French citizenship [SPLIT from the username change thread] [Archive] - The Apricity Forum: A European Cultural Community

Electronic God-Man

10-14-2009, 12:15 AM

LOL. So for you, a Paki in London is like a Parisian of French-Italian (Italian being Romance and Catholic, just like France) descent in France? Very pertinent comparison, man. :D

Your way of explaining your feelings of patriotism sounds much like the the only kind of patriotism that could be felt by a foreigner. It's not home-grown.

A comparison with a Paki in London is legitimate in this case despite the fact that you are half French and half Italian (if I am getting your background right). Any objection you might have to it is rather silly. You don't care about race, ethnicity, blood, religion, etcetera, remember? You do care about culture, but since you accept any other culture into France to be Frenchified, it hardly seems like much of anything to say that Italy also happens to be a Romance country.

Mesrine

10-14-2009, 12:41 AM

Your way of explaining your feelings of patriotism sounds much like the the only kind of patriotism that could be felt by a foreigner. It's not home-grown.

Ridiculous statement. There is no such thing as a "home grown" French patriotic feeling. It has been imposed by centuries of Jacobinism, from Paris. The central power created modern France and also the French people, and in order to do so, it had to eradicate all local and regional cultures and languages.

BTW, I'm not even patriotic.

A comparison with a Paki in London is legitimate in this case despite the fact that you are half French and half Italian (if I am getting your background right).

You're getting it wrong, I'm totally French. The provenience of my paternal family is irrelevant, really. I don't have half-French and half-Italian nationalities. :D

So your comparison is not only illegitimate, but it's also ridiculous.

Any objection you might have to it is rather silly. You don't care about race, ethnicity, blood, religion, etcetera, remember?

I never expressed any objection to your "Londoner Paki", I asked you if you think a British Paki can be compared to me. Don't forget that you pretend to be a "European preservationist"* (LOL).

You do care about culture, but since you accept any other culture into France to be Frenchified

Assimilation is not about "Frenchifying" other cultures, but rather about destroying your original culture, in order to make it easier for you to absorb the French culture and become a real Frenchman.

I don't think you understand Jacobinism, or modern nationalism. Too bad, because you can't understand the history of France after 1789.

it hardly seems like much of anything to say that Italy also happens to be a Romance country.

You mean you don't see the differences between Italians and Pakistanis, the former being Romance Europeans, while the latter are South Asians? What a poor case of "European preservationist"** (re-LOL) you make, Soten.

* & **: You simply can't be a European preservationist, because you're American.

Osweo

10-14-2009, 12:47 AM

I'm quite as European as you are, Parisian, and I accept him as kin. So there. The world's not as simple as you'd like it to be, and reality will come and bite your mad Jacobinerie on the arse soon enough.

Mesrine

10-14-2009, 01:00 AM

I'm quite as European as you are, Parisian, and I accept him as kin. So there.

You're free to live in your own imaginary "white world", Mancunian.

The world's not as simple as you'd like it to be, and reality will come and bite your mad Jacobinerie on the arse soon enough.

Talking of reality, just watch a map of the world. The white man's countries are not united into a "European preservationist" empire. The world is not as simple as you'd like it to be. So if someone is mad and bitten on the arse by reality, it's you, and not in some hypothetic future, Osweo.

Electronic God-Man

10-14-2009, 01:24 AM

I never expressed any objection to your "Londoner Paki", I asked you if you think a British Paki can be compared to me. Don't forget that you pretend to be a "European preservationist"* (LOL).

You mean you don't see the differences between Italians and Pakistanis, the former being Romance Europeans, while the latter are South Asians? What a poor case of "European preservationist"** (re-LOL) you make, Soten.

* & **: You simply can't be a European preservationist, because you're American.

Who said I was a "European preservationist"? You're on this forum and you're not "European preservationist" (apparently this means racialist to you). I'm on the forum why does that make me a "European preservationist"?

I'm an American preservationist. :)

Mesrine

10-14-2009, 01:37 AM

You're on this forum and you're not "European preservationist"

My position was clear since the beginning.

(apparently this means racialist to you).

It means "racialist" for people who don't have the balls to simply assume what they are: racists.

I'm on the forum why does that make me a "European preservationist"?

You're here as an opponent, perhaps? :D

I'm an American preservationist. :)

Good to see you elvolving in the good direction. BTW what does "American preservationist" means? Preservationism of white American people, right? :D

Electronic God-Man

10-14-2009, 01:40 AM

BTW what does "American preservationist" means? Preservationism of white American people, right? :D

You are not an American. Anything you have to say about it does not matter!

:D

Mesrine

10-14-2009, 01:43 AM

You are not an American. Anything you have to say about it does not matter!

