Smoldering resentment in Paris Posted by: McQ
on Friday, November 04, 2005
Running as almost an undercurrent to the news of the day are the spreading riots and violence in France. The New York Sun reminds us of the French reaction to the LA riots about 15 years ago:
Back in the 1990s, the French sneered at America for the Los Angeles riots. As the Chicago Sun-Times reported in 1992: "the consensus of French pundits is that something on the scale of the Los Angeles riots could not happen here, mainly because France is a more humane, less racist place with a much stronger commitment to social welfare programs." President Mitterrand, the Washington Post reported in 1992, blamed the riots on the "conservative society" that Presidents Reagan and Bush had created and said France is different because it "is the country where the level of social protection is the highest in the world."
As anyone who's ever raised a child knows, "never say 'never'". That apparently should be applied to arrogant nations as well. As the New York Times reports, the riots show no sign of abating:
Gunshots were fired at police officers and firefighters in three separate incidents Wednesday night, said Prefect Jean-François Cordet, the government's top official in Seine-St.-Denis, a department north of Paris that includes a belt of working-class neighborhoods with a large immigrant population from North Africa and the sub-Saharan region.
In the clashes on Wednesday night, a police station was ransacked, a garage was set on fire and a shopping center and two schools were vandalized, Mr. Cordet said. Riot police forces have used tear gas and rubber bullets to repel the attacks.
The underlying reasons for the problem?
It turns out that France's Muslim community lives in areas rampant with crime, poverty, and unemployment, much the fault of France's prized welfare system. There are those of us who spent part of the 1980s in Europe, supporting the idea, among others from the Reagan era, that immigration was a virtue for a country and that the racial or religious background of the immigrants did not matter. We maintain that view. But immigration into a country with a dirigiste economy is a recipe for trouble, which is why supporters of immigration into France have long warned of the need for liberalization.
Part of France's problem is that it has defaulted on those measures. The lack of labor market flexibility and other socialist policies have created unemployment at nearly 10%, most of which falls among immigrants. And part stems from the fact that France's estimated 5 million Muslims, out of a population of 60 million, are led by mostly foreign radical imams. Only belatedly has the French state started taking action, pressing for clerics to be taught in France. All this is compounded by the image France projects of itself to its Muslims, which one can surmise is the reason why Muslims see rioting as the solution to any grievance.
Said another way, the death of the two youths was simply an excuse to lash out in an effort to relieve the pent-up frustration which has apparently been building for some time.
Of course, as pointed out in the paragraph above, the French government has reacted by going after radical imams (and it doesn't take a Nobel laureate to figure out what the reaction of those radical imams would be). Instead, of course, where they really need to focus is the economic policies they hold so dear, those which have given them high unemployment and an ecomonically frustrated and unassimilated minority muslim population.
As the Sun editorial points out:
It's a barely kept secret that Mr. Chirac led the opposition to the Iraq war out of fear of how his Muslim population would react. This fear is a big part of why France portrays itself as America's counterweight and why it criticizes Israel at every turn and coddled the terrorist Yasser Arafat right up to his death. This doesn't elicit thanks from Muslim radicals in France. It turns out to project an image of weakness. Unsurprisingly when faced with some unhappiness they believe they can pressure the French state into submission.
Now obviously that isn't the only reason he opposed the war in Iraq, but one has to believe it was certainly a factor. French cultural arrogance along with the country's delusions of grandeur were also factors.
The Sun concludes:
A number of observers of the French scene have looked at population trends and suggested that France is on its way to becoming a Muslim country (one that would, let it be noted, be armed with hydrogen bombs). Some react to this by suggesting a halt to immigration and even expulsion. The better approach is to impose law and order, more speedily to reform the burdensome welfare state, and start integrating the Muslim community. France could also help itself by dispatching troops to help battle the radical Islamists in Iraq, thereby sending a message to Muslims at home and abroad that France is on the side of those Muslims, the majority no doubt, who want to live in peace.
Yeah, well, that's not going to happen, at least not while Chirac is at the helm. But if nothing else this should cause some intense soul-searching within the French leadership. They can begin by considering changes which would begin the long and slow process of weaning generations of French from their welfare mentality and dependence, revitalize a deeply moribund economy, assimilate their minority populations and radically modify their immigration policies ... unless of course France is comfortable seeing its culture, of which it has always been so protective, taken over by a muslim culture in the fairly near future.
