Tomorrow, I might experience the hatred of French supremacists towards anyone who refuses to adopt their narrowly defined national identity and give up his or her own.
I’m now working as a researcher at the university of Compiègne (near Paris) and I’ll be asking the IT service to help me connect my laptop to their network.
My laptop is in GERMAN, which is (besides French) one of my languages. It was spoken by three of my grand-parents who’ve always lived in Lorraine near Germany, Alsace and Luxembourg.
Basically, the guy might just tell me that he will need to use my computer himself and that I have to switch it into French for that reason. That would be perfectly acceptable to me.
But he might also mock me and tell me that it’s ridiculous and backward for a French citizen to have his computer in German. Quite a few people look at me as if I were a madman or severely mentally ill because I have plenty of books in German and very often listen to German songs.
I have experienced this time and time again.
Interestingly, the very same type of reaction was observed in Algeria or Morocco while they were France’s colony.
This shows that colonialism isn’t dead in France of 2016.
That said, I don’t know what’s gonna happen and I might be pleasantly surprised 🙂
At any rate, I largely prefer to live with Muslim women wearing burkinis who respect my culture than with French supremacists who despise it.
I hope I’ll be able to engage in a friendly and constructive dialogue with open-minded Muslims who are also the victims of the intolerance of French society if they hold fast to their identity and traditions.
OK, I’m going to push back at you a bit here. Imagine for a minute that in the past minority peoples had been forced to live in trees while white people were able to live in homes on the ground. Living in trees meant that it took more time and energy just to get to work, stores, entertainment and the like as they were all situated on the ground and climbing up and down trees is a lot of work. It also meant that the people living in trees had a significantly higher rate of skin cancer as they were closer to the sun. And occasionally, a child or even a whole house would fall out of the tree and die/be destroyed. The people living in the trees would also be stigmatized because, living in trees, they developed various ways of dealing with life which were foreign and distasteful to the ground dwellers.
Now, imagine that after several generations, society decided that they would no longer force people to live in trees. They weren’t going to help the people living in trees find and afford new homes on the ground, mind you. It was just that now, if a tree dweller could find a way to be successful enough, and was adventurous enough, they could join the white people living on the ground and enjoy the advantages of not having to climb up and down trees every time they needed to go somewhere or have their children and property endangered by gravity. As you can imagine, the migration out of the trees would probably be slow. For some time into the future the tree dwellers would continue to struggle to do well enough in life to actually get out of the trees. And some of them, particularly the youth, were angry about the state of their and their family’s lives. Now, the people who had always lived on the ground had their own problems. After all, living in a tree is hardly the only obstacle one can face in life. So while they agreed that having forced people to live in trees had been a bad idea and was no longer acceptable, they had their own problems and got tired of the grousing of the tree dwellers. After all, it wasn’t their fault that some people lived in trees. They weren’t responsible for creating the situation.
Imagine if a tree dweller said to a ground dweller, “living in a tree is destroying me and I can’t seem to find a way out! There are just so many obstacles to overcome and it’s all I can do to keep my family fed and safe and make it through each day. I hate living in a tree. It’s unfair that my people are living in trees while other people have always been able to live on the ground.” Do you really think that the tree dweller would be demanding a confession of guilt from the ground dweller? Or do you think that the tree dweller wants the ground dweller to hear of their struggle and have empathy? In this situation, would asking the ground dwelling people to help the tree dwellers overcome the problems that came with living in trees be a matter of asking them to carry the guilt of their fore-bearers who had created the unfair, harmful situation? Of course not! This idea that white people are being asked to carry guilt for what their forefathers did is a creation of the white imagination and not reality. What minorities want is for white people to stop dismissing and discounting their struggles and simply offer the same sort of empathy and assistance that any decent human being ought to offer to another who is struggling. They would like some acknowledgment from white people that being born a “ground dweller”, so to speak, means that there are certain struggles that we generally don’t have to deal with. What is being asked for is NOT guilt. What is being asked for is basic empathy and a willingness to do what we are able to do to help the “tree dwellers” move past the challenges which were left by our forefathers. Claiming that it’s about imputing guilt is a convenient way to wave off any sense of responsibility for our fellow man.
