An Ode to Chirac

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by BeBro
I'm delighted to see you quoting Spiff, I had mistakenly thought from your post in the other thread that he's an evil "Spinmeißter" too

My, I thought my Spinmeißterheit was obvious already

[RGBVideo]

too bad that you haven't noticed it yet, but...

I know French, so the number of people in this thread who know you're lying is at least two. "Thug" is a very good translation, "criminal" a decent one. Translating it as a "******" is hysterious spin, which is why I quoted it for posterity.

Anyway, I'll voluntarily quit from this thread now because I'm supposed to be sleeping in order to catch a train at 6 AM (almost 11 PM now). I'll be bumping it again after the elections if Sarko wins. Until then, I wish for all of you, spin merchants and spin buyers alike.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Does racaille have class references as strong as the racial references of "******" If so, its been mistranslated - scum in English implies moral degradation, but doesnt particularly imply working class, not even "lumpenproletariat"

you can have working class scum, but you can also have yuppie scum, jewish scum, right wing scum, or even male patriarchal scum (remember the society for cutting up males, S.C.U.M.I think it was)

Indeed, I've never heard the word "racaille" being used for anything but the lower classes*. Historically, it's how the nobility, and then the bourgeoisie called lower class criminals, troublemakers, or common vagrants.

The most common word I can think of, that refers to the powerful in broad derogatory terms is "les salauds", though "salaud" can be an individual insult toward anybody as well.

IMO, the best translation of the word "scum" in French would be ordure (garbage), but that's my gut feeling.

Edit: note that the word racaille has evolved with its new use. Historically, it was only singular, and lumped together all that kind of lower class scum. Now, the common form is the plural, as it refers to individuals sharing the more aggressive parts of the ghetto subculture.



*Well, at the one exception of those among today's upper-class young people who imitate the ghetto subculture. But even then, a real racaille will use another derogatory word while referring to them. I've heard such upper-class people refer to themselves and their group like that though.

[lord of the mark]

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racaille

it would take me a while to really READ the above, but skimming it as best I can with my poor french, gives me the impression that the socio-economic usage was not as common as the criminal usage, and that thug would be closer, but that it started to be adopted in the 1960s by the minority counter culture in France.

But perhaps the wiki article is written by a Sarko sympathizer. Or perhaps im misreading it with my schoolboy French.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Indeed, I've never heard the word "racaille" being used for anything but the lower classes*. Historically, it's how the nobility, and then the bourgeoisie called lower class criminals, troublemakers, or common vagrants.

The most common word I can think of, that refers to the powerful in broad derogatory terms is "les salauds", though "salaud" can be an individual insult toward anybody as well.

IMO, the best translation of the word "scum" in French would be ordure (garbage), but that's my gut feeling.



*Well, at the one exception of those among today's upper-class young people who imitate the ghetto subculture. But even then, a real racaille will use another derogatory word while referring to them. I've heard such upper-class people refer to themselves and their group like that though.

Ie its a word for the KIND of criminal who tend to come from the poorer classes - a vagrant or petty thug. As opposed to an upper class thief or swindler. But its not a name for any proletarian, or perhaps even any lumpen - is it really used for a "vagrant" IE a wanderer, who has commited no crime.

"******" you see, was, pre-1860, the generic term for a Negro. It was NOT aimed at a subgroup of negroes who commited crimes, or were in anyway different. There were uppitty ******s, good ******s, house ******s, etc, etc, but ALL were ******s, until the Union armies made them "Colored People" and the first civil rights movement made them "Negros" and the second civil rights movement made them "Blacks" and the contemporary age made them African Americans.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racaille

it would take me a while to really READ the above, but skimming it as best I can with my poor french, gives me the impression that the socio-economic usage was not as common as the criminal usage, and that thug would be closer, but that it started to be adopted in the 1960s by the minority counter culture in France.

But perhaps the wiki article is written by a Sarko sympathizer. Or perhaps im misreading it with my schoolboy French.

The third definition says:

* Un groupe méprisable, la partie du peuple la plus pauvre ou la couche la plus basse de la population. Ayant pour certains un sens socio-économique, pour d'autres un sens plus socio-culturel, cette définition se référant à « une masse méprisable » ne reconnaît pas de distinction individuelle, son utilisation est donc invariable au singulier féminin : « La racaille » ; parfois couplée à un partitif : « de la racaille »

"A group worthy of contempt, the poorest or lowest part of the population. To some, this definition has a socio-economic meaning, and to others it has a socio-cultural one. This definition that refers to "a mass worthy of contempt" doesn't aknowledge any individual distinction, its use is thus always on singular "la racaille", sometimes with a word that partitions it "de la racaille"

Of course, this third definition is the historical one. The two others refer to the current common usage of the word, which is about the individual, who identifies (or is intendified) with the more violent aspects of the ghetto subculture.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

The third definition says:

* Un groupe méprisable, la partie du peuple la plus pauvre ou la couche la plus basse de la population. Ayant pour certains un sens socio-économique, pour d'autres un sens plus socio-culturel, cette définition se référant à « une masse méprisable » ne reconnaît pas de distinction individuelle, son utilisation est donc invariable au singulier féminin : « La racaille » ; parfois couplée à un partitif : « de la racaille »

"A group worthy of contempt, the poorest or lowest part of the population. To some, this definition has a socio-economic meaning, and to others it has a socio-cultural one. This definition that refers to "a mass worthy of contempt" doesn't aknowledge any individual distinction, its use is thus always on singular "la racaille", sometimes with a word that partitions it "de la racaille"

Of course, this third definition is the historical one. The two others refer to the current common usage of the word, which is about the individual, who identifies (or is intendified) with the more violent aspects of the ghetto subculture.

so its essentially "lumpen" for which there doesnt really seem to be an equivalent in American English, perhaps because we tend not to acknowledge the existence of a class below the working class. Closest might be "low life" the connotations of a class distinguished from the working class by its moral degradation AND its law breaking.

But in contemporary terms, the closer equivalent to what Sarko said would be if, say, Giuliani, attacked "gangstas" Everyone would know its a word with criminal origins, now used with pride for one kind of ghetto culture, and with distinct racial overtones. And its quite credible that a black housewife in a ghetto would ask for protection from the "gangstas". And equally credible that some folks would riot over it. And its easy to imagine some US pol who didnt like Giuliani going on to tut-tut that one should only call criminals "criminals" or "delinquents" and not call them "gangstas'

And yes, I would think that to call Giulliani a racist on that basis, would be incorrect.

[dannubis]

Re: too bad that you haven't noticed it yet, but...

Originally posted by VJ
I know French, so the number of people in this thread who know you're lying is at least two. "Thug" is a very good translation, "criminal" a decent one. Translating it as a "******" is hysterious spin, which is why I quoted it for posterity.

You may or may not know French but I seriously doubt your ability to comprehend a sequence of more than five words if that is what you got from Spiffors post...

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
But in contemporary terms, the closer equivalent to what Sarko said would be if, say, Giuliani, attacked "gangstas" Everyone would know its a word with criminal origins, now used with pride for one kind of ghetto culture, and with distinct racial overtones. And its quite credible that a black housewife in a ghetto would ask for protection from the "gangstas". And equally credible that some folks would riot over it. And its easy to imagine some US pol who didnt like Giuliani going on to tut-tut that one should only call criminals "criminals" or "delinquents" and not call them "gangstas'

And yes, I would think that to call Giulliani a racist on that basis, would be incorrect.

I don't know enough about the word "gangsta" to comment about it.

In any case, I agree with you that Sarkozy hasn't done a racist comment with the "racaille" comment. What he did however was to increase class-hate: those who sided with the "racailles" (almost all ghetto dwellers that I got to meet, even the honest and hardworking ones), and those who sided against them, did rally around the flag.

I'm not sure that Sarkozy himself is a class-hater. In fact, I lean toward thinking he's not. He certainly uses class-hate in his politics however, and makes no bones about creating an increasingly divided French society.

[DinoDoc]

Spiffor: Can you explain why/how so-called no-go zones developed in France?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
All the folks here who think its covered basically share Judt's view of the ME, so its hardly surprising they dont see it as impacting his views.

You're missing the point. The issue is not that Judt's views might be colored by other views that he has; that's certainly a possibility. The real question is, why does it matter? We can't second guess everybody's points and still have a reasonable discussion. What is even the point of bringing this up?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Spiffor: Can you explain why/how so-called no-go zones developed in France?

Yes. But first, I insist that "no-go zones" is an exaggerated (though convenient) word: in those "no go zones", you still find buses, schools, city-backed associations, social workers etc. We're far from Groznyi, fortunately.


A bit of history to begin with: the cités were built in the 1950's and 1960's. They intended to quickly fill a housing gap, created by the war destructions, the baby boom, and the influx of French-Algerians, as well as migrants.

During the 1950-1970 era, the cités were quite appreciated by the inhabitants. Most of them had a bathing room for the first time in their life, for instance. Also, almost all inhabitants were pretty much sure to have a job, particularly in nearby factories. As their income went up, the inhabitants increasingly bought a suburbian house or flat, thus leaving the cité.

The dynamic French industry of the late 1960's took plenty of workers from Northern Africa (Moroccans, ethnic Algerians, Tunisians). And they began their lives in the Cités. The administration, being nice-minded, concentrated the same ethnical groups in the same Cités. To this day, there are still cités where most inhabitants originate from the same town somewhere in North Africa. The same can also be said of Portuguese immigrants.

Supposedly, the immigrants could have reached the French middle class dream in one generation or two, just like other immigrant waves did before (Italians, Poles, but also Bretons or Basques coming to Paris). However, several factors have made things go awry.

