Live Earth

[vimothy]

This:

"In various cities, emergency hotlines and hostels have been set up for women and girls forced to flee their neighbourhoods. In police stations, specialised workers are being trained to deal with "migrants' problems". But Fadela Amara believes that these measures address only the symptoms of the grievances; to eliminate the roots of the problem, steps have to be taken against mass unemployment and the ghettoising of the suburbs. But the author does not hold political forces responsible. In her book, she is very critical of the way many immigrants bring up their children.

"In Muslim immigrant families, the sons are treated like kings. They are not just preferred over the girls, they are spoilt and coddled." The crux is that when these young men encounter resistance beyond the family for the first time - when they don't get into university or college, for example - they react helplessly and destructively. They compensate for their fury and inferiority complexes with machismo and violence against those who are socially and physically weaker – girls in particular.

"In the suburbs, sexual education takes place through porn videos – how can these boys not have a twisted image of women?" Amara asks. She demands better sexual education in schools. The boys should learn values: how to deal with the opposite sex respectfully. To this purpose, Amara published a "How to respect" guide that's designed to fit into a trouser pocket. Her colleagues take these into the schools and discuss with students their notions of marriage, virginity, forced marriage, circumcision, tenderness and love. Amara emphasises that this is the difference between those who talk about cultural relativism and her organisation, which is aimed at achieving universal human rights. "An exaggerated tolerance of supposed cultural differences which results in the maintenance of archaic traditions - that's just not acceptable."​

 

[Mr. Tea]

I would certainly agree with this:

"An exaggerated tolerance of supposed cultural differences which results in the maintenance of archaic traditions - that's just not acceptable."

but it's a theme that's been done in many other threads.

 

[Martin Dust]

I missed it, was it car crash TV?

 

[vimothy]

3. Racial prejudice on the part of the French establishment and majority white population?

Obviously bad (as I've said), but I don't think the problem would be as serious if jobs were being created for migrant communities.

Come on, not all immigrants to France are Muslims, and most Muslims aren't rapists. I agree that, as a culture, its adherents have a tendency not to treat women very well, but that doesn't excuse a blanket prejudice against all Muslims as potential rapists, let alone against all immigrants, does it?

It's actually a pretty massive problem, and yes lots of the inhabitants of the banlieues are muslims. But anyway, those two cases were supposed to be examples of what happens when people adopt self-destructive ideologies or behaviours for whatever reason. You know what I mean, ME ME ME, I'm important and I'm annoyed and so I'm going to burn this shop down or rape this westernised slut.

 

[vimothy]

In the second such case tried in France in as many weeks, seven men appeared in a Versailles court yesterday accused of repeatedly gang-raping a 15-year-old girl over a period of eight weeks five years ago.

Amid growing public concern, lawyers and social workers have called for an urgent judicial crackdown on a phenomenon said to represent 10-20% of all serious cases in French juvenile courts.

"These cases invariably follow the same barbarous pattern," said Isabelle Steyer, a Paris barrister. "The girl is always seen as more bourgeois than the norm, or better educated. The gang who attack her believe that since she's supposedly sleeping with her boyfriend, she's fair game. Peer pressure discourages him from trying to stop them. It's the law of the high-rise estate."​

- http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,482120,00.html

 

[Mr. Tea]

"But their lawyers have said that the accusation of rape is exaggerated and that it is "absurd" to try adults for crimes allegedly committed as minors."

Fuck that. Anyone capable of committing rape is an adult, and should be tried as an adult.

 

[gek-opel]

Yeah, but the French go on strike or riot whenever there's a vowel in the month. Like their truckers a few years back: they had some kind of grievance (which, in itself, may have been perfectly legitimate, I don't know) so what do they do? Block all the motorways to fuck things up for everyone else.
Just recently there were riots - not just demonstrations, but actual riots - because Sarkozy had been elected president and some people didn't like it. It's completely anti-democratic.

In some senses, Yes- totally anti-democratic. And hence vividly political. The last thing we need is fucking civics classes to indoctrinate the young into believing that the kind of customary democracy of elections we have currently has much to do with politics at all (and they won't believe it anyway, because it is manifestly and readily apparent that this is simply untrue). Indeed- what is politics? To many the "good" of politics has become synonymous with democracy, and democracy itself synonymous with the limited democracy of occasionally electing politicians through the practice of voting, which in turn has become synonymous with the new politics of management. Each in turn must be disambiguated from the other.

 

[Mr. Tea]

So what would you reccommend instead - petrol-bomb-making classes? Brick Throwing 101?