:D

Who said I will say anything about it, I'm just asking for your definition (if you're able to give me one). Be a bit logic, and don't feel so threatened.
Oh wait, I'm asking a "preservationist" not to feel threatened. Silly me. :D

SwordoftheVistula

10-14-2009, 01:48 AM

You mean you don't see the differences between Italians and Pakistanis

Sure...Pakistanis are capable of competently running convenience stores and Italians aren't :D

Osweo

10-14-2009, 01:54 AM

Christ, people, at least I havae the excuse that I was writing at the same time as Loki!

Electronic God-Man

10-14-2009, 02:04 AM

Who said I will say anything about it, I'm just asking for your definition (if you're able to give me one). Be a bit logic, and don't feel so threatened.
Oh wait, I'm asking a "preservationist" not to feel threatened. Silly me. :D

It was clearly a joke, faux Frenchie.

Mesrine

10-14-2009, 02:06 AM

It was clearly a joke, faux Frenchie.

The joke is that you believe to know what a vrai Frenchie is. :D

Electronic God-Man

10-14-2009, 02:14 AM

The joke is that you believe to know what a vrai Frenchie is. :D

I think those regional types who you were describing before seem more "French" to me. The Bretons, Gascons, et al.

France must be a lot like Italy. No one is really Italian, but Sicilian, Calabrian, Lombard, etc. Everyone who was born in France/Italy but is not part of those regional identities (ie foreigners...or in your lingo "with foreign roots") doesn't seem French/Italian to me.

Loddfafner

10-14-2009, 02:20 AM

Maybe one of those flamewar clubs was a better destination for this string of posts but no matter, the nature of French citizenship struck me as the most promising theme here. So, I will comment on that.

When I lived in France, I was taught that France, in contrast with Germany, was a nation of immigrants rather than one founded on an ethnicity. But one had to adopt the culture. My teacher identified himself as a refugee from Franco's Spain but was still as French as could be.

Later I realized the costs of this. France is more bound by politically correctness than the US. This doctrine is a fetter that prevents France from dealing with the numerous Maghrebis who do not fold themselves into the culture. In America, statisticians can at least count the immigrants. In France, even that is taboo.

Also, French regional culture has been erased. Their distinct languages downgraded to mere patois. I heard the peasants of Landes, Dordogne, and the Pyrenees speak and it was definitely not in French. In spirit, Paris conquered these alien lands only in the nineteenth century. Until surprisingly late, remote villages still maintained Medieval ways of life and hung any tax collectors that dared venture into their valleys.

Mesrine

10-14-2009, 02:34 AM

I think those regional types who you were describing before seem more "French" to me. The Bretons, Gascons, et al.

1) I wasn't refering to "types", but to regions, in what's left of their cultural meaning (if there's anything "regional" left in France)

2) There's no such thing as a "French type"

3) A Gascon type is a Gascon type, that's all

France must be a lot like Italy.

Actually it's very different. Provincialism and regionalism is much more developped in Italy, and at the same time, has started to be destroyed much later (this country started to be unified only in 1860).

In France we always had a strong royal centralism, way before the Revolution. It would be difficult to imagine revolutionary Jacobinism without Louis XIV's previous input.

No one is really Italian, but Sicilian, Calabrian, Lombard, etc. Everyone who was born in France/Italy but is not part of those regional identities (ie foreigners...or in your lingo "with foreign roots") doesn't seem French/Italian to me.

If people are not really French/Italian, because they're from regions (these regions aren't part of the country, is that what you mean?), tell me how you absolutely need to be from these regions in order to be really French/Italian? It simply doesn't add up.

You simply don't understand modern nationalism, you're stuck in an old regionalist mindframe. You really need to be past regionalism to truly feel "national". Read Loddfafner's previous post, he seems to understand some crucial points.

When I lived in France, I was taught that France, in contrast with Germany, was a nation of immigrants rather than one founded on an ethnicity.

No, not a "nation of immigrants". But republican universalist civic nation, opposed to ethno-racial nation. But you got the idea of opposition of conceptions of nations right.

But one had to adopt the culture. My teacher identified himself as a refugee from Franco's Spain but was still as French as could be.

Precisely my point. Not having deep regional roots could have help you feeling more French in these assimilationist times.

Later I realized the costs of this. France is more bound by politically correctness than the US. This doctrine is a fetter that prevents France from dealing with the numerous Maghrebis who do not fold themselves into the culture. In America, statisticians can at least count the immigrants. In France, even that is taboo.

It's not a matter of late XXth century PCness, but rather a matter of Human Rights. The Republic doesn't recognize races. It doesn't make sense for the institutions to count people based on characteristics that aren't recognized.

Also, French regional culture has been erased. Their distinct languages downgraded to mere patois. I heard the peasants of Landes, Dordogne, and the Pyrenees speak and it was definitely not in French. In spirit, Paris conquered these alien lands only in the nineteenth century.

