Almost Half of France Sees Muslims as a Threat to National Identity

late · Nov 19, 2016

PeteEU said:
Yep and there was a 50+ year period once, where they slaughtered each other .. so much that the population by some accounts fell by 40%. That was the Catholics vs the Protestants..

Sometime in the 1800s (I think) they banned English words. They felt the use of English words was corrupting their culture, and made it illegal.

Got them precisely nowhere. The English were just as unhappy with the adoption of French words. They also got nowhere.

Hard to believe one annoying guy posting a note on a church set off all those wars, isn't it.

late · Nov 19, 2016

A lot of European countries have "structural impediments to employment."

In plain English, it's damn hard for anyone to break into the job market. French kids have a tough time, although they have the advantage of having French parents trading favors to get them started. Even so, it's a lot harder than it is here.

For an immigrant, it must seem impossible. Without economic assimilation, you have an underclass. People with no future, some of whom will turn to crime and radical ideas. You may have noticed how many of this new wave were crooks before they became radicalised.

Basically everything worth saying never gets said here, you get stuck in trivia. You've got millions of refugees, having a million refugees in, or even near, your country is going to give you massive problems. That's a large part of why Turkey is turning into a nightmare.

Let's try the obvious, shall we? If we were to create safe zones for refugees, places where they could get food, shelter and a little medical care, that would take a lot of heat off a lot of countries. The spreading chaos and war in the ME will keep bringing down governments, and spreading chaos and war, until we do.

matchlight · Nov 19, 2016

Mac77 said:
My thought are lets not make the same mistake in America that France did

Its not too late to limit muslim immigration to the US

It's not to late to stop that immigration altogether, although I think that would not be the best policy. I would like to see the number of aliens entering U.S. territory drastically reduced, and those who do enter strictly monitored and registered. I am sure we could find ways and means to stop aliens from entering here and then staying without permission.

Chagos · Nov 19, 2016

truthatallcost said:
Well then explain why my position is "silly".

You are saying that France caused their own modern problem with Islam by colonizing North Africa, which began in the 19th century.

Muslim invaders actually tried to colonize France many years before 1830, when France claimed Algiers:

Islamic colonizers struck Europe and France 11 centuries before France gained control of Algeria. So since you believe that ancient injustices may be avenged in the modern era, you must feel that France was just paying their colonizers back for previous wrongs done to them!

Battle of Tours (732 A.D.)

What a load of rubbish.

For one thing there was NO France at the time and wouldn't be for another 250 years to come.

For another the raiding expedition (one of many before and many to come) battled at Tours (Poitiers) was more about plunder than about anything else. There was no way that the Moors from Iberia were bent on "colonizing" the whole area of what we today know as France, simply because they didn't have the resources to even want to try.

And where the Northward advance of an indeed sizeable pillaging force hardly constitutes anything remotely resembling the advance of Islam (we have Edward Gibbons to thank for that skewed historical appraisal even today), the battle of Tours was in no way decisive in stopping further raids from down South.

Thus Ummayad forces from Spain took Avignon, Arles and Marseille two years after Tours/Poitiers, having been called upon for protection by the Gallo-Roman nobility there. All of them very much Christian to boot and not at all enamoured with falling under the boot of the Franks.

In fact Narbonne had been held by Muslims for over a decade and when the same Charles (the Hammer) of the Tours battle tried to take it 5 years later, he failed on account of, last not least, its Christian Goth citizens opposing him in alliance with the Arab and Berber forces there.

Lastly, the (French) colonization of Muslim territories in Africa (in competition with other European powers) began well before N. Africa was hit. In Senegal, for instance, some 150 years before taking Algiers.

If you want history to be your friend, getting acquainted with it might provide a good start.

Medusa · Nov 19, 2016

shrubnose said:
If France wouldn't have colonized Muslim areas it wouldn't have a problem with Muslim immigration.

France is reaping what it sowed right now.

You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.