1. France has stopped its fast economic expansion in 1974. Unemployment started to progress. Besides, with the increasing international competition (not the least from the EU), factories became highly automated for the sake of productivity gains. Unlike the previous period, unskilled jobs turned into being neither stable nor predictable. Today, youth unemployment in some cités reach 40-50%. Young factory or construction workers now have a very strong chance to be temp workers, that can be fired at will (I've read about temp workers that worked at the same factory for more than a year - and I've read this for several factories)

2. Arabs are brown people. And that's even more true of Blacks. Before Arab and African immigration, France had only welcomed whites. As a colonial power, France taught its pupils about white superiority - and old prejudices die hard.
Just like the children of Italian, Polish or Breton migrants, the children of Arabic and African migrants went to the school of the Republic. They learned to speak French, learned the same cultural references as the French mainstream etc. However, unlike a Frenchman of Italian descent, a Frenchman of Arabic descent can't hide his skin colour.
Even someone most dedicated to play by the rules of the French social mobility will still be seen as an Arab or a Black. This gravely stunts job opportunities in skilled jobs, and it's also an obstacle to climbing the ladder in a given job*. This racism took ages to change. IMO, the shift is becoming quicker since the riots, which is good news.

3. The cités weren't merely a quick way to house people, they were also a social experiment. They were aimed at being almost self-sufficient. A big village if you wish. And in that regard it is a stunning success. In a cité, people know each other better than in residential areas (at least, from my experience). The result, however, is that many people barely get out of the cité, which becomes their little universe.
This effect is worsened by the fact that many cités have been built near remote factories. Once the factory closes down, the inhabitants are very far from the rest of the city. The workers and students get long commute hours (Clichy, in which the riots started, was 1h30 away of the closest university, using mass transit). Those who neither work or study tend to hang around in the cité.
Generally on the street or in the basements, for lack of adapted places where to hang out. Those streets and basements become their territory. The basements are the actual no-go zones: the law only goes there with overwhelming force: at any other moment, a basement that's used as territory can be used for anything illegal: trafficking mostly, but most group rapes also occur there.


Those three factors cumulated make for an explosive cocktail. You have a population that has no expectation of a stable and fulfilling job. They are unlikely to leave the cité, as they or their parents will stagnate at low-level jobs, that can't afford a better housing.
The population, being largely coloured, feels it is unjustly discriminated against, and resents such a society. They spend most hours hanging out among themselves, with few distractions outside of the cité (hanging out at the mall is an important one). They have places they consider to be their territory.


Yet, those three factors alone don't explain why the cités turned into "no-go zones". Despite those factors, they could have turned different. In this post, I've writtent about structural causes, but there are also many conjunctural factors that contribute to worsen or alleviate the problem. However, it's late, and I can't be arsed to talk about them now.



*An example, back when I was working on the construction site. The site's boss told me to assist a colleague for a week. I knew nothing about the task, so the colleague (a black man) ordered me around. Several white colleagues, including a team leader, were shocked to see a white guy obey a black man, even though they all knew of my rookieness. Needless to say, I don't expect that team leader to prop up black workers. And if a black became team leader, he'd have much more trouble earning respect from his subordinates.

[Drake Tungsten]

I don't know which aspect of this thread is the more embarassing: the dreadful article in the opening post or the ludicrous analysis of France by North Americans (LOTM excepted) that followed? Thank goodness Spiffor came along to set you all straight.

[DAVOUT]

Spiffor,

Just two examples of real experience of « cités » and « discrimination”.

- In 1965 in a small town at 60 km from Paris. Housing was needed mainly for immigrant workers, but not only, also for French nationals, including middle class workers (foreman and supervisors). There was plenty of land available (La Beauce) but it was decided to build 6 and 12 levels buildings. Quickly people started leaving the cité for individual houses, generally newly build. And with a reduced occupancy, the cite began deteriorating. Until it was partly destroyed and rehabilitated in the 1990. We now know that the error was architectural; life is more pleasant, comfortable and secure in an area made of individual houses; in addition, the argument of the cost does not hold if you take into consideration the additional costs of high buildings : lifts, security, and the deficit resulting from the reduced occupancy during the life of the building, and the pure loss recognized when a building is destroyed after only 30 years.
- I have often employed workers from North African origin. I have observed that they generally react badly to reproaches or even remarks, saying that I was racist in doing so. I always explained that all my employees were treated the same way, and that they all have to execute my orders. That was enough. I think that the word discrimination has been overused by people and organisation with a political agenda. This is particularly obvious when you hear that youths are discriminated because their rate of unemployment is higher than the one of experienced workers: there are times, areas and industries where the offer of job requiring no experience is smaller than the number of youths looking for a job.

[DAVOUT]

Discrimination against the youths.

- Seniority premium and all advantages based on seniority (that is: not based on performance) results in discriminating the youth.
- Cost of car insurance for young drivers: Insurance aims theoretically to mutualize the risk of all those subscribing the same contract; this is generally true, except for the young car drivers whose risk is refused by older drivers (in France).