I also want to push back regarding your interaction with your Moroccan co-worker. Now, I agree that any act of bullying or violence, for whatever reason, is unacceptable. I would guess that your co-worker teaches her own children not to engage in such behaviors as well. However, I would also guess that your co-worker has personally witnessed, in a way that you have not, people who did not have the strength of spirit to deal with the obstacles and challenges that being a minority person entails. Not everyone has the character or strength of a saint. In real life, people do get to a place of bitterness, anger and despair that leads them to lash out at others. Particularly others who are, in their eyes, identified with the people who benefit from the way things are. (And whose children will witness and may repeat the bitterness their parents carry.) These people obviously cannot be given free reign to act on their anger and hatred. But no doubt your Moroccan co-worker is keenly aware of what brings a person to the point of doing that. And while I am certain she does not approve of people lashing out violently, no matter how downtrodden and angry they are, she does understand why it happens in a way that a person who has not seen it happen up close and personal do not. (And I’m not even getting into the way that when a white person behaves terribly, it is often ascribed to mental illness or getting caught up in crowd. Meanwhile a person of color behaving terribly is usually attributed to their culture and seen as a reflection of their community.)
On the other hand, the people who created this situation were not doing so because they had been pushed to the point of being crushed by the circumstances they were facing in life. They were doing so in order to maintain power and order. They were doing so out of convenience or because they did not feel the people they were pushing into untenable circumstances deserved any better. They did so because they did not want to risk having to do with less so that others could have what they needed. IOW, what drove people to create the situation of inequality is not really comparable in any way to what drive a person living on the losing end of their actions to lash out. And no doubt, for your Moroccan co-worker to hear the two situations painted as equivalent is offensive. A poor person who steals from their employer is still stealing and ought not do so, but their actions are not morally comparable to a dictator that steals his nations’ resources for his own benefit and leaves the people desperate and impoverished. And that, I believe, is why your co-worker responded so negatively.
Also, one of the things that I have become aware of is that we white people have an expectation that minority people would be sympathetic to and concerned about our negative experiences when it comes to race while we ourselves are frequently dismissive and skeptical of their negative experiences. It’s a bit like a sighted person complaining about the cost of prescription glasses to a blind person who, after all, can get by with sunglasses which don’t cost nearly as much. It just shows a lack of awareness on our part. I apologize if this sounds dismissive to you, but let me give you an illustration of how this plays out in real life. Here in the USA the practice of setting aside jobs, college admissions or scholarships for people of color is hugely controversial. White conservatives in particular consider it to be the ultimate hypocrisy as they see it as a form of reverse racism and aren’t we supposed to be getting rid of racism? So, let’s just accept the sake of discussion that they are completely right about this. Affirmative action (as this practice is called) is racism against white people and ought not be allowed in a society which is committed to equality for all people. And let’s just say, for the sake of our discussion, that this sentiment is widely shared by people of color as well. Even with all this being the case, it is quite likely that a white person condemning affirmative action to a person of color will be met with anger and hostility. Why?
The thing is that affirmative action is a form of discrimination that literally affects maybe 10,000 white people every year. And that’s a generous guess. The real number is probably much less than that. On the other hand, here in the USA, we have a situation where approximately 13% of drug users and drug dealers are African American, yet 60% of drug prisoners are African American. And that affects hundreds of thousands of African Americans each year.
And not only is the actual number of people affected by this racist system far, far larger than the number of people affected by affirmative action, because such a small percent of Americans are African American (12-14%), nearly every African American is affected by this racist system in some way. Plus, white people who lose out on a job or college admission due to affirmative action then have to find another job or school. Black people who are jailed for drug offenses not only lose their freedom for years on end, once they are out, they are virtually unemployable, have a hard time finding housing, can’t vote and in many places are unable to get any welfare benefits or educational assistance.
The end result is that white people are really, really upset by the racism of affirmative action, which affects almost no body, isn’t life destroying and isn’t widespread, yet the much bigger and more destructive racism of our “justice” system is hardly on most white people’s radar. In fact, when the problem is raised, most white people reflexively blame black people for the problem. Thus even a person of color who disagrees with affirmative action is likely to have much sympathy for white people who are harmed by it.
When white people insist that the discrimination they experience is a really, really big deal while simultaneously refusing to pour just as much energy and resources into fighting the much more devastating discrimination experienced by people of color, it will rub people of color the wrong way. To say the least. When we then try to get them to join us in being outraged over discrimination experienced by white people, well, let’s just say that we white people are lucky that bazooka’s are illegal.
The thing with “PC” is that while it is often poorly and foolishly executed, at it’s heart it is simply an attempt to get white people to move past our programmed self-centered views and show some consideration for and awareness of how our words, actions and attitude affect and appear to people of color. That’s it. We struggle with it because we have this idea that while our forebearers obviously left a mess that continues to affect minorities, we believe that we ourselves are unaffected. And that’s just not so. That we experience demands that something be done to fix the mess left behind as charges of guilt and object to being asked to consider the perspectives of the “other” as unreasonable whitewashing is evidence of the way that this pernicious evil practiced by those who went before us has caused us harm that we must also struggle to overcome.
My answer follows.