:lol:

very true!!!!!!!!!!

PeteEU · Nov 19, 2016

late said:
Sometime in the 1800s (I think) they banned English words. They felt the use of English words was corrupting their culture, and made it illegal.

Got them precisely nowhere. The English were just as unhappy with the adoption of French words. They also got nowhere.

Hard to believe one annoying guy posting a note on a church set off all those wars, isn't it.

The Brexit morons.. well some, want(ed) to replace the "EU" passport with a British passport.. back to their old blue color. In the process they wanted to remove all French words on the EU coat of arms on the password. Problem is.. that coat of arms is the Royal Coat of Arms... and was adopted in 1837. Also.. the world Passport..is french.

truthatallcost · Nov 19, 2016

Chagos said:
What a load of rubbish.

Fitting that this is how you start your post, thanks for warning me ahead of time :mrgreen:

For one thing there was NO France at the time and wouldn't be for another 250 years to come.

Irrelevant. The fact that the area known today as France was then known as something else is of trivial importance.

Algeria's name and borders were different before the French conquest. Therefore, according to your logic, there was NO Algeria prior to French colonization.

Frankish DNA survives today in millions of French people, they are their descendents, just as the Arab invaders of the 8th century have descendants living today.
The name France comes from Latin Francia, which literally means "land of the Franks".

For another the raiding expedition (one of many before and many to come) battled at Tours (Poitiers) was more about plunder than about anything else. There was no way that the Moors from Iberia were bent on "colonizing" the whole area of what we today know as France, simply because they didn't have the resources to even want to try.

Great, so rape and looting are I guess more acceptable in your opinion than colonization. Blah.

And where the Northward advance of an indeed sizeable pillaging force hardly constitutes anything remotely resembling the advance of Islam (we have Edward Gibbons to thank for that skewed historical appraisal even today), the battle of Tours was in no way decisive in stopping further raids from down South.

So they continued their attempt at rape and conquest. Brilliant.

If you want history to be your friend, getting acquainted with it might provide a good start.

The fact remains that Arab Muslims invaded what is modern day France many centuries before France began colonizing N Africa. Shrubnose attempted to lay all blame at the feet of the French, which is absurd. You know its ridiculous as well as I do. Discussing the particulars of history here doesn't change the veracity of anything I said.

DA60 · Nov 19, 2016

Mac77 said:
What are the Muslims doing to help themselves?

They were allowed to move to France and were given financial assistance which was a pretty sweet deal

And I don't know how much of an excuse being colonized is worth today

Not much in my opinion

Your opinion is noted.

Good day.

DA60 · Nov 19, 2016

Auvergnat said:
Other minorities assimilate by themselves, you know? But we actually DO offer them better housing in other places. And a few of them take this better housing. But it takes decades to slowly dissolve a population among another one, otherwise you just recreate the same problems. Yet many or most only want to live in Muslims communities, according to the Muslim culture and values. Values that oppose ours and include hating us, hating Jews, hating gays, hating everyone.

We also spend twice more on education for them, and our public system is favored by most of French parents, although Muslims increasingly turn towards private Islamic teaching.

You keep saying 'them' and 'ours'. You just proved my point. They are not 'fellow French citizens'...they are 'them'. No wonder they feel as outsiders/second class citizens.

Those African French who commit violent acts are terrible people. But far and away most French Muslims do not act that way.

Islamism has been rising everywhere in the world since decades, this is not a French problem. [/B]France merely has more Muslims than other countries. Muslims want to strengthen their Islamic identity, not to assimilate and adopt our values, culture and identity.

You have NO IDEA what every French Muslim wants. You only know what some of them want. Maybe if you spend more time asking them what they want and less time telling and referring to them as 'them'...maybe they would feel more included.

The facts remain...France conquered and occupied these peoples' home countries against their will for generations. That was a terrible thing to do. If the roles were reversed - I guarantee you you would feel similarly to them.

