WHY IS FRANCE BURNING? The rebellion of a lost generation
Saturday night was the 10th day of the spreading youth riots that have much of France in flames—and it was the worst night ever since the first riot erupted in a suburban Paris ghetto of low-income housing, with 1295 vehicles—from private cars to public buses—burned last night, a huge jump from the 897 set afire the previous evening. And, for the first time, the violence born in the suburban ghettos last night invaded the center of Paris—some 40 vehicles were set alight in Le Marais (the pricey home to the most famous gay ghetto in Paris), around the Place de la Republique nearby, and in the bourgeois 17th arrondissement, within walking distance from the dilapidated ghetto of the Goutte d’Or in the 18th arrondissement.
As someone who lived in France for nearly a decade, and who has visited those suburban ghettos, where the violence started, on reporting trips any number of times, I have not been surprised by this tsunami of inchoate youth rebellion that is engulfing France. It is the result of thirty years of government neglect: of the failure of the French political classes—of both right and left—to make any serious effort to integrate its Muslim and black populations into the larger French economy and culture; and of the deep-seated, searing, soul-destroying racism that the unemployed and profoundly alienated young of the ghettos face every day of their lives, both from the police, and when trying to find a job or decent housing.
To understand the origins of this profound crisis for France, it is important to step back and remember that the ghettos where festering resentment has now burst into flames were created as a matter of industrial policy by the French state.
If France’s population of immigrant origin—mostly Arab, some black—is today quite large (more than 10% of the total population), it is because there was a government and industrial policy during the post-World War II boom years of reconstruction and economic expansion which the French call “les trentes glorieuses”—the 30 glorious years—to recruit from France’s foreign colonies laborers and factory and menial workers for jobs which there were no Frenchmen to fill. These immigrant workers, primarily from North Africa, were desperately needed to allow the French economy to expand due to the shortage of male manpower caused by two World Wars, which killed many Frenchmen, and slashed the native French birth-rates too. Moreover, these immigrant workers (especially Moroccans, particularly favored in the auto industry) were favored by industrial employers as passive and unlikely to strike (in sharp contrast to the highly political Continental French working class and its militant, largely Communist-led unions) and cheaper to hire. In some industries, for this reason, literacy was a disqualification—because an Arab worker who could read could educate himself about politics and become more susceptible to organization into a union. This government-and-industry-sponsored influx of Arab workers (many of whom then saved up to bring their families to France from North Africa) was reinforced following Algerian independence by the arrival of the Harkis.
The Harkis ( whose story is movingly told by Dalila Kerchouche in her Destins de Harkis) were the native Algerians who fought for and worked with France during the post-war anti-colonial struggles for independence—and who for their trouble were horribly treated by France. Some 100,000 Harkis were killed by the Algerian FLN (National Liberation Front) after the French shamelessly abandoned them to a lethal fate when the French occupying army evacuated itself and the French colonists from Algeria. (Above Left, a Harki with his throat slit by the FLN.) Moreover, those Harki families who were saved, often at the initiative of individual military commanders who refused to obey orders not to evacuate them, once in France were parked in unspeakable, filthy, crowded concentration camps for many long years and never benefited from any government aid—a nice reward for their sacrifices for France, of which they were, after all, legally citizens. Their ghettoized children and grandchildren, naturally, harbor certain resentments—the Harki tragedy is still an open wound for the Franco-Arab community.
France’s other immigrant workers were warehoused in huge, high-rise low-income housing ghettos—known as “cits” (Americans would say “the projects”)—specially built for them, and deliberately placed out of sight in the suburbs around most of France’s major urban agglomerations, so that their darker-skinned inhabitants wouldn’t pollute the center cities of Paris, Lyon, Toulouse, Lille, Nice and the others of white France’s urban centers, today encircled by flames. Often there was only just enough public transport provided to take these uneducated working class Arabs and blacks directly to their jobs in the burgeoning factories of the “peripherique”—the suburban peripheries that encircled Paris and its smaller sisters—but little or none linking the ghettos to the urban centers.
Now 30, 40, and 50 years old, these high-rise human warehouses in the isolated suburbs are today run-down, dilapidated, sinister places, with broken elevators that remain unrepaired, heating systems left dysfunctional in winter, dirt and dog-shit in the hallways, broken windows, and few commercial amenities—shopping for basic necessities is often quite limited and difficult, while entertainment and recreational facilities for youth are truncated and totally inadequate when they’re not non-existent. Both apartments and schools are over-crowded (birth control is taboo in the Muslim culture the immigrants brought with them and transmitted to their children, and even for their male grandchildren of today—who’ve adopted hip-hop culture and created their own French-language rap music of extraordinary vitality (which often embodies stinging social and political content)—condoms are a no-no because of Arab machismo, contributing to rising AIDS rates in the ghettos.
