6 ms·

[flagged]

by jjk7 2y ago

[flagged]

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
kergonath 2y ago
“The French people” is not a bunch of people frozen in formaldehyde. It is changing, whether some people want it or not. Not that long ago, the dirty foreigners (the term “migrant” was not fashionable yet) included Italians (fleeing famine), Armenian (fleeing a genocide), Spaniards (fleeing Franco and the civil war), Portuguese (fleeing Salazar and dire economic prospects), etc. Now all their descendants are proper French people and some of them even stand for election for a right-wing nationalist party. The French people will have a future in any case, unless the whole country is carpet bombed with nuclear warhead. The problem is that some people don’t like what French people actually are.
- whatshisface 2y ago
  Calling them "a people," is basically the same as calling them a race. I wonder how this term came to be accepted. It frames your mind to think about the DNA of France rather than its culture or traditions.
  - kergonath 2y ago
    No, it really is not and there is no parallel. The French constitution is quite clear, and “French people” refer to citizens and nationals, including naturalised citizens. The common factor is participating in the democratic process and being part of the Nation. As any label, it can be used by xenophobes, but there is no comparison with race, which is pseudo-scientific bullshit. There are many ways of becoming a citizen, it is not a frozen label that is assigned to you by oppressors.
    - whatshisface 2y ago
      "The French people" and "French people" are subtly grammatically distinct. People is the plural of person but a people (singular) means a race or ethnicity.
      - kergonath 2y ago
        > People is the plural of person but a people (singular) means a race or ethnicity. No. It means a group of individuals. What they have in common is being invested in how the country is run and having citizenship. It does not imply anything about genetic makeup, skin colour (race is such a useless concept), or ethnicity. There is zero ambiguity about that in French.
        whatshisface 2y ago
        I'm more than willing to accept anything you say about French, but I'm talking about - not an ambiguity - but an implication in English.
        runarberg 2y ago
        People is used in international law which is often written in english, or otherwise translated to english. There it means exactly what your parent said. A group of individuals taken as a whole. It is often implied they have some shared culture, heritage, laws, language etc. It is never about race or ethnicity. A Kurdish person living in Norther Europe can belong to the Kurdish people on the grounds of the shared culture and heritage, and an Arab person that has lived in Erbil for over 20 years and has learned fluent Kurdish can also belong to the Kurdish people on the grounds of shared language, law, culture, etc. This is the reason taking children from of a group to be raised outside the group is considered a genocide. You are forcibly removing an child from its people, even though the child is 100% of the same ethnic makeup as the group.
      - jjk7 2y ago
        When someone refers to "The X people", they are referring to the Nationality. Historically citizenship and nationality were interlinked, but they are separate. "The Irish people inhabit Ireland, as Irish Citizens" is not a tautology. Nationality does not require race or ethnicity; some nations require common descent (blood quantum). The French people do not have such requirements.
- Rebelgecko 2y ago
  [flagged]
- DiscourseFan 2y ago
  If only it was just migrants. Famously, the Paris Commune was run by people who weren’t even French. But there is a difference between a highly mobile group of basically atheistic communards and traditional religious communities that would much rather transform France into something that looks a lot more like Taliban or ISIS controlled territory. It is easier in America, because America has many minority religious communities that are able to keep to themselves; the way the French state is set up, everyone must be socially integrated, and that means conflict arises when one group of people has one set of values and they are forced to live among those with completely different values, often antithetical to their own and disruptive of the lives they wish to live. Now, of course I would want this to be reformed (in France), but you must understand that would probably require the collapse of the French state as such.
  - kergonath 2y ago
