[Marxism] FW: Paris Unrest

Mark Lause MLause at cinci.rr.com
Mon Nov 7 19:29:46 MST 2005


This one's making the rounds on the academic circuit.  While not
particularly Marxist, I thought this perspective from an Australian grad
student was insightful enough to be worth sharing.

ML

-----Original Message-----
From: i.coller at pgrad.unimelb.edu.au 
[mailto:i.coller at pgrad.unimelb.edu.au] 
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 10:22 PM
Subject: Paris Unrest

Dear Colleagues

Having lived for a year in the middle of a medium-cost housing estate in
the Paris banlieue, and having many close friends among Algerian,
Moroccan and Tunisian students in Paris, I have been watching the riots
unfolding with distress over the last week. I was in Paris researching
the history of the Arabic population, which gave me a rather different
perspective on cultural and ethnic divisions in France. I hope that the
following observations may be of interest - they are the result of a
great deal of (sometimes heated) conversation with friends and
colleagues in France, observation of the French media responses, and my
own experience as a temporary banlieusard.

Quand la banlieue brule...

>From one perspective, Paris is a vibrant and multiethnic city, which
Often celebrates its diversity: during the Fête de la Musique I saw
Egyptian dancers near the Metro Luxembourg, Sufi drummers in the Virgin
Megastore near Barbès and young Franco-Algerian DJs performing to happy
crowds in the streets of the Goutte d’Or. This is the proud face of what
some French academics havecalled “pluriculturalism”--an alternative to
the multiculturalism which has been the model in the Anglophone world.
It celebrates diversity on the basis of a unified national culture and a
strong sense of identity, encouraging assimilation as a model of
coexistence. One language, one culture, one flag.

But this public celebration masks deep problems with this model,
problems which have recently spilled over into the streets of the Paris
suburbs, and are spreading out into the urban conglomerations of
provincial France. All at once, the French media are asking questions
about a failure of “integration” which has been obvious for a decade or
more to those prepared to listen.

The current crisis is only the culmination of a long series of
confrontations between the state and underprivileged populations living
in increasingly ghetto-style environments. Municipal authorities have
set out to ameliorate these physical conditions “all too slowly” but
without facing up to the cultural exclusion into which whole categories
of French citizens have been trapped by the stark choices offered in
contemporary France.

In Australia, and elsewhere in the Anglophone world at present,
questions are being raised by serious commentators about the so-called
“failure of multiculturalism.” These critics are calling for a strict
model of assimilation to national values. The current crisis in France
is an indication of where this thinking can lead.

There is little doubt that the majority of French people have an intense
and passionate attachment to their national culture, and a deep interest
in other cultures--something I feel that others can admire and learn
from. In 2003, all of France celebrated the “Week of Foreign Cultures,”
an expression of cosmopolitanism and tolerance. The festival’s slogan
was “I love you from afar.” This, for me, sums up the limits of this
cosmopolitan idea, the need for a clear separation between “French” and
“foreign”. French people have had greater difficulty loving these
“foreign” cultures when they are in the apartment above their own, in
the streets of Saint-Denis, in the “wall” apartment blocks of the outer
suburbs, or in the high-schools of provincial France.

The major groups of immigrants in France today are a consequence of
France’s colonial empire: Algerians, Vietnamese, Senegalese and
Congolais. Unlike other colonial powers, France had a shortage rather
than a surplus of population at the beginning of the twentieth century,
and imported hundreds of thousands of immigrant workers from the
colonies both before and after decolonisation. But North African workers
in particular were viewed as a threat. Exposed to “French” ideas of
liberty and equality, they began to demand these things in France and
Algeria. From the 1920s onwards a special police force was created,
using the state institutions including the hospitals and the mosques,
for surveillance and control of North African immigrants, leaving many
with a deep- rooted suspicion of the state.

Hundreds of thousands of colonial soldiers fought and died for France
from the Crimean War to World War Two. Many of those who liberated Paris
in 1945 were North and West African soldiers. They suffered particularly
heavy casualties as general de Gaulle threw his Free French forces into
devastating confrontations in order to assure that France took a central
role in the liberation. I have seen little evidence that this Arab and
African role in French history has been celebrated alongside that of
Clovis, Joan of Arc and Napoleon.

