Redstate

The American solution to the underclass has been the construction and population of many new prisons.  Our greater economic liberalization makes it easier to get a job, but hasn't changed the fact that black unemployment is more than twice white unemployment, much as in France, non-white unemployment is twice that of white unemployment.  What has kept a lid on urban unrest has been what, at least for now, but perhaps not in the future, is regarded in most of Europe as violent repression  - long prison sentences, police who universally carry guns and quite frequently use them, and as many as one in four black men in some cities under the supervision of the criminal justice system.  Even so, we still have riots, and they're frequently deadly, a distinction the French riots have thus far avoided.  I don't think anyone can look back at New Orleans during the flooding, or at Los Angeles during the Rodney King trial riots, and feel superior to France.  

This is certainly an interesting debate, but i think we have to be careful in comparing it to the United States. There are some important distinctions that need to be made such as comparing immigrants in France with immigrants in the United States.

First, this debate slides into comparing immigrants in France with minorities in the United States, which is a very different issue. Second, the religious issue is very different in Europe versus the United States. In France, the historical Catholicism, whether nominal or not, is in contrast to the Muslim immigrants and/or children of immigrants that have moved to Europe from North Africa. In the US, religion is not really as big a factor as it has become in Europe because the population is largely Christian regardless of a persons color and/or ethnicity.

While there are some obvious similarities between "ghettoized" populations in the United States and France, the differences are big as any similarity. France is, in many respects, the first European country to deal with unrest with a growing Muslim population that has few opportunities for advancement and is not really accepted by the French mainstream. The Muslim population in France is often cited at 10% of the total French population. Much of Europe will follow the path of France in the next few years as their respective Muslim populations grow without some real attempts to improve race relations.

This will be denied, but it is true.

Nationality (and therefore citizenship) means something different in Europe than it does in America.

In America, nationality and citizenship are primarily cultural in nature.  This is reflected in our laws concerning who is a citizen.  If you are born in the United States, you are a citizen, even if your parents are illegal immigrants.  People who come here are assimilated.  We talk about people becoming American.

However, in Europe, nationality has a racial aspect as well.  (This is in fact the original definition of nationalism and source of the concept of self-determinization).  You have the Franks and Gauls (France), the Germans, the Spainards, the Italians (North and South, and don't forget the Sicilians are different from Italian), the Slavs (Russians, Bulgars, Serbs, Croats, Ukraninians, ect), the Poles, the Chezch, the Slovaks, ect.  These are not just countries, they are nations as in they are tribes, just like the Sioux (Lakota) nation, or the Cherokee nation.  Inside each of these nations are sub-groups, icluding some with seccessionatist tendencies, such as the Basque.  You don't become French, you are born French- and that does not mean a birth location, it is heredity.  In other words, to be born French, your parents must be French.

This is very different from America.  Our identity is based upon our cultural beliefs, the American Dream, ect.  European identities have always been based on nationality, tribal, racial lines.  This has been weakening, as a "European" or "Continential" identity has arisen.  However, this new identity is elitist, and doesn't have much room for poor immigrants.  Besides, nationality remains the primary identity matrix for most Europeans. (Witness the failure of the European constitution.)

This is what puts the French in a bind.  They can not assimilate the Arabs and Africans without losing their national identity.  They must assimilate the Arabs and Africans or else the Arabs and Africans will riot and become violent.

I feel bad for the Muslims, most of whom are law abiding and good people, because France is rapidly moving towards a final solution to their problem.

It's ethnic, and racial only insofar as people of French ethnicity have all historically been, by definition, white western Europeans.  "American"  historically (arguably still) has been far more of a specifically racial identity than "French."  That Sarkozy is half-Jewish and half-Hungarian should indicate that France is not quite the racist pit that you make it out to be.  The problem with integrating people who don't look European, who have recent memories of other lands, and who furthermore are neither secular nor Catholic, is that their history, which is non-French, is inescapable.  An Algerian Muslim is not French:  He doesn't look French, he doesn't think or feel as a Frenchman, and it's arguable that he never will, because by the fact of his ancestry and his religion, he excludes the possibility of claiming the Gauls, Charlemagne, or anyone named Louis as his ancestors.  France is what it is.  I'm certainly not going to stand here on the other side of the Atlantic and fault them for their racism, because I don't think it's racist to want to hold on to what makes them distinctive.  I think the world would be impoverished were France, or any other country in Europe, to attempt to reconstitute itself as a bland, "proposition nation" dedicated to "diversity" whereby it came to resemble every other place on earth.  It would cease to be France were the French to decide, or be forced to decide, that there was nothing special about France worth preserving.  They should hold on to their particularity.