This is nothing to do with religion. This is about refugees from conquered nations and too many non-Muslim French are using Islam as an excuse for their initial crappy behavior.

Clearly, your mind is made up about these people...so further discussion with you at this time on this subject is pointless.

Talk to me when you are prepared to at least stop referring to these people as 'them' and start calling them 'us'...they are French citizens you know?

Chagos · Nov 19, 2016

truthatallcost said:
~....................Irrelevant. The fact that the area known today as France was then known as something else is of trivial importance...................~

......and with that declaration of bankruptcy on knowledge of history we can leave all this, not to mention anything that follows i n your post.

It has about as much value as Arminius having founded Germany and you subsequent evaluations are just as laughable.

Auvergnat · Nov 19, 2016

Chagos said:
What a load of rubbish.

It is not rubbish at all: the near totality of Muslim countries became Muslims after being conquered by Muslim armies.

Muslims have attempted to conquer and islamize European territories in many circumstances, like they did in Asia and everywhere else. This is how Islam did spread: through conquests.

On the European continent, they succeeded in the Byzantine Empire, in the Balkans, in the Spanish peninsula (until the Reconquista reverted it). They failed in the south of France and in Austria. They succeeded in all of Central Asia and a part of Eastern Asia, and were finally stopped by China and some Indian kingdoms.

Besides of their imperialism, they also raided the Mediterranean villages for centuries to enslave the Christians. This only stopped in the 17th century, and Alger was still protecting pirates in the 18th, only attacking Christian ships of course. The word "barbarian" derives from "berber" and many European languages kept the Arab word "razzia".

Muslim empires were once more powerful than we were, and they have been very aggressive throughout their history. The Ottoman one, especially, was an oversized and underdeveloped empire that could only survive through constant expansion, pillages and enslavement of enemies. Should we have not defeated it, we would probably speak Arab and bow before Allah.

And before you bring on the crusades, you should better look at what triggered them.

Envoy · Nov 19, 2016

shrubnose said:
If France wouldn't have colonized Muslim areas it wouldn't have a problem with Muslim immigration.

France is reaping what it sowed right now.

You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.

:lol:

Yes, you can.

An action yields a consequence. This does not mean one must accept a consequence as you say. Let's put this into a three-part chain. An ACTION *YIELDS* CONSEQUENCE.

Somehow you imply that one must accept the chain in its entirety. To have a proper 'appreciation' for it, one must 'just deal with it

'. However, if one has sufficient power and know-how, one can negate the consequence, presumably through another action.

truthatallcost · Nov 19, 2016

Chagos said:
......and with that declaration of bankruptcy on knowledge of history we can leave all this, not to mention anything that follows i n your post.

The land of the Franks remains today. The Berbers are now flooding, demanding their wealth and land. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

It has about as much value as Arminius having founded Germany and you subsequent evaluations are just as laughable.

Which I never said. lieatallcost is an available SN, you might want to request it since we have nothing in common :mrgreen:

Chagos · Nov 19, 2016

Auvergnat said:
It is not rubbish at all: the near totality of Muslim countries became Muslims after being conquered by Muslim armies.

but not the Franks and that's what we've been talking of here.

Do try to stay focussed, eh?

~............................And before you bring on the crusades, you should better look at what triggered them.

Well, I wasn't going to bring them up but DO tell.

P.S.

1) not to belittle the other points you raise, but it would also be interesting to hear how Islam was stopped by China, seeing how there was vigorous exchange in trade, science, technology and philosophy there between Muslims and the Chinese, commencing in the rule of the Tang and Song dynasties. You ever been to Xinjiang?

2) "Barbarian", incidentally, is Greek and was applied to anyone speaking an incomprehensible tongue. Thus eventually applied to inhabitants of the Maghreb and not, as you mix it all up, the other way around. Berbers call themselves something else altogether.

3) How would we be speaking Arab under the Ottomans when the official language there was Ottoman Turk?

4) "razzia" is about as much an Arabic word as "sherry" is a Spanish one. A "bastardization" in both cases, seeing how neither French nor English could be bothered to properly pronounce the original (let alone spell it properly).

That you are as confused on history and facts in general as some others are here is not so much the problem, what gets to be problematic is when you pompously try to sell your convoluted grasp of either as factual.

german hick · Nov 19, 2016

Auvergnat said:
This is how Islam did spread: through conquests.

On the European continent, they succeeded in the Byzantine Empire...

Byzanz was destroyed by christian "Crusaders" the Doge of Venice managed to lead the Crusader Army to Byzanz wich was easier to plunder and richer. After that the Byzanz was not able to defend themselves for long anymore.

Auvergnat · Nov 19, 2016

Tigerace117 said:
The far right in France seems a lot more popular then you were willing to admit.

You are conflating antisemitism, fascistoid movements, and hitlerian sympathies. Those are three different issues.

* No Hitlerian sympathies in France, period. Hitler was the enemy, and all of his theses opposed France and the "French race", which he deemed inferior.

* No significant fascism movement in France, because of a very different context from Italy and Germany: our country was healthier and suffered no identity crisis. At worse we had a few authoritarian movements and a few representatives belonging to the ordinary right-wing party. They never amounted to much and would have never ruled without the Nazi occupation.

The Milice amounted to 10k people only and was despised in France. The Charlemagne regiment was equally small, many who simply wanted to fight communism and some were forcefully enrolled. As for the pseudo-coup you referred to (that only the left called coup), it was pathetically small and unrealistic, a bunch of lunatics.

* Antisemitism, however, was still significant, but in France its peak occurred before the ww1: many Jews left the new Reich after 1871 to come to France, but they were ironically perceived as Prussians and therefore enemies. By 1933 it was no longer a major political issue in France.

As for the Dreyfus affair, it is sometimes used to build an "antisemite France" narrative, but actually it was rather a matter of trust in the army (the opinion refused to believe that the army had lied) in the context of a fight between republicans and monarchists to control the army: at that time it still comprised many aristocrats and monarchists, and the republicans were trying to break that situation through meritocracy. Dreyfus was one of those officers appointed through academic merit. This affair exposed a latent but minor antisemitism, and also a more prevalent antisemitism in some groups, yet antisemitism was only incidental and aggravating in this affair.

Chagos · Nov 19, 2016

truthatallcost said:
The land of the Franks remains today.

Remains what? What it was? What it became? Do tell us something about the Franks, maybe you have better luck than with the Cherusci.

The Berbers are now flooding, demanding their wealth and land. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Whaaa..............? They've re-taken Narbonne?

Which I never said. lieatallcost is an available SN, you might want to request it since we have nothing in common :mrgreen:

Well, you used words to the effect that Germany's prosperity of today started off with Arminius defeating Rome. Which of course he didn't.

Can't be bothered to search your plethora of those posts that show historical confusion, but the "success" of your thread on the Cherusci was most telling.

Auvergnat · Nov 19, 2016

Chagos said:
but not the Franks and that's what we've been talking of here.

If names are so crucial for you, then note that most of the lands we colonized were not nations at that time. We created those nations and identities, because someone had to.

1) not to belittle the other points you raise, but it would also be interesting to hear how Islam was stopped by China, seeing how there was vigorous exchange in trade, science, technology and philosophy there between Muslims and the Chinese, commencing in the rule of the Tang and Song dynasties. You ever been to Xinjiang?

Xinjiang was only incorporated a few centuries ago.

But once again you demonstrate your intoxication by Islamic propaganda: you insinuate that Muslims were on par with China and reciprocally teaching themselves. This is extremely fallacious: the vast majority of Muslim knowledge was pillaged from India (including paper, the so-called Arab digits, the first algorithms, etc). At that time the Chinese knowledge was way above everyone else in the world, and India came second, with Europe and the Muslim world far behind.

