Uncle Sam’s Fifth Column.
The tentacles of France’s obsession with equality run deep. It was originally an equality of the sexes and equality of the social status that was envisaged and enshrined in French law, long before the mass movement of peoples from different continents ever occurred to anyone.
Immigrants to France, especially those from the African sub-continent, arrived into a secular world in which they were apparently guaranteed equal education, and equal employment. The law said so.
In truth, it is so, in the bland world of the lawyers and legislators. Those early immigrants discovered an essential truth which is only just dawning in the UK. Neither law nor legislation changes the emotions in the hearts of those they seek to control.
The children of the Algerian immigrants were guaranteed a seat in their local school, guaranteed a teacher who taught them equally. Gained French citizenship. It was when they left school that the problems started. In theory they should have been eligible for any job. In practice the job interviews failed to materialise. True, in a few isolated cases, you may be able to show that you have been discriminated against, providing you have the time, money, and inclination to take on the arcane French legal system – but nothing could prevent the vast majority of Frenchmen from preferring to employ other Frenchmen.
The notorious banlieues – the ghetto communities clustered round the legs of the vast over ground motorways that speed you on your way South – at a price – began to fill up to bursting point with the flotsam and jetsam of a society that couldn’t get a job, was permanently broke, and mysteriously, almost exclusively black, and Muslim.
It is the hidden racism of France. Despite all the concessions made by the UK government towards a similar community – there is very little difference in the size or number of these ghettoes.
One thing that is different, as of this week, is the response of other countries, notably America, to this problem.
For America has decided that the French have abandoned their poor, black, Muslim neighbourhoods, and kindly Uncle Sam has stepped in to fill the breech. I am not sure it is an initiative that should bring cheer, nor how the British would feel if it was supplanted to, say, Bradford.
Since Barack Obama was elected, the United States Embassy in Paris has been running an ‘outreach’ programme in the ghettoes – heavily sub-titled ‘the French may have forgotten you, but Uncle Sam cares’.
With a budget of $3 million dollars, Uncle Sam has been on a hearts and minds campaign, importing popular American rap artistes, running seminars for budding local politicians, coaching them in communications, electoral strategy and fund raising, and organising ‘urban renewal programmes’.
On one level it is good to see the US spending its money on something other than bombing Muslims back into the third century, but on the other hand, are they not deliberately fostering and supporting an already explosive sense of being alienated from the state to which they should owe their allegiance?
The French governments response to ‘unrest’ – as the periodic car-B-ques and riots are politely referred to, is to contain the area, let the residents flambé as much of their own property as they wish, and then to denounce them as criminals. It is a no nonsense approach.
The American initiative is closer to the British idea of appeasement and compromise, but if, (as scarcely seems likely) the British government suddenly started to expect the so called ‘deprived areas’ to behave with decorum and respect towards their hosts, or face the consequences – how would the British feel about the US muscling in and saying in effect ‘There, there, we understand, Uncle Sam will give you some treats and baubles, even if your nasty government has put you on the naughty step’.
Previous American interference in sovereign nation’s affairs has been preceded by Exocet missiles, followed by the hearts and minds campaign.
This time the hearts and minds campaign is in the vanguard. I just hope they don’t follow it up with the Exocets if the French government doesn’t do as they want.
-
1
September 24, 2010 at 17:47 -
Exocets if memory serves are French made.
-
2
September 24, 2010 at 17:48 -
Oh how I wish America would just f…become isolationist again!
-
3
September 24, 2010 at 18:52 -
Sidi Obama truly believes he was elected (by members of minorities only) as President Of The Entire Universe And Everything Else Besides.
France does not have a great recod on dealing with immigrants but where is Africa, Asia or South America are things any better.
And as for Australian, don’t even go there (unless you are European)
-
4
September 24, 2010 at 19:03 -
“… something other than bombing Muslims back into the third century…”
Are you sure you didn’t mean forward..?