Thanks for your long and thoughtful reply.
I really liked your metaphor about the tree-dwellers and ground-dwellers and think it is a great (albeit sad) description of the situation in America and other Western countries.
I think there are several things I’d like to say in response.
1) I used “racism” as a synonym for “racial hatred” as this use is widespread in Europe, at least among common people.
I didn’t mean institutionalized racism.
What I was saying is that anti-white hatred is as real as any other kind of racial hatred and that it must be as firmly opposed.
2) You say that white people are oblivious to the inequalities other races suffer from.
You further say that if a gruesome crime is committed by a “colored” individual, white folks tend to assume it is not just due to mental illness but to his being black.
I don’t know the situation in the US in 2015. If this is still the case, this is very saddening indeed.
In modern France, this attitude is no longer widespread among the younger generations.
The large majority certainly stands for equal rights regardless of skin color.
And if after a psychopathic crime someone were to say “You see! These Blacks are crazy!” he’d spawn disgust and disdain against him.
Unfortunately, this kind of attitude is still widespread towards Muslims, especially after the terrorist attacks against Charlie Hebdo. This is extremely unjust, preoccupying and revolting. Yet, this is not driven by feelings of racial superiority but by an ethnocentric conviction that our Western civilization is good whereas other cultures are savage and evil.
3) I completely agree there are laws in the US which are systematically very harmful to minorities.
Given all the financial interests related to this crusade, it’s perhaps never going to be abolished.
I find this monstrous and long for this evil to be undone.
I do believe, however, that my being white does not attribute me any kind of guilt, all the more so since I want it to cease as soon as possible.
I can’t honestly think of any kind of reasoning which would justify that alleged logical connection:
“Marc is white => Marc is partially responsible for the war on drugs destroying the lives of countless black persons”
I appreciate the fact you emphasized it’s not a question of feeling guilty but one of feeling empathy towards those who are still suffering from the consequences of past abuses.
I do agree it is our moral duty as Christians and as human beings to act in an empathic way towards them.
4) Your analogy about stealing is an interesting one.
I certainly accept the fact that the moral culpability of members of a poor (and formerly oppressed) ethnic minority who have to steal for surviving might be far lower than that of members of the dominant group engaging in the same type of activity.
However, this isn’t what I meant there.
I had in mind gratuitous crimes driven by sheer hatred.
As for example a gang of Arabs who wanted to rape a white woman after having screamed to the husband: “We’ll fuck your white whore!”.
It is my contention that from the standpoint of the victim and her suffering, this act is as heinous as the reverse situation where a white gang attempts to rape a black woman after having screamed “We’ll fuck your black whore!”
So, I think it’s perfectly in order to loudly say in the first case: “This is racial hatred. This is wrong. We need to reject that as well in order to build up a stable society. The past and present crimes of white institutions doesn’t justify in any way, shape or form this kind of heinous deeds.”
and I could draw on French-speaking black rappers making these points.
5) Let me give you a personal analogy to drive this point home.
It does not involve races but another situation of institutionalized ethnic discrimination.
I’m a Germanic Frenchman coming from a region which has been historically bilingual French-German (I speak roughly half of the time in French and half of the time in German to my father).
An intense propaganda has been carried out for convincing people that they ought to ONLY speak French to their children and that the languages spoken by their ancestors belong to the past.
Children speaking in dialect in the schoolyards were severely punished and oftentimes even beaten.
Any kind of administrative act and public meeting had to be performed in French.
People speaking in dialect or speaking in French with a strong accent were systematically mocked and even bullied by many (ethnic) French people.
Consequently, in my region, German has inexorably declined to such an extent that nowadays, people younger than I (I’m 30 years old) only speak French. It seems now doomed to disappear.
While modern Britain finances bilingual schools English/Welsh and does everything it can for allowing this language to survive, France of 2015 consistently refuses to compensate for the cultural genocides of the past by allowing bilingualism in private schools and administrations.
No, countless politicians hold fast to the dogma that French is the only tongue which ought to be used. Many of them still view dialects as a threat (which is disgustingly absurd since in many cases they’re spoken by less than 10% of the local population).
Now, does that situation mean that someone bullying a French person for defending French is less heinous than a French person bullying someone for defending a dialect?
It is true that in the second case, the misdeed is built upon a history of institutionalized discrimination.
Nevertheless, I firmly believe that both acts should be exposed and condemned.
I’m far from being a saint in that respect. A while ago, a Frenchman started an action against Anglicisms invading the French language.
This made me angry and I reacted with harsh words: “What? You destroyed the language of our ancestors and you dare to complain about your language being modified to a small extent by English influence?…”
He answered me that he’s for the preservation of all languages and has never endorsed French repression against dialects.
