logo Sign In

What the Hell is Going on in France? — Page 2

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
Did anyone actually read Mavimao's post? What are you all talking about communism and the second world war for? This is about taking advantage of a certain group of people (be it class or race) and then when said group finally says enough is enough, not being able to handle it. I enjoy a good stab at teh French as much as the next English or American man, but you guys are, quite frankly, talking sh*t. Pretty much every country in the world is guilty of taking advantage of another country or group at some point, and it usually backfires, which is what is going on in France now. Read what Mavimao said (which, after some research of my own I can confirm is a good summary of the issue) and then make some worthwhile comments or none at all.


I've always believed that people have the inalienable right to rise up against repressive governments. My family comes from Ireland, and came over during The Great Hunger, then were treated badly here until after WWII. However, poor socio-economic conditions do not excuse random violence. If these people are upset about their plight, they should organize political movements and support peaceful change, or if they really feel the need to be violent perhaps they should take on the French army (assuming they have one, which is unlikely seeing as the US has been footing the bill to defend Europe for the past 60 years), instead of attacking citizens and police.

That being said, I also believe that Chirac should stop talking and take action. This is going to be enough to get him kicked out of office. If this were me, I would have issued a statement on day 2 that said something along the lines of "This sh#t stops NOW, or the National Guard (French Equivalent) is being loosed in the streets, with live amunition for 24 hours".
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: JediSage
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
Did anyone actually read Mavimao's post? What are you all talking about communism and the second world war for? This is about taking advantage of a certain group of people (be it class or race) and then when said group finally says enough is enough, not being able to handle it. I enjoy a good stab at teh French as much as the next English or American man, but you guys are, quite frankly, talking sh*t. Pretty much every country in the world is guilty of taking advantage of another country or group at some point, and it usually backfires, which is what is going on in France now. Read what Mavimao said (which, after some research of my own I can confirm is a good summary of the issue) and then make some worthwhile comments or none at all.


I've always believed that people have the inalienable right to rise up against repressive governments. My family comes from Ireland, and came over during The Great Hunger, then were treated badly here until after WWII. However, poor socio-economic conditions do not excuse random violence. If these people are upset about their plight, they should organize political movements and support peaceful change, or if they really feel the need to be violent perhaps they should take on the French army (assuming they have one, which is unlikely seeing as the US has been footing the bill to defend Europe for the past 60 years), instead of attacking citizens and police.

That being said, I also believe that Chirac should stop talking and take action. This is going to be enough to get him kicked out of office. If this were me, I would have issued a statement on day 2 that said something along the lines of "This sh#t stops NOW, or the National Guard (French Equivalent) is being loosed in the streets, with live amunition for 24 hours".


I totally agree, but lots of people were making totally unrelated and uninformed posts and looking stupid in the process.

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
I hope you weren't refering to me.

It is clear that the issues that started this riot are complicated and have been going on for a while. It reminds me of the L.A. riot after the Rodney King verdict. I'm sure the people who started the both these riots were justified in there frustration and anger over the problems they have. But violence is not the answer. There has to be a more peaceful way to settle these problems. Harming innocent people won't solve the problems. I think government should have cracked down on the rioters long before it got this out of hand. But stopping the rioting isn't enought the government of France and its people must take deep long look at themselves and the causes of the riotiing and prevent it from occuring again. But, this is easy to say and hard to do. The only way it will happen is if both sides work together. But, odds are that won't happen. They will probably end up playing the blame game, pointing the finger at each other as the cause of the riots. truly a sad state of affairs


But one thing they must do at all cost, let the rioters destroy Paris and the Eifle tower, let them topple the government of France, but please in the name of God......PROTECT THE WINE !!!!!! (just joking)
Author
Time
Post link
Well, the Rodney King riots were utter bullcrap. If the cops were racist, they'll have to answer to God for that, but King attacked them and didn't go down with the tazers. I'm not trying to ever justify police brutality, especially if it's racially motivated. But in the spot like that, you are GOING to make sure that guy stays down.

Even if the verdict was bogus (I wasn't politicall aware at the time, so forgive me if I'm ignorant or unopinionated) there was no right for the looting and rioting that happened after it came in. Same goes in France. Protest, by all means, if you think there is injustice, but burning your own neighboorhood doesn't help your cause any.

4

Author
Time
Post link
Well, I believe I did say that violence was not the answer and that there has to be a more peaceful for way to solve these problems. I was not saying their rioting was justified, merely that their anger and frustration at problems they face is justified.