-
5
September 24, 2010 at 19:14 -
//something other than bombing Muslims back into the third century//
considering the social and political landscape of those benighted places where Islam is powerful, ought that to be
//bombing Muslims forward into the third century//
-
6
September 24, 2010 at 19:15 -
Dammit, I see that Julia got there ahead of me. Pipped at the post by 11 minutes
-
7
September 24, 2010 at 19:32 -
Well considering the Mohammedan heresy didn’t manifest itself until the 7th century Anno Domini the point is moot…
-
8
September 24, 2010 at 19:35 -
There were no muslims in the 3rd Century. Mo was born in 570/71.
-
11
September 24, 2010 at 20:21 -
From the NY Times, 22nd September… “has grown in scale and visibility since the election of Barack Obama.”, which would imply it began under a previous administration, probably Bush, in an effort to prevent disaffected French African muslims from becoming terrorists. Given that the embassy is working WITH French local government. what’s your problem? Given that your article implies that French muslims have every reason to feel disaffected, what’s your problem? Given that the Americans don’t want to be Twin Towered back a few decades, what’s the problem.? You sneer at war and you sneer at outreach, so I’m interested in what would be your solution?
-
12
September 24, 2010 at 21:15 -
gladiolys,
I don’t ‘sneer’ at war, I simply don’t understand how killing thousands of people is supposed to solve anything. I don’t agree with people marching over borders and imposing their will anymore than I agree with people marching into your house, my house, and imposing their will. I don’t agree with people interferring with other peoples business in some mistaken belief that their truth is more valid than anybody elses. I don’t agree with violence.
That is completely different from ‘sneering’ at it.
France is a democracy. The people voted for their government, as we do in the UK – with all the frailties and drawbacks of the electoral system. If people living under a government don’t like it, then pack your bags and leave quietly. As for other countries ‘not liking’ how a country is run – none of their busienss, any more than it is anybody elses business how I run my home or my blog. The US is free to treat its own citizens as it pleases/as they are prepared to put up with. What business is it of the US if French Muslims become terrorists? Only if they attack America is it their business.
Are you happy for the US to step into Britain and start a programme designed to stop British Muslims from becoming terrorists – or do you think that is rightfully the concern of the British government? Perhaps you are happy that the US sees itself as some sort of world policeman? A lot of people are, so long as they confine their activites to Afghanistan or Iraq, but when they seriously start interferring in the business of the government you have voted in power, you might feel differently.
Oh look, the US thinks the Con-Dem government has ‘abandoned’ everyone north of the border, they are going to start pumping money into training politicians, no forget that, they think they might start arming everybody in the North as they once armed Al Quaeda…….-
13
September 25, 2010 at 10:00 -
Hi Anna…. ok, sneer was the wrong word. Sorry. I should have used “dismiss”. And I agree with you about war . Afghanistan should have been a Mossad-like police operation: get in, grab bin Laden, get out, put him on trial in USA, execute him (if found guilty – and I’m not pro death penalty either but the Yanks can do it under their law). Warn the Taliban their leaders face the same actions if terrorism happens in USA again that can be traced to them. Iraq should never ever have happened at all.
But the article you wrote appeared to me to miss the point that the French are co-operating with this. Is it possible their government is happy to accept Uncle Sam’s dollar to help combat their own threat of home grown terrorism? Al Quaeda in the Mahgreb have said France is its number one target and France is on a high terror alert.. So maybe France is quite happy this time to co-operate with the USA, who began this programme before Barak Obama. He has tried to wind down the war operations in both Iraq and in Afghanistan and is doing all he can to avoid it in Iran.
Terror is a global phenomenon, with communities linked in ways never before possible, through internet and phone etc so it’s possible the French home grown threat could spread USA=wards.
American citizens were happy to by-pass their government to finance Irish terrorism in Great Britain (and their government did bugger all to stop it). The world is global. Everybody thinks they have a stake in somebody else’s affairs. I, probably like you, think we should deal with problems in our own home before we start re-arranging the furniture in somebody else’s. That would be my approach. Or maybe we have to accept that all life will always be a war between competing ideas, philosophies, faiths and needs and we should find a way to incorporate that into a way of being where they can compete without violence. (Fat chance, I’d admit, but we can but aspire.)