I then understood I had been unjust while attacking him and saying he was responsible for the destruction of our tongue just by virtue of his being French and loving the French language.
So I went to him and sincerely apologized.
While being an activist defending dialects and combating current French policies, I now openly condemn any hateful assertion about French people coming from my fellow Lorrains and Alsatians (i.e. the inhabitants of my homeland.)
6) To your mind, how does Jesus view the situation?
Suppose that a black and a white woman get (or got) gang-raped owing to their skin color.
Does he feel any less angry (or compassionate) in one case rather than in the other?
At the very least, I believe that His compassion is the same in both situations.
To conclude, I contend that:
a) racial hatred against white people truly exists and it has real physical consequences
b) acts driven by racial hatred should be called for what they are and firmly condemned no matter who the victims and perpetrators are
c) holding this position doesn’t amount to being a white supremacist.
I hope we can have a nice conversation despite our fundamental disagreements about this particular problem. In many of the things I went into, I was not necessarily criticizing your personal views but was making general points.
We should keep in mind that I can’t automatically translate the current situation in France to America and you can’t automatically assume to know how things in Western Continental Europe look like.
(That’s not an accusation, just a remark. )
There are many historical and cultural concepts which greatly differ (for instance, Arabs tend to be much more often victims of discrimination than Blacks in France).
I do believe we should all strive for a society where ethnicity no longer plays any role in terms of advantages and hurdles for living one’s life. I’m convinced this demands fighting impartially hate towards innocent people who never asked to be born with their skin color.
I think that issues concerning the shape reparations should take and positive discrimination are very complex ones and I have not (yet) any firm position in that respect.
It was about my pointing out that anti-white racism is real and should be combated as much as any other kind of racism.
While I don’t necessarily agree with everything she wrote, I find her thoughts really profound.
I have come to think that part of the reason we have failed in the Western world to handle the problem of race productively is because we don’t really understand the problem we are dealing with. We tend to think of racism as interpersonal animus motivated by an irrational dislike for certain races. So the answer must be to fight this interpersonal animus where ever it shows up. However, as we have seen, this isn’t all that effective.
The thing is that back when racism was motivated by this sort of irrational hostility towards a group of people based on race, people didn’t just walk around being nasty to certain groups. They actually set policy which had as its goal putting certain groups at a disadvantage and not allowing them to escape that disadvantage. Often this was done openly for the benefit of the dominant group. For example, it was quite common for discussions of employment to revolve around the need to protect jobs for white men, thus justifying discriminating against women and people of color. We tend to think that these discussions from the past aren’t particularly relevant to the present since we no longer engage in that sort of thinking. However, that doesn’t mean that the problems created by the past go away all by themselves. A good example of this is housing discrimination. After WWII, while white Americans were able to buy houses using the GI Bill, neighborhoods where African Americans were allowed to buy homes were excluded from eligibility for GI loans and other conventional forms of financing. When African Americans figured out ways to buy homes anyways, realtors and bankers engaged in shady practices which resulted in many African Americans losing their homes and those who didn’t were left with homes that were worth less than people had paid for them. Those who lost their homes or never could manage to get a house, were forced into unsafe, poorly serviced neighborhoods. And this is how we ended up with our crime ridden inner cities. We forced people to live there and then blamed them for not being able to overcome all the obstacles placed in their way. So that’s a problem which we created and which is still with us today. But because we think that racism is only about whether one particular person is nice to another particular person, we don’t really understand how unsafe minority communities are the result of racism, much less what to do about it. A lot of people don’t even understand why we might have an obligation to do something, in fact. So we don’t.
Then there’s the fact that people rarely dislike other groups of people for purely irrational reasons anymore. Generally, they have reasons they dislike other people. They don’t like the way they act, talk, dress, their attitudes, their morals, etc, etc, etc. So a lot of people feel like they are being forced to pretend that what they find unacceptable is not problematic for the sake of PC. However, what I have learned is that the things that people are most likely to point to as legitimate reasons for disapproving of another group of people was the direct result of a wrong done to them or their people and a set of insurmountable obstacles they were facing. For example, I have known some of these infamous black men who have children with multiple women, wind up in jail, etc, etc. Every single one of them suffered horrendous abuse growing up. (I am completely convinced that it should be possible to look at any pathologies present in any given African American family and trace them directly back to their people’s experiences during slavery. Women who were raped by their owners did not go on to have healthy relationships with other men. Men beaten by their owners and overseers did not go on to raise their children with patience and time-outs.) All of these men were raised without dads. (The US government went through a period where it would not provide assistance to families with a man in the home. So we’re not innocent in creating that situation.) All of them had witnessed terrible violence both inside and outside the home while growing up. They usually desperately want the love and approval of a woman, but have poor relationship skills and they are attracted to women with similar trauma histories who also have poor relationship skills. These men didn’t just wake up from comfortable lives one day and decide to act an ass. They needed help long before they got to the point of impregnating people and causing trouble. But we have nothing but contempt for these men.
