Theordore Dalrymple wrote an essay for City Journal that is a damning indictment of the French multiculturalist nanny state. Vast state-subsidized concrete ghettos ring most French cities, peopled by immigrants and their descendents from North and West Africa. To say that a counter-culture has evolved in these cités would be an understatement. The most extreme of the extremists are incubating in socialist ant farms like those in France.
Reported crime in France has risen from 600,000 annually in 1959 to 4 million today, while the population has grown by less than 20 percent... Where does the increase in crime come from? The geographical answer: from the public housing projects that encircle and increasingly besiege every French city or town of any size, Paris especially. In these housing projects lives an immigrant population numbering several million, from North and West Africa mostly, along with their French-born descendants...Some questions:...A Habitation de Loyer Modéré -- a House at Moderate Rent, or HLM -- [is] for the workers, largely immigrant, whom the factories needed during France’s great industrial expansion from the 1950s to the 1970s, when the unemployment rate was 2 percent and cheap labor was much in demand. By the late eighties, however, the demand had evaporated, but the people whose labor had satisfied it had not; and together with their descendants and a constant influx of new hopefuls, they made the provision of cheap housing more necessary than ever.
A kind of anti-society has grown up in [the HLMs] -- a population that derives the meaning of its life from the hatred it bears for the other, “official,” society in France. This alienation, this gulf of mistrust -- greater than any I have encountered anywhere else in the world, including in the black townships of South Africa during the apartheid years -- is written on the faces of the young men, most of them permanently unemployed, who hang out in the pocked and potholed open spaces between their logements. When you approach to speak to them, their immobile faces betray not a flicker of recognition of your shared humanity; they make no gesture to smooth social intercourse. If you are not one of them, you are against them.
Benevolence inflames the anger of the young men of the cités as much as repression, because their rage is inseparable from their being. Ambulance men who take away a young man injured in an incident routinely find themselves surrounded by the man’s “friends,” and jostled, jeered at, and threatened: behavior that, according to one doctor I met, continues right into the hospital, even as the friends demand that their associate should be treated at once, before others.
But [state entitlements are] not a cause of gratitude -- on the contrary: they feel it as an insult or a wound, even as they take it for granted as their due. But like all human beings, they want the respect and approval of others, even -- or rather especially -- of the people who carelessly toss them the crumbs of Western prosperity... The state, while concerning itself with the details of their housing, their education, their medical care, and the payment of subsidies for them to do nothing, abrogates its responsibility completely in the one area in which the state’s responsibility is absolutely inalienable: law and order.
No one should underestimate the danger that this failure poses, not only for France but also for the world. The inhabitants of the cités are exceptionally well armed. When the professional robbers among them raid a bank or an armored car delivering cash, they do so with bazookas and rocket launchers, and dress in paramilitary uniforms. From time to time, the police discover whole arsenals of Kalashnikovs in the cités. There is a vigorous informal trade between France and post-communist Eastern Europe: workshops in underground garages in the cités change the serial numbers of stolen luxury cars prior to export to the East, in exchange for sophisticated weaponry.
- If multicultural socialism is largely responsible for the rise of disaffected Arab and African immigrants---resentment for being given their rights and privileges rather than earning them---could the same phenomenon occur in Iraq or Afghanistan?
- What would be a cogent response of the US if a devastating terrorist attack was planned and mounted from a French HLM? Or its British or German equivalent?
- How would it be possible to undo the destructive cultures that have evolved in these ghettos?
If multicultural socialism is largely responsible for the rise of disaffected Arab and African immigrants---resentment for being given their rights and privileges rather than earning them---could the same phenomenon occur in Iraq or Afghanistan?
What?
What would be a cogent response of the US if a devastating terrorist attack was planned and mounted from a French HLM? Or its British or German equivalent?
I don't know. Of course, the 9/11 cell was located in Hamburg, and our response was to ask the German government to crack down on AQ and to help us in Afghanistan. For the most part, this has worked out well. I was just in Frankfurt, and I have to say that their security procedures are far more stringent than ours.
Muslims have been better as immigrants in lands that don't particularly cater to them. The USA with its separation of Church and State, as well as its insistence that immigrants work their way to success, has done better than Europe with its nanny approach. As long as the US system in Iraq and Afghanistan rewards hard workers and encourages entrepeneurs, we could hypothetically avoid the mistakes of France. France at its heart is xenophobic and nationalistic--but proclaims cultural inclusivity and tolerance. Muslims feel the racism and then ask the question: "If you are so open minded why should you care if we refuse to assimilate? France has created a monster."