But I was genuine in my last question. I have no answers in how to solve any of this in the violent cocked-up world we live in.. Do you?
Best wishes,
Gladiolys
-
14
September 25, 2010 at 10:39 -
History note, as it seems to be overlooked: at the time of the Afg invasion the West had been under pressure from groups such as RAWA
http://www.rawa.org/index.php
and other humanitarian and feminist groups to DO something. There had been a great deal of handwringing and how the world didn’t care when it was just women and children being treated worse than cattle.In respect of Iraq, the lunacies of Sadam’s brother in particular attracted attention and was regularly discussed in mens general interest magazines, such as Maxim. There was a general perception that if we were Iraqi/Afghani, we too would hijack planes in order to get the hell out, they could hardly be blamed for wanting to live.
There was, therefore, an argument that the regimes had to be controlled if only because the alternative was that almost the entire population of both countries would have to be allowed to reside here. Although the anti-war protestors were active by then, public opinion was much more divided than it currently is over the general case for Doing Something.
…Further to Gladyolis: she is correct about the funding of terrorism in N Ireland, however it is no coincidence that something approximating to peace broke out just after 9/11. Bush suddenly was able to exert financial controls which would never have been allowed before; essentially he was able to stem the private funding of a war on what is supposed to be one of America’s allies.
…-
15
September 25, 2010 at 10:49 -
Just a point: The Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland which has (largely) led to the cessation of terrorist actions came into force on 2nd December 1999.
The Twin Towers plane attack was on 11th September 2001 so I’m not sure how relevant it is to say that: “Bush suddenly was able to exert financial controls which would never have been allowed before; essentially he was able to stem the private funding of a war on what is supposed to be one of America’s allies.”
-
16
September 25, 2010 at 20:46 -
Private money cared not a jot for the GF agreement. Nobody really gives a damn what Tony Blair negotiated, except Blair would like to get a mention in the history books.
It wasn’t until there were concerted efforts based on stopping money to Al Qaeda, which coincidentally stopped the money to the IRA, that Adams was much more sensible about accepting the Danegeld from the British taxpayer and playing nicely. Previously his strategy had been to take the money but reserve his weaponry.
The IRA announced decommissioning on 24 October 2001, after what was diplomatically described as negotiations.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1616686.stmHistory will have to sort out exactly how the money gyrated (some commentators insist Libya was the main conduit rather than direct donations via fake charities) but the shock of 9/11 and the determination that money would not flow from America to its enemies, allowed Bush to hustle through the constitutionally dodgy Patriot Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act
which sounds like it was drafted by Tom Clancy and works that way, too. At any other time in US history the American public would not have stood for it.The Act was signed in to law on October 26, 2001, which is two days after the IRA announced decommissioning. This means they weren’t connected at all, no siree.
The GF Agreement broke down by 2002 and the IRA hung on to its weapons indefiance of what had been agreed, but by then the Patriot Act was beginning to squeeze Adam’s wallet. Money that had previously gone, allegedly, via drugs and the PLO to Libya which used it to sponsor IRA training and arms, dried up. Besides, better investigation exposed more thoroughly what had been known for years; the IRA was largely an organized crime syndicate. It was no longer possible for US donors to keep patting themselves on the head for sponsoring terrorists and gangsters.
The IRA formally renounced violence on 28 July 2005,
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/29/international/europe/29irish.html
finally agreeing to decommission weapons in the wake of the 7/7 attacks in London.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombingsThey eventually realized that they didn’t have long enough spoons to eat with that particular devil. It was wryly noted by Alexandra Colen at the Brussels Journal and by Dymphna at The Gates of Vienna that the IRA wished to make it known that they weren’t as bad as the Jihadis because, er, they didn’t kill themselves and their victims were not nearly as dead.
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/132
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2005/08/george-bush-defeats-ira.html
-
-
-
-
18
September 25, 2010 at 10:36 -
“… I simply don’t understand how killing thousands of people is supposed to solve anything.”