At the end of the day, I think that we simply have not faced the depth of the damage done by our racist past. What we see as increasing levels of pathology, immorality and the like are actually the fruit of seeds planted in our societies long ago reaching harvest time. I think that once we understand the problems that way, we can start finding practical solutions that will make a real difference. But Americans are obscenely immature. Any solution that starts with having compassion on someone who they don’t think deserves compassion is a no-go. Poor Americans vote Republican because they believe in a world where good people get rewarded and bad people get punished. It’s a fantasy, but one that they put their trust in because, after all, they are good people. So if those who share their belief that good people should be rewarded are in charge, they will be rewarded. Or at least they will be able to take some satisfaction in knowing that the bad people (who just so happen to be disproportionately African American) get punished.
Anyhow, sorry this is super long, but it’s a complex topic and one that I’m convinced is generally poorly understood.
There is absolutely no doubt that the white dominant class in America committed atrocious crimes whose consequences can still be felt.
I certainly want justice to be achieved and the wounds of the past to be healed.
Interestingly enough, France has a similar history concerning the housing policy.
After World War II, French capitalists fostered a massive immigration of workers from their Arabic and black African colonies. They did that because this manpower could be paid much less than the salary they would have had to give to Europeans. They decided to put all of them into public housing apartments plagued by poverty and bad life standards.
It was sheer madness to have massively imported workers with a very different cultural background, concentrated them within poor suburbs with awful life conditions, discriminated them and then expected that everything would be just fine.
That said, I must also emphasize that I reject the idea of a collective culpability of the white race (if there really is such a thing in the first place).
I once discussed with a former colleague from Morocco and I told her:
“Racism hasn’t any color. The seeds of hatred, intolerance, bigotry and xenophobia can take root everywhere” and I then went on evoking the case of French children being bullied in schoolyards owing to their being white.
She became really angry.
“But haven’t you seen what France did to us? Aren’t you aware of all the horrors they inflicted to us during the colonial time?”
I wasn’t willing to engage an unproductive verbal fight and so I just left.
While she isn’t an evil person by any means, her words (reflecting what countless people think) are extremely offensive from a moral standpoint.
To see how, let us first consider what a Jewish prophet loudly proclaimed 1600 years ago.
This ancient text is extremely strong in that it went against the widespread concept that children of wicked people should be retributed for the misdeeds of their parents or that their current suffering was a divine punishment (a notion which can, incidentally, be found in other Biblical passages).
More than twenty centuries later, this very notion hasn’t been erased everywhere, alas.
The conversation I had with my former colleague is a sad example of this state of affairs.
If punishing children for the crimes of their parents is morally abhorrent, how much more horrendous is it to bully and hurt someone just because he or she has the same skin color as a group of oppressors.
It is depressing that if anyone dares to speak out about the reality of anti-whit racism, the Slaves of Political Correctness (SPC) shoot from the hip and become morally indignant.
I’m convinced that far from promoting peace, their fanatical denial of this phenomenon fosters a vicious circle of hatred.
Indeed, white folks who have been victim of such hateful acts are likely to join far-right groups after having been ignored or even ridiculed by all mainline politically correct parties.
I’m persuaded that a society where skin color no longer plays any role can only be created through a battle against every kind of hate regardless of its source and object.
De germanische Deel von Fronkräich isch fir immer zerstert wor. Geje de Will von de grosse Mehrhät von de Elsässern und ihre Deputes.
Paris hat dezidiert, de Region in e fronzeschsprochige Zone ufzelese. Das beditt, dass de Sproch, wu schun gonz schwach isch, endgildisch verschwinn wert.
Ich HASSE de fronzesche Staat un will nie meh dort lewe.
Was Fronkräich uns ongedon hat isch absolut beschämend. Sie hon de Will vom elsässische Volk VERLETZT. Sie hon sie GEZWUNGE, ihr Lond ufzeginn. Das isch totalitäre Fachismus. Un das isch ah koloniale Supremazismus.
While France likes to take pride in being “the country of human rights”, it utterly fails to fulfill this claim in significant respects.
One of those is the problem of European ethnic minorities or cultures in its territory.
Ever since the French Revolution (in the name of the secular goddess Reason), the government has declared French as the only language of the republic and has systematically persecuted all minorities, forbidding or discouraging them to speak the tongue of their ancestors in their own land.