The racism in Europe that I am identifing is not the same as the rascism we deal with here in America.  In America racism is pretty much black and white, with a strong elements of racial superiority.  In other words, our rasist past developed from a desire to rationalize and justitify slavery.

Europe has not had the same kind of racial history.  To them, race is more about identity than about hate and dominion.  As a rule, European "racism", (with the exception being Hitler), is not about enslaving other races, it is about group identity, and about which "side" you are on if a conflict develops.

I did not mean to paint the French as hate filled bigots.  I just felt people need to understand why Europe is unable to assimilate the Arab immigrants.  You point to the Jews- and they are accepted in French social life, and may even be called French- but if push comes to shove, the French will throw the Jews overboard just like Vichy did.  Not because they hate Jews, but because to the French (and most Europeans) the Jews are not truly part of them, they are outsiders, and if have to choose between the good of the nation (ie nationality ie tribe) and the good of the outsiders, you choose the tribe.  Jews know this, which is why most of them have emmigrated, either to Israel (their own nation for their nationality), or to America, where race has been diluted to black vs white.

However I still I apoligize, I sould have been more clear.  While technically it is racism, perhaps I should have used the word tribal, which has less negative connotations.

an underclass and unsocialized young men. The former, which is not the subject of the diary, is a criminal element and largely deserves the treatment it gets.

I think you're saying that the problem in France is largely caused by religious tension. But I'm not sure because you also talk about solving the problem  with real attempts to improve race relations.

We certainly have racial tension in American cities. Do we have religious tension? I doubt it. I think what religious "tension" we have in America is caused by well-educated urban elites who are offended and frightened by people of faith.

And how do you make the comparison as it relates to our southern border problems?

You are defining underclass as criminal, and that's fine, but the usual definition relates to poverty, right? And has rarely been applied in America where all can work hard and do anything. Of course, the failed welfare state has produced the generational single mom poverty we saw only too vividly in NOLA. And those generations did produce unsocialized men. But i think that those that survived to leave NOLA now may see the light and I also think that welfare reform is working. You know, even during segregation, it would not have been accurate to call black communities in the south the "underclass."

Europe, I agree is a whole different matter and is one of the main reasons many in the underclass fled europe for this new world.

Europe has essentially practiced a form of slavery by refusing to assimilate foreigners. Unlike America which is defined by ideals, they are defined by race and ethnicity. Britain appears to discussing a change. Now, those isolated communities where even the police didn't go (sounds like the UBL area of Pakistan, eh?) have bought into this islam-facist ideology.

I'm not sure a discussion of what a comminity "deserves" is the whole matter though, because the places they fled gave them even less.

Regardless, if one commits violence, they deserve jail or death.

But we have arrested terror cells here that included long time residents of muslims as well as recent arrivals. The main bulk that Ashcroft picked up soon after 911 were the 700+ illegal from the Middle East. But our problem is just exponentially smaller.

The only thing we have had that compares were the race riots in the 60's and then the Ridney King riot, but even there, it wasn't that the unsocialized were not ALLOWED to be socialized. rather, liberal govt policies encouraged alienation by demonizing America. Brittain has done that too much for the last 40 years.

In the 60's, you also had rising expectations in which those that could have acheived within their communitis were the ones that used the occasion for violence.

But the problem in France is more ingrained and probably not as easily solveable, as if ours has been.

But I would say, that except for welfare and big government, we actually have solved our problem. The libs big problem is they won't declare victory and treat Blacks like the equally capable citzens they are. They can make it here and most do.  Amen

Something often left out of this discussion is demographics. Like most other European nations, France is slowly dying away through a lack of reproductive vitality. This is a very interesting phenomenon with a great many potential explanations but I haven't been convinced by any I've seen. Now the OP points out that wrong-headed legislation keeps young men out of the labor force and prevents them from making a contribution to productive society. (In this regard at least, the comparison to the US is stark, and starkly in our favor.)