As the for the King verdict. I was unware of tazers being used. The cops had every right to arrest King. He was in clear violation of the law. And they had to right to use force against him because he resisted arrest. But there came a point(as could clearly be seen in the video) where he was clearly subdued and they kept on beating him. They went too far. To this day I can't understand how the jury came to the verdict it did, I think it was the wrong one. But the King verdict was just the spark that lit the fire. For years there had been racial problems in L.A. and it had finally come to a boil. They thought that had an open and shut case and somehow the verdict went the other way. They felt the system screwed them again. I am not saying the people their were justified in their rioting, merely that they were justified in being angry and upset.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Warbler
I hope you weren't refering to me.
I wasn't.

Originally posted by: Warbler
But one thing they must do at all cost, let the rioters destroy Paris and the Eifle tower, let them topple the government of France, but please in the name of God......PROTECT THE WINE !!!!!! (just joking)

LOL!!

Originally posted by: Warbler
As the for the King verdict. I was unware of tazers being used. The cops had every right to arrest King. He was in clear violation of the law. And they had to right to use force against him because he resisted arrest. But there came a point(as could clearly be seen in the video) where he was clearly subdued and they kept on beating him. They went too far. To this day I can't understand how the jury came to the verdict it did, I think it was the wrong one. But the King verdict was just the spark that lit the fire. For years there had been racial problems in L.A. and it had finally come to a boil. They thought that had an open and shut case and somehow the verdict went the other way. They felt the system screwed them again. I am not saying the people their were justified in their rioting, merely that they were justified in being angry and upset.

Exactly.

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Warbler
Well, I believe I did say that violence was not the answer and that there has to be a more peaceful for way to solve these problems. I was not saying their rioting was justified, merely that their anger and frustration at problems they face is justified.


As the for the King verdict. I was unware of tazers being used. The cops had every right to arrest King. He was in clear violation of the law. And they had to right to use force against him because he resisted arrest. But there came a point(as could clearly be seen in the video) where he was clearly subdued and they kept on beating him. They went too far. To this day I can't understand how the jury came to the verdict it did, I think it was the wrong one. But the King verdict was just the spark that lit the fire. For years there had been racial problems in L.A. and it had finally come to a boil. They thought that had an open and shut case and somehow the verdict went the other way. They felt the system screwed them again. I am not saying the people their were justified in their rioting, merely that they were justified in being angry and upset.

As the for the King verdict. I was unware of tazers being used. The cops had every right to arrest King. He was in clear violation of the law. And they had to right to use force against him because he resisted arrest. But there came a point(as could clearly be seen in the video) where he was clearly subdued and they kept on beating him. They went too far. To this day I can't understand how the jury came to the verdict it did, I think it was the wrong one. But the King verdict was just the spark that lit the fire. For years there had been racial problems in L.A. and it had finally come to a boil. They thought that had an open and shut case and somehow the verdict went the other way. They felt the system screwed them again. I am not saying the people their were justified in their rioting, merely that they were justified in being angry and upset.


The King situation was ugly. As I've posted elsewhere, my father is an ex-cop, and he went out of his way to not be one of "those" cops (it actually cost him his career, I think). Upon seeing the video, his reaction was that the cops "...were holding court in the street", and that something happened off camera that provoked it. He also pointed out that during a high-speed chase, the adrenalaine (sp?) gets going so much, that when you finally do catch the person that you really have to restrain yourself, because the person not only put their own lives at risk, but also that of the police and the people in the streets, and that it's quite easy to not realize you're being too rough.

That being said, I do believe the police went way beyond what could be deemed acceptable in terms of continued punishment. In my opinion, if he attacked them after they used non-lethal force with tazers, they should have used lethal force.

As far as the rioting goes, it's not above the denizens of LA to riot when the Lakers win the NBA championship, so I'm not too sympathetic about it. I'll refer to my previous comments about France and say, resolve things peacefully, or take on the pros, not innocent civilians or private property.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Have we forgotten our more recent bout of looting and rioting in the U.S. ... the aftermath of Katrina? While there is no excuse for a man without power stealing a HD television, it was equally insane for N.O. police to be opening fire on those stealing perishables and diapers. It is no solution to say "zero tolerance" and "open fire" against rioting civillians and ignore the root causes of the problem.