    > Famously, the Paris Commune was run by people who weren’t even French. That is not famous, for the simp reason that it is completely untrue. I really have no idea where you got that from. > But there is a difference between a highly mobile group of basically atheistic communards and traditional religious communities that would much rather transform France into something that looks a lot more like Taliban or ISIS controlled territory. That is definitely a novel way to look at it. There was literally zero common factor between the Paris commune and Jihadi groups. Again, I would like to know where you got that from, because it is as far from actual history as I can imagine. > that means conflict arises when one group of people has one set of values and they are forced to live among those with completely different values, often antithetical to their own and disruptive of the lives they wish to live. That would be a tiny bit credible if ratonnades did not predate Islamic terrorism by about half a century, to mention only a single example. The descendants of all the anarchists who dropped bombs in the late 19th century or OAS racists who did the same in the 1960s are Frencher than French now. Crying about terrorism is just window dressing: nationalists are perfectly happy closing their eyes when it is convenient. > Now, of course I would want this to be reformed (in France), but you must understand that would probably require the collapse of the French state as such. Right. Let’s start with reforming how History is taught so we never have to read such tripe again.
- wqaatwt 2y ago
  Yes assimilation works if the groups are immigrating into the country, their number is rather limited and they are willing to assimilate. However If France somehow managed to hold onto to Algeria and (eventually) granted the Muslim majority full civil (which is not far fetched, as far as we can tell only a tiny fraction of Algerians actively supported supported FLN until both sides started engaging in extreme violence; of course by de Gaulle’s time it was far too late..) what would have happened? Would the vast majority of the Muslim Algerian population and their descendants embraced liberal secularism or would they have supported parties which represented their local interests? Why do you think that most of them would have suddenly turned into “French people” for no reason?
- jjk7 2y ago
  What makes a person 'French'?
  - kergonath 2y ago
    Legally, it’s a bit of paper that says that you are. Culturally, there are many aspects: adhering to the democratic pact; participating in the country by using one’s rights and accepting one’s duty; recognising oneself as part of the nation. The thing is that nobody can say that you are not French when you actually are. That’s why there is so much wrangling about the significance of second- or third- generation immigrants. By the fourth generation, immigrants are indistinguishable from all the other citizens. Just look at the number of people with foreign family names everywhere, including amongst nationalist politicians. Yesteryear’s foreign bogeyman is today’s xenophobe. That’s a big reason why all discussions about who is “truly” French and who is not are so stupid. In the long run, it is not us who will decide what next century’s France will look like.
    - jjk7 2y ago
      > By the fourth generation, immigrants are indistinguishable from all the other citizens That is historically true, but not fundamentally true. This has started changing recently, where 2nd generations are not assimilating. A French person doesn't need a piece of paper to tell them who they are.
- ashoeafoot 2y ago
  Not to become part of the belt of chaos, the zone rouge, is not a crime. Some cultures can not form and keep up institutions, be they state or company. Not to have something working degrade down to that chaos is not racist. And the imperialism of the past is no excuse for 1.4 billion people stuck in permawar.
sourcepluck 2y ago
What you are saying would make some sense if having Muslim beliefs or being Muslim or looking Muslim were some sort of disease which a nation must be "protected" from. Unfortunately for you, this childish fantasy of ethnic and nationalist purity has never existed. No amount of ellipses will change that fact.
- DiscourseFan 2y ago
  The modern state of France is founded on liberal values that go completely against the tenets of Islam. I don’t have any stakes in it myself but I could understand the hostility.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - niemandhier 2y ago
    To be fair: Those values are also incompatible with Catholicism.
    - DiscourseFan 2y ago
      Well yeah. If small groups of people want to meet to pray to a god that has no meaning for their social reality then they can go ahead, I don’t care. But they shouldn’t be able to bother anyone else about it.
- wqaatwt 2y ago
  > Muslim were some sort of disease which a nation must be "protected" from Your words but if we focus on the period after 1950 then yes that is a more or less broadly accurate conclusion. > fantasy of You mean of secularism and liberal democracy? Or the rather the fantasy that the political beliefs of most practicing muslims in muslim majority countries are seemingly entirely compatible with those concepts? Must be a random coincidence…
- jjk7 2y ago
  Nation: a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language The French culture will die if no one protects it. Without limits to cultural admixture, 'Frenchness' will be diluted into a sea of other cultures. It is a fundamental mistake to assume assimilation. This is not a controversial take, even amongst liberals. In Canada for example, the disappearing cultures of First Nations (Indigenous Canadians) is protected with public funds through various programs. Yet for some reason, it's a bad thing to protect European culture?
dang 2y ago
"Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42442454 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42442454.