True. Once could even say that true modern France was born in 1918, at the end of WW I.

Until surprisingly late, remote villages still maintained Medieval ways of life

If we except the big industrial cities, the rest of France was rural and arrierated until the 1960's, it's true. France changed almost beyond recognition in 30 to 40 years, mostly due to internal migrations (rural exodus to the cities, and more recently urban people's heliotropic migration to southern France).

Loxias

10-14-2009, 02:43 AM

Osweo

10-14-2009, 02:57 AM

It would be difficult to imagine revolutionary Jacobinism without Louis XIV's previous input.

Jacobins and l'etat, c'est moi, apres moi le deluge. Could you have more obnoxious, megalomaniac, and downright irresponsible intellectual ancestors? :eek:

SwordoftheVistula

10-14-2009, 11:19 AM

It's not a matter of late XXth century PCness, but rather a matter of Human Rights.

Aren't those the same thing-'human rights' being one of the euphemisms for 20th century marxist-derived political correctness

Aemma

10-14-2009, 02:19 PM

France's aim has been to be more than just the sum of its parts, more than just a mere congregation of regions. Paris grew out of this to impose its model, which, ironically, needed tone-downed regional identities to work. But this model worked to shape some amazing scientists and artists who are the pride of France (much more than the blood that runs through the French's vein). And many a Frenchman, wherever in the country they are from, are very likely to have origins in several French regions.
Nowadays, in the age of deconstruction (a intellectualised way of doing destruction, if you ask me), this French model has been questioned and fast reduced to pieces, the failure we see nowadays is the failure of the French model's ruin, not the French model itself.

But what is this French model exactly?

I find it fascinating that French republicanism appears to me to be so greatly different from American republicanism, yet the philosophies spring from the same well. American republicanism doesn't seem to have lost much (if any) of its sense of nativism whereas French republicanism barely has any to speak of. Or at best, some semblance of French nativism can be found in the regional cultural movements that seek to have their identities reborn and politically recognised--but even then, they appear to be a minority. Taking this one step further then, how can France make any kind of claim to having ANY true culture at all?

Is France but only the mere name of a country ie., a culturally-sterile geo-political entity, populated by a motley assortment of people who just happen to speak French (for the time being that is--there is so much English in your vocabulary now as compared to the French spoken in my own country), nothing more, nothing less???

Present-day France is a political nation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation). But as for it being a cultural nation, that is quite debatable.

The absence of any common culture that the second half of the XXth century left in France, has proven very weak in the face of the immigrants' solidly built and unquetioned cultures.
Now the question is : on what basis can French culture and identity be rebuilt? Can it be rebuilt?

Given all of this, such an animal doesn't seem to exist! :( Arguably as a French Canadian I could make some kind of argument that we are more "French" here than most present-day French people. :p

SwordoftheVistula

10-14-2009, 02:34 PM

I find it fascinating that French republicanism appears to me to be so greatly different from American republicanism, yet the philosophies spring from the same well.

That's debatable. One faction, led by our 3rd President Thomas Jefferson argued that this was so. Another faction, led by our 2rd President John Adams, contended that the French revolution was a clusterfuck organized by nutcases who were doomed to dictatorship and failure. Towards the end of his life, Jefferson wrote to Adams to indicate that he had come around more to Adams' position.

Wildland

10-14-2009, 03:15 PM

You got your own thread as of it this? I can also thank now for the time you for spammed my visitor messages with Roma posts. Thank you Al!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Derby_di_Roma.jpg

Stankovic in Lazio, couldn't you find any newer? If you had any with Cassono for Romas score, I wouldn't mind the image.

Poltergeist

10-14-2009, 03:27 PM

Nowadays, in the age of deconstruction (a intellectualised way of doing destruction, if you ask me)

Deconstruction is not necessarily a bad thing, provided that "values" that make out the structure are rotten.

Loxias

10-14-2009, 05:24 PM

But what is this French model exactly?

I find it fascinating that French republicanism appears to me to be so greatly different from American republicanism, yet the philosophies spring from the same well. American republicanism doesn't seem to have lost much (if any) of its sense of nativism whereas French republicanism barely has any to speak of. Or at best, some semblance of French nativism can be found in the regional cultural movements that seek to have their identities reborn and politically recognised--but even then, they appear to be a minority. Taking this one step further then, how can France make any kind of claim to having ANY true culture at all?

Is France but only the mere name of a country ie., a culturally-sterile geo-political entity, populated by a motley assortment of people who just happen to speak French (for the time being that is--there is so much English in your vocabulary now as compared to the French spoken in my own country), nothing more, nothing less???

Present-day France is a political nation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation). But as for it being a cultural nation, that is quite debatable.

