Neither French nor Arab are “racial” concepts. “Race”, as applied to humans, is largely a fantasy, but if it existed it would presumably be more-or-less immutable, not something you could “convert” to–a leopard can’t change its spots and so on, though I suppose there is the concept of “half-breeds”.
French and Arab are both ethno-cultural concepts–as President Sarkozy shows, you can convert your ethno-cultural identity (from Hungarian, among other things, to French) by doing things like moving to France, learning to speak French, your children growing up with French as their first language, and self-identifying yourself as “French”.
Most of the 400 million “Arabs” don’t live in Arabia, and they aren’t even necessarily the direct descendants of people who came from Arabia. It’s not like the Arab nomads physically wiped out the Egyptians; it’s just that Egypt became an Arab-speaking country, the Arab Republic of Egypt. “Racially”, modern Egyptians are no doubt descended from the “race” that built the Pyramids (with assorted genetic contributions from the Hyksos, Persians, Macedonians, Arabs, etc.). If Arabic speakers moved to (or invaded) France and persuaded (or forced) the population to switch from speaking French to speaking Arabic, then you could say “France” had ceased to exist. If Arabic speakers move to France and learn to speak French and consider themselves to be Frenchmen, while also continuing to practice Islam, then they’re just Frenchmen who happen to be Muslim.
You’re right that there’s a problem with Muslim immigrants in Europe not wanting to assimilate. This is caused by both sides, and many Muslims no doubt need to change their attitudes, but again, minaret-bashing and similar policies are not the way to do that.
Are there no black French people? Because their presence doesn’t go back 1,200 years. But I’ve met tons of people who are black and French and have no claim to anything other than being French.
The idea that there are any clear racial-cultural dividers is one that can only exist when it is actively enforced. Left on our own, we mate, reproduce, speak, work and during the course of the we create our culture based on our understanding of the past and present. That is exactly how France and Switzerland got their cultures to begin with- not by someone sitting down and mandating Swiss culture.
Without a link to regular accounts of Jews, Christians, Muslims and Mormons getting down and partying together, I’d be more inclined to define it as an ‘uneasy harmony’.
Maybe so, but I never said anything about one religion being favoured over another. And do the non-believers not get a say in the matter?
It rather seems transparent “protecting existing culture” is really a covering excuse that does not stand up to logical scrutiny.
It might be if it were not entirely factually wrong.
Entirely false.
The French “people” are essentially a 19th century creation. Prior to the 19th century move to centralisation, not only was standard French a minority language (in the south the native tongue is (was) a language closer to Catalan than Paris French), but it is documented that people identified rather less as French than “Picard” or “Gascon” or whatnot. The French sensitivity to language and national unity in culture comes from the very fact that they were NOT unified for 1200 years.
It is also a historical fact that large swaths of Eastern, Northern and Southern France spent much of the past 1400 years under the rule of Sovereigns other than the King in Paris.
But thanks for the opportunity to highlight the fact you’re relying on an entirely mythological rather than historical view of the people you’re referring to. Useful political mythologies, but have fuck all to do with historical reality.
No, you’re missing the point. That clause in the Constitution is not meant simply to say that there is no discriminatory treatment, but that there is no distinction among French citizens on the basis of their origin. They are all French. That’s the essence of the French policy on nationality, as developed through the 19th century centralisation policy that wmfellows refers to above.
It isn’t always strictly adhered to, and of course there are right-wingers who take a different view. But this notion you have that “Frenchness” is genetically transmitted and not something that can be acquired is simply false, as is so much else that you have posted.
South Korean society is touting that same stuff; however, it’s not true that Korea was founded on a common heritage or common language. It was founded on a couple of the old kingdoms losing to one of the other old kingdoms. And they were multicultural kingdoms at that. There’s still a case to be made that modern South Korea consists of two major language areas: Korean and Jeju.
As to that, there are probably some Waloon nationalists who would disagree with you there. They’d say that their nationality is Walloon. The country they live in is Belgium.
And, to further complicate that, China’s extreme nationalism- born of both history and modern political aims- has led many Chinese people to claim that all East Asian cultures are basically bastardized Han Chinese culture (which, as a concept of a unified culture, has it’s own origins largely created for political goals) and thus Korea is ultimately Chinese.
I’ve personally met many Chinese who are genuinely baffled as to why Japan and Korea don’t want to give the Chinese respect and admiration for so generously sharing The Greatest Culture on Earth with them. Chinese travel guides to Japan and Korea often have rather pointed references explanations about the Chinese origins of traditional dishes, architecture, etc. China is even tentatively starting to claim some Korean historical sites in Korean boundaries as being essentially Chinese and teaching Korean historical events as Chinese history.
