culture" (which may result in the country trying to force on them that which they were unwilling to voluntarily accept).

There is more to the situation which a simplistic claim of "Islamophobia" ignores, and it looks a much more complicated situation when viewed objectively.

It has certainly been interesting looking over the history of France (if only briefly, for now)...It's a shame it wasn't included in studies at school, as quite a lot has occurred throught France's history that was interesting - I'm not sure, but I think John the 1st of France must have been one of the most benevolent Kings in history with regards to his demands on his subjects...Possibly not regarding the demands on his courtiers, though - his death also brought about a re-affirmation of "Salic law" and the exclusion of women from the line of succession to the French throne (among other restrictions) and as such had an effect on relations between France and other countries (such as England and Spain) who did not recognise this, thus resulting in ongoing conflict over the French throne (another example of not wishing to change the country's "culture" in favour of external forces, theoretically).

If you're interested in more information about the "Breton" language (one of many "French" languages that were repressed, along with their linked cultures, the following is interesting and indicates a similar type of struggle to have their "culture" accepted\permitted by those who speak (and spoke) it to that faced by followers of the Islamic faith in France today: http://www.breizh.net/icdbl/saozg/endangered.htm)

(in order to pre-empt requests for a responce or of posts directed at me (rather than discussing the topic), from this point please don't anticipate further posts from me...I may or may not post further on this subject, depending on how interesting future posts appear to me, and how interested in a conversation others appear to be (research and proof-reading take a long time, so I'm not going to continue where I feel this effort would be wasted - This has taken several hours to compile and a few re-writes, as it is)).

OP has ceased contributing to his thread, saying "please don't anticipate further posts from me".
Locked.