It’s perfectly possible. But it has to be the right thousands of people…
-
-
-
19
September 24, 2010 at 23:42 -
Right, Anna.
I have, so far, not found any interference of the USofA having been of benefit anywhere, anytime for the locals. Apart from [a genuine thank you!] their help on ending the WWII. But for the rest, they have been supporting and then fighting, training, supporting and then fighting the same groups for decades. Trigger: what would benefit them. Can we call it Oil, just to name one?-
20
September 25, 2010 at 15:33 -
Moot point. The main beneficiaries of the US intervention in the 1940′s were the Americans. The European empires were dismantled, our commercial secrets were looted, we were enslaved by their debt for decades, and they still didn’t rid us of the “ism” from the east. America looks after America first and foremost.
They didn’t donate us their weapons, they lease lent them. We paid for them.
-
-
22
September 25, 2010 at 17:20 -
Interesting article Anna thanks.
I wonder if whats going on is less about stopping extremism and is more about politicising France’s minorities to increase the likelyhood of a left wing government. With the number of new American citizens voting democrat every election it will be very hard for the republicans to get into power again. Perhaps Obama wants to duplicate this outcome elsewhere. Particulary with the rise of the far right in Europe.-
23
September 25, 2010 at 17:49 -
Forget the Republicans. The Tea party is making the U.S. political weather…………..for now. Which, on reflection, would lend credence to your theory.
-
24
September 25, 2010 at 18:33 -
25
September 26, 2010 at 17:59 -
a) French left wingers and American democrats have about as much in common as Catholics and born-again evangelists – the words “left” and “christian” respectively, not much else.
b) the French left wing is already more than alive and well – almost fully transitioned from Marxism/Leninism to Trotskyism/altermondialism now, with a few burgeons of social democracy slowly emerging to supplant old school socialism when you lean to the centre. Its liveliness is in fact something of a national trait.
-
-
26
September 26, 2010 at 18:31 -
The children of the Algerian immigrants were guaranteed a seat in their local school, guaranteed a teacher who taught them equally.
You have the same view of French schools as the Guardian journalist you quoted a while back – and are both equally mistaken imho.
We can’t go to the (state) school we want, we have to go to one in the neighbourhood, so poor neighbourhoods will have schools populated with children with poor backgrounds (and neighbourhoods with a high proportion of immigrants will have schools with a high proportion of children whose mother tongue isn’t French, so while everyone will speak French to native level by the baccalaureat, it might be with a slight accent, which is even worse than a regional accent to find a job). Teachers, however, do chose which schools they’ll go to (within availability of teaching posts). So the best teachers – those who had the best grades at the IUFM, those who get the best notations by their inspector – will get to chose first. Oh coincidence, they prefer to go to quiet schools, with children from middle class backgrounds who already speak French and whose parents will pay for no end of private tuition if that’s what needed to get them to the right university. And the poor schools will be taught by the newest, most incompetent teachers, who even with the best of wills will find it considerably harder to get everyone to the same standard.
This was not the case 50 years ago when the examen d’entrée en classe de sixième made it hard for everyone to go to high school (the alternative was technical training). It was hard enough to weed the idiots out and easy enough to make it an attainable goal for lower-class children. Ditto for the baccalauréat before entrance to university. Fewer pupils meant fewer schools, meaning the “being in the right neighbourhood” factor was less important. The classical progression was then poor parents, gifted child becomes a teacher, gifted grandchild becomes a lawyer, doctor, university professor etc. Président Pompidou’s grandfather shovelled manure in someone’s stable for a living. We’ve progressively lowered our standards, school is now that rite of passage thing we do before becoming whatever our parents were rather than a genuine social selection / recognition process.
There is prejudice in job discrimination, but I do think it’s social class / economic status prejudice rather than racism. Add to that a 10% unemployment rate and you have the present situation.
Americans are however, in my experience, highly unused to dealing with anything outside of the racism angle.
-
27
September 26, 2010 at 18:37
-
{ 27 comments… read them below or add one }