[flagged]

by jjk7 2y ago

[flagged]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

kergonath 2y ago

“The French people” is not a bunch of people frozen in formaldehyde. It is changing, whether some people want it or not. Not that long ago, the dirty foreigners (the term “migrant” was not fashionable yet) included Italians (fleeing famine), Armenian (fleeing a genocide), Spaniards (fleeing Franco and the civil war), Portuguese (fleeing Salazar and dire economic prospects), etc. Now all their descendants are proper French people and some of them even stand for election for a right-wing nationalist party. The French people will have a future in any case, unless the whole country is carpet bombed with nuclear warhead. The problem is that some people don’t like what French people actually are.

whatshisface 2y ago
Calling them "a people," is basically the same as calling them a race. I wonder how this term came to be accepted. It frames your mind to think about the DNA of France rather than its culture or traditions.
- kergonath 2y ago
  No, it really is not and there is no parallel. The French constitution is quite clear, and “French people” refer to citizens and nationals, including naturalised citizens. The common factor is participating in the democratic process and being part of the Nation. As any label, it can be used by xenophobes, but there is no comparison with race, which is pseudo-scientific bullshit. There are many ways of becoming a citizen, it is not a frozen label that is assigned to you by oppressors.
  - whatshisface 2y ago
    "The French people" and "French people" are subtly grammatically distinct. People is the plural of person but a people (singular) means a race or ethnicity.
    - kergonath 2y ago
      > People is the plural of person but a people (singular) means a race or ethnicity. No. It means a group of individuals. What they have in common is being invested in how the country is run and having citizenship. It does not imply anything about genetic makeup, skin colour (race is such a useless concept), or ethnicity. There is zero ambiguity about that in French.
      - whatshisface 2y ago
        I'm more than willing to accept anything you say about French, but I'm talking about - not an ambiguity - but an implication in English.
        runarberg 2y ago
        People is used in international law which is often written in english, or otherwise translated to english. There it means exactly what your parent said. A group of individuals taken as a whole. It is often implied they have some shared culture, heritage, laws, language etc. It is never about race or ethnicity. A Kurdish person living in Norther Europe can belong to the Kurdish people on the grounds of the shared culture and heritage, and an Arab person that has lived in Erbil for over 20 years and has learned fluent Kurdish can also belong to the Kurdish people on the grounds of shared language, law, culture, etc. This is the reason taking children from of a group to be raised outside the group is considered a genocide. You are forcibly removing an child from its people, even though the child is 100% of the same ethnic makeup as the group.
    - jjk7 2y ago
      When someone refers to "The X people", they are referring to the Nationality. Historically citizenship and nationality were interlinked, but they are separate. "The Irish people inhabit Ireland, as Irish Citizens" is not a tautology. Nationality does not require race or ethnicity; some nations require common descent (blood quantum). The French people do not have such requirements.
Rebelgecko 2y ago
[flagged]
DiscourseFan 2y ago
If only it was just migrants. Famously, the Paris Commune was run by people who weren’t even French. But there is a difference between a highly mobile group of basically atheistic communards and traditional religious communities that would much rather transform France into something that looks a lot more like Taliban or ISIS controlled territory. It is easier in America, because America has many minority religious communities that are able to keep to themselves; the way the French state is set up, everyone must be socially integrated, and that means conflict arises when one group of people has one set of values and they are forced to live among those with completely different values, often antithetical to their own and disruptive of the lives they wish to live. Now, of course I would want this to be reformed (in France), but you must understand that would probably require the collapse of the French state as such.
- kergonath 2y ago
  > Famously, the Paris Commune was run by people who weren’t even French. That is not famous, for the simp reason that it is completely untrue. I really have no idea where you got that from. > But there is a difference between a highly mobile group of basically atheistic communards and traditional religious communities that would much rather transform France into something that looks a lot more like Taliban or ISIS controlled territory. That is definitely a novel way to look at it. There was literally zero common factor between the Paris commune and Jihadi groups. Again, I would like to know where you got that from, because it is as far from actual history as I can imagine. > that means conflict arises when one group of people has one set of values and they are forced to live among those with completely different values, often antithetical to their own and disruptive of the lives they wish to live. That would be a tiny bit credible if ratonnades did not predate Islamic terrorism by about half a century, to mention only a single example. The descendants of all the anarchists who dropped bombs in the late 19th century or OAS racists who did the same in the 1960s are Frencher than French now. Crying about terrorism is just window dressing: nationalists are perfectly happy closing their eyes when it is convenient. > Now, of course I would want this to be reformed (in France), but you must understand that would probably require the collapse of the French state as such. Right. Let’s start with reforming how History is taught so we never have to read such tripe again.
wqaatwt 2y ago
Yes assimilation works if the groups are immigrating into the country, their number is rather limited and they are willing to assimilate. However If France somehow managed to hold onto to Algeria and (eventually) granted the Muslim majority full civil (which is not far fetched, as far as we can tell only a tiny fraction of Algerians actively supported supported FLN until both sides started engaging in extreme violence; of course by de Gaulle’s time it was far too late..) what would have happened? Would the vast majority of the Muslim Algerian population and their descendants embraced liberal secularism or would they have supported parties which represented their local interests? Why do you think that most of them would have suddenly turned into “French people” for no reason?
jjk7 2y ago
What makes a person 'French'?
- kergonath 2y ago
  Legally, it’s a bit of paper that says that you are. Culturally, there are many aspects: adhering to the democratic pact; participating in the country by using one’s rights and accepting one’s duty; recognising oneself as part of the nation. The thing is that nobody can say that you are not French when you actually are. That’s why there is so much wrangling about the significance of second- or third- generation immigrants. By the fourth generation, immigrants are indistinguishable from all the other citizens. Just look at the number of people with foreign family names everywhere, including amongst nationalist politicians. Yesteryear’s foreign bogeyman is today’s xenophobe. That’s a big reason why all discussions about who is “truly” French and who is not are so stupid. In the long run, it is not us who will decide what next century’s France will look like.
  - jjk7 2y ago
    > By the fourth generation, immigrants are indistinguishable from all the other citizens That is historically true, but not fundamentally true. This has started changing recently, where 2nd generations are not assimilating. A French person doesn't need a piece of paper to tell them who they are.
ashoeafoot 2y ago
Not to become part of the belt of chaos, the zone rouge, is not a crime. Some cultures can not form and keep up institutions, be they state or company. Not to have something working degrade down to that chaos is not racist. And the imperialism of the past is no excuse for 1.4 billion people stuck in permawar.

