French Algeria

Typo

Banned
"Racist by nature?" Ancient Romans were fine with black people, Islam is pretty trans-racial. People do fear the odd and different, but the sort of hard-core skin-color or eyeball-shape racism of 19th century Europe was a result of a specific development of racial heirarchies arising from large-scale conquest in the Americas and the African slave-trade, exacerbated by the development of ethnic nationalism and "scientific" racism. The problem was that nineteenth and early 20th century Europeans were _more_ racist than they were in earlier periods or would be later, (which is a HUGE problem,) not that humans are inherently racist.

Ethnic nationalism didn't exist in Algeria yet, but yes, it definitely was becoming more important in France by that time...

Bruce

Except even today there is strong feelings about the Arabism of Islam. The Roman empire is an -exception- rather than rule in their racial feelings. Most "tolerant" empires did not lack racism but rather modern ethnical nationalism. Humans are evolutionarily bred to racist as a protective mechanism. You are incredibly naive in thinking that racism is something unique to the last couple of centuries. And ummm, ethnic nationalism was not -becoming- in France by that time, it -became- back in 1789
Then why do they want to immigrate to France if the French don't like them? Seems to me they should be trying to get into a country that's not instantly hostile towards them.
Economic oppotunities or at least the perception of such, their own country is poor enough that they are willing to take abuse if it means bettering themselves
 
Last edited:

Typo

Banned
Voltaire was nationalistic and anti-religious, described Mohammed as a "camel merchant" who "dared raising insurrection against his nation", and was also racist at least against blacks, so probably not too well But would be an interesting experient though, putting social theorists in charge of a colony
 
Economic oppotunities or at least the perception of such, their own country is poor enough that they are willing to take abuse if it means bettering themselves


Yeah, but France?

And aren't there ghettos where the Algerian immigrants live? Well I hope they find jobs to keep them busy and out of trouble... does French cities have Algerian Gangs?
 
Voltaire was nationalistic and anti-religious, described Mohammed as a "camel merchant" who "dared raising insurrection against his nation", and was also racist at least against blacks, so probably not too well But would be an interesting experient though, putting social theorists in charge of a colony

He was anti-religious in general, and Algerians aren't blacks: he had a fair amount of respect for Asian nations, as far as I know.

Bruce
 

Typo

Banned
France is a very wealthy first world country, people are willing to live in squalor just for a chance to share in that wealth because their home country is so poor. And yes, often those immigrants end up not achieving anything near to the amount of wealth they desire because of institutionalized racism and other factors, which is the root cause to those riots they have
He was anti-religious in general, and Algerians aren't blacks: he had a fair amount of respect for Asian nations, as far as I know.
He particularlly liked the Qing government as a model of enligthened depotism
 
Except even today there is strong feelings about the Arabism of Islam. The Roman empire is an -exception- rather than rule in their racial feelings. Most "tolerant" empires did not lack racism but rather modern ethnical nationalism. Humans are evolutionarily bred to racist as a protective mechanism. You are incredibly naive in thinking that racism is something unique to the last couple of centuries.

Not unique, but it was substantially more destructive. The sort of clear-cut racial seperatism and assignment of unchangeable inferiority to other people was _not_ the historical norm. 18th century Europeans in India were a lot more respectful of the local culture and peoples than they would become in the 19th: and ethnic minorities often occupied important positions in other pre-modern empires than the Romans. Racial categories were often loose and changeable: the boundary between Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda and Burundi was a lot more fluid before the Belgians came along and started classifying them as "ruling" and "subject" races.

Suspicion of the Other _is_ human nature, but it can be greatly moderated - or greatly exacerbated - by cultural factors.

Not that there weren't some pretty racist pre-modern societies - the Greeks, for instance - but again, that's a matter of local culture rather than something inherent in human nature.

And ummm, ethnic nationalism was not -becoming- in France by that time, it -became- back in 1789

Things do not "become" at one clear-cut point in time. French Nationalism did have an ethnic flavor from the start (all we Frenchmen are in this together), but it also included a good deal of Enlightenment univeralism. Being French did not necessarily mean born of French parents.

Bruce
 
Hmm. One wonders how well Governor Voltaire of Enlightenment French Algeria would have done... :)

Bruce

Actually, he would have fared very poorly since France conquered Algeria fifty years after his death.

More seriously, barring a genocide of the Muslim population, I don't see how Algeria could have had a European majority at some time. Had demographic trends in France been better througout the 19th century, I guess French dynamism would have turned against its european neighbors, emigration not being France's forte.

The sanest plan may be, after all, Napoleon III's "Arab Kingdom" project. Basically, Algeria was to become an autonomous country in personal union with France, granting equal rights to Jews, Arabs and Europeans (although only the latter would have a joint French-"Algerian" nationality). All the half-assed efforts to give Algerians a real, equal status to Europeans came too late and were too petty to do the trick.

Still, Algeria and France never really divorced. Of course, the Algerian regime often uses Anti-French rhetorics, especially to cover its failure. And the Algerian war has left a strong anti-Algerian prejudice among French men who were drafted during the war (my father has kept a strong dislike for Algerians, though he hates even more the Pied-Noirs. True, he has been caught under fire in Oran by the OAS...). But many Algerians have been disappointed by the political evolution of their country after independance and, while they certainly don't miss the colonial rule, they harbour some nostalgy for the so-called "golden times" of economic expansion in the 1950's. And French people have far more in common with Algerians than Tunisians and Moroccans, even if bilateral relations have always been better with Tunisia and Morocco, not to mention the role of the "Rapatriés" (European people born in Algeria, including Algerian Jews since all Jews in Algeria were granted the French nationality in 1870).

Oh, there are actually no "Algerian ghettos", although French suburbs share may traits with the US definition of "Ghetto". The segregation is at least as social as ethnic. And I'm sorry for the Kiat, but I think that the relationship between Muslim French and other French, although strained by the preposterous dabate launched by the Government on "National Identity", is not as volatile as in...well, for example, a country with tulips and bikes where a populist politician has been murdered by some Muslim radical, maybe ?
 
Except even today there is strong feelings about the Arabism of Islam. The Roman empire is an -exception- rather than rule in their racial feelings. Most "tolerant" empires did not lack racism but rather modern ethnical nationalism. Humans are evolutionarily bred to racist as a protective mechanism. You are incredibly naive in thinking that racism is something unique to the last couple of centuries. And ummm, ethnic