French wine? Fuggetaboutit.
And who knows, it may even cause them to consider saying nothing in the future (or perhaps actually expressing sympathy) when similar incidents happen in other countries since they now know that not even they are immune from such problems.
One thing that is surely going to kill France in a generation is the fact that Muslims are having children (~3+ per family on average) while ethnic French are not (~1.1). None of the other policy bullets you cite will have any significance if nothing is done about this.
None of the other policy bullets you cite will have any significance if nothing is done about this.
That speaks to the assimilation and immigration points. Obviously there is no way (unless they wish to become the European China) that they can raise or lower birthrates, but they can slow down the numbers coming into the country while they assimilate and aculturate those already there.
Schadenfreude, thy name is Shark. I cannot tell you how much of a smile this brings to my face. Nevermind the reaction to the L.A. riots, how about the French reaction to the aftermath of Katrina?
What goes around, comes around.
I hope the riots continue. Couldn’t happen to a bigger bunch of pricks.
One thing that is surely going to kill France in a generation is the fact that Muslims are having children (~3+ per family on average) while ethnic French are not (~1.1). None of the other policy bullets you cite will have any significance if nothing is done about this
.
This is one of those logical fallcies, "If this trend contiinues unabated, then..." but the trend never continues unabated. Systems always compensate. The solutions of integration and liberalization of France’s economy will affect this demographic factor. Rich people have fewer children. As Muslims integrate into developed society they will take on the characteristics of that society, one of which is fewer children. So, if France can find a way to make the these areas more like L.A. and less like Yemen or Paris, the demographic problem will disappear.
As Muslims integrate into developed society they will take on the characteristics of that society, one of which is fewer children.
Alternatively, we could argue that if liberalized policies are put in place then the rest of French society may have incentive to be more fertile. A 2.1 fertility rate is the minimum required to maintain a stable population whereas 1.1 is suicidal. See Mark Steyn’s columns on Russia’s current situation for a more explicit illustration.
At any rate the current trend in France is a recent development. As recent as the 1970s the average French family size was also 3+ children. What happened in the course of 1-2 generations and what can be done to reverse that? Again, if nothing is done then "France", as we have always known it, will disappear. And, Shark, that WILL be lamentable.
Schadenfreude, thy name is Shark. I cannot tell you how much of a smile this brings to my face.
Don’t get too happy, Shark. Keep in mind who will get the call to save France’s ass once it gets too out of hand ... and it will. Moreover, the last thing we need is a socialist country with WMD dominated by militant Islamists smack dab in the middle of Europe.
Unless you’re talking a premier cru like Château Margaux, Château Lafite-Rothschild, Château Mouton-Rothschild or Château Latour, I’d rather have an inexpensive bottle of Australian wine. I love Rosemount’s shiraz with well-seasoned steak. The U.S. has some excellent domestic wines in the $10-$20 range, but I personally find Australian wines have been the best value in the last few years. I also like New Zealand sauvignon blancs, about the only white wines that really appeal to me.
Australian wine + solid quality + free trade agreement > French wine + decreasing quality + strong euro + whining vintners who engage in domestic terrorism
It’s that last part which really tips the scale. We’re shocked, SHOCKED (say that in your best Claude Rains voice) at the riots in the Parisian suburbs, but let’s not forget the French winemaker terrorists who bomb government offices just because the government won’t bail them out of poor business practices.
Given our trade and budget deficits, along with our growing trend to ship any job paying over $9 an hour overseas we should probably take your advice and "never say never". It could happen here. Rather than gloating at the misfortune of our first ally and winner of the battle of Yorktown, we should be seeing what we can learn from their mistakes. We need to start thinking about the questions that these distrubance raise for us.
Is the cheap labor that accompanies open borders worth the long term price?
Should intolerant religions be allowed to set up schools?
What do you do when a sizable portion of your poplulation does not share the values of the powers at be?
Rather than gloating at the misfortune of our first ally and winner of the battle of Yorktown...
Sorry, Cindy, but historical revisionism won’t do. The French power that was our ally during the War of Independence was slaughtered during the French Revolution, after which, very little amity between the countries has ever existed.
We need to start thinking about the questions that these distrubance raise for us.