This isn't really be too much of a problem for young native Frenchmen, because there are relatively few of them. France will reap the fruits of slow demographic suicide over many decades. But for the immigrant communities, which are youthful, dynamic and fertile, the lack of opportunity for economic integration and productivity is very bad news today.

The future of Europe is Muslim. I see no way its not really even with the probably inevitable war that probablt started years before even 911. Russia and Europe simply are not producing the children to support a nation. Classic "fall of rome" affluent society disintegrates stuff.

Our accomodation of religious values is our secret but even still, we will probabably fall as well, just much later.

Cyrus reacted to the OP's statement about unsocialized young men by saying that in America we imprison them. What I wanted to point out was that there's no good reason in America to be an "unsocialized" young man. There are plenty of opportunities for productive work and personal growth as a member of one's community, regardless of whether one starts out rich or poor. Therefore, the young American men who avoid the productive, law-abiding mainstream do so largely out of defects of character. (You're free to disagree with what I candidly acknowledge is a moral judgement.)

However, in Europe, even young men who are well-educated, with a clear moral sense, and willing to work and support families have trouble finding productive work. As far as I can tell, that applies especially to young immigrant men.

As I understand it, the demographic vitality of Americans of European ancestry is also quite low. Not nearly as bad as Europe (go to a place like Italy, and there just aren't any children anymore! At least not if you remember Italy 30 years or so ago.)

Immigrant people in the US, following historical antecedents, are our most dynamic and demographically vital people. I'm very distressed that many of them choose not to assimilate culturally. But if you accept the theory that white American culture is committing the same slow suicide as their European ancestors, then maybe our immigrants are just being rational.

Another problem the Europeans have is the EU. It is in some ways making various Europeans even more protective of their national (non-European) identity. In a way, it could reduce tensions, that is, to be Basque or whatever within a large EU is perhaps more appealing than to be Basque in Spain. I remember a conservation with a Turinese friend of mine in the early nineties--Piedmont has a strong regional identity like much of Northern Italy--and she said, perhaps with some melancholy--I guess we're all Europeans now.

has the debilitating effect no matter tyhe culture that produces it and that it is probably unavoidable by all men. But I think that our culture/system's debilitating effects are less severe THAN ANY OTHER.

But first, how do you see the assimilation situation here in the US? I mean, I see pockets in large cities, even here in Atlanta to some extent, and I do suspect we need to slow down the illegals and efinitely make them knock at the door first, but I welcome the Hispanic people. I think they make great citizens and are or best hope that America will be the Shining City on the Hill for a long time. Just not forever. Bork's "Slouching..." sums up my view over the LONG run.

But get my point: ALL CULTURES HAVE FLAWS AND FALL.

Ours is the worst, EXCEPT for ALL  the others! I think our religious faith and our committment to inalienable rights, federalism , etc, makes or suicide slower by far.

If Mexicans move here and turn into a more northern Mexico, then they won't be able to beat the Hitler's and Stalin's of their day.

The main  reason for my "pessimism" if one must call it that is my Christian view of history of man as a fallen creature in a fallen world. We were created to live in fellowship with God. All the systems employed by humans in history are damage control, including especially even the concept of "nation" instituted after Babel so that men may check evil men.

Our system works best, I think, due to its exaltation of individual freedom, which is the closest to our natural state. ALL MEN yearn to seek God in freedom. In fact, absent God, the word freedom is vacuous. Plus our judeo-christian values that serve a purpose similar to many great non-christian civilizations like the Chinese to "civilize" man.

But our great acheivements are the result of the freedom. God created us to "create." Our system unlooses our talents and hence the great wealth that makes life comfortable AND eneables us to defend ourselves against evil nations that use slave labor to launch attacks.

your thoughts

...and compelling defense of the American political order (your word is "system"). I basically agree with all of it. And I'm fervently committed to freedom for a whole lot of moral as well as practical reasons.

But I have a parallel concern with culture. And traditional American culture is in danger of disappearing as the ethnic content of our population changes. Being an artistically oriented person, I see cause for lament in that. I'm sure that a lot of people will argue that there never was any such thing as a distinctly American culture, and if there was then it was created primarily by earlier generations of immigrants anyway. Fair criticisms. (But nobody better think of calling me a racist, because I'll come back swinging.)