How could we respond to Germany, France, or England? By beginning the process of cutting them off economically unless they actively clamp down on Islamic militancy and militant rhetoric in their countries AND publicaly join us as unwavering allies in the War on Terror. Basically the cold shoulder we gave Germany and France after the UN debacle would need to be extended indefinitely.
Fix the Islamic ghettoes? You can't do anything to fix a society that champions having a perpetual victimization complex and which courts death and destruction. All you can do is cut them out of the loop and succeed without them. It will take an Islamic Reformation to save these Muslims you are asking about.
Um, visited some of the projects in Washington lately? most of the stuff in this article could have been written about New York City in the 1970s and part of the 1980s - and was. Quite a bit of it could be written about several American cities today.
Socialism & multiculturalism may enable some of these pathologies, and encourage others, but it is not their ultimate source.
We've covered the banlieues here before (in 2002, about the same time the City Journal article was written), and it's a worthy topic. See also the results of this 2003 survey by Jacques Tarnero. In response to your questions:
[1] The problems you describe involve failures of ethnic assimilation into a larger citizenship, and the creation of urban ghettos. Yes, this could happen in Afghanistan & Iraq. No, socialism would not be the cause in those cases, and neither would multiculturalism. Deep seated ethnic grievances and pre-existing tribalism would be.
[2] In Europe, little to nothing would be done. The focus would remain on going after the command structure and countries that enable the terrorists in the Middle East and beyond. Recall - Hamburg was a major base for planning 9/11.
The USA might tighten the screws on travel and the movement of goods from the offending country, and it would demand action to police those areas, but that would be it. At most, another major attack executed from Europe might cause America to start assassinating those commanders in European countries if they were being harboured there and not dealt with by local governments.
Interestingly, despite its foreign policy France has a very effective internal intelligence service, the DST
[3] One could ask the same question about North America's ghettos. And one should.
Interestingly, asking those questions was a big part of the neoconservative movement's birth. Hence Irving Kristol's famous self-description as "a liberal who has been mugged by reality." Dissatisfied, articulate ex-socialists can be dangerous policy enemies, and I wonder if France might create its own cadre at some point.
But it definitely starts with serious enforcement, and a refusal to tolerate "no go zones" and bazookas in the hands of criminals. Local breakdown inevitably become wider breakdowns, as American cities have learned. France needs some Rudy Guilianis. Even more, it needs some translations of James Q. Wilson and his "broken windows" theory of crime. This will intensify tensions in the short to medium term, but without it improvements are unlikely.
The headscarf law, love it or hate it, is also part of the French response. It's meant as a strike against a ploy by the Islamists to further isolate and cow the banlieue residents, and a reminder that France's secular norms shall apply. French multiculturalism obviously has limits, and drew the line where medieval atavists sought to force a badge of submission on threat of rape.
The concept of "Frenchness" as a blood tie will make the larger task of integration more difficult, however.
Joe makes some good points.
I would add that one problem we have to watch out for is a resurgence of the kind of nasty European nativism that caused so much trouble in the 20th century, in reaction to the immigration that Europe needs due to its low birth rates. The recent rise of the Nazi-esque in East Germany is a warning to us all. Just yesterday some politician openly expressed his admiration for Hitler.
I've often wondered if it's possible for ethnically-based polities to incorporate immigrants from different ethnicities without major social problems and breakdown. I don't think it is. Perhaps it is simply not wise for ethnically based countries to admit large numbers of immigrants from different countries. Being an American is not based on ethnicity, being French or German is and even we still have problems with it.
For once I agree with Joe. Calm down. You could say the same thing about US cities, substituting "projects" for cites
And how does the crime rate in Paris compare with Washington, DC?
Klaatu, Joe---Good point about American cities. I wonder if American projects are, by and large, as militant as their French counterparts. American projects appear to be mostly populated with American citizens, not disaffected Middle Easterners and Africans. I don't really know the numbers, offhand, however, so its an open question coming from me. But it seems as though American projects and French cités are apples and oranges.
I'm not certain that the projects are as bad as les cites. If the police want to arrest someone in a project, how many police go? Because in the cites, they send hundreds of riot police.
lindenen:
I would disagree that France is an "ethnically-based" polity. Germany, undoubtedly, but not France.
Its concept of citizenship has been far more based on cultural and linguistic assimilation; and for the "republicans", the adopting "republican values".
France assimilated large numbers of European immigrants in the 19th century.
However, this means dealing with an Muslims, more resistant to acculturation, causes severe problems.