I'm not trying to be completely facetious here, but it seems like you basically have three options: 'indoctrinate' kids into effecting political change through democracy, as far as that's possible; educate them in the ways of non-democratic political activism (which could be anything from pressure groups and civil disobedience to outright terrorism); or leaving them to make up their own minds, or simply ignore politics altogether, which is the situation we have at the moment.

Edit: and I was talking about France, where there is massive voter turn-out, and massive differences between the main parties. Their Nick Griffin equivalent stood in the last presidential election, for fuck's sake. So Sarkozy's victory can't be blamed on people failing to engage in politics, because a huge number of voters engaged in politics by voting for him. The socialists might not like the fact he won, but to say he shouldn't have won is to say there shouldn't be democracy. And without democracy you invariably have one of those hideous -isms that have caused so much oppression, war and strife around the world (and, in some cases, continue to do so).

Thus leading to the age-old question: if you don't think democracy works, what should we have instead?

Edit the second: I'm not saying (peaceful) activism and civil disobedience aren't sometimes a great force for good political change - two examples that spring immediately to mind are Gandhi's campaign for Indian autonomy and of course the (black American) civil rights movement. Hell, I was quite pleased to see the UK's petrol boycott seven years ago: people were sick of not being listened to and just did something for a change.

 

[noel emits]

Give them drugs and abuse them until they are angry and fucked up enough to tear the system apart.

See, there's hope after all.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Give them drugs and abuse them until they are angry and fucked up enough to tear the system apart.

See, there's hope after all.

That might just be crazy enough to work...

 

[crackerjack]

Been wondering why politics thread was so quiet, here you all are hanging with the cool kids over in music. :slanted:

why should the younger generations have any faith in politics? last century wasnt exactly a great role model for human civilisation, 2 world wars, a cold one, inumerable politically motivated conflicts -

You've missed a few things out. The huge expansion of free education, health care etc. Massive increases in freedom of speech and conscience, widespread improvement in equality regardless of sexuality, gender and (to some extent) race. Not yet universal nor sufficient, but all brought about to some extent through politics.

Thus leading to the age-old question: if you don't think democracy works, what should we have instead?

If the point of democracy is only to protect us from dictatorship, that's reason enough for me.

 

[crackerjack]

I see your point, but I think the problem is "equal say": a vote really isn't much of a say on anything, and if you want other changes you have to agitate for them through other means. Militant French politics is certainly a legacy of the heavy communist influence in government after WW2 -- the commies had credibility because they were the backbone of the resistance to the Nazis.

Maybe, but it's not so nice when anti-democratic politics are manifested through people you don't agree with, such as the Poujadists

 

[Mr. Tea]

If the point of democracy is only to protect us from dictatorship, that's reason enough for me.

That goes for me too. I can't help but think a lot of nay-sayers who live in democracies would have a better appreciation for it if they had to live in a dictatorship instead!

 

[gek-opel]

So what would you reccommend instead - petrol-bomb-making classes? Brick Throwing 101?

I'm not trying to be completely facetious here, but it seems like you basically have three options: 'indoctrinate' kids into effecting political change through democracy, as far as that's possible; educate them in the ways of non-democratic political activism (which could be anything from pressure groups and civil disobedience to outright terrorism); or leaving them to make up their own minds, or simply ignore politics altogether, which is the situation we have at the moment.

Edit: and I was talking about France, where there is massive voter turn-out, and massive differences between the main parties. Their Nick Griffin equivalent stood in the last presidential election, for fuck's sake. So Sarkozy's victory can't be blamed on people failing to engage in politics, because a huge number of voters engaged in politics by voting for him. The socialists might not like the fact he won, but to say he shouldn't have won is to say there shouldn't be democracy. And without democracy you invariably have one of those hideous -isms that have caused so much oppression, war and strife around the world (and, in some cases, continue to do so).

Thus leading to the age-old question: if you don't think democracy works, what should we have instead?

Edit the second: I'm not saying (peaceful) activism and civil disobedience aren't sometimes a great force for good political change - two examples that spring immediately to mind are Gandhi's campaign for Indian autonomy and of course the (black American) civil rights movement. Hell, I was quite pleased to see the UK's petrol boycott seven years ago: people were sick of not being listened to and just did something for a change.

Well I would take issue with the fact that there are significant differences between Sarko and Sego-- fundamentally they were both going to implement fairly similar neo-liberal market reforms. There was a massive cosmetic difference though.

To the more general issue, as I say it is necessary to disambiguate the distinctions between politics and democracy, democracy and voting, and voting and voting for parties that fundamentally agree. Now maybe an argument can be made for a different form of democracy, it probably can, and there are probably better forms of it. But the system we have is probably the worst conceivable in terms that almost nothing can be changed through it. And I'm certain that people sense this, not just intellectuals but the ordinary working people (sorry horrible phrase I know...) and the young especially.