The situation in France is very similar to what happened in New Orleans. Classism and poverty have stretched the lower end of the spectrum to its breaking point. Whether it is a hurricane or the electrocution of two kids dumb enough to hide in a substation is irrelevant. Using New Orleans as a metaphor, when the levees of social justice are strained, just the right pressure is all that's needed to break them and flood the city with violence and unrest.
I am fluent in over six million forms of procrastination.
Author
Time
Post link
The situation in France is very similar to what happened in New Orleans. Classism and poverty have stretched the lower end of the spectrum to its breaking point. Whether it is a hurricane or the electrocution of two kids dumb enough to hide in a substation is irrelevant. Using New Orleans as a metaphor, when the levees of social justice are strained, just the right pressure is all that's needed to break them and flood the city with violence and unrest.


Similar in the end result, perhaps, but not in how it came about.

It is my understanding that these two kids were Muslim, who as a religious group were essentially invited into the country through lax immigartion policy, and then not given the tools and opportunities to create a better life for themselves. They wound up marginalized as a group and then civil unrest began to set it.

A lot of these rioters were just looking for a reason to go off, and it came in the form of two stupid, stupid kids. It's a shame.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: TheCassidy
The situation in France is very similar to what happened in New Orleans. Classism and poverty have stretched the lower end of the spectrum to its breaking point. Whether it is a hurricane or the electrocution of two kids dumb enough to hide in a substation is irrelevant. Using New Orleans as a metaphor, when the levees of social justice are strained, just the right pressure is all that's needed to break them and flood the city with violence and unrest.


Similar in the end result, perhaps, but not in how it came about.

It is my understanding that these two kids were Muslim, who as a religious group were essentially invited into the country through lax immigartion policy, and then not given the tools and opportunities to create a better life for themselves. They wound up marginalized as a group and then civil unrest began to set it.

A lot of these rioters were just looking for a reason to go off, and it came in the form of two stupid, stupid kids. It's a shame.


It's funny. Not so long ago people came to the US and built the better lives for themselves...they didn't depend on government to do it for them. There's been a polar shift in the way governments are looked upon. They're no longer the defender of the borders and economic markets, they're now seen as an employment office.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
Have we forgotten our more recent bout of looting and rioting in the U.S. ... the aftermath of Katrina? While there is no excuse for a man without power stealing a HD television, it was equally insane for N.O. police to be opening fire on those stealing perishables and diapers. It is no solution to say "zero tolerance" and "open fire" against rioting civillians and ignore the root causes of the problem.

So France should do nothing a let the rioters destroy Paris? There is big difference stealling perishable items during a diasaster and commiting acts of violence. Now, I am not suggesting that police should just mow them down. Merely that order has to be restored. There many ways rioters can be stopped without shooting them. If the rioters were about to set your house on fire, would want the police to stand there and do nothing?

Originally posted by: JediSage
It's funny. Not so long ago people came to the US and built the better lives for themselves...they didn't depend on government to do it for them. There's been a polar shift in the way governments are looked upon. They're no longer the defender of the borders and economic markets, they're now seen as an employment office.


I don't view the governemt as an employment office. But I do believe it is the government's duty to see to it that the employment offices treat everyone fairly. As for the way government is seen now, maybe that is because this is 2005 not 1776. The is still of course, the defender of the borders and economic markets. May I remind you, part of having a strong economic market is keeping down unemployment.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Warbler
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
Have we forgotten our more recent bout of looting and rioting in the U.S. ... the aftermath of Katrina? While there is no excuse for a man without power stealing a HD television, it was equally insane for N.O. police to be opening fire on those stealing perishables and diapers. It is no solution to say "zero tolerance" and "open fire" against rioting civillians and ignore the root causes of the problem.

So France should do nothing a let the rioters destroy Paris? There is big difference stealling perishable items during a diasaster and commiting acts of violence. Now, I am not suggesting that police should just mow them down. Merely that order has to be restored. There many ways rioters can be stopped without shooting them. If the rioters were about to set your house on fire, would want the police to stand there and do nothing?

Originally posted by: JediSage
It's funny. Not so long ago people came to the US and built the better lives for themselves...they didn't depend on government to do it for them. There's been a polar shift in the way governments are looked upon. They're no longer the defender of the borders and economic markets, they're now seen as an employment office.

I don't view the governemt as an employment office. But I do believe it is the government's duty to see to it that the employment offices treat everyone fairly.


Which is why affirmative action programs need to be tossed.

As for the way government is seen now, maybe that is because this is 2005 not 1776.


Right, but for some reason people still want slavery reparations.

May I remind you, part of having a strong economic market is keeping down unemployment.


But not at the expense of enlarging the government. The US government is the largest employer in the world. Also, it should not come with a price tag of government interference in free-markets or in the business sector. Government's roll in keeping down unemployment should never wander from taxes and tariffs...Oh, and making sure we never run out of resources, like Iraqi oil...
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Which is why affirmative action programs need to be tossed.

maybe.

Right, but for some reason people still want slavery reparations.


1. We were talking about France, not America

2. Maybe people still want slavery reparations because no reparations have ever been paid out. .

But not at the expense of enlarging the government.


why not? As long as it is within reason.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Warbler
Which is why affirmative action programs need to be tossed.

maybe.

Talk to me when you've lost a job to someone in order to fulfill a quota (even though you're more qualified)

Right, but for some reason people still want slavery reparations.

1. We were talking about France, not America


True, but you brought up 1776 like it was germain to our welfare state mentality, so that's what I believed was the next logical place to take it.

2. Maybe people still want slavery reparations because no reparations have ever been paid out.


1. The people who want them were never slaves to begin with.

2. The people who are supposed to pay them never owned slaves.

But not at the expense of enlarging the government.


why not? As long as it is within reason.


As I stated earlier, the US is the largest employer in the world and is still growing. Let me know when it's not within reason any more...somehow I think we passed that point with the New Deal....the system cannot remain like this forever, especially during perpetual inflationary periods and depressed wages.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link

Talk to me when you've lost a job to someone in order to fulfill a quota (even though you're more qualified)


a supporter of affirmative action might say in response: have you ever lost a job because someone did not like your skin color?

I gone back and forth on this issue. Both sides have good points. I am not sure which is right.

1. The people who want them were never slaves to begin with.


no, but the slave themselves never got paid and we can still pay their living relatives

it would be akin to paying money to the slaves estates and then the relatives get the money via inheritence.


2. The people who are supposed to pay them never owned slaves.


yes but an entity that is responsible for slavery is still around: The U.S. Government. It would not be individual people paying the reparations, but the entire country as whole.

Finally remember, had reparations been paid out when they should have been(when the slaves and slave owners were still alive), a lot of white people would have alot less money because their slave owning forefathers would have had alot less of it to pass on.



Author
Time
Post link
Affirmative action is bullshit and is doing nothing to bring true equality to the world. As for reparations, slavery sucks, but should the relatives of slaves get money? And should the relatives of slave owners pay that money? NO. If the government makes some kind of financial gesture on behalf of the nation as a whole, then that's cool, but that won't make the long deceased slave feel any better. And why should the relatives get paid? If there was to be any kind of financial payout, it should go towards funding something that will help the fight towards equality, rather than being given to individual relatives of slaves. We need to stop hanging onto the past and work together for the present, and the future.

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
Couldn't agree with you more YIYF.

The only way to progress as a civilized society is to learn from the past and vow not to let it happen again. The France situation was a tempest in a teapot waiting to happen for almost 50 years. They could of done something about it, but they didn't.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
And why should the relatives get paid? .


Ok, I will try to explain again. If we all agree that reparations should have been paid to the actual slaves, what would happend to the money(if they did not spend it) after the slaves died? It would have gone to the slave's relatives. That is why the relatives should get paid.
Author
Time
Post link
The slave might have spent it on a slap up meal and some hookers for all we know. Saying he would have passed it along to his offspring is an assumption. I think the money should be given as a symbolic gesture to some kind of scheme or project aimed at promoting true equality. And I don't mean some stupid gimmick like an 'I love black people day', I mean an actual government funded project with serious commitment from all involved. Exactly what that is, I don't know, but I don't see why somebody should be able to go and buy themselves a new BMW courtesy of the government because their great grandfather had a bad life. What happened back then is awful, and I am ashamed to be a white westerner at times because of the way we have treated (and in some cases continue to treat) other nations, but this just smacks of people cashing in to me.

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
The slave might have spent it on a slap up meal and some hookers for all we know. Saying he would have passed it along to his offspring is an assumption. I think the money should be given as a symbolic gesture to some kind of scheme or project aimed at promoting true equality. And I don't mean some stupid gimmick like an 'I love black people day', I mean an actual government funded project with serious commitment from all involved. Exactly what that is, I don't know, but I don't see why somebody should be able to go and buy themselves a new BMW courtesy of the government because their great grandfather had a bad life. What happened back then is awful, and I am ashamed to be a white westerner at times because of the way we have treated (and in some cases continue to treat) other nations, but this just smacks of people cashing in to me.


The reparations game is a dangerous one. Black people are not the only ones to have ever been taken advantage of. The Roman government still exists, why not pay reps to the descendants of their slaves?

My family comes from Ireland. How's about London sends me some Pounds Sterling and we'll call it even?

I'm more inclined to agree with YIYF on this, however I believe reps shouldn't be paid to anyone.

Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Warbler

Talk to me when you've lost a job to someone in order to fulfill a quota (even though you're more qualified)


a black person's response would be: have you ever lost a job because someone did not like your skin color?


My family was discriminated against for being Irish, back when the Irish were less than dirt and there were signs in the window that said "No Irish need apply". They dug themselves out through hard work and dedication, not unfair quota systems.

I gone back and forth on this issue. Both sides have good points. I am not sure which is right.


Should we maintain the status quo then? Eye for an eye...
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Warbler

Talk to me when you've lost a job to someone in order to fulfill a quota (even though you're more qualified)


a black person's response would be: have you ever lost a job because someone did not like your skin color?

I gone back and forth on this issue. Both sides have good points. I am not sure which is right.


I read this yesterday and took issue with it, but while rereading i couldnt believe someone would use that to support affirmitive action.

1) affirmitive action is supposed to promote equality of race/background by drawing attention to that aspect. How is that a positive, for equality race needs to be ignored completely. Have applications all not have a race check box (or even a name that can be used to infer race) and that would make it more equal.

2) its more than just 'black' people that are 'helped' by affirmitive action. its all minorities. also, this method of helping minorities actual hurts everyone else because they get passed up even though they are more qualified to fullfill a quota (like i think it was YIYF said). also I like the way you singled out the one 'minority group' (that term in and of its self is hurtful to the equality cause)

3) in direct response to you're comment, Id turn around to that person and say "Have you? are you absolutely sure that that was the reason and it wasnt because you werent qualified or there was someone else more qualified"

Watch the movie "Crash" it makes some really good points, shows some good issues about the whole racial injustices/stereotypes.


1. The people who want them were never slaves to begin with.

no, but the slave themselves never got paid and we can still pay their living relatives

it would be akin to paying money to the slaves estates and then the relatives get the money via inheritence.


quite simply no, for reasons stated above its so not the same as getting an inheritence because a) you assume they would have saved it and had it to pass on b) the retribution game gets dangerous because im sure you can find reasons that everyone should be paid some retribution for some past injustice (ie the irish as shown below)


2. The people who are supposed to pay them never owned slaves.


yes but an entity that is responsible for slavery is still around: The U.S. Government. It would not be individual people paying the reparations, but the entire country as whole.


the country paying it includes the people getting paid the retributions. and last time I checked the slave era U.S. Government is not still around and that is who is responsible for slavery. Its not the goverment, but the people in charge of the government (you may say that is the same, but its not really) and the ones that elected them were the ones responsible. what does that translate two. its the slave owners who were responsible.


Finally remember, had reparations been paid out when they should have been(when the slaves and slave owners were still alive), a lot of white people would have alot less money because their slave owning forefathers would have had alot less of it to pass on.


yeah, because im sure all the people that should have paid slaves a retribution actually would have. Im also sure that the amount decided on would be fair seeing as it would have been decided by (at least in part) by the people that supported slavery. Im sorry, but you're talking in a perfect world that once slavery ended everything became equal. Had something been done at that time I dont think the picture you paint of financial equality would have occured, because if things were that perfect then their wouldnt have been slavery at all.

Im not justifying any actions, just saying its now how many years later? 140. the fact that you're great grandparents were slaves is not holding you back in society. Sure people are racists, but other groups have fought against that and are doing fine. its the people of all races that fit/cause the (negative) stereotypes about their race that are the problem, they need to stop riding on the curtails of "oh, im so oppressed. i cant get ahead on my own. i need to be carried to a better place" plenty of people of all races have in fact risen above their 'bad' situation so it is possible.

-Darth Simon
Why Anakin really turned to the dark side:
"Anakin, You're father I am" - Yoda
"No. No. That's not true! That's impossible!" - Anakin

0100111001101001011011100110101001100001

*touchy people disclaimer*
some or all of the above comments are partially exaggerated to convey a point, none of the comments are meant as personal attacks on anyone mentioned or reference in the above post
Author
Time
Post link
Story out of France:

Chirac vows to end French 'malaise'
The unrest across France is the sign of a "profound malaise" that must be met with firmness but also by being just, President Jacques Chirac has said.

I had to look up Malaise to be sure...
mal·aise ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-lz, -lz)
n.
A vague feeling of bodily discomfort, as at the beginning of an illness.
A general sense of depression or unease: “One year after the crash, the markets remain mired in a deep malaise” (New York Times).

For Chirac to refer to the troubles in France in this way, he either:
a. is the greatest master of understatement
b. is a complete moron
c. is completely blind to what is going on
d. has the worst translators in the world working for him
e. all of the above