American xenophobia on the Left and on the Right

[jullien]

To Raynote,

You're right : multiculturalism advocated in France in the 1980's-1990's is a failure. However, can we really consider the beer-drinkers and marijuana-smokers of our suburbs as pious muslims promoting Sharia law even if they burn cars ?

Another Frenchman

[John]

Dear Jullien and Raymonde:

Is it your opinion that things have gotten so bad around Paris that a
repeat of the 1871 Paris Commune might be on the way?

John

[OLD1953]

I'm pretty certain several could be listed that left Islamic law as well. Portugal was overrun by Moors, and I'd presume they imposed Islamic law while they ran the place.

And to what degree is "Sharia Law" to be considered "Sharia Law" anyhow? Requiring women to wear a scarf outdoors? Limiting modes of dress? Have you ever read the laws of the United States prior to 1930? There wasn't that much difference in many areas.

A much more pertinent question is "who is under Islamic law that doesn't want to be". There are quite a few people in the USA that live under Islamic law by their own will, signing adjudication panel agreements for civil matters. How has this affected you?

As for stoning in the Mideast that we get so much news about, exactly when were they NOT doing this? Christ predated Mohammad by several centuries and he didn't favor the practice. Why are you not against "Mosaic" law? Given that it takes all of two minutes on the web to find Christian fundamentalists who call for exactly the same thing, I have a lot of trouble seeing the difference.

[Tom Acre]

Factually and historically speaking, the most recent likely Christian equivalent of the current state of Islam is the Spainish Empire (of approx. 1500-1800A.D.). An earlier equivalent, would be "Northern Europe" (e.g. Germanic, Scandinavian, Anglo-Saxon) before the Reformation. Almost any historical comparison worth considering will be in that context. The real question is whether and when their Martin Luther will emerge.

The most recent example of massive Muslim conquest was the Ottoman Empire (lived approx mid 1500s-1922A.D.). Though there are smaller much, much more recent examples in sub-Saharan Africa that you've probably heard referred to in the news (e.g. Sudan, Somalia, etc.).

If I were "King", I would like to shower the Muslim world with NetBooks and iPhones containing auto translating software, provide them with the best 4G internet access, stand back, and see what happens.

[Guest]

Personally, I'd just put up a few satellites, "for the troops" and then let India smuggle the receivers into the MidEast while protesting mightily (and ineffectively). A few satellite channels broadcasting 24/7 porn would do more to undercut the power of the Mullahs than a double dozen divisions.

But in all truth, I'm not seeing this huge threat that's being oversold in the US. If you look into it you find there's not much there under the hype as far as this huge organization of fanatics goes. There are a lot of small groups, yes, and have been for decades, at LEAST going back to 1945. Why the panic now and not in 1970, or 1975 or 1983?

[Raynote]

Dear John
I'm ashamed to own that I can't answer your question because I don't know enough of the history of my own country ! So I'm going to read and learn more about the 1871 Paris Commune...

Jullien: I think these beer-drinkers & marijuana-smokers are the type of youths (some of them not so young either) that can be manipulated easily enough when the time comes by a few imams, and used to violently enforce sharia law on their own community putting these neighbourhoods completely outside French laws.
But I may be completely wrong since I live in a small town in a rather quiet area of France and know very little about the suburbs around big cities. Everything I know is from hearsay or the internet.

[JULLIEN]

Dear John,

I don't believe in a remake of the Commune of Paris.
First, weaponry and military training are far less common in 2010 than in 1871. Don't forget that the Commune occured seven weeks after the end of the franco-prussian war/war of 1870 and was both a social revolution and the uprising of the outraged patriotism.
Second, there is no power vacuum in France currently. In March 1871, the provisionnal government was in Versailles, the National Assembly in Bordeaux and Paris was occupied by a german garrison (which remained neutral in the civil war).
Third, the legitimacy of Nicolas Sarkozy is not dubious. In 1871 bonapartism was in bankruptcy after the disaster of Sedan (3rd september 1870), France was officially a Republic but the "true" republicans were discredited by the final defeat of France in January 1871 and the new head of state Adolphe Thiers was believed to be a transitionnal one before the return of monarchy because the newly elected National Assembly had a royalist majority. The lack of legitimacy of the provisionnal government led by an unpopular politician made revolution a solution.
Fourth, let me do assumptions that if it would be possible to do it, it would already be done. Remember 2005 : 3 weeks rioting and... nothing happended. I suppose the answer is geographical : as in the 1992 Los Angeles riots rioters hadn't thought looting the wealthy smart areas or the places where the power is located because they never went in (who knows exactly where in Paris is the Elysée palace?).
However, there is one possibilty for a civil war in the next ten years in France : if the french-born popular class or the middle class or both join one form or another of uprising. If your gloomiest forecasts about our economical future become true, it may be.