Now this could be looked at in 2 ways, as a shock horror bad thing, or simply as an affirmation that our form of democracy (occasionally electing people who make no difference) is not really political at all (as it tends towards the new politics of consensus, whereby we are not voting for ideology or for fundamental policy, rather that these have already been agreed in advance, all we are to decide is who is to implement the policy, a question of efficacy, a question indeed of management rather than politics). In a world where real politics is removed from the access of the people through voting, why should they continue to vote?

Of course, in certain areas elections do make a difference. Of course some local issues can be resolved through elections, (including protecting the country from the far right) and in these situations voting serves a purpose and is to be engaged with. But in general indoctrinating children into going through what amounts to little more than a civic ritual of almost religious hokum is pointless. Occasional votes for parties where there is only cosmetic difference between them is a terrible system, and amounts to a tacit dictatorship (not by any individual of course, but a dictatorship of the status quo, aligned strongly with the interests of business). Other forms of democracy have much more to recommend them.

 

[crackerjack]

Other forms of democracy have much more to recommend them.

Such as?

 

[gek-opel]

Well even the system of having strongly opposed parties and occasional elections was better than what we have now. And of course there are many other conceivable configurations of voting which have been left unexplored. I think there will be increasing pressure to radically alter our conception of democracy over the coming century as politicians lose legitimacy.

 

[crackerjack]

Well even the system of having strongly opposed parties and occasional elections was better than what we have now. And of course there are many other conceivable configurations of voting which have been left unexplored. I think there will be increasing pressure to radically alter our conception of democracy over the coming century as politicians lose legitimacy.

But does that mean your just objecting to democracy as it stands now in the post-communist west rather than the system itself? There were, for instance, massive differences between the two main parties in the 80s.

 

[gek-opel]

There are still objections to democracy as a whole, but of course its not an absolute or a monolith, tho it frequently serves certain interests to present it as such. So there are shades rather than disjuncts of opinion... what we have now is pointless, Gordon Brown might as well have decided to step down and put Digby Jones in charge of the country... The system of politics we have requires there to be some difference between parties otherwise what is at stake when we vote? Merely assent for the status quo?

One could imagine democracies without parties for a start. Or democracy with more frequent and sophisticated electoral systems- democracies where politicians are literally managers, not leaders, implementing the precisely calibrated wishes of their people. There are inevitably obvious problems with this (to what extent do we trust the general will of the people with sophisticated policy making etc?)

 

[elgato]

But in general indoctrinating children into going through what amounts to little more than a civic ritual of almost religious hokum is pointless.

How widely do you reject the idea of the introduction of political issues to institutional education at earlier ages? Even conceiving of it simply as civics lessons, could education not do precisely what you identify as key in this context?... examine the fundamental concepts of democracy, attempy to disambiguate theoretical democracy and existant systems, and generate an understanding of the various structures (or absense of) through which democracy can be attempted? Do you feel that the only place that this can be achieved is outside of state-generated education?

Is it the case that you see crisis and revolution as the only means by which meaningful positive change can be achieved? As otherwise surely advocating change in education is a necessary part of a programme to generate a more politically aware and empowered populace? But perhaps I am too blindly optimistic as to the possibility of a centralised education system not completely bent to the ideals of dominant ideology...

 

[gek-opel]

I'm unsure as to how much education has to play a role here- some perhaps, but it seems the political class, equally if not more to blame themselves of course for the current state of disengagement, are laying the fault at the door of the electorate. That's why I think it may amount to indoctrination. If people genuinely believed that politics by election had genuinely political content, they would vote. I don't think that if only everyone voted everything would be OK, because primarily democracy in the form of elections has become a hideous ritual designed as a laundering device to create an illusion of consent. I'm undecided as to whether democracy in other forms may be the answer- but you can certainly imagine more democratic systems than this one.

The problem lies not just in the realm of people not voting any more, or even politics as a field apart from the rest of the situation, but of course the dominant consumer-capitalist system. This has two effects here of course: the removal of any meaningful difference from the party system, (as both major parties choose to slavishly worship the dominant power of the day) and the creation of apathy in the electorate. These two are interlinked of course dynamically in a feedback system. Whilst the politicians decry voter apathy, it is the necessary pre-condition for the kind of effective "new politics" of management they so gleefully espouse. Picking this kind of feedback loop system apart is tricky, but to begin with education when the politicians themselves refuse to admit their own complicity in it is just absurd.