Is the cheap labor that accompanies open borders worth the long term price?
Should intolerant religions be allowed to set up schools?
What do you do when a sizable portion of your poplulation does not share the values of the powers at be?
Those may be the questions raised in your mind, but they sure as shootin’ weren’t raised in mine.
Don’t get too happy, Shark. Keep in mind who will get the call to save France’s ass once it gets too out of hand ... and it will. Moreover, the last thing we need is a socialist country with WMD dominated by militant Islamists smack dab in the middle of Europe.
Why not? Would be a great lesson for our European "allies"....also would be a great motivator. Maybe gits like Prince Charles would stop lecturing us on Islam if he realized that what’s happening in Paris can happen in London.
Besides, anything that reminds the world who the enemy is and what we’re fighting against is useful,and if it bloodies and humiliates our self-righteous pompus socialist "allies" into action, so much the better
The French deserve everything that is coming to them.
Maybe the French middle class, the few left who have not been taxed to death by the Socialist prison known as France, can throw smelly cheese and Brigitte Bardot posters when the Muslims that they have been protecting and defending for years come for them.
Given our trade and budget deficits, along with our growing trend to ship any job paying over $9 an hour overseas we should probably take your advice and "never say never".
No offense, Cindy, but you have some false ideas about international trade, specifically that "trade deficits" are the big problem you seem to think they are. And what do budget deficits have to do with this situation?
My job pays substantially more than $9 an hour, yet it’s in no danger of being shipped overseas. I’ll say briefly here that the U.S. is losing primarily the mundane manufacturing jobs that we shouldn’t want to do anyway. Yes, some paid pretty well, but you’re forgetting it’s offset by products becoming cheaper. How much would, for example, DVD players cost if made by American hands instead of foreign? Do you have a digital camera made in China, like mine? If such things, which are increasingly within reach of working-class Americans, were made domestically, the higher labor costs would make them unaffordable for so many who enjoy them right now.
"But," protectionists counter, "people will make more and be able to afford the higher prices." Then why don’t we mandate a high minimum wage for everyone? Never mind $10 per hour; let’s start with $100. If you work one hour, you can buy (we won’t account for taxes here) $100 worth of goods and services. However, prices for everything will have gone up too, driven by increased unit labor costs. So increasing wages, or maintaining higher wages, is not the key to prosperity. The key is eliminating the tedious work in your life that’s of least value, and focus on your specialities of greatest value. There’s a reason my job doesn’t involve vacuuming the carpet, the same reason I don’t weave and sew my own suits or craft my own shoes: my time is more valuable in other endeavors.
By not having to do as much low-grade work (such as basic semiconductor manufacturing or machining bolts that go into Boeing aircraft), Americans can move to jobs of higher value that China, India, et al, could not perform as well. This is Ricardo’s principle of comparative advantage. My own blog has a few entries on this and other dynamics of foreign trade, including why it’s not a bad thing for jobs to be reallocated among labor-rich nations (like India) and capital-rich nations (like the U.S.). And if Americans won’t improve themselves so they can perform superior jobs, perhaps we’re not as competitive as we think we are, and we therefore don’t deserve our wealth.
Demanding protectionist measures for the sake of keeping jobs domestically is another manifestation of the erroneous idea that people are "owed" jobs. Now, I’m not saying that it’s easy for a machinist or call center operator to find a new job after being laid off, but what about others who lose jobs for other reasons? Well, they deal with it as best as they can. Life requires resiliency. It requires competitiveness, and in fact we lose far more jobs to improved technology than we do to foreign trade. China’s rapid industrialization means 2 million manufacturing jobs lost each year, and 15 million from 1995 through 2002. The real competition is not between nations, but between man and technology, and it’s insanity to suggest cutting back on the technology that only improves our standard of living. That’s why the Ba’ku of "Star Trek: Insurrection" are a completely unrealistic society.
Thank you, Perry. Excellent post. And to demolish Cindy’s arguement once more. I work in one of the few remaining suit factories in America. Hartz & Co, if you’re interested. The plant I work in is being closed on 1/31/06, and the jobs ’lost’ will be sent to another plant in Frederick, MD and likely, to China. The owner of ’my’ company just returned from a two-week jaunt to China, looking for suitable places to send the jobs.