The so-called Islamic golden age was NOT an age of scientific innovation. They discovered very little things actually, their main contributions being in astronomy to predict the ramadan, and this research stopped early, as soon as this objective was achieved. However they have efficiently transmitted the Indian knowledge to the rest of the world, through their conquests and the common language they imposed to all. They were not innovators, they have been relays, through conquests.

And they also destroyed considerable amounts of knowledge in Persia and India: Umar ordered to systematically destroy all books because only the Koran was needed. We owe him the loss of most of the antique Persian culture, of many texts dating from 4000 BC.

3) How would we be speaking Arab under the Ottomans when the official language there was Ottoman Turk?

Given our geographical position, we would have dealt with Northern African forces far more than Turk ones. Arab did become the language of Northern Africa, it was not always like this.

4) "razzia" is about as much an Arabic word as "sherry" is a Spanish one.

All French dictionaries point to the Arab etymology exclusively.

Chagos · Nov 19, 2016

Auvergnat said:
You are conflating antisemitism, fascistoid movements, and hitlerian sympathies. Those are three different issues..................~

Don't forget to mention how most of France was in La Résistance and collaboration was a rare occurrence.

joG · Nov 19, 2016

truthatallcost said:
France envoy: 'Minority' of Muslims 'testing us' - Al Jazeera English

What can France do at this point, when attempts at assimilation and secularization have failed? The French people themselves, long known for their tolerant laissez faire attitude towards other cultures, are increasingly worried that France is losing its unique identity.

Thoughts?
Comments?

It's sure more jolie than Riad.

joG · Nov 19, 2016

Chagos said:
Don't forget to mention how most of France was in La Résistance and collaboration was a rare occurrence.

France is sure Le Grand Nation, if you ask

Auvergnat · Nov 19, 2016

I apologize if I have disturbed your anti-French revisionism.

Chagos · Nov 19, 2016

Auvergnat said:
If names are so crucial for you, then note that most of colonized lands were not nations at the time the west colonized them.

So what? Is there a point in here somewhere. Apart from the one I made that the Franks were not conquered by Muslims?

I won't address the gish gallop of yours that follows in its entirety, just a few tidbits

Xinjiang was only incorporated a few centuries ago.

who the hell cares when it was incorporated into
China a few centuries ago? It was under Chinese rule, on and off, long before that.

snipped for brevity and relevance

snipped for lack of factuality

snipped for cherry picking as in taking one or two or even some incidents to represent everything

Given our geographical position, we would have dealt with Northern African forces far more than Turk ones. Arab did become the language of Northern Africa, it was not always like this.

really deserves snipping as well on account of having absolutely nothing to do with the question it supposedly answers, but in view of its revealing nature in showing your propensity for gish galloping, lo and behold, ladies and gentlemen.

All French dictionaries point to the Arab etymology exclusively.

What good is a dictionary if you don't know what to look for? And what is that answer supposed to convey wrt my point

4) "razzia" is about as much an Arabic word as "sherry" is a Spanish one. .

The point remains that "razzia" is not an Arab word, thus making your original claim false.

I notice you didn't address your own confusions over the term "barbarian" as being derived from "berber" (as you claimed).

No, mon ami, it ain't names that are so crucial to me, it's factuality. What's even more crucial is its distortion as constantly engaged upon by you.

Chagos · Nov 19, 2016

The French barely use the term La Grande Nation when speaking of their country but "nation" nevertheless remains feminine in French.

coldjoint · Nov 19, 2016

shrubnose said:
How are you going to stop U.S. citizens from converting to the Muslim religion?

If you don't know I'll tell you: You can't.Read the 1st Amendment.

Deal with it.

:lol:

Good chance of that in prison. Like in every European country.

Hopefully we will deal with it, the new National Security advisor knows what Islam is. He has said it is rational to fear Muslims, I agree. Maybe the truth will finally come out and Islam will be soundly rejected in this country.

Almost Half of France Sees Muslims as a Threat to National Identity

New member