It also makes "multiculturalism" a more pernicious approach than elsewhere, but also to some extent a more necessary one. Big problem.
Another factor is the sheer dislike, even hatred, of many French for Arab Muslim immigrants and their descendants, mostly, IIRC, Algerian origin. This is not merely as competitors for jobs and benefits.
To understand its depth, you have to consider the historical circumstances.
The Algerian war cost France around 20,000 dead; unlike other areas of the Empire, Algeria was viewed as part of Metropolitan France by almost all french parties; the political impact of the war included the fall of the 4th Republic, almost the collapse of de Gaulle's 5th Republic government, military mutinies, very nearly civil war, and the flight/expulsion from Algeria of 1 million French settlers and 100,000 Algerian Jews.
Subsequent Algerian immigration to France tended to produce sentiments along the lines of "the Arabs fight to expel us, then they come here, and still refuse to become French."
Unfair perhaps; but understandable.
A legacy of poisoned relations that continues to rebound down the years, alienating both sides, and a significant factor in the rise of the F.N.
Incidentally, the US reaction to the Suez Crisis, which France saw as crucial to stabilising Algeria, also left a lasting legacy of resentment.
John Farren... all very good points. Thanks.
Colt... it was like that once in the U.S., too. Seen downtown Detroit lately? Still, acknowledged, that's more effort than even the worst U.S. inner cities generaly require these days. Dalrymple's points about violent rap music lyrics and Kalashnikovs aren't so convincing because that isn't anything Americans haven't already seen. But admittedly, Bloods & Crips don't pack RPGs. Nor are wealthy Arabs and governments funding them and encouraging violent revolution among them.
Praktike... alas, we'll see more of that backlash in future. The combination of immigration, refusal to accept European norms among key subsets of the immigrant population, the threat of violent Islamism, and policies that enable that refusal and/or violence, makes it inevitable that this will come to head unless one or more of those pillars disappears. But Europe is in denial on many levels; barring a very dramatic event on a full 9/11 scale, this will be a slo-mo train wreck rather than a sudden or near-term explosion.
Lindenen... France has absorbed non-ethnic French before, but they were mostly German or Belgian. It may, as John Farren notes, ne able to adapt by focusing on "Republique values". But it's fair to say that this is a bigger stretch for them. Agree with your general point re: polities that are ethnic at their core admitting lots of ethnic outsiders - unless they work on redefining membership, it's a bad idea that's almost certain to end in tears somehow.
Patrick... France is, in its own twisted way, try to spark reformative movements within its own populace. We can argue whether the measures are working or likely to work, but they are trying to do it via their recognized Muslim organizations, limited deportation of Imams who preach hate against the French, headscarf laws, etc. As I say, we'll see in time if it works for them, or against them.
Thanks for participating, everyone! Good discussion.
Joe,
I'm not aware of any urban getto in America where armed struggle is/was constant. Where banks and armored cars are regularly attacked.
Where AKs and RPG were/are used in armed robberies.
Why? For all the opression of blacks in America word has filtered down into the black community that the only way forward is by joining American culture.
I think of Mohammed Ali's famous remark to the effect: "Thank god the slavers put my ancestors on the boat". He said that during or after a tour of Africa.
In addition: we are not building any more high rise ghettos in America. We learned our lesson.
Is France incapable of learning? Yes. Why? Because it can't. It can't keep French culture as is and integrate the new arrivals. That is the big secret of America we let the culture evolve.
The problem with the French is the same problem we have with the Islamics: cultural rigidity.
I agree.
The ghettoisation of France, and to a large extent countries such as Holland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark is a cause for concern for the west in its entirity. The problem is most acute with moslem immigrants. There have been Hindu and Sikh immigrants from India, Chinese immigrants in hiordes etc in countries like the US, the UK and canada, not to mention mainland Europe and these communities have not shown the tendencies towards ghettoization and vioelnt acculturation resistance that is uniquely the forte of the islamists. The blacks in the US have adjusted to new realities and are on the average including themselves in and also helping change 'US culture' as it were.
The question ceryainly begs asking: Why is it that moslem immigrants in , say, the UK from Pakistan and Bangladesh fare poorly on average in almost every socio-economic indicator there is as compared to their neighbours - Sikhs and hindus from India or the Buddhists from Sri Lanka - be it in education, income, health, family size - anything!
I for one would be very surprised if islam had nothing to do with it.