Algerians, Moroccans, Senegalese and other former colonial subjects have
as much right to be considered the makers of modern France as any other
French men and women. Some have never lived anywhere but France, as far
back as 1848 when Algeria was declared an integral part of the French
nation. Their culture - for most, a Muslim culture - is also French
culture: their history is also French history.

This is the collective experience of many of the young men and women of
the suburbs today. Certainly, as elsewhere in the world, there are
individuals among them who for various reasons take readily to violence
as a solution or as an end in itself. But when this occurs, the response
of many “Franco-French” people (to use a bizarre but very common term)
is to suggest that they should “go back where they came from.”

This is racism. Yet many French people will not admit that racism exists
in France. France is the land of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. To
suggest otherwise is an attack on the Republic. Those who do so with
stones and petrol cans are called “racailles” (thugs). Those who do so
with words and arguments are told that they are playing a “double game,”
that they are the pawns of Islamic fundamentalists or Leftist radicals.

The problem was crystallized for me in the televized debate presented on
the program “Mots Croisés” on Monday 31 October. The program opened with
an interview with Azouz Begag, the first government minister of North
African background, responsible for the “ascenseur sociale” or upward
mobility for underprivileged groups. The interviewer, Yves Calvi, asked
him if he was a “beur alibi” (a “Token Arab”), and why he did not think
about resigning. Begag’s suggestion that he would try to speak to the
families of the boys who were killed, “in Arabic if necessary” provoked
outraged reactions on the on- line forum after the program. The tone was
one of incredulity that a “French Minister” should speak Arabic to
“French citizens.” For many outside France, it is simply not obvious at
all what is so outrageous about this proposition. American ministers
have spoken in Spanish to their citizens, and in Australia government
brochures are printed in at least five languages (including Arabic).

In the panel discussion which followed it was clear what Calvi meant by
a “Token Arab,” since the panel contained only one member from North
African background, a local educator and youth worker from
Clichy-sous-Bois, Samir Mihi, who had been very much in evidence in the
news stories as a leader encouraging dialogue rather than violence,
working in close contact with the youths on the street. When he began to
explain the anger felt by the communities in the cites at the death of
the two boys, and the particular anger felt by Muslims when a police
tear-gas canister was fired into a crowded mosque, Calvi simply cut him
off and demanded “Will you make a statement now that these youths should
go back to their homes”? When Mihi replied that he was working for this
result every day, the interviewer began to insist over and over that he
make a direct imperative statement to the rioters to go home. (Again,
there is no sensitivity here about the meanings of “Rentrez chez-vous!”)
This confrontation, to me, is quite representative of the crisis as a
whole. It was not sufficient that this young man should be engaged in
the “mediation” between rioters and the authorities, he must declare
himself - through an enunciative act - as a representative of “order”,
of French culture.

The implication made immediately by another panel member, the UMP
deputy-mayor Manuel Aeschlimann, was that Mihi and other mediators were
using a “double language,” secretly encouraging attacks against the
police while claiming to be working toward calm. Mihi was then ignored
for the rest of the program while a group of “French” politicians and
intellectuals discussed the restoration of order. At no point in this
discussion was Mihi respected as an equal voice in the debate: he was
hounded, told what statement to make, and implicitly accused of
“treachery” toward the French state.

This is fairly indicative of how North Africans and other immigrants
have been viewed across the French Republican establishment. They have
been discussed as a “ problem”, a “challenge” or a “failure,” but rarely
as a constitutive part of French society and history. There is only one
solution to these “problems”--become French. But they must become French
in a way defined by the Republican consensus built since the 1880s (not
coincidentally the era of massive colonial expansion) and not by their
own understanding of what “French” might mean.

The recent riots in Clichy were sparked by a tragic incident which bore
an extraordinary similarity to events which took place last year in
Redfern, one of Sydney’s poorest suburbs, where indigenous Australians
are concentrated in shocking poverty and joblessness. In that case also,
a young boy allegedly under pursuit by the police was killed in an
accident, sparking riots which lasted several days. The power of these
incidents seems to lie in its symbolic force: whatever the
circumstances, the majority of people of all ages in these communities
saw it as an act of aggression by the state, harrying the
underprivileged to their death. Almost every member of the community
(judging by the interviews I’ve seen) experiences these deaths as a
symbol of deep injustice and neglect by the society in which they live.