As a consequence, Breton ( a Celtic language spoken in Brittany), Occitan and Catalan (Romance languages spoken in the South) have almost disappeared from the country.
In my own homeland (Alsace – Lorraine), the Germanic dialects spoken by most of my forefathers are gravely threatened since they are no longer transmitted to the youngest generation, owing to past French propaganda according to which regional languages are nothing more than dialects of poor brainless peasants.
It wasn’t rare in the recent past that school teachers would severely punish any child speaking in dialect or even beat him or her.
Clearly, taking measures for wiping out the tongues of a whole sedentary population which has been annexed in the past entirely satisfies the definition of a cultural genocide.
The logical fallacies used by French supremacists [also called Jacobins after the name of the fanatical (and murderous) revolutionaries who first followed this goal] change absolutely nothing to the picture.
It is just not true that raising bilingual children would undermine the unity of our country, and even if it were, this would be no morally sufficient reason for violating a fundamental human right, namely that of self-determination of people having always lived here.
What makes this evil all the more egregious is that Jacobins are the first to get indignant when French-speaking minorities are discouraged from using their language (such as in certain towns in Quebec or in Belgium).
If it were finally adopted, there is the real hope that Breton, Occitan, Catalan, Alsatian and Lorraine Franconian (my own Germanic dialect) would be automatically taught in bilingual schools on a large scale as it is done with Catalan in Spain, German in the Italian Sud-Tirol and Welsh in the British Wales, which has greatly contributed to the preservation of these tongues.
The problem is that it still has to be ratified by the French senate which is dominated by conservative and reactionary minds, making it very unlikely.
I want to start an international petition in favor of the ratification of the chart.
My arguments would be organized according to the following lines:
1) It is a shame for a mighty modern Western nation such as France not to respect the right of ethnic minorities on its ground to preserve their cultural and linguistic peculiarities.
It is all the more awkward that all other nations of the European Unions are granting such fundamental rights to their minorities.
2) Upholding regional languages greatly contributes to the richness of our nation, which is also reflected by touristic attractiveness
3) In many cases, the bilingual characters of certain regions were a real bridge towards other European countries.
In Alsace-Lorraine, French-German bilingualism led (notice my use of the past 😦 ) to an easy access towards the whole German-Speaking Europe and greatly facilitated the understanding of Dutch as well as the learning of English.
The knowledge of Occitan and Catalan in South France made it very easy to learn Italian and Spanish and in turn also Portuguese.
It goes without saying that the lost of bilingualism went hand in hand with tremendous economic losses, not only for the concerned regions but also for France as a whole.
4) Bilinguilism does not menace by any means the feeling of being French.
(Actually quite the contrary is the case. It is the repeated persecutions from French supremacists which have disgusted me from the French language and culture, making me prefer Germanic stuff.)
I would like many people all over the world to sign my petition. The contributions of prominent Academics and Politicians would be fantastic, since this would clearly be a wonderful way to put the French senate under pressure by bringing it into a very embarrassing and uncomfortable position.
Now I feel very discouraged and anguished because French supremacist lobbies are extremely powerful in our country and dispose of tremendous means for imposing their views on all the rest of us.
But I feel a strong urge to do something against this revolting injustice and to defend my own culture.
First of all I want to make clear where I am coming from.
I believe that everyone ought to treat a fellow human being as he would like to be himself treated. Therefore I think that all kinds of discrimination should be equally combated regardless of the identity of the perpretators and victims.
Now few self proclaimed anti-racists would reject this principle, at least in public.
But they would say that racism almost always stems from white people and that acts of racism against white persons are extremely rare and can be neglected in comparison with the reverse phenomenon.
Yet the daily experience of many white folks living in French suburbs shows that nothing could be further from the truth.
If a group of skinheads besieged the house of a black family and told to the husband: „We will fuck your black whore!“, I have no doubt that the story would be included on the first page of mainstream newspapers.
This is only one among countless cases of anti-white racism on the French territory. The perpretators are most often young arabs of the second and third generation along a smaller number of blacks who believe that their justified anger against the past and current abuses and discriminations of the French society gives them the right to hate all white people.
Psychologically this is a gruesome form of collective punishment, the idea that the misdeeds of an individual justify the punishment of his whole family, clan, ethnic group, religion and even race.
Western liberals seem completely unable to recognize that people of European descent can also be victims of the same wicked logic. Interestingly enough, when Jews are the victims of cruel acts of violence commited by ethnic gangs with a Muslim background, politicians and intellectuals will immediately speak out against the crimes.
But when non-Jewish white people report of the same horrible experiences they went through, these are most often ignored, explained away or minimized.
For Western liberals, the assertion that anti-white racism is as much a problem as racism from white people is truly an extraordinary claim.