Meanwhile, China has to reconcile the idea that their famous 55 minorities are essentially Chinese because of historic territorial claims despite having cultures very different than the construct known as Han Chinese, while also claiming that Chinese influenced cultures that have never been ruled by China are also essentially Chinese. They’ve essentially managed to use the idea of “cultural heritage” to claim whatever the hell they want.
This is the ridiculous, stupid, and ultimately dangerous stuff when you start trying to claim that any culture has a single essence. If you’ve got enough power, you can twist pretty much any definition of “culture” to fit your agenda.
Note the word “exclusively” in my post. If you are going to allow immigrants to become citizens then, by definition, you do not consider nationality defined as common heritage to be an exclusive definition of nationality.
And who’s talking about anyone “taking over” anything? There does not seem to have been any hint of Switzerland’s Muslims demanding special recognition for cultural or religious difference.
This statement makes no sense at a number of levels. First, “European” is a term that, except as the name of a continent, has only recently developed any kind of identitarian coherence–in the wake of supranational alliances like the European Union.
If you think back on Europe’s history I think you’ll find that “Europeans” spent centuries, up until the middle of the last one, fighting each other rather than celebrating their common “Europeanness.”
If there is any coherence to Europe it’s in Enlightenment principles like cosmopolitanism, universalism, and yes, liberty. While religious tolerance within Christian sects had something to do with promoting those Enlightenment values so too did ancient Greek and even some pagan ideas from the pre-modern past. And Europe has never been wholly Christian; in addition to minority religions like Judaism and proximate ones like Islam the thing to bear in mind is that many people in Europe have long been secular.
In fact what’s really going on in Europe right now IMO isn’t that “Christians” are feeling threatened by Muslims but that a largely secular population feels threatened by religious fundamentalism in the shape of Islam–sometimes for understandable reasons but often not–and therefore feels tempted to revert to particularisms like narrowly defined nationality, race, and sectarian religion as well as by notions of “Europe” as Western, Christian, and white. (As I said in my last post, psychologically what’s going on actually has a lot do with economic globalization and the threat it poses to the social democratic way of life that has made Western Europe so prosperous in the postwar era.)
Finally, it’s just silly to say that the only unifying thing in American culture is the concept of liberty–if what you mean by that is that Europeans don’t value liberty (which of course they do) or that Americans don’t have nationalist sentiments (which they do).
Let me ask you something adaher since I assume you are a US citizen. On what do you base your knowledge of Europe? Have you traveled there for any length of time? Worked there? Lived there? Studied the place?
Yes Captain Amazing just like there are some in Quebec who prefer not to think of themselves as Canadians. But the great majority ethnically French citizens of Belgian are well aware that they are Belgian nationals and their passports are EU.
I seem to recall a city ordinance in Santa Fe, New Mexico that stipulates buildings must at least look like adobe, to conform with the local heritage. It doesn’t specifically ban other types of buildings, just says buildings must look like this. This is the closest I can come to anything like this ban the Swiss have voted. Could the Swiss ban be construed as sort of the same thing? Minarets not part of Swiss heritage? Although I recall a lot of buildings from my time in Switzerland that did not look like chalets and such.
wmfellows beat me to this, almost word for word really. But just to reiterate the point, this is completely and utterly wrong. Nationalism is very young, younger than the United States to some extent. Just ask the folks in Alsace about how they were “united” to France by a common language and culture ;).
By the way, Xotan, Switzerland is not “basically Protestant.” There are more Catholic Swiss than Protestants by a small margin. It is fact one of the most evenly divided countries in Europe in that respect.
But a minaret isn’t a style–it’s a religious structure associated with one religion only. Whereas a style ban applies to all kinds of buildings equally. So that presumably a minaret that conformed to the Santa Fe aesthetic (easy enough to imagine) would not be banned.
But it isn’t remotely similar because the Swiss minaret ban is offensive to Muslims all over the world and prejudicial to Muslim citizens of Switzerland. Whereas the Santa Fe ban is offensive to no one and prejudicial to no person or religion because it applies equally to anyone and anything.
These architectural arguments have now been debunked on several grounds: Swiss architecture isn’t uniform to begin with and the number of minarets, existing and planned, was very small.
So why grant the Swiss decision this architectural fig leaf?
It’s a regrettable–naked–case of Islamophobia pure and simple. And if, as was suggested earlier, the SPP used an aesthetic or architectural argument to gussy up their position in more respectable garb they haven’t really fooled anyone, have they?