sourcepluck 2y ago

What you are saying would make some sense if having Muslim beliefs or being Muslim or looking Muslim were some sort of disease which a nation must be "protected" from. Unfortunately for you, this childish fantasy of ethnic and nationalist purity has never existed. No amount of ellipses will change that fact.

DiscourseFan 2y ago
The modern state of France is founded on liberal values that go completely against the tenets of Islam. I don’t have any stakes in it myself but I could understand the hostility.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- niemandhier 2y ago
  To be fair: Those values are also incompatible with Catholicism.
  - DiscourseFan 2y ago
    Well yeah. If small groups of people want to meet to pray to a god that has no meaning for their social reality then they can go ahead, I don’t care. But they shouldn’t be able to bother anyone else about it.
wqaatwt 2y ago
> Muslim were some sort of disease which a nation must be "protected" from Your words but if we focus on the period after 1950 then yes that is a more or less broadly accurate conclusion. > fantasy of You mean of secularism and liberal democracy? Or the rather the fantasy that the political beliefs of most practicing muslims in muslim majority countries are seemingly entirely compatible with those concepts? Must be a random coincidence…
jjk7 2y ago
Nation: a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language The French culture will die if no one protects it. Without limits to cultural admixture, 'Frenchness' will be diluted into a sea of other cultures. It is a fundamental mistake to assume assimilation. This is not a controversial take, even amongst liberals. In Canada for example, the disappearing cultures of First Nations (Indigenous Canadians) is protected with public funds through various programs. Yet for some reason, it's a bad thing to protect European culture?

dang 2y ago

"Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42442454 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42442454.