Given all of this, such an animal doesn't seem to exist! :( Arguably as a French Canadian I could make some kind of argument that we are more "French" here than most present-day French people. :p

As I said, France was just regions with different cultures more or less united under kings. In that way the opposite of Germany with it's little kingdoms united by culture. How can a true nativist culture be born out of political federation? Could the two ever share the same conception?
French culture as we know it was created by an elite during the enlightenment, and is nothing to be ashamed of, it was based on intellectual values, and as I said, created lines of immense artists, scientists, writers, politicians, reformers, conquerers... It is an artificial culture based on what was thought to be the best of Western European heritage. This is the definition of French.
Now, this definition has crumbled down, and only a few hated conservatives or idealist school teachers are still attached to it.
Is there hope in regional cultures? I doubt so, they have been neutered by France, and are only worth a few regional museums focusing mostly on what the life in the region was like a hundred years ago, rather than what the culture can bring in the future.
I do agree that a real synthesis of rural and elite French culture is probably much more well and alive in Canada. But, I am not sure it will survive on the long run either.
I don't think there is much hope left for the future of France. Heh, every great thing must come to an end, I guess.

Deconstruction is not necessarily a bad thing, provided that "values" that make out the structure are rotten.

One value that is rotten to someone, might not be to another.
Deconstruction in an ethical workframe may have been interesting.
But deconstruction when ethics and deconstruction itself have been deconstructed too?

Poltergeist

10-14-2009, 06:04 PM

One value that is rotten to someone, might not be to another.
Deconstruction in an ethical workframe may have been interesting.
But deconstruction when ethics and deconstruction itself have been deconstructed too?

I said: may not be necessarily a bad thing.

I wasn't speaking of ethics, obviously.

Mesrine

10-14-2009, 08:00 PM

But what is this French model exactly?

I already tried to explain you. It's incredible that someone like you who pretends to be French knows so little about France and the French. You simply can't get the basic fact that the French are Europeans (Old Worldlers), while you are American (not USAian, but still New Worldler).

Session de rattrapage sur MSN un de ces soirs, si tu veux. :)

American republicanism doesn't seem to have lost much (if any) of its sense of nativism whereas French republicanism barely has any to speak of.

"Nativism" (what is this thing?) never was one of our values, since we're Universalists, and a political people.

Or at best, some semblance of French nativism can be found in the regional cultural movements that seek to have their identities reborn

Reborn? LOL. They never existed in the first place. These "movements" are totally artificial recent creations. For example, pseudo-Occitanism is an attempt of imitation of Jacobinism, only on a smaller scale. Ridiculous.

BTW the hypothetic movements you talk about are not "French nativist", but regional nativist. They're anti-French in their essence.

Taking this one step further then, how can France make any kind of claim to having ANY true culture at all?

What do you mean by "true culture"?

Fixed.

Is Canada but only the mere name of a country ie., a culturally-sterile geo-political entity

populated by a motley assortment of people who just happen to speak French

You happen to speak French. And a very special kind of French, because the adaptation of Maria Chapdelaine had to be subtitled to be aired on French TV.

(for the time being that is--there is so much English in your vocabulary now as compared to the French spoken in my own country)

I frankly doubt that I use more anglicisms than you. You "French"-Canadians use quantities of linguistic calques (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calque) (a gallicism, how ironic :D).

Anyway, languages always evolve, luckily. Imagine if the Northwestern half of France (where most immigrants to Canada came from) still spoke with the accent Québécois still have now. :P

Arguably as a French Canadian I could make some kind of argument that we are more "French" here than most present-day French people. :p

You don't have more or less French people. You have the French (I'm one of them), and all the others (you're one of them). That's simple.

What makes you think that you are French? "Blood" (LOL)? Language?

Electronic God-Man

10-14-2009, 09:06 PM

You see France as only beginning after the French Revolution. Most people see France as something far older. "France" was a term used before the 18th century, was it not? The French Revolution made "French" a term that could be applied universally.

RoyBatty

10-14-2009, 09:19 PM

Now the question is : on what basis can French culture and identity be rebuilt? Can it be rebuilt?

I suspect that the answer is that what was before will not be again. Time has moved on. Old France doesn't exist anymore and won't be coming back. The future belongs to the Maghrebi's and Africans and of course the Elites who run the show. They'll have the money, numbers and the PC Police to back them up.

The future will be Zeropean and Immigrantcentric in France and the EU.

Mesrine

10-14-2009, 09:29 PM

You see France as only beginning after the French Revolution.

False. Republican France began with the Revolution. Before that, it was the Kingdom of France, not Gaul or god knows wich land.

Anyway, we still live in a republic, so we are heirs of the Revolution. People who think "true France" existed only before the Revolution are delusional passeists, lacking any sense of reality and history.

Most people see France as something far older.