I have one quibble with John Farren's comment. Numbers. Proportions. Perhaps France had some immigration in the 19th century. But nowhere in Western Europe have they had anything that even vaguely resembles what's going on now or even vaguely resembles what the U. S. has had for her entire history. Check the actual numbers and the actual proportions of the population involved. The U. S. developed one solution and it's a solution that may be failing under a stream of immigrants from a single country (Mexico). The Europeans have yet to address their immigration problems.
Katzman, Cicero ...
Something to consider, which often is overlooked, is the ameliorative effect of ethnic dilution. To wit, there were literally hundreds of thousands of Southeast Asian immigrants to the United States through the 1970's and 1980's. These people were assisted both by the government and by scores of charities to "go someplace", and settle, to become part of the community. Thai's, Vietnamese, Koreans and Laotians ended up in all sorts of odd places, such as Hamburg Pennsylvania [pop. 4,114]. Only a few families were relocated to this hamlet, but surrounded by 500x the number of natives, they just "melted in", learned the language, set up an Americanized Thai resturant in town, sent the kids to the local High School, and are now fully integrated into the community.
Cultural dilution is feared by many a new immigrant. Fondly recounted are stories of "Uncle Luigi moving to New York, in the Bronx, where the other Sicilians were setting up Little Italy. There he set up a shoe store, just like his father in Palermo, with only a nickel to his name." OK, it isn't the greater melting pot of Hamburg, but it also is workable: the greater city of New York has huge boulevards to move people around all over the place. Immigrants felt proud to learn English, felt proud to vote in the elections, felt proud when an Italian Godfather got elected to some office. Immigrants went out of their way to cater to other immigrants, to "natives" (who could hardly be called that), and so on. It worked. It works.
Culturally, the dilution of that old Italian community was both voluntary and encouraged. The Thais and Vietnamese were less gung-ho about cultural intermixing, and so juicy-enticement to not cluster in tight, non-evolving ghettos was the key. By and large, the majority of Southeast Asian immigrants have successfully become fully integrated to the greater American community.
And, like the Italians, they continue to revel in their ancestry, their cultural piques, norms, festivities, religions, births and deaths.
Feeling somewhat shy about saying "what's good for France", I will only conclude by noting that although France is having its share of difficulties, it is hard to see how it really could have done "the American thing", successfully. The "dilution effect" is one of the ratio of AREA to PERIMETER of a map spotted with communities.
When the "AREA" of a immigrant-cluster is large [tens of thousands individuals and families in it], the perimeter is relatively small: the only place where 'mixing' happens is on the edges, and the 'area' of the thing grows as both internal forces [births] and external forces [2nd wave immigration] burgeon the immigrant community. Splitting the community up into a lot of little communities, changes the AREA not one bit, but can multiply the PERIMETER by hundreds-to-thousands of times. Such is the amplification of the 'integration factor'.
The same technique in a macrocosmic sense was and is being performed through the negatively captioned "forced bussing" of African Americans or Whites [or anyone] to other communities for schooling. Increasing the perimeter, given that changing the AREA is impossible.
Others have commented that the French "natives" are pretty xenophobic considering their love-affair with Great Society Liberalism. Theirs is a xeno-"phobia" that is really not a fear, but a rejection. The French have so cannonized their Frenchness that it takes quite a cultural conversion to get past the barrier-to-entry. Oh, you can live well enough your whole life in France as a permanent guest. You can keep your tongue, you can keep your gustatory deviations, you can keep your mosques, your odd costumes, your interesting music. But to be French? To be French is to lust for things French. To revel in the abricot harvest, to know the minutiae between individual vinyards in the Bordeaux, to chat endlessly whether Montpellier or Morbier (with ash) are better served with les pettit suzaucettes. To be French, one needs to be able to discuss the Opera, to deride the Gaullic neighbor for being such a curmudgeon, to rush out of your house naked to help victims of a car crash on the road outside your country cottage, yet refuse to go shopping without the proper attire for the day.
The French xeno-"phobia" is itself a barrier to that PERIMETER, above. It is an oil-and-water effect, where only the greatest amount of shaking will increase the surface-area of each oil glob to the point where it all stays in suspension. Yet [and pardon my mayonaisse analogy here], it appears that France's only "sin" was encouraging too many immigrants, too quickly. Like the recipe for mayonaisse: at first add oil drop by drop, while vigorously whisking. As it begins to set up, one can fairly dump the oil in. But not before.
Geopolitically, some societies are more "oily" than others, more in need of gradual-then-continuous influx. For whatever reason [though most likely from a joint 'frontiersman' spirit], America was able to meld together the greatest influx of people in history. The "Old Europe" isn't so lucky. It seems they need to break up the globs of oil a bit.
GoatGuy