29
   

Rising fascism in the US

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Tue 22 May, 2018 09:38 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
I noticed he wasn't a signatory, and older statements seemed to put him apart from this aggression against Muslims, but recent articles allude to a weakening of his resolve not to join the voices for a clampdown on Muslims' autonomy.

Don't misinterpret my comments as an attack on Macron. I'm just watching and commenting on events. I'm not invested in any anti-Macron sentiment.
I responded to your claim that
Lash wrote:
This is the French president claiming his intention to edit the Koran.
You later explicitly referred to open letter in the Parisien again. Btw: the manifesto was written by the former director of Charlie Hebdo, Philippe Val; Val is a co-editeur of the book with the same name as the open letter: "Le Nouvel Antisémitisme en France", Ed. Albin Michel, Paris, 2018.

Video: http://www.albin-michel.fr/ouvrages/le-nouvel-antisemitisme-en-france-9782226436153

View in the book: https://en.calameo.com/read/001918672a809003bf466?page=2&volume=0&wmode=transparent
Olivier5
 
  2  
Tue 22 May, 2018 10:13 am
@revelette1,
I never take anything Lash says for granted; i've just seen too much BS in her posts over the past year. In this case, she managed to misunderstand HER OWN POST. She quoted an article lamenting a private open letter in a newspaper, and mistook that for public policy... It takes significant stupidity and/or bad faith to reach that level of misunderstanding.

The French tend to like polemics; France has its share of idiots, and they are entitled to publishing their opinions in newspapers. If Lash were to start a thread entitled "wild French manifestos" or "stupid French polemics", there'd be ample material for it. But give to Jupiter (Macron's nickname) what belongs to Jupiter.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -2  
Tue 22 May, 2018 10:19 am
@Walter Hinteler,
He’s bending toward re-structuring of a French-branded Islam. I guess you don’t like that.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/556604/

Excerpt:


When French President Emmanuel Macron said in an interview last month that he plans to “set down markers on the entire way in which Islam is organized in France,” he wasn’t making an unprecedented announcement. Rather, he was pledging to succeed where his predecessors have failed.

Successive governments since the 1980s have tried to create a brand of Islam particular to France, with the dual objective of integrating the country’s Muslim minority and fighting Islamist extremism. The goal has been to create an Islam that both conforms to national values, notably secularism, and is immune to the radical interpretations that have gained a footing in certain parts of the Muslim world. Ironically, past attempts to codify a sort of French Islam—transforming Islam in France to an Islam of France—have been deeply entangled with French Muslims’ countries of origin, especially Morocco, Algeria, and Turkey. In 2015, for example, then-President François Hollande signed a deal with the Moroccan monarchy to send French imams to a training institute in Rabat.


The result is a crisis of representation and legitimacy. Existing organizations, affiliated with the state or otherwise, don’t represent the diverse Muslim communities in France. This undermines the integration of Muslims into the broader society and, according to Macron’s government, creates space for dangerous ideologies. At the same time, many Muslims consider a top-down approach to manage Islam domesticating or patronizing, particularly in light of France’s unresolved colonial legacy in the Arab-Muslim world—a way to assimilate Islam to the point of invisibility.

There’s another reason why observers may look upon state-run efforts with skepticism. The primary objective—rarely stated explicitly and often folded into rhetorical platitudes about social cohesion—is clear: fighting radicalization. “It’s always implied that a French Islam is a moderate one, opposed to terrorism,” said Olivier Roy, a scholar on Islam and professor at the European University Institute in Florence. “But what does it mean for a religion to be moderate?”

France’s estimated 6 million Muslims—8 percent of the population—are at the core of a contemporary reckoning over national identity in a country that holds fast to laïcité, or state secularism, the 1905 legal principle that separated church and state and mandated the state’s neutrality on religion. More recently, that debate has been grafted onto the fight against Islamist extremism, and this month’s attacks in the southern cities of Carcassone and Trèbes, committed by a man of Moroccan origin who was naturalized in 2004, have further deepened public anxieties. Since 2013, at least 1,700 French nationals have joined the ranks of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria; citizens were behind several of the attacks France faced in 2015 and 2016. But the national angst about Islam’s very compatibility with the French Republic dates at least as far back as the 1970s and 1980s, when immigrants who had come as temporary workers from former French colonies (particularly in North Africa) began to settle permanently in France. That reality unleashed a series of state attempts to manage Muslim integration.


“The Muslim community is tired and disappointed with a series of ridiculous and humiliating offers,” M’hammed Henniche, the president of the Union of Muslim Associations of Seine-Saint-Denis—a majority-Muslim district northeast of Paris—told me, referring to policies that have tethered French Islam to the Arab world.

The French Council of the Muslim Faith, which then-Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy created in 2003, exemplifies that grievance. According to a 2016 survey, barely a third of French Muslims even know what it is, and its opaque leadership structure disproportionately represents entities tied to Algeria, Morocco, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. Other organizations have close ties to Algeria, Morocco or the Muslim Brotherhood.

Yet it’s no surprise that, in trying to institutionalize Islam, French officials outsourced religious affairs. “The state can’t interfere in the management of religion or in theological questions,” said Roy. “Yet, for 30 years, French governments have tried to do just that. The whole project is a profound contradiction,” he said, in which a staunchly secular state cobbles together a plan to harbor its own national Islam.

Although the objective to reorganize French Islam isn’t new, Macron’s initiative is distinct in both circumstance and outlook. “Macron entered office in 2015, on the heels of recent terrorist attacks,” said Bernard Godard, who, from 1997 to 2014, served as the Interior Ministry’s in-house expert on Islam. “For French public opinion, organizing Islam needs to be a security question” and assuage fears that, according to a January survey, preoccupy the nation. “But concretely, we don’t know what that means.”

One of Macron’s plans is to break with foreign funding in order to disentangle Muslim organizations in France from other countries. Another proposal centers on training imams. Whereas past governments, like Hollande’s, looked to allies such as Morocco—“an Islam we know,” as Godard put it—Macron has suggested training imams at home. In keeping with secularism, the training would be in cultural values, not religious texts, in order to foster a generation of imams “made in France.”

Yet levying a national training program to fight radicalization presupposes that the imams preaching hatred are in fact foreign. That’s hardly the case; currents like Salafism have gained momentum in France. “It’s illogical to say that’s due to an Islam from the Maghreb or elsewhere,” said Godard. “We need to recognize that in France, there’s a French Salafi Islam.” Some of the most dangerous imams, he added, are French, and preach in French.

The lessons drawn from recent terrorism challenge the notion that an inherently moderate French Islam—if it’s even possible to create one from the top—could serve as a bulwark against extremism. French academics have clashed over the drivers of radicalization, but significant evidence points to their non-religious undertones. That’s not to imply that Islam has no role in the spread of radical ideas. But the young men behind the massacres in Paris or Nice were not pious Muslims who regularly attended mosques, even though they killed in the name of the religion. Instead, attackers tend to have histories of petty crime, serving brief stints in prison, where they are often exposed to extremist ideologies. Others radicalize online, where recruiters for groups like the Islamic State thrive. Redouane Lakdim—the Carcassone and Trèbes attacker—fit that profile: He had been jailed in 2015 and 2016 for firearms and drug possession, respectively, and was known to be active on Salafi websites.

“The idea that if all of the imams in France embrace a moderate Islam there will be no more terrorism is ridiculous and irrelevant,” Roy told me, adding that France couldn’t constitutionally replace Salafi imams with “moderate” ones without violating the neutrality mandated by the 1905 law. Still, the recent attack has led some opposition politicians to demand a “ban on Salafism.” It’s unclear what that would entail and whether it would be legally feasible, not to mention effective as a counterterrorism measure.

Roy considers the government’s dogged focus on religion to be “ideological”—the product of an increasingly hardline laïcité in which religion, and Islam in particular, disappears from the public space. That reactionary bent was particularly prominent under Hollande, whose prime minister, Manuel Valls, seized on the terrorist attacks to advance an anti-religious agenda in the name of security, notably with his 2016 attempt to ban burqinis on beaches.

Valls, who recently called Islam a “problem” for France, is not a fringe voice. And although Macron has tried to temper the debate around laïcité and Islam—warning against a “radicalization of laïcité,” which some considered a veiled reference to the former prime minister and his numerous followers—he’s in the minority, both in his government and among the public. One of the scholars Macron plans to consult on Islam, Gilles Kepel, is a member of the Printemps Républicain (Republican Spring), a group of intellectuals and journalists who, from the left, advance an agenda in keeping with Valls’s views. According to a February survey, 43 percent of the public considers Islam “incompatible with the values of the Republic.” That’s down from 56 percent in 2016, but is still a testament to just how divisive Islam has become, complicating any attempt to institutionalize or manage the religion in a way that is both politically palatable and doesn’t alienate Muslims themselves.