Therefore normal evidence cannot be accepted for proving the reality of the phenomenon.
Thus it should not be reported by serious journalists.
And if it is not found in the mainstream medias, it can be most likely neglected.
For surely mainstream medias describe reality in an almost objective way, and those denying this are crackpot conspiracy theorists and white supremacists.
Sadly, this has led many white folks suffering under the situation to put all their hopes in far right groups. This is the main reason why 20% of the French electors vote for the fachist leader of the national Front, Marine Le Pen. They are ignored and defeamed by all other political parties but welcome by right extremists who seriously take into consideration their problems.
It goes without saying this is an explosive situation which fosters a vicious circle of hatred.
In the German-speaking and English-speaking worlds, Socialism has largely a bad press. It is all too often associated with the totalitarian countries of the former Soviet Union and the omnipresence of the state in every area of life.
But in France, Socialism has historically mainly meant the belief that the state ought to intervene as soon as the well-being of workers and employees is threatened by the unlimited free-market competition going on. It has nothing against free-market competition in and of itself, so long as the quality of life of people is not menaced.
There is of course also a striving towards social justice, in that taxes should take into account the personal wealth.
A similar feeling seems to have been present in the Early Church among the first followers of Jesus of Nazareth after his resurrection:
All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. There was a Levite, a native of , Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”). He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
I am a Christian and I feel really sorry for all the homosexuals who have suffered under the persecution of many churches during two thousand years of Christian history. I also deeply empathize with all current Christian homosexuals who are often experiencing a true emotional ordeal by being taught that their sexuality, one part of their very being they never chose, is inherently sinful. I do believe there is a need for much more churches to clearly affirm that homosexual lifestyle isn’t bad in and of itself, as long as one strives for a lifelong relationship, even if this means they would need to let go of some cherished dogmas.
That said, I cannot rejoice about the recent events in France.
The law authorizing two persons of the same sex to marry has been voted in my native country on the 13 May 2013. There was, however, no universal enthusiasm by any means among the general population, whereby only 53% of the French citizens approved of the decision. Unlike American society, French society is highly secular so that Biblical or even religious arguments are very rarely mentioned by opponents of homosexual marriage who often don’t even believe in God. And most of them don’t believe that homosexuality is wrong as long as it is confined to the private sphere.
Their main fear seems to be that marriage and families always hang together and that the presence of parents of two sexes is always preferable for the well-being of the children.
Many people are angry because the (so-called) socialist administration didn’t really promote a civil, respectful and rational discussion between both parts of the debate, but used (and still use) propaganda techniques to smear the opponents of the law.
And it is no secret that gay marriage (at least in a French context) is only the first step of a far-reaching agenda ultimately aiming at making surrogate pregnancy fully free.
What is more, it has become clear to quite a few French people that the pseudo-socialist administration focuses on what they call “societal problems” (Gay marriage, gender mainstreaming and so on.) to ignore crying social problems against which they are unwilling to do anything.
This fact became all too obvious after Arnaud Montebourg, the Minister of Industrial Renewal, proposed to temporarily nationalize a enterprise threatening to fire many of its French employees to increase its benefits. French first minister rejected the proposition in order not to challenge the liberal dogma that a government should almost never intervene to solve economical problems, regardless of the huge suffering this causes to normal people.
Je suis Chretien et je me sens vraiment desole pour tous les homosexuels qui ont soufferts sous la persecution de beaucoup d’eglises durant les deux-mille ans d’histoire chretienne. J’ai egalement beaucoup d’empathie pour tous les homosexuels chretiens du present qui experiencent souvent une veritable torture emotionelle en etant enseignes que leur sexualite, une partie de leur profonde nature qu’ils n’ont jamais choisie, est profondement pecheresse.
Je suis persuade qu’il doit y avoir beaucoup plus d’eglises affirmant clairement qu’un style de vie homosexuel n’est pas mauvais en soi, du moment qu’on recherche une relation pour la vie, meme si cela signifie abondonner certains dogmes qui leur sont chers.
Cela dit, je ne peux pas me rejouir des evenements recent en France.
La loi autorisant deux personnes du meme sexe de se marier a ete votee dans mon pays natale le 13 mai 2013. Il n’y avait cependant aucun enthousiasme universel parmis la population, avec seulement 53% des citoyens francais approuvant la decision.
Contrairement a la societe americaine, la societe francaise est hautement seculiere, si bien que des arguments bibliques ou meme religieux sont tres rarement mentionnes par les opposants au mariage homosexuel, qui souvent ne croient meme pas en Dieu.
Et le plus grand nombre ne croient pas que l’homosexualite en tant que soi soit mauvaise du moment qu’elle est confinee a la sphere privee.