The first week in December will mark the 22nd anniversary of the Marche des Beurs (Beur means Arab in French slang). I was present to see the cortege of 100,000 arrive in Paris—it was the Franco-Arab equivalent of Dr. Martin Luther King’s 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Justice. The Marche des Beurs was organized from Lyon’s horrific, enormous suburban high-rise ghetto, Les Minguettes, with the help of a charismatic left-wing French Catholic worker-priest, Father Christian Delorme, and its central theme was the demand to be recognized as French “comme les autres”—- like everyone else….a demand, in sum, for complete integration. But for the mass of Franco-Arabs, little has changed since 1983—and the integrationist movement of “jeunes beurs” created around that march petered out in frustration and despair as the dream of integration failed. In recent years, its place has been taken by Islamist fundamentalists operating through local mosques—the mediatic symbol of this retreat into a separatist, communitarian-religious politics is the slick demagogue Tariq Ramadan (left), a philosophy professor who uses one cosmetically democratic discourse when he’s speaking on French TV, and a fiery, hard-line fundamentalist discourse in the Arab-language cassettes of his speeches that sell like hotcakes to Franco-Arab ghetto youth. (Ramadan’s double language has been meticulously documented and exposed, and his deep ties to the extremist religious primitives of the Muslim Brotherhood (founded by his grandfather) detailed, by Arab-speaking journalist Caroline Fourest in her book published last fall by Editions Grasset, “Frere Tariq: discours, methode et strategie de Tariq Ramadan,” extracts from which have been published in the weekly l’Express. ) But the current rebellion has little to do with Islamic fundamentalism. It is the anguished scream of a lost generation in search of an identity, children caught between two cultures and belonging to neither—a rebellion of kids who, born in France and often speaking little Arabic, don’t know the country where their parents were born, but who feel excuded, marginalized and invisible in the country in which they live.
In 1990, Francois Mitterrand—the Socialist President then—described what life was like for jobless ghetto youths warehoused in the overcrowded “cits”:
“What hope does a young person have who’s been born in a quartier without a soul, who lives in an unspeakably ugly high-rise, surrounded by more ugliness, imprisoned by gray walls in a gray wasteland and condemned to a gray life, with all around a society that prefers to look away until it’s time to get mad, time to FORBID.”
Well, Mitterrand’s perceptive and moving words remained just that—words—for his urban policy was an underfunded, unfocussed failure that only put a few band-aids on a metastasizing cancer—and 15 years after Mitterrand’s diagnosis, the hopelessness and alienation of these ghetto youths and their “gray lives” has only become deeper and more rancid still.
The response to the last ten days of violent youth rebellion by the conservative government has been inept and tone-deaf. For the first four days of the rebellion, Chirac (left) and his Prime Minister, Dominique de Villepin (right) decided to let the hyper-ambitious, megalomaniacal Interior Minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, lead the government’s response to the youths’ violence and arson. Chirac and Villepin detest Sarkozy, who has been openly campaigning to replace Chirac as president in 2007 (Villepin was made P.M. in the hopes that he could block Sarkozy for the right’s presidential nomination), The President and his P.M. thought that “Sarko,” as he’s commonly referred to in France—who won his widespread popularity as a hardline, law-and-order demagogue on the issue of domestic insecurity—would be unable to stop the violence, and thus damage his presidential campaign.
But Sarkozy only poured verbal kerosene on the flames, dismissing the ghetto youth in the most insulting and racist terms and calling for a policy of repression. “Sarko” made headlines with his declarations that he would “karcherise” the ghettos of “la racaille”—words the U.S. press, with glaring inadequaxcy, has translated to mean “clean” the ghettos of “scum.” But these two words have an infinitely harsher and insulting flavor in French. “Karcher” is the well-known brand name of a system of cleaning surfaces by super-high-pressure sand-blasting or water-blasting that very violently peels away the outer skin of encrusted dirt—like pigeon-shit—even at the risk of damaging what’s underneath. To apply this term to young human beings and proffer it as a strategy is a verbally fascist insult and, as a policy proposed by an Interior Minister, is about as close as one can get to hollering “ethnic cleansing” without actually saying so. It implies raw police power and force used very aggressively, with little regard for human rights. I wonder how many Anglo-American correspondents get the inflammatory, terribly vicious flavor of the word in French? The translation of “karcherise” by “clean” just misses completely the provocative, incendiary violence of what Sarko was really saying. And “racaille” is infinitely more pejorative than “scum” to French-speakers—it has the flavor of characterizing an entire group of people as subhuman, inherently evil and criminal, worthless, and is, in other words, one of the most serious and dehumanizing insults one could launch at the rebellious ghetto youth. Kerosene, indeed.