That raises the question of legitimacy. While the spike in anti-Muslim sentiment that followed the 2015 and 2016 attacks has significantly receded, many Muslims say this prejudice is still pervasive both socially and legally. They cite, for example, a 2004 law that bans religious symbols in public schools (including symbols of religions other than Islam), a 2010 ban on the full-face veil in public, and, as of January, a ban on religious garb in the National Assembly. For some Muslims, then, the very notion of a French Islam created by the state may seem like a continuation of policies they see as tools of assimilation that are stifling religious expression.

According to Hakim El-Karoui, a fellow at the Institut Montaigne think tank and one of the experts Macron intends to consult, the state should enable the emergence of a French Islam, not create one itself. He applauds Macron’s objective to distance French Islam from the Arab world, and believes it should go even farther: “I’m proposing that we shift responsibility to French Muslims who have no interest other than that of France,” he told me, referring to those he calls “silent Muslims”—members of the middle class and elite.

But that might not be so easy. “Many Muslims who have managed to climb the social ladder don’t want to be linked to Islam, too frequently associated with jihad, or the banlieues,” said Roy, referring to the often impoverished suburbs that surround French cities.

El-Karoui, who is Muslim, isn’t convinced that the “silent Muslims” will shy away from the task, but acknowledges that the challenge is long-term. For him, it’s about drowning out the extremist ideologies that have managed to conquer the radio waves. “On social media, or in the public debate, who talks about Islam, who talks about religion? The Islamic State on the one hand, and Salafis on the other,” he said. That’s somewhat of an exaggeration, but those groups are the loudest, with well-oiled PR machines that overpower the smattering of other, disunited actors. “We need another public narrative on Islam,” El-Karoui said, adding that this could help reduce anti-Muslim sentiment, chipping away at a faulty conflation of Islam and terrorism.

But it’s unclear whether the mobilization El-Karoui envisions will include the Muslims who embrace rather than downplay their religious distinctiveness, and have even—perhaps in a jab to laws like the 2004 ban on headscarves in public schools—redeployed religious symbols in order to combat perceived discrimination. When I raised this with him, he described the headscarf as a decisive emblem of Islamism, the political ideology that has inspired violence, not Islam, the religion. The women who wear it, in his view, should recognize that the symbol they associate with their religion in fact represents a nefarious political ideology.

Yet that would be a tough sell. While the Quran doesn’t require women to wear the headscarf, that isn’t necessarily relevant to those who wear it. Many girls affected by the 2004 law, for example, feel rejected by a restrictive vision of what it means to be French. In an interview, Linda Merzouk, an 18-year-old who removes her headscarf daily before entering her high school in eastern Paris, lamented an obligation to “leave an integral part of [herself] at home,” and described the ban as an “infringement on religious freedom” that “closes doors” for her in French society. That perception of being sidelined could fuel the narrative of victimization that the likes of the Islamic State have so effectively manipulated to sway young people.

For now, Macron has only laid the groundwork. A break with foreign funding would at least in part disentangle Muslim institutions from foreign interests. But if the goal is to protect France from violent ideas preached in the name of Islam, a one-size-fits-all approach—especially imposed from above, with little attention to the demands of France’s diverse Muslim communities—may be missing the mark.

For Roy, that much is clear. “We’re in the process of trying to organize a religion that concerns six million people in France, in order to prevent 200 of them from becoming terrorists. Can’t we see that it’s absurd?” he said. And while he agrees that the current situation is untenable, any shift will require legitimacy if it’s to be successful. “It’s up to Muslims to take the lead. It’s their historic mission.”


ABOUT THE AUTHOR

KARINA PISER is a writer based in Paris with a fellowship from the Institute of Current World Affairs. Her writing has appeared in The Nation, Foreign Policy, and World Politics Review, among other publications.
—————————
Of course, you can speak to what’s happening, or try to make it about me.

ehBeth
 
  2  
Tue 22 May, 2018 10:21 am
@Walter Hinteler,

Lash wrote:
I noticed he wasn't a signatory,


Lash wrote:
This is the French president claiming his intention to edit the Koran.


Shocked
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Tue 22 May, 2018 10:22 am
@Lash,
It's funny how some US authors tend to lose their smarts and composure when discussing France. It's like they go into some sort of mental disonnance. I never understood why. And I don't see the same level of shrillness and disrespect for facts in US reporting on Germany or Canada, for instance... But I could be wrong, ie not know enough about Germany or Canada to spot the gross approximations and misrepresentations.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Tue 22 May, 2018 10:27 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

It's funny how some US authors tend to lose their smarts and composure when discussing France. It's like they go into some sort of mental disonnance. I never understood why. And I don't see the same level of shrillness and disrespect for facts in US reporting on Germany or Canada, for instance... But I could be wrong, ie not know enough about Germany or Canada to spot the gross approximations and misrepresentations.


it is precisely the same when it comes to Canada

I think it is fundamentally an increasing lack of interest in facts in US media - a dislike of the truth - a distrust of people with knowledge

it's something blatham has posted about at great length

many of the best educated American posters at this site try to look like yahoos - put down education/the educated - it's an interesting phenomenon
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Tue 22 May, 2018 10:44 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
He’s bending toward re-structuring of a French-branded Islam. I guess you don’t like that.
I don't think it to be of any importance what I like or dislike.

But I really think it to be difficult for foreigners to understand the French regarding state and churches.
There's not only the Conseil français du culte musulman ("French Council of the Muslim Faith") but the French have got the Consistoire central israélite ("Israelite Central Consistory of France"), the Fédération protestante de France ("Protestant Federation of France"), and the Conférence des Evêques de France ("Episcopal Conference of France").
And all governments tried to get all religions "in line".
Olivier5
 
  4  
Tue 22 May, 2018 11:40 am
@Lash,
Actually this article is pretty factual and well written. It does a good job at describing the situation were in and how we got there. I can't find much to disagree with, franky... The references (Olivier Roy, Hakim El-Karoui) also have solid expertise and my respect. I don't know the writer but I wish all American reporters were that good...
Lash
 
  1  
Tue 22 May, 2018 11:50 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:

And all governments tried to get all religions "in line".

_______________
Could you give an example wherein this getting a religion in line by a government didn’t negatively impact the adherents and was successful?
Lash
 
  1  
Tue 22 May, 2018 11:55 am
@Lash,
I mean, the Inquisition was a hoot to some, not so much others...
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Tue 22 May, 2018 12:13 pm
@Olivier5,
As far as I remember, the discussion about laïcité are going on since this concept became law in 1905.

Some interesting essays/reports here: La laïcité ennemie des religions ?

I just think that secularism (laïcité) should not be used to stigmatise part of the population because of their religion. (I did years ago some research in the archives of the Préfecture de Police on a different topic. But I've noticed in some sources that e.g. the étoile jaune ("yellow star") for the Jews during the German occupation was thought by quite a few to be a kind of secularism. [Vincent Peillon did similar a couple of months ago.])
Olivier5
 
  1  
Tue 22 May, 2018 12:49 pm
@Lash,
Quote:
Could you give an example wherein this getting a religion in line by a government didn’t negatively impact the adherents and was successful?

For one thing, avoiding the proliferation of the most obvious religious scams like scientology.
Lash
 
  1  
Tue 22 May, 2018 12:50 pm
@Olivier5,
France doesn’t allow Scientology?
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Tue 22 May, 2018 12:57 pm
@Lash,
Scientology as a cult in France, observed, if the are threat to public order or violate French law by the Mission interministérielle de vigilance et de lutte contre les dérives sectaires.
(They've got a better situation in France than here in Germany where Sientology is seen either as a business, or a worldview community.)
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Tue 22 May, 2018 12:58 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
And I don't see the same level of shrillness and disrespect for facts in US reporting on Germany or Canada, for instance...


or the US

timely and apropos

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/04/30/fascists-compete-own-america

Quote:
Given how reactive hard right snowflakes have gotten in response to a few truth-based jokes from Michelle Wolf, and that Mick Mulvaney has confessed to running a pay-for-play operation out of his congressional office, and Trump is daily breaking the Constitution’s emoluments clause, now might be a really good time to examine the origins and nature of the whole right-wing business/government model known as “fascism.”

Although most Americans remember that Harry Truman was Franklin D. Roosevelt's Vice President when Roosevelt died in 1945 (making Truman President), Roosevelt had two previous Vice Presidents – John N. Garner (1933-1941) and Henry A. Wallace (1941-1945).

In early 1944, the New York Times asked Vice President Henry Wallace to, as Wallace noted, “write a piece answering the following questions: What is a fascist? How many fascists have we? How dangerous are they?”

Vice President Wallace's answer to those questions was published in The New York Times on April 9, 1944, at the height of the war against the Axis powers of Germany and Japan.

"The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information." —Vice President Henry Wallace, 1944“The really dangerous American fascists,” Wallace wrote, “are not those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information.”
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Tue 22 May, 2018 01:04 pm
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/all-american-nazis-fascist-youth-united-states-w519651

a friend's son is apparently hoping to move to the US to join one of these groups - frightening business

Quote:
Andrew Oneschuk was one of a raft of alienated young men who, over the past several years, found their way into the self-reinforcing online universe of the far right. It was a phenomenon that, for a great many people, seemed to come out of nowhere: "Ordinary" boys from ordinary towns in relatively ordinary economic circumstances had suddenly aligned themselves with white supremacy. They had come to believe, through an intricate online world, that everything they'd ever learned was, essentially, a lie. In the lingo of the Internet, they'd been "red pilled," Matrix style, their adolescent anomie exploited through a cottage industry of websites, Reddit threads, Twitter feeds, YouTube videos, and scores of memes laced with a sort of deceptive irony that made it hard to know what's a joke and what's not. Adolf Hitler holding a PlayStation controller; Jamba Juice cups wearing yarmulkes and payot; the anti-Semitic- cartoon character known as the Happy Merchant, often portrayed making off with someone's money. There were anime characters dressed as fascists, and "Nazi Ponies," which was a Tumblr blog, then a VK page, a Twitter feed and a series of YouTube videos that showcased My Little Ponies accessorized with swastika armbands or clad in full SS regalia.

Between 2012 and 2016, according to a report by George Washington University's Program on Extremism, there was a 600 percent increase in followers of American white-nationalist movements on Twitter alone; white-nationalist groups now outperform ISIS in nearly every social metric. Analysts who study extremism note that both the far right and groups like ISIS use similar tactics, producing high-quality videos and employing memes and jokes to make their message more appealing. "The overall goal is to destabilize people so you can then fill them with your own views," says Keegan Hankes, a senior research analyst with the Southern Poverty Law Center. "If you make racism or anti-Semitism funny, you can subvert the cultural taboo. Make people laugh at the Holocaust – you've opened a space in which history and fact become worthless, period."



is it happening on this site? I believe so. It is the reason some real-life friends and family choose not to visit it more.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Tue 22 May, 2018 01:09 pm
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/madeleine-albright-warns-of-a-new-fascism-and-trump

Quote:
The premise of Albright’s book is that the Fascism of a century ago was not atypical. “In hindsight, it is tempting to dismiss every Fascist of this era as a thoroughly bad guy or a lunatic, but that is too easy, also dangerous,” she writes. “Fascism is not an exception to humanity, but part of it.” In the early twenty-first century, authoritarian demagoguery and nativist populism are making inroads in Egypt, Hungary, North Korea, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, Turkey, and Venezuela. It’s part of a global trend. Worldwide, seventy-two nations had limited freedoms and a decline in democratic health according to The Economist’s Democracy Index published in 2017.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Tue 22 May, 2018 01:44 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
A crash history course on relations between the French state and religion would start with the deep entanglement between the French monarchy and the Catholic Church, from Clovis to the revolution, and passing through Charlemagne, the crusades, the Avignon episode, the religious wars and all that... This background stuff could be called "France as the Church's eldest daughter".

The revolution was anti-religious; thousands of priests who didn't sign on the First Republic's guidelines were beheaded. However, Jews and Protestants became free of the Church's clutch. Napoleon normalised the relations with Rome, keeping bishop nominations under control (le Concordat).

The Second Republic was short-lived, but the Third realised the promisses on the revolution, in that it worked. It produced the 1905 laws, and the fiercely secular public school, in order to replace Catholic and other religious schools and forge a new united nation, with one language and one uniform body of basic knowledge. This is a defining moment in the French political culture. That's why there's this rule that religious signs at school should not be conspicuous.

In short, the first French republics were all built against the will of the Church, who was naturally royalist. This left us with a strong anticlerical vibe in our political culture. The extremists of laïcité whom Macron has talked of are the children of this history. I agree they are a problem.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Tue 22 May, 2018 02:46 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

Could you give an example wherein this getting a religion in line by a government didn’t negatively impact the adherents and was successful?


Establishment of the Church of England, that helped to ensure that nobody over here gives a **** about religion.
Lash
 
  1  
Tue 22 May, 2018 06:00 pm
@izzythepush,
That outcome was pretty good.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.15 seconds on 11/14/2024 at 10:36:36