At some risk of going offtopic I'll point out one aspect of cultural assimilation that we have a right to expect new arrivals to undertake, and that is the American language. This is no guarantee of stability (the rampaging mobs in Paris speak passable French), but it is sine qua non for a shared culture that recognizes but integrates diversity. We are white, black, brown, and yellow, but culturally we must all be Americans.

A common language is an indispensible pre-requisite. Yes, culture matters. See de touchville and his emphasis on our judeo-christian morals as preventing us from doing everything our freedom allows.

My optimism about the hispanic people is their christian faith. But let me say right here, that i also think Indians from India and from here and Koreans, Chinese, etc, have all shown they can make it here and be good americans.

But, our success cannot be divorced from what spawned it. And certainly the common language is a no brainer. COMMUNICATION!!! as if

Without the common language this continent would have developed like Europe with ethnicity-race-language based small countries, eh!??!!

more later

Is it in fact true that, if you are a 20 year old black man in Anacostia, that you have more job opportunities than a 20 year old Arab in Paris?

ethnocentrism, rather than racism.  Few would maintain that Germans, for instance, are a different race to Frenchmen, but they are a different people.

and I had a policy of hiring as many African-Americans as possible. And this was a company that was well-respected and invariably scored high on employee-satisfaction surveys. We usually got our pick of qualified applicants. I remember once personally interviewing a young black man for an entry-level position. His qualifications were middling and he was just out of school. He wasn't from Anacostia, but he was from a lower-class New York neighborhood. If he were white, we wouldn't have bothered with him. I made him a slightly above-market offer. I still remember him smirking and giggling in response. We found out later that he took a position with a very large company, whose offer was presumably far above market.

Is it in fact true that, if you are a 20 year old black man in Anacostia, that you have more job opportunities than a 20 year old Arab in Paris?

My answer would be yes.

Language equals culture, and culure ultimately equals nationhood. Today, our educational establishment and the "leaderships" of our various immigrant ethnic groups strongly encourage a balkanization by culture. This is an epic disaster, a knife pointed at the very heart of America's culture, and I further believe this is the clear-eyed and cold-hearted intention of those who promote it.

We already have vivid cultures among Spanish speakers, Korean speakers, Chinese speakers, and many others that are off-limits to everyone else because they are linguistically isolated. The end of this road is a lot of self-contained nations within our borders, with destructive effects on our national sense of community. This hurts everyone in America, and it has to stop.

In an American context, immigrants are accepted regardless of their religion, ethnicity etc. It is far from perfect, but they have economic opportunities and they have the ability to gain citizenship and be accepted by the larger community.

Whats happened in France is that an immigrant comes to Paris (or other major city) and is never able to shake the moniker of being a North African, in some respects, due to his/her religion. This, in turn, leads to decreased opportunities for employment which is, in part, causing the riots by young males who are primarily of North African descent.

The difference is this: a Mexican comes to America and has economic opportunities and the ability to become an equal citizen of the country. He/she may be referred to as a "Mexican-American" or a Latino, but he/she is accepted by the larger society and his/her children have the same advantages as any American kid. If a Tunisian comes to France (or a Turk to German), he/she is still seen as a Tunisian. The economic opportunities are therefore limited and a cycle of poverty ensues.

So to answer your question directly, it is primarily a religious issue, but it does involve ethnicity. The reason for the rioting is the lack of economic opportunities which come about because there is lack of acceptance towards immigrants. Europe as a whole is extremely protective of its core culture.

for French men too. In fact it is probably what underlies the decline in the birth rate. The fact that young men cannot find reasonably secure jobs that allow them to marry and start families prevents them from, well, marrying and starting families. A similar problem exists in the US, although on a lesser scale--though still, we should note that middle class people often cannot marry and begin families until late in their 20s or early 30s due to the demands of schooling and the need to establish a degree of financial security first.

...you're saying that the problem in France is xenophobia.

I'm inclined to accept that. It seems that France has decided to tolerate a few nights of arson every year in the immigrant neighborhoods without losing any sleep. We'll see what happens if this episode gets out of hand.