Leur principale crainte semble etre que le mariage et la famille sont profondement lies et que la presence de parents du deux sexes est toujours preferable pour le bien-etre des enfants.
Beucoup de personnes sont en colere parce que le gouvernement soi-disant socialiste n’a pas encourage une discussion civile, rsspectueuses et rationelles entre les deux cotes du debat, mais a utilise (et utilise encore) des techniques de propagandes pour salir les opposants a la loi.
Et c’est un secret de polichinelle que le mariage gay est seulement la premiere etapes d’un projet cache visant a completement liberaliser la procreation assistee.
En addition, il est devenu clair et net pour beaucoup de gens en France que le gouvernement pseudo-socialiste se concentre sur ce qu’ils nomment “problemes societaux” (mariage gay, theorie du genre etc.) pour ignorer des problemes sociaux tres preoccupants qu’ils ne sont pas desireux de resoudre.
Ce fait est devenu evident apres que Arnaud Montebourg, le ministre ministre du redressement productif, proposa de nationaliser temporairement une entreprise menacant de virer beaucoup de ses employes francais afin d’augmenter ses benefices.
Le premier ministre francais rejeta la proposition afin de ne past defier le dogme liberal selon lequel le gouvernement devrait presque jamais intervenir pour resoudre des problemes economiques, peu-importe l’immense souffrance que cela cree pour beaucoup de citoyens normaux.
Homoehe in Frankräich
Ich bin Christ un fihle mich gonz trurig fir all de Homosexuelle, die unner de Verfolgung von vielen Kirchen während de zwo deusende Johre von christlicher Geschichte gelitte hon.
Ich hon aach viel Mitgefihl fir alle christliche Homosexuelle von de Gegenwart, de oft eeni wohri emotionelli Folterung experimentiere, weil ma sie gelehrt hat, dass ihre Sexualität (een wichtige Teel von ihrem Wesen de sie nie gewählt hon),on sich sündig isch.
Ich glawe echt, dass es nötig isch, dass viel mehr Kirche gonz klar behaupte, dass de homosexuelle Lebensstil on sich niet schlecht isch, solonge ma nach eeni lebenslongi Beziehung strebt, sogar wenn es beudeted, manche beliebte Dogme ufzegebe.
Dennoch kinn ich mich niet iwer de letzte Ereignisse in Frankräich fräie.
De Gesetz, de zwo Persone vom selwen Geschlecht erlaubt, ze heirate, isch am 13 Mai 2013 in mienem Geburtslon gewählt werre. Es gab awer keeni allgemeeni Begeisterung unner de Volk, wobei nur 53% von alle fransäische Birger fir de Entscheidung ware.
Niet wie de amerikanische Gesellschaft isch de frasäische Gesellschaft gonz sekular, sodass biblische oder sogar religiöse Argumente sehr selten benutzt were von de Gegner der Homoehe, de oft an Gott sogar niet glauwe.
Un de Meehräit glawt niet, dat de Homosexualität verkehrt isch, solonge es uf de private Bereich beschränkt isch.
De Hauptbefürchtung scheint ze sin, dass Ehe un Famile immer zesamme hängt un dass de Gegenwart Eltern beider Geschlechte immer besser fir de Wohlsin von de Kinnere isch.
Viele Litte sinn witend, weil de sogenannte sozialistische Regierung keen echte respektvolle un rationale Diskussion zwische de zwei Sitte der Debatte gefördert hasch, awer nach wie vor Propagandatechniken benutzt, um de Gegner von de Gesetz ze verschmiere.
Un es isch gar keen Gehemnis, dass de Homoehe (zemindest in Frankräich) nur de erste Schritte een wittrecihende Agenda isch, um schliesslich de Leihmommeschaft völlig fräi ze mache.
Es isch aach nun klar fir viele frasäiche Litte, dass de pseudo-sozialistische Regierung sich an das konzentriere, was sie Gesellschaftsprobleme (Homoehe, Gender-Therorie usw.) nenne, um schlimme soziale Probleme ze ignoriere, wugege sie niet bereit sinn, was ze dun.
Diese Fakt war allzu klar nachdem Arnaud Montebourg, de Minister der industriellen Erneuerung, vorgeschlage hat, eeni Firma voriwergehend ze nationalisiere, de gedroht hat, viele fransäsiche Eingestellte ruszewerfe, um ihr Profikt ze erhöhe.
De fransäische erste Minister hat de Vorschlag total abgelehnt, um de liberali Dogma biet ruszefordere, dass eeni Regierung nie eengreife darf, um wirtschaftliche Probleme ze löse, egal ob es een immense Leide ze normale Litte verursacht.