The failure of the French government and the media to deal effectively
with this anger and the violence which followed arises from a deeper
failure to listen, to comprehend, and to admit that the "universal"
values which are constantly trumpeted have failed in significant ways.
The current government consciously reversed all the socialist attempts
at solution through community action, in its attempt to impose order
through “zero tolerance,” an absolute stress on “public order” (santé
public), and the restriction of the police to the role of investigation
and arrest rather than community involvement, closing down the “police
de proximité”.

Perhaps because of the votes attracted by the Front National in 2002,
the government is nervous about confronting racism as a reality in
contemporary France. Instead, it is concerned to bring the racists on
board with the mainstream Republican right, by offering a hard-line
stance which may attract those voting for the Front National. This
stance has been most aggressively exploited by the Minister of the
Interior, Nicolas Sarkozy (a clear Presidential contender for 2007) who
has repeatedly spoken of “racailles”, “voyous” and “caïds” (an Arabic
word for a local leader); of “nettoyage” (cleansing) using a “karcher”
(vacuum cleaner)--language which can be best understood in English as
referring to “scum” who need to be “cleaned out” of the urban
communities. It was after Sarkozy used such language during a visit to
Argenteuil immediately after the first riots in Clichy, that the
violence spread to other suburbs on the outskirts of Paris. Young men
interviewed on camera made it clear that they were incensed by Sarkozy’s
language, whose effects they felt every day in a sharpening of the
colour and cultural divide, and in the actions of police.

The problems in the suburbs of French cities are real, and affect all
their inhabitants, regardless of how recently they or their ancestors
arrived in France. The underlying economic and environmental problems
have to be solved in order to turn around this worsening situation. But
the cultural question is one that also needs urgently to be broached.
The “values” to which the children of immigrants are expected to adhere
cannot take root unless these values are open to a recognition of the
diversity of French society today, its new forms of connectedness with
Africa and Asia as well as Europe, and a new sense of history. It is
worth remembering that after the failure of Republicanism in 1848, and
the fires of the Paris Commune, the republican project of the 1870s was
built on painstaking work in the rural communes of France--what Daniel
Halévy called “the revolution of the town halls.”

French “pluriculturalism” has failed, but needs to be rebuilt
painstakingly from the ground upwards. A new and more inclusive Arabo-
African- Indochinese- French history of modern France needs to be
written, against the immobile and conservative
Revolutionary-Napoleonic-Third Republic version which dominates at
present. It must talk about the slave trade, colonialism, Islam, the
Algerian War - in Algeria and in France - the Holocaust, the role of
immigration in France, and develop new perspectives on the customary
landmarks of French history. It must teach other languages and other
cultures, respect the rights of individuals to choose their cultural
expression, while still defending them from abuses.

It must stop trying to choose for them, demanding that they speak only
in one language and one discourse, demanding that they abandon their
roots and identifications. It will not be the same as the
multiculturalism of Canada or Britain or India, and nor should it be.
These societies, like my own, have their own fractures, wrongs and
exclusions to deal with. But all of these models need to enter into
dialogue with one another in order to bring the best elements of these
different approaches together.

It will be difficult to turn around the momentum of a government
committed to repression as an answer to social injustice, and the groups
of young men caught in a cycle of violence and destruction. These riots
are an appalling waste of badly-needed resources, and a terrible
infliction of fear and injury on all concerned. Simply repeating "C'est
inacceptable!" (How many times have I heard this phrase in the last
week?) and decrying the "racailles" will not make this problem go away.

But standing in the middle of the concourse at Châtelet-Les Halles Metro
station, it is possible to feel what France is and can be--a society
pulsating with energy and movement, colour and life... but also with a
powerful undercurrent of exclusion and injustice.

A minister in the National Assembly shouted a few days ago "This is not
a Revolution!" If it is not, it should be - but a peaceful revolution
which will tear down the walls of exclusion, injustice and mutual
incomprehension.

-- 
Ian Coller is completing a doctorate on the history of the Arabic
populations in Paris during the nineteenth century, at the University of
Melbourne, Australia.

-- 
i.coller at pgrad.unimelb.edu.au 






More information about the Marxism mailing list