[John]

Dear Jullien,

> Fourth, let me do assumptions that if it would be possible to do
> it, it would already be done. Remember 2005 : 3 weeks rioting
> and... nothing happended. I suppose the answer is geographical :
> as in the 1992 Los Angeles riots rioters hadn't thought looting
> the wealthy smart areas or the places where the power is located
> because they never went in (who knows exactly where in Paris is
> the Elysée palace?).

Whether something like the 2005 riot spirals into full scale civil war
depends on the constellation of generations and how deeply the country
is into a generational Crisis era. In 2005, Paris was not ready.

> However, there is one possibilty for a civil war in the next ten
> years in France : if the french-born popular class or the middle
> class or both join one form or another of uprising. If your
> gloomiest forecasts about our economical future become true, it
> may be.

This is the kind of thing that I mean. But the question I was asking
was whether things had already gotten so bad in Paris between the
French and the Muslims that some kind of full-scale blowout might be
closer than that.

John

[Guest]

I strongly advise everyone to look at those articles of his on Big Peace, and read through the comments, especially the ones from BronxZionist.
You will notice that he challenges the woeful lack of basic historical knowledge, basic knowledge of current events, and egregious bigotry exhibited by John Xenakis.
You will also notice the complete lack of rebuttal beyond feeble ad hominems on the part of John Xenakis.
And, if you look carefully, you will discover that he knows the real name of BronxZionist, but just he fails to produce any actual quote from him to justify a comparison to Janeane Garofalo, he also manages to forget to include that name.

What a joke.

[John]

Dear Sam,

> I strongly advise everyone to look at those articles of his on Big
> Peace, and read through the comments, especially the ones from
> BronxZionist.

> You will notice that he challenges the woeful lack of basic
> historical knowledge, basic knowledge of current events, and
> egregious bigotry exhibited by John Xenakis.

> You will also notice the complete lack of rebuttal beyond feeble
> ad hominems on the part of John Xenakis.

> And, if you look carefully, you will discover that he knows the
> real name of BronxZionist, but just he fails to produce any actual
> quote from him to justify a comparison to Janeane Garofalo, he
> also manages to forget to include that name. What a joke.

I didn't know your real name at the time that I wrote the article.

There are two issues here with respect to the comparison to Janeane
Garofalo.

One issue is your trashy and abusive behavior.

When I post a comment on someone's web site, I try to remember that
I'm a guest in someone else's home, and I need to respect the owner
and his rules. You act like you own BigPeace, and that I and everyone
else have to follow YOUR rules, or be punished for it with abusive
and trashy personal attacks.

The second issue is your racism. Perhaps you personally didn't write
that it's good for Pakistani mothers and children to drown since
they're Muslims, but you've been the principal and most vigorous
defender of people who make those remarks. Everything you write oozes
pathological hatred.

Even your latest comments on Friday are the same. You quote the
xenophobia article and tell other BigPeace readers that this is what I
think of them. This is not only insulting to the majority of BigPeace
readers, but you're defending by implication the extremely racist
remarks of the xenophobic fringe.

But maybe I'm wrong, so take the chance to correct me. I assume that
you would harshly condemn anyone who wrote that it was good for Jewish
mothers and children to drown because they're Jews. So here's your
opportunity.

Please tell me that you condemn anyone who says that it's good for
Muslim mothers and children to drown, or that all Muslims should be
deported, or that Muslims can't produce anything but mayhem, murder
and misery. Yes or no - do you unequivocally condemn those remarks
and the people who make them? I'll take any ambiguous answer or
non-answer as a "no."

And if the answer is "no," then you're just as much of a racist
as the people who make those remarks.

You have a number of good qualities. Let me list some of them
here:

• You know a great deal about history. You probably do know more
  than I do, although you don't know everything, and you certainly don't
  know history from the point of view of Generational Dynamics. But you
  know a hell of a lot, possibly more than anyone else I've known.
• You write very well.
• You're very intelligent.
• Apart from your attitude towards Muslims, you and I are not really
  very far apart on most issues.

But to use a cliché, you insist on using your talents for evil, rather
than good. If your behavior were supportive and helpful, rather than
abusive and trashy, then we'd all be much better off, and you could
even contribute positively to Generational Dynamics.

Some of your comments are valid criticisms, or at least worth
debating. I've written thousands of articles on my web site,
totalling some 3 million words, covering dozens of countries at
possibly hundreds of times throughout history. I go to a lot of
trouble to avoid making mistakes, but of course with that volume of
writing there are going to be some errors. And I always appreciate it
when someone helps me by correcting an error, or in debating a
different interpretation of history.

However, you aren't interested in a debate. You just want to be
trashy and abusive. The last time I posted something in response to
something you said, you wrote, "I love it when you post down here
because you double down on your stupidity." Charming remarks like
that make everything you write look like garbage to be ignored. It
isn't worthwhile even bothering to pay attention to you.

You're going to do whatever you're going to do. So yes, you're a
xenophobic far right mirror image of Jeaneane Garofalo, spreading
hatred wherever you can. So I'm going to continue to assume the worst
about you, until I have a reason to believe otherwise.

On the other hand, if you'd like to have a different kind of
relationship, then I'm willing to listen.

John