Me too, see above. But I also see that France changed a lot through centuries (it changed beyond recognition after WW II, especialy in the last 40 years), unlike passeist people from the other side of the ocean who still talk of the time their peasant remote ancestors (long term genealogy is flawed anyway, 10 or 20% of people aren't the biological "fruits" of their fathers. I suggest people with this kind of genealogical fetish not to go any further than their great grandparents :D) left the old kingdom.

"France" was a term used before the 18th century, was it not?

Indeed, it was the Kingdom of France. The "French" were only the subjects of the King. It's much more accurate to call them the "peoples of France".

The true people of France, in its modern political meaning, still in use today, was born with the Republic (only in idea, it wasn't an achieved reality yet), and waited for the period between the IIIrd Republic and WW I to be an authentic reality.

Osweo

10-14-2009, 09:38 PM

You talk as if there were no opposition to this, Habibi.

Mesrine

10-14-2009, 09:50 PM

You talk as if there were no opposition to this, Habibi.

You talk as if there is an opposition in real life, inoffensive dreamer. When I see the size of the "armies" of Action Française (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_Française), please allow me to laugh. :lol00001:

svred0YPPwY

Osweo

10-14-2009, 10:24 PM

You talk as if there is an opposition in real life, inoffensive dreamer. When I see the size of the "armies" of Action Française (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_Française), please allow me to laugh. :lol00001:

I'm just talking about ordinary people, not militants, who don't necessarily agree with all the ideological decisions made for them by the political elites. French must be capable of the same gut reaction I have to see a country taken over by foreigners.

Mesrine

10-14-2009, 11:11 PM

I'm just talking about ordinary people, not militants, who don't necessarily agree with all the ideological decisions made for them by the political elites.

« Qui ne dit mot consent »

(Qui tacet consentire videtur)

French must be capable of the same gut reaction I have to see a country taken over by foreigners.

When they have the nationality, they're not foreigners anymore.

Electronic God-Man

10-14-2009, 11:17 PM

When they have the nationality, they're not foreigners anymore.

An honest question: Do most of the Africans and Arabs in the Parisian ghettos (or suburbs) have French citizenship?

Mesrine

10-14-2009, 11:18 PM

An honest question: Do most of the Africans and Arabs in the Parisian ghettos (or suburbs) have French citizenship?

Of course they have.

Electronic God-Man

10-14-2009, 11:23 PM

Of course they have.

And so you certainly see them as just as French as any other Frenchmen.

But what about when they are rioting, disrespecting the French flag (I know, you don't care for such symbols), not integrating, and calling White Frenchmen racists?

From what I've seen (and of course, I am an outsider) these people have not been well integrated and don't have much of a French culture and if that is true then how can they be "French" even by your definition?

Jamt

10-14-2009, 11:35 PM

« Qui ne dit mot consent »

(Qui tacet consentire videtur)

When they have the nationality, they're not foreigners anymore.

You have served as a diskussion maker or somthing, but will not do that any more I think. So goodby.

Lysander

10-14-2009, 11:38 PM

You're free to live in your own imaginary "white world", Mancunian.

Talking of reality, just watch a map of the world. The white man's countries are not united into a "European preservationist" empire. The world is not as simple as you'd like it to be. So if someone is mad and bitten on the arse by reality, it's you, and not in some hypothetic future, Osweo.

Two words: implicit whitness.

Ever been to a metal concert? You wont be seeing immigrants there. Fact of the matter is that whites, even though they don't admit it because they are liberal idiots, are drawn to other whites. It's in our subconsciousness, humans are just as tribal as wolves. In the end we choose our own.

I don't know by what logic a black man becomes French because he waves a French flag and has a piece of paper saying "Nationality: French", but then again it's not by any logic at all. It's illogical and maybe that's why I will never understand it.

Mesrine

10-14-2009, 11:48 PM

And so you certainly see them as just as French as any other Frenchmen.

Yes. Even if it's obvious that their assimilation wasn't as totally successful as for other immigrants, of other origins, in other times and conditions. I'm realist, I see that.

But what about when they are rioting, disrespecting the French flag (I know, you don't care for such symbols), not integrating, and calling White Frenchmen racists?

The cause of these riots is social. These neighbourhoods live in the same abandon logic that American ghettos or Brazilian favelas (though not as extreme). You can't say that people from the favelas are immigrants, right?

Here it happens that those ghetto youngsters are mostly of Maghrebian and SSA origin (but not all people of these origin know this social situation, luckily, most of them are well-integrated in society), and after decades of incomprehension and habitude, most people take this secondary element for the primary cause.

From what I've seen (and of course, I am an outsider) these people have not been well integrated

They are integrated, but their assimilation is (see above) much more difficult than in previous times, for many different reasons.

[they] don't have much of a French culture and if that is true then how can they be "French" even by your definition?

First of all, I don't see many indigenous young Frenchmen with a "French culture". We are deeply Americanized and Europeanized (wich amounts to a second layer of Americanization).

The beurs (Maghrebians) and blacks of our ghettos follow this logic. They are a transatlantic imitation of American "ethnic" ghettos, though the separation is not as drastic as in the USA.

You have served as a diskussion maker or somthing, but will not do that any more I think. So goodby.

It's not my fault, nor it is my problem, if you're held back by taboos, and can't discuss certain subjects. Goodbye.

Poltergeist

10-15-2009, 08:40 AM

Ever been to a metal concert? You wont be seeing immigrants there. Fact of the matter is that whites, even though they don't admit it because they are liberal idiots, are drawn to other whites. It's in our subconsciousness, humans are just as tribal as wolves. In the end we choose our own.

What about people who are chronic loners and misanthropists and have none "of their own", to whom they are "naturally attracted"? Also, according to your wonderful "logic", there would never be any race-mixed married couples. Or you can dismiss that with some generalized remark that they are all some imaginary "liberal idiots"? No-one is naturally attracted to any specific body type, it depends on circumstances.

I don't know by what logic a black man becomes French because he waves a French flag and has a piece of paper saying "Nationality: French", but then again it's not by any logic at all. It's illogical and maybe that's why I will never understand it.

If someone is being illogical and disconnected from reality, it's you with your naive mechanical concept of human behaviour, denying free will.

In the end, your "naturalism" is self-contradictory, since free will is one of the basic ingredients of human nature itself.

According to your logic then, there would never be any racially mixed married couples or similar. In the end, if this racial concept were so "natural" and "self-understood", no liberal elites would ever be able to seduce (as you implicitly claim) millions of people into the opposite direction.

SwordoftheVistula

10-15-2009, 10:32 AM

The cause of these riots is social. These neighbourhoods live in the same abandon logic that American ghettos or Brazilian favelas (though not as extreme). You can't say that people from the favelas are immigrants, right?

Here it happens that those ghetto youngsters are mostly of Maghrebian and SSA origin

Hmm, the American ghettos are also comprised of those with SSA origin. So are these Brazilian favelas:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Favela

A favela (Brazilian Portuguese for slum) is the generally used term for a shanty town in Brazil. In the late 19th century, the first settlements were called bairros africanos (African neighborhoods), and they were the place where former slaves with no land ownership and no options for work lived. Over the years, many freed black slaves moved in. However, long before the first settlement called "favela" came into being, poor blacks were pushed away from downtown into the far suburbs.

I think I'm seeing a pattern here.

Liffrea

10-15-2009, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by Saparmurat
In the end, your "naturalism" is self-contradictory, since free will is one of the basic ingredients of human nature itself.

That humans are born with an inherent baggage of instincts isn’t really open to serious question, the blank slate argument has never been that convincing at all, nature and nurture are both important to human development.

Part of that baggage is, to use technical terms, in-group loyalty/out-group hostility and ethnocentric behaviour. It is reasonable to assume that an individual will be drawn on a subconscious level to people who are physically and culturally alike to him, it’s an evolutionary psychological trait, fundamental to survival, the same reason that most people are drawn into endogamous sexual relationships, survival of and procreation of genetic traits.

This isn’t a universal rule, there are very few universals when we study evolutionary behaviours, but it is a recognised standard.

Of course humans aren’t just motivated by pure instinct, we can argue over the relationship between instinct, cognition, conscience, mind and reason but it doesn’t alter the fact that humans don’t think in the same way as other species. We can, and often do, override instinctual behaviours, whether we should or not and whether it’s a good idea to ignore inherent behaviours is an important question.

Poltergeist

10-15-2009, 03:50 PM

That humans are born with an inherent baggage of instincts isn’t really open to serious question, the blank slate argument has never been that convincing at all, nature and nurture are both important to human development.

A very obvious thing I don't call into question. But humans can always wilfully choose not to act according to these instincts, out of some other idea they have or out of pure whim. That's what sets us apart from other species.

Part of that baggage is, to use technical terms, in-group loyalty/out-group hostility and ethnocentric behaviour. It is reasonable to assume that an individual will be drawn on a subconscious level to people who are physically and culturally alike to him, it’s an evolutionary psychological trait, fundamental to survival, the same reason that most people are drawn into endogamous sexual relationships, survival of and procreation of genetic traits.

Very true. But criteria along which in- and out-groups are defined vary considerably. It depends on cultural contexts, environments, events from the past etc. Problem with most racialist thinking is that its purporters construe something they think should make out an in-group and they are baffled when people who are members of those supposed in-groups don't act in a way they imagined, don't display that level of in-group loyalty they would be supposed to. The problem is that there is no way to determine in an absolutely objective manner, as to what should be an in-group. The in-group in such cases turns out to be some intellectual-idealistic, abstract concept.

Bear also in mind that nation states, more so even nanny states, contributed to the weakening of some very direct in-group mentality, which exists in some other patterns of social organization. There is an in-group feeling on the level of modern nations, undoubtedly, but it is hardly based on such notions as "blood" or similar.

Kadu

10-15-2009, 04:42 PM

I think I'm seeing a pattern here.

Both are descents of slaves. It's explicit in the text you quoted.

Aemma

10-15-2009, 07:01 PM

I already tried to explain you. It's incredible that someone like you who pretends to be French knows so little about France and the French. You simply can't get the basic fact that the French are Europeans (Old Worldlers), while you are American (not USAian, but still New Worldler).

Session de rattrapage sur MSN un de ces soirs, si tu veux. :)

"Nativism" (what is this thing?) never was one of our values, since we're Universalists, and a political people.

Reborn? LOL. They never existed in the first place. These "movements" are totally artificial recent creations. For example, pseudo-Occitanism is an attempt of imitation of Jacobinism, only on a smaller scale. Ridiculous.

BTW the hypothetic movements you talk about are not "French nativist", but regional nativist. They're anti-French in their essence.

What do you mean by "true culture"?

Fixed.

You happen to speak French. And a very special kind of French, because the adaptation of Maria Chapdelaine had to be subtitled to be aired on French TV.

I frankly doubt that I use more anglicisms than you. You "French"-Canadians use quantities of linguistic calques (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calque) (a gallicism, how ironic :D).

Anyway, languages always evolve, luckily. Imagine if the Northwestern half of France (where most immigrants to Canada came from) still spoke with the accent Québécois still have now. :P

You don't have more or less French people. You have the French (I'm one of them), and all the others (you're one of them). That's simple.

What makes you think that you are French? "Blood" (LOL)? Language?

Savo, you could be a tad nicer, if not a bit more respectful, in terms of how you word things when you are addressing me firstly. And secondly, my response was directed more so at Skvyldr's post. I will tackle this post of yours a little later. I know what you and I discussed in terms of the French model, but Hun, you're not the only one in this discussion. ;) So Savo, give me a bloody break will you and show some flippin' respect to a fellow forum member will ya? :rolleyes:

As for being "French" nuh-huh Hun. I'm "Ancien Régime déracinée French", which makes me culturally French at the very least, more so than your Maghrebe friends ever will, mon ami. I never claimed to be politically (ie based on citizenship) French. Of course not, I am Canadian--Canada is and shall forever be MY nation. BUT I am and will forever still be French Canadian. And you being a citoyen de la France can rail against this all that you want but it still won't change one iota of any facts: I come from ancient French stock, Hun. Not you nor anyone else of your compatriots can ever change that. C'est une réalite avec laquelle toi aussi tu dois vivre, Savo. Tu ne pourras jamais m'éffacer de ton histoire culturelle. Ça te rend heureux n'est-ce pas? :D Je le savais! ;)

Mesrine

10-15-2009, 07:53 PM

It's in our subconsciousness, humans are just as tribal as wolves. In the end we choose our own.

That's why some enlightened minds created the ideas of Republic, Universalism. To break down our retarded tribal instincts. Feel free to ignore it.

I don't know by what logic a black man becomes French because he waves a French flag and has a piece of paper saying "Nationality: French", but then again it's not by any logic at all. It's illogical and maybe that's why I will never understand it.

It's totally logic because there's one crucial thing you forgot in your poor reasoning: French education. You don't need to wave a flag to be part of a country.

You don't understand it because you seem to equate race and nationality/ethnicity.

Hmm, the American ghettos are also comprised of those with SSA origin. So are these Brazilian favelas:

I think I'm seeing a pattern here.

You're definitely not afraid of ridiculous. If you count Aframs and black/mulatto Brazilians as immigrants, then what are you? A Paleo-Amerindian? :lol00001:

Savo, you could be a tad nicer, if not a bit more respectful, in terms of how you word things when you are addressing me firstly.

Speaking of respect, you obviously haven't read what you wrote.

So Savo, give me a bloody break will you and show some flippin' respect to a fellow forum member will ya? :rolleyes:

We're here to discuss, not to agree.

As for being "French" nuh-huh Hun. I'm "Ancien Régime déracinée French", which makes me culturally French at the very least, more so than your Maghrebe friends ever will, mon ami.

Only in your dreams. You are just a French-speaking Northern American. BTW, the ancien régime has been dealt with 220 years ago. Time to move on.

I never claimed to be politically (ie based on citizenship) French.

Since the French are a political nation, then... quod erat demonstrandum.

I come from ancient French stock, Hun. Not you nor anyone else of your compatriots can ever change that.

Who denied that? And who cares about the original "stock" of your ancestors, except you?

C'est une réalite avec laquelle toi aussi tu dois vivre, Savo. Tu ne pourras jamais m'éffacer de ton histoire culturelle. Ça te rend heureux n'est-ce pas? :D Je le savais! ;)

Tu fais partie de la francophonie (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francophonie), un espace linguistique. Au même titre que les Africains francophones, les pays du Maghreb, etc. Ni plus, ni moins. Tu te crois spéciale pour des histoires de race, mais c'est bien la preuve définitive que tu n'as rien compris à la France.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/New-Map-Francophone_World.PNG

Lysander

10-15-2009, 11:59 PM

If someone is being illogical and disconnected from reality, it's you with your naive mechanical concept of human behaviour, denying free will.
Empiric observing proves me right.

In the end, your "naturalism" is self-contradictory, since free will is one of the basic ingredients of human nature itself.

According to your logic then, there would never be any racially mixed married couples or similar. In the end, if this racial concept were so "natural" and "self-understood", no liberal elites would ever be able to seduce (as you implicitly claim) millions of people into the opposite direction.

Most whites date exclusively whites even though it's considered hip to be in an interracial relationship (thank you media).
People are easily manipulated, at least for as long as they are amused by whatever is getting their attention, panem et cirsenses.

And this is exactly what I wanted to prove, even though the media constantly bombards us with all this the metal scene is growing again and the crowd is almost exclusively white.
Look at some Nordic/German death metal concerts for an example. All of the countries have immense amounts of immigrants yet this scene, even though it's not racist at all, is exclusively white.
There will always be exceptions but the metal scene proves my thesis, racial identity is not a social construct despite what the liberals want to make us believe. We feel most at home among our own. First family, then relatives, then friends and so on.

Osweo

10-16-2009, 12:26 AM

the metal scene proves my thesis,
Residential property patterns are the best indicator. And the associated matter of where you want to send your kid to school.

Loddfafner

10-16-2009, 01:17 AM

The folk may well be a social construction but so is art and music and many things of value. Folkish solidarity may be an obstacle to modernity, but some of us are an obstacle to efforts to dismantle the folk and bring us down to some universalist lowest common denominator only to be replaced by a deracinated labor force willing to undercut our wages and lacking any stake in sustaining our historical heritage.

SwordoftheVistula

10-16-2009, 07:23 AM

...ridiculous. If you count Aframs and black/mulatto Brazilians as immigrants...

In that case, it would appear that race (sub-saharan African) is the common denominator and determinative factor of these hellholes, as opposed to geographic location or whether transcontinental migration took place in the recent family history.

Poltergeist

10-16-2009, 08:17 PM

I wanted to prove, even though the media constantly bombards us with all this the metal scene is growing again and the crowd is almost exclusively white.

Look at some Nordic/German death metal concerts for an example. All of the countries have immense amounts of immigrants yet this scene, even though it's not racist at all, is exclusively white.

Yes, that's truly the pinnacle of European culture and civilization. So the exclusively "white" attendance to it really proves much.

Mesrine

10-16-2009, 08:52 PM

In that case, it would appear that race (sub-saharan African) is the common denominator and determinative factor of these hellholes, as opposed to geographic location or whether transcontinental migration took place in the recent family history.

LOL, right. :D

http://i34.tinypic.com/11tvmdd.jpg

http://www.worldcinemag.com/_films/galleries/gangs-of-ny/05.jpg

Lysander

10-16-2009, 09:53 PM

Yes, that's truly the pinnacle of European culture and civilization. So the exclusively "white" attendance to it really proves much.

Which has nothing to do with anything.

I have always been a metal head though. Strange that rock music always had such a bad reputation when this gangster rap "imma fak ya momma bitch yeah nigga bling yeah uh yeah" seems to be completely retarded.
So before we go ahead and attack metal concerts lets take a good hard look at what the majority of people listen to.
I know what kind of music I want my kids to listen to.

Poltergeist

10-16-2009, 09:55 PM

Which has nothing to do with anything.

As neither do your so-called empirical proofs that race is all-important.

Loxias

10-17-2009, 12:53 AM

I beg to differ about the metal scene being almost exclusively white. From my experience in those concert in France (and I have been to a very large amount of metal concerts there), the crowd is quite diverse, even at extreme black metal shows. There is a fair share of people of obvious maghrebi and asian descent, as well as a not too insignificant amount of blacks and mulattos.
The only difference is that they are all dressed the same and all look like metalheads.
Because metal is a subculture, and that, nowadays, in the west, subcultures have come to supercede traditional cultures as the main affiliations of people.

For someone who loves European culture, using metalheads as an exemple might not be the best exemple, as while metal takes on many aspects of European culture, it is still an americanised modern and post-modern pop counterculture.