Ok, let's see if I get it or not

My comments in no particular order:
I know they speak French well, but the language alone doesn't integrate them into society. I know that the majority are from Northern Africa. In fact, I only mentioned the Middle East once in this entire thread (I didn't keep mentioning it), and only as an example (twice if you count me mentioning Qatar, but feel free to replace Qatar with Algeria and replace Middle East with Northern Africa, The Ukraine, Asia or any other place of origin -- the points still stand).


I knew about this issue. I didn't raise it because my focus was on Chirac's failing policy of forced diversity and not on France's views on Religion (or its intolerance towards religion). This law didn't boost my argument at all, so I didn't refer to it.
It is true that France is a largely atheistic nation. It has laws that restrict free expression of many religions. This is not a new occurrance. Immigrants to France should have been aware of this. If they choose to live in France, then they must understand that French laws are going to impact their lives including their religious expression. Expecting the French to change their stance is simply unrealistic.
Certainly the ban on headscarves and other items of religious expression in France is somewhat more recent, but it is in line with other French laws and could have been anticipated.

These difficulties exist with any immigrant group regardless of time period. In the 1970s, many Cambodians came to the United States fleeing the Khmer Rouge (a large number came to my home city). They adapted very quickly and integrated successfully into our society. They too faced discrimination at first (unfortunately), but the discrimination couldn't stand up when they showed themselves to be willing to adapt and integrate. They committed to dressing as we dress, acting as we act, etc. They retained their culture, but still became part of ours because they realized, as immigrants, that they would have to change significantly when the left Cambodia and moved to the U.S.
Why do you think that they were so successful where other minorities aren't? There weren't any special laws for them. They weren't given any special treatment. Their success was because they took the steps to achieve.

You keep making my points for me, thanks. Yes, you hated these kids when you were there, and they likely hated you. These aren't statments made of people who are trying to integrate into society. These are statements made of those who don't want to succeed in society. They hassled you for money or tried to rob you. The French majority is supposed to then turn around and hire these same robbers?
Yes, contempt breeds contempt. If the immigrants had embraced French society and French customs instead of remaining separate from them, would that contempt be what it is today? Generally speaking, a majority group doesn't often have any feeling of contempt for a minority group. Instead the majority group often simply ignores the minority. The minority group views the majority as oppressive not because of any overt action, but because they are being ignored. This isn't true oppression, it is simply the desire of the majority to live their own lives and to not bother with things that they aren't comfortable with.
Yes, Chirac is a wuss. If he were a real man, who understood reality, he'd be a better leader. Yes Sarkozy is a hard liner, and I think he showed poor judgement in his statements (of course he had been attacked by these people).

Actually, I asked for a hard case of oppression. I admitted that discrimination exists, but oppression is a bit stronger of an issue. Oppression is an unjust use of force or authority to keep someone down (force or authority suggests that the French government themselves would be the ones doing the oppressing, a thought contradicted by Chirac's own policies; note that an individual cannot oppress another without having some power or authority over that person, so one cannot accuse French citizens or even French society of oppression of immigrants because that authority doesn't exist in that relationship).
That said, 30% unemployment suggests 70% unemployment. That isn't oppression. Those numbers say that 70% of the immigrants (a significant majority) in these neighborhoods have been successful at finding jobs. That a significant number have integrated in society well enough to have employment and perhaps a chance of success. 70% have not experienced "oppression", and although they have likely experienced some level of discrimination, they've overcome it.
I don't suggest that the remaining 30% are being lazy, but I do suggest that they aren't doing all that they can to succeed unless there are simply no more jobs available (anyone check the help wanted section of any French Newspapers lately?). I've read many news articles, during these riots, where many of the youths involved are interviewed (not by U.S. media). The reports suggested that these youths are directionless. They've adopted an attitude of ambivalence. They aren't ambitious; they don't have any goals in life. Now I'm not saying that this is the majority opinion in these immigrant neighborhoods (the 70% employment rate suggests that the majority are hard working and dedicated people). What I am saying is that these people feel left out of society and as much as they blame society, I suggest that they are equally responsible. It is unrealistic to expect society to change for them and to go out of its way to embrace them. If they want to be included into society, then they need to make choices to become includable.
This is not too different from what teenagers experience in the U.S. At some point, groups that used to be friendly, split off into cliques which exclude certain members (sometimes this is based on shared interests, style of clothing, etc.). Those excluded teens often complain about how unfair it is, but they rarely take the obvious necessary steps to re-integrate into the clique. The ones that do take these steps tend to succeed.
I'm also not saying that any of this is "fair". It isn't. Discrimination is an ugly thing. It is an expression of unfounded and illogical hatred. Nonetheless it is real and it does exist. Nobody can pass a law that will prevent it. Nobody can make it go away. The minorities who are discriminated against have a choice, they can take steps to minimize the chance they will be discriminated against, or they can withdraw into their own cultural ghetto. From all reports, that withdrawl is what has happened in some of these neighborhoods in France. The problem with the withdrawl from society is that it causes those who discriminate to feel justified in their ridiculous stance. That is why Sarkozy feels comfortable with his comments. He held a negative opinion of the immigrants and they reinforced it by attacking him. If, instead they had been peaceful and polite, if they had treated him well, to his surprise, then he'd have left feeling foolish for his opinions. Instead he feels justified because the worst of what he thought about the immigrants have been shown by their actions towards him.

Let's be fair here. I'm not advocating facism, nor am I advocating oppression or discrimination. I'm simply stating that they exist. They are a reality to be faced (and defeated). I'm also stating an approach that will work better than what is currently being tried (IMO). It is clear that accepting other people's unique cultures is a good thing. It is clear that some tolerance of other cultures is necessary. The French people practicing discrimination against the immigrants are clearly in the wrong. All that said, it is France, where this is occurring. French culture is the reality of the nation. While the ideal may very well be a loving diversity, one cannot force people to accept diversity if they choose not to. Immigrants need to understand that they must compromise to be accepted into French society. In fact, being a minority group, they'll need to compromise more than the French people will. That is reality. It may not be "fair" or "just" but it is still real. If the minority makes these compromises and integrates into French society, then it can apply pressure from within to change social mores. If it simply refuses, then it will bump against a wall of unchanging social mores and eventually violence occurrs.
Chirac wants us to be one happy diverse family, but neither the French majority, nor the minorities in France want that at this point. As such, the policy is unrealistic (which is why it fails). The American "experiment" has shown us that over 200 years, the "melting pot" has not occurred, and instead the "salad bowl" is a better example. In the United States, we still have groups of different cultures. Italians live near Italians, Irish near Irish, Hispanics near Hispanics, Chinese near Chinese, etc. What we've accomplished, however is that we, in our public/professional lives, set aside our ethnic/cultural ideosyncrasies and find a non-ethnic, amoral middle ground where we can deal with each other. That middle ground is societal norms. Those who don't adapt to those norms tend to remain outside of the mainsream society and end up not as successful as others who take the steps to assimilate.

You are correct that in Europe and indeed most of the world, there are still ancient ties to ideas such as aristocracy. That the rich will always be rich and there is no hope for the poor to improve their lot in life. That is, quite simply, sad (IMO). That being said, however, we're not talking, at this point, about college or C-level careers (CEO, CFO, etc.). We're talking about getting a start in a "foreign" society. For many of the immigrants in France, French society is still foreign. They haven't adapted to it and then French clearly aren't embracing the minority culture. Chirac keeps hoping that these diverse cultures and diverse people will simply live happily together, but millenia of history tell us that this isn't a realistic expectation. Well, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it and France is repeating it right now.

I "get it", at least the reality of it. I simply have a different solution than you. By the way, my solution does indeed include an eventual acceptance of both cultures and perhaps even a merging of them where possible, but it also acknowledges that it will take generations and that huge compromises will have to be made, especially at the beginning, by the minorities. It may not be "fair", but at least it is an approach that admits the current situation, instead of an approach that suggests some "magical" resolution (a diversity policy) that ignores the human reality.

I agree with you Skan that a law prohibiting a religious observance is wrong. Amazingly, it goes against Chirac's diversity plan, but then again, it isn't at all surprising, because of the atheist nature of France. The thing is that Chirac wants diversity without religion and he doesn't realize that religion is part of diversity. I admit that this places the immigrants in France in an untenable position. Frankly, if it were me, I'd do what I could to leave France in the face of such a law, but if they are going to stay, then they're going to have to adapt in some manner (private schools might be an option, but of course that won't help them integrate). Sometimes there isn't an easy answer.

I like him too. He's pretty smart and although we don't see eye-to-eye on most issues, he's willing to stand up and discuss (which earns my respect). That is what this board is for, isn't it?

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan