The French are constantly accused of being racists, and force-fed the propaganda of repentance. But "sociologist" Michel Wieviorka (left) goes further than most in his hypocrisy and his disdain for France, the country that has given him the opportunity to become a well-known figure in his field. A Google search in both French and English shows that his writings and books have a wide audience. This is unfortunate, because there never was such a blatant example of biting the hand that feeds you.A good example of his politically correct platitudes is this English-language analysis of the 2005 riots that revealed to the world the violence of the Parisian "suburbs", and the hellish mess France was in as a result of massive immigration.An essay co-authored by Wieviorka and George Pau-Langevin (left), a socialist deputy from Guadeloupe, appears at Libération in which they reiterate the stale, fallacious arguments that purport to demonstrate that the French are inherently racist. Here are a few excerpts:France, enthusiastic after the election of the first Afro-American president of the United States, wonders: why not us? Answer: because the United States acted. France did not. They had a lot to catch up on though, with apartheid elements that had lasted until the 60's. Then came the civil rights movement, political activism with affirmative action in the universities and in public service, the progressive emergence of diversity in the political, media and financial elite. Barack Obama does not come out of nowhere. He is the result of a fundamental movement.Note: That is true, but the "fundamental movement" was destructive of American society. He emerged, in fact, from the long-term effects of social chaos, diminished standards, totalitarian ideologies, and the dishonest device of affirmative action, not from progress.No such thing happened in France. In the name of some abstract universalism, the Republic refused for a long time to acknowledge its new diversity. In the 80's and 90's, to speak of multi-culturalism, even in a low-key manner, was to risk being treated as an ethnic separatist ("communautariste") or as a destroyer of the Republic.The article then discusses the changes taking place in France, changes similar to those that have nearly destroyed the United States, and the difficulties encountered by immigrants who want to improve their lot, but find they are stymied in their attempt to climb the social ladder.But the problems of diversity are not just social. They concern above all certain groups, however you want to designate them - immigrants, visible minorities, Arabs, blacks, etc... The student with an Arab name who cannot find a job, unlike his friends with a very "French" last name from the same social milieu, the black graduate who is never called for a job interview, these people are not penalized for social reasons alone.Note: The authors, both committed socialists, simply look at the consequences of bad policies that they themselves have advocated, and blame the victims, i.e., the French. In the next paragraph they reach a new summit (or is it a nadir?) of incoherence:Racial discrimination exists. It is inscribed in the French mindset: differences in skin color, a poorly digested colonial past, and a culturalist vision of France are some of its potent factors. It has been reenforced by the political agitation of the Le Pen years - true, there were no real consequences in French law, but there was a major psychological impact that worked against integration: the debate on nationality, the desire to reject the jus soli in favor of the "Gallic" jus sanguinis, the hardening towards Islam with the rejection of the head scarf and the mosques, the affirmation of selective immigration, thus conveying to French immigrants the stigma of being "unwanted".Note: I cannot find one iota of valid reasoning in the above. These authors clearly hate France. And if the French have "hardened" towards Islam, how much harder is the attitude of the Muslims towards the French!This is why specific policies are necessary to stem discrimination. To punish it, of course, but above all to change the face of collective representations (such as the National Assembly) and to admit, as they have done in the United States, that the Republic is henceforth diverse.Today we must move further along in our knowledge of discrimination, we must better grasp the strengths and specific difficulties of certain populations. The legitimate debate on "ethnic statistics" should not allow us to forget this obvious truth: we need precise data in order to act. To know our society in its cultural and religious dimensions, in its national origins, ought to aid in the stemming of racism. And allow us to gain from our diversity.Note: Imagine someone injected with carcinogenic substances, who falls ill, and who is then blamed for having cancer. That is how these authors fatuously interpret the current situation in France. It would be nice to think that the French government ignores such garbage. But we know that France, under Sarkozy and his predecessors, following slavishly the model of the United States and under orders from Brussels, is being re-structured to accommodate the most destructive elements contained therein. For no reason except that anti-racism is the latest "ism" we must all worship - or else. One final note: I do agree that ethnic statistics should be available to the general public, in order that the French people themselves have a clearer idea of what they are up against. I think in some rural regions they may not be as aware as they should be of the dangers.
Labels: Affirmative Action, Anti-White Racism, Immigration, Intellectual Terrorism, Racism