Many, especially those on the right-wing, are not only correlating but seeking evidence for how the riots and gang-coordinated violence in France might be related to Islam.

Correlation, despite our desire for an orderly and understandable universe, does not prove causality.

In this particular case, it is similar to the violence in the late 1960s and early 70s in the US, where there were riots that originated in areas that were mainly inhabited by people whose skin color is commonly described as black.

Does this mean that blacks are inherently violent? The predominant view today is only a racist would say so.

However, it is apparently perfectly acceptable to say that since the riots in France are occurring in regions inhabited predominantly by Muslims (many if not most of whom are African and NOT Arab, by the way) somehow proves that Islam is inherently violent.

Yet, somehow, this thinking is acceptable, even though the logic differs not at all from the “logic” of the latter half of the 20th century used to justify all kinds of racism.

I have a theory about racism; it is a way for people to avoid the hard work of thinking.

I have a theory about hate; it is a way for people to avoid the hard work of thinking.

We should seek out the true origins of the riots, and as has been written elsewhere, I suspect we will discover they have far more in common with the origins of the riots in the United States of the later half of the 20th century than with some grand Islamist conspiracy to overthrow “the West.”

A brief aside, “the West” was a convenient label for the Cold War but no longer applies in the post-Soviet world; something we forget at our peril is what Charles de Gaulle once said to the President of Israel when the unfortunate President expressed gratitude to de Gaulle for France being a good ally of Israel, “France has no friends, no allies, only interests.”

(Another aside, we should never forget that the greatest French leader since Napoleon, who was really Corsican, also said, “You may be sure that the Americans will commit all the stupidities they can think of, plus some that are beyond imagination.”)

The riots in France are not, when examined fundamentally, about Islam.

Despite the official policy of France to enforce and insist upon integration, the reality is that integration is far, far, far more difficult than it is in the United States.

Many if not most of those in the US will not understand this, because it is completely foreign to their experience (quasi-pun semi-intended).

Europe, while providing the origin of most of the immigrants that the United States absorbed in the 19th and 20th centuries, is NOT the same as the United States. In Europe, national identity is provided at least in part by ethnicity, far more than is true in the US, even with the racial issues that persist 35 years after the peak of the movement for equal civil rights in the US for ALL, regardless of skin color or origin.

To put it simply, since Europe has not had to evolve in the same way as the United States, where even though insufficient the US has indeed at least partially acknowledged that we have been and in some ways persist in being unfair to groups of people through no fault of their own, that lack of evolution has hobbled the governments and societies of Europe when it comes to recognizing and integrating immigrants.

The riots in France (and other places in Europe) are not because of Islam.

They are because despite the stated intentions and goals of the governments, true integration has not occurred for reasons that are beyond the control of governments.

Does this mean that the culture of the US is somehow better than that of Europe?

Perhaps… yet we should never forget that the culture of the US arose from Europe.

We should never forget that the culture of the US has benefited in ways not yet recognized from immigrants, even those from Mexico that are continually decried by many.

We integrate them without a government mandate.

Europe does not integrate them despite government mandates.

I have seen the results of both schemes, first hand.

I have dated people who were immigrants or daughters of immigrants to the US from Mexico.

I have met and had deep discussions with folks who are immigrants or children of immigrants of parents from Africa or other regions into France.

The fundamental point:

The violence in France and elsewhere in Europe has little if anything to do with fundamentalist Islam or Islamist ideology. It is more closely related to the riots in the United States of the late 1960s and early 1970s of an economic underclass that is unfairly excluded from the workforce.

It is an old adage in Christian-based society, idle hands find the Devil’s work.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Actually, it is not hard to understand, but people see what they WANT to see.

Therefore, right-wingers seeking reasons to spread hate say that the riots are due to Islamist influences.

Seeing what you want to see, a peril that we all face, yet which extremists seem to be particularly susceptible to, unsurprisingly.

I personally have some family issues that have given me some perspective on the world at large, especially when it comes to the long-term.

Yet, I cannot let this pass with the right-wing in their oh-so-obvious salivations to attribute the riots to some vast, Islamist conspiracy pass unacknowledged.

There is far, far more than first appears to the riots in France.

I ask you to look deeper.

Do not succumb to those asking you to follow the easy path of fear and hate.

Technorati Tags: commentary, France, race issues, right wing, right wing blogs, right wing weblogs, right-wing, right-wing blogs, right-wing weblogs, riots in France

As recently noted at Bloggledygook, I’ve been trying to pull together a number of different things I see, such as attitudes expressed in blog posts, statements made by public figures, actions taken by the US government, and many other things. It has been tough slogging, until today when I read a blog post that had a title and a message that was essentially, “the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim.”

History is rife with statements like that.

“The only good injun is a dead injun.”

“The only good Jew is a dead Jew.”

“The only good Kraut is a dead Kraut.”

“The only good nip is a dead nip.”

“The only good gook is a dead gook.”

“The only good nigger is a dead nigger.”

The list goes on. Some statements prompted by wars, others by racism, yet others by simple, unreasoning hatred.

Making it impersonal, using offensive names to make it abstract merely hides the fundamental hatred. A hatred which is more tragic because it is hollow, because it originates out of fear.

The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him but because he loves what is behind him.
   -G.K. Chesterton

Are we fighting for hatred?

It begins to sound more and more that we are fighting not simply for self-defense, but in the name of hate.

Is this truly the best we can do?

I think it is not our best.

If we fight out of hate, we will lose because we will have become the same as our enemy.

This is not hyperbole. You have to only look at our own history for what hate can prompt “right-thinking men” to do.

Just this summer a murderer was finally convicted of a crime that 40 years ago when he committed it a jury of “right-thinking men” would have refused to reach a verdict of guilt.

Never underestimate the power of hate in how it twists and distorts right-thinking into something its practitioners would reject if they were not in thrall to the hate.

I am choosing not to link to the post that prompted the crystallization of my thoughts (along with many others) because I am not interested in getting into a blogwar, nor do I desire to give the despicable sentiment expressed in the post that was the catalyst any additional readership beyond the large volume it already has.

There is more to life and blogging than trackbacks to gain momentary traffic consisting of people who will doubtlessly disagree and leave frequently idiotic and always hate-filled comments.

There is more to life than blogging.

We each have to make our own decisions, we each must choose between unreasoning hatred and reasoning doubt.

The unreasoning hatred is far more comfortable, but the reasoning doubt has more probability for long-term success, despite what those who chose hate may spew in their absolutist screeds.

What are the fundamentals? What are we truly defending when the President stands up and says, “The terrorists hate everything we stand for.”?

I ask you to read what is written on the right and the left sides of the political spectrum, and then ask that question of them both.

I suspect the answers you might get if they choose to reply will be unsatisfying.

Neither side truly represents the fundamental principles.

As I am sure has been articulated before, but not recently that I have seen as well as that by Josh Neuhouser at The Descent of Wonder:

Ideas are dangerous, and not because of the reasons people usually cite. It’s not because they have the chance of making people think and question their assumptions about the world, but because the more an idea gets propagated throughout society, the simpler it becomes, eventually losing all nuance and possibly (usually?) have nothing to do with the original intent/meaning.

Our founding principles have lost all nuance and possibility, and now have nothing to do with the original intent and meaning, not as currently interpreted by our courts, our legislative branch, nor our executive branch, not even if those supposed advocates of “originalism” get their way, for their thinking is not in alignment with the spirit of the ideas.

I recently posted a quote that might have perhaps made some uncomfortable and others react in derision:

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stomping on a human face — forever.
   -George Orwell

As Michael Reynolds wrote at The Mighty Middle in tribute to Rosa Parks:

George Orwell wrote 1984 as a warning against the power he thought government had to obliterate freedom and even to erase the fundamental yearning for freedom and justice. The counterpoint to Orwell’s pessimism was Rosa Parks. She was the proof that humans will never entirely submit, will never be entirely cowed, will never finally forget freedom and accept tyranny. After two hundred years of slavery and a hundred years of Jim Crow, after a million lashings and lynchings, there, at the very epicenter of American racism, was a tiny little black woman, outnumbered and overpowered, who still knew right from wrong, still burned for justice, still had the courage to say, no, I won’t submit.

Yet, despite the counterpoint of the individual that Reynolds celebrates, in the 50 years since Rosa Parks and her simple defiance, in the five decades since George Orwell’s warnings, the power of government has expanded both through the advance of technology and in an increase of scope of power through fear in the wake of terrorist attacks.

Most of the choices I have seen in the past four years have been made out of fear, or made when using fear to manipulate, to spin.

What was true 54 years ago has not changed, what we have to fear most is fear itself, along with the hate engendered that is so easy to manipulate.

Technorati Tags: amber and cruelty, anti-torture amendment, left wing, left wing politics, left wing weblogs, left-wing, left-wing politics, left-wing weblogs, politics, right wing, right wing politics, right wing weblogs, right-wing, right-wing politics, right-wing weblogs, some thoughts