As the rebellion has spread beyond the Paris suburbs as far south as Marseilles and Nice and as far north as Lille, Sarkozy has been thundering that the spreading violence is centrally “organized.” But on the telephone this morning from Paris, the dean of French investigative reporters—Claude Angeli, editor of Le Canard Enchaine, one of the most perspicacious political analysts I know— told me, “That’s not true—this isn’t being organized by the Islamist fundamentalists, as Sarkozy is implying to scare people. Sure, kids in neighborhoods are using their cellphones and text messages to warn each other where the cops are coming so they can move and pick other targets for their arson. But the rebellion is spreading across the country because the youth have a sense of solidarity with each other that comes from watching television—they imitate what they’re seeing, they have experienced themselves the same racist police abuse that helped spark the riots, and they sense themselves targeted by Sarkozy’s inflammatory rhetoric. The rebellion is spreading spontaneously—driven especially by racist police conduct that is the daily lot of these youths. It’s incredible the level of police racism—these young are arrested or controlled by the police, shaken down, pushed around, and have their papers checked simply because they have dark skins, and the police are verbally brutal, calling them ‘bougnoules’ [a racist insult, something like the American “towel-heads”, only worse], ‘dirty Arabs’ and more. The police bark, ‘Lower your eyes! Lower your eyes!’ as if they had no right even to look a policeman in the face. It’s utterly dehumanizing. No wonder these kids feel so divorced from authority.”
A team report in today’s French daily, Liberation (where I was once a columnist), interviews ghetto youths, and asks them to explain the reasons for their anger. And, the paper reports, “All, or almost all, cite ‘Sarko’....a 22-year old student says, ‘Sarkozy owes us his excuses for what he said. When I see what’s happened, I come back to the same image: Sarkozy when he went to Argenteuil, raising his head and thundering, Madame, we’re going to clean all that up. Result? Sarko sent every body over the top, he showed a total disrespect toward everybody’ in the ghetto.” A 13-year-old tells the Liberation reporters: “‘It’s us who are going to put Sarkozy through the Karcher…Will I be out making trouble tonight?’ He smiles and says, ‘that’s classified information.’”
Another 28-year-old youth: “Who’s setting the fires? They’re kids between 14 and 22, we don’t really know who they are because they put on masks, don’t talk, and and don’t brag about it the next day…but instead of fucking everything up where they live, it would be better if they held a demo, or went and fucked up the people and the stores in Paris. We’ve got a minister, Sarko, who says ‘You’re all the same.’ Me, I say Non, we all say Non—but in reply we still get, ‘You’re all the same.’ That response from the government creates something in common between all of us, a kind of solidarity. These kids want to get attention, to let people know they exist. So, they say to themselves, ‘If we get nasty and create panic, they won’t forget us, they’ll know we’re in a neighborhood where we need help.”
Yesterday, when Sarkozy—who is Minister of Religion as well as Interior Minister—wanted to make an appearance at the Catholic Bishops’ conference in Paris, they refused to let him speak—and instead, the Bishops issued a ringing statement denouncing “those who would call for repression and instill fear” instead of responding to the economic, social, and racial causes of the riots. This was an unusually sharp rebuke directed squarely at Sarkozy.
Under the headline “Budget Cuts Exasperate Suburban Mayors,” Le Monde reports today on how Chirac and his conservatives have compounded 30 years of neglect of the ghettos by slashing even deeper into social programs: 20% annual cuts in subsidies for neighborhood groups that work with youths since 2003, cuts in youth job-training programs and tax credits for hiring ghetto youth, cuts in education and programs to fight illiteracy, cuts in neighborhood police who get to know ghetto kids and work with them (when Sarkozy (right) went to Toulouse after the first riots there, he told the neighborhood police: “You’re job is not to be playing soccer with these kids, your job is to arrest them!” With fewer and fewer neighborhood cops to do preventive work that defuses youth alienation and violence, the alternative is to wait for more explosions of violence and then send in the CRS (Compagnies Republicaines de Securite, hard-line paramilitary riot police noted for rightwing political and racial prejudices). Budget cuts for social programs plus more repression is a prescription for more violence.
That’s why Le Monde’s editorial today warned that a continuation of this blind policy creates a big risk of provoking in the elections two years hence a repeat of 2002, when the neo-fascist Jean-Marie Le Pen made it into the presidential runoff.
And a majority of the country, empoisoned even more by racism after the violence of the last ten days, seems willing to accept more and more repression: a poll released last night on France 2 public TV shows that 57% of the French support Nicolas Sarkozy’s hard-line approach to the ghetto youths’ rebellion, now spreading right across France. Despite the mushrooming rebellion, Sarko (no doubt thinking of the polls) wrote an op-ed in today’s Le Monde entitled, “Our Strategy Is Working.” Well, the barely-concealed racism of Sarko’s demagogy may be working with the white electorate—but it won’t stop the violence, it will only increase it. And the violence will only further increase the racism among the French whose skins are white. So it is inevitable that what the French refer to as the “social fracture” will only get worse.
Visit Doug Ireland’s blog at http://direland.typepad.com/direland/