Diversity In France!

[Siamanto]

its funny that this is getting talked about longer then it really happend for.

People get pissed about non-equality=riots.

Yes, as expected, their expression of anger exhausted itself. I hope that, now, you realize that there was no "threating revolution." In any case, they - the rioters - rather change the format of their struggle to a more reasonable and productive one; otherwise, the public opinion - still sympathetic to their problems and revendications - may turn around and against them.
Also, I'm glad that the Government - unlike the Bush Administration during the LA riots - did not deny the existence of a deeper social problem and limited itself to simply restoring "Social Order." Many new measures have been suggested and are being debated that would facilitate a more harmonious integration of the younger generation of some of the immigrant communities, I just hope that they will be efficient and bear fruit.

Unfortunately, nose-it-all opportunistic bigots like Anonymouse enjoy spreading their nauseating gossips, as if that was their raison-d'etre.

[TomServo]

[bell-the-cat]

People get pissed about non-equality=riots.

The French like to have a riot every now and again, and burn things. So, ironically, all the rioting, far from revealing that there is a large unintegrated and alienated group of immigrants, just proves how "French" they are.

[Anonymouse]

So what is the 'French' nation? Cathars? Aquitanians? Bretons? They didn't even all speak French until a couple hundred years ago, even if they were often ruled over by a French-speaking king. Actually, many of the people in Brittany, from what I know, still speak their Celtic Breton rather than French.

I don't know where you get this post-modernist approach of how nations are nothing more than illusions, perhaps no-doubt by the contributions of those such as Benedict Anderson, but such notions are exactly what are used to justify the forceful and concerted effort of the dilution of peoples and cultures.

Every nation has a name and thus was given so as a reflection of the people that made up the majority of those lands. The people of a given nation, give the name and culture of that nation in their image. It is always a majority of a certain people that define a nation that is unique to them. As with the case of France, it is to Clovis I and the Franks, who gave it their name.

Your examples of trying to make the concept of a French nation as elastic as possible, by using examples such as the Cathars, which was a religious group, or the Aquitanians, is missing the point. You could even throw in the Burgundians and it won't make or break anything. That many people in Brittany speak Celtic doesn't mean anything. You can find many exceptions to the rule in any country. And just because the language of the courts was Latin until 1539 doesn't mean that somehow this wasn't a nation, or it didn't comprise a group of people who spoke the French language of the time. Armenians, before their alphabet, used a variety of languages in the court such as Greek or Syriac, that didn't mean anything. Yet, the people spoke Armenian.

The case of France is the same. For starters, all of those exceptional elements were all racially more similar to the Franks, and culturally as well, than the mixed race inhabitans of Africa or the blacks that now occupy France. These people are racially and culturally further apart. That is why, it is always easier to integrate people racially and culturally similar and closer than those apart. The waves of Europeans who merged in America highlights this.

Supposedly Charles Martel stopped the invasion of Islam into France, and we are only thankful that he is not alive now to witness what France has turned into. Any place where you have a majority of people who define the nation in their image, will remain so long as they are the majority. Once that shift changes, due to mixing, low birthrates and immigration of hostile nationals, then you can begin to count the days of that particular group of people. These observations and views are not tolerated in the modern world. Anyone who questions the dogma of diversity, as well as democracy, is somehow chastised or at least verbally ostracized. And if we are truly for keeping the diversity of the planet, we should promote the self-preservation of peoples and cultures, not their destruction whereby we create a melange in which everyone can sort of breed into one brown color spectrum, no different than a mixed breed of dogs to perform nothing more than dumpster diving.

[Anonymouse]

Some people are so in love with themselves, anything that disagrees or is contrary to their cherished views is deemed as gossip, either about their self-absorped self, or their cherished land where they were educated by Lacans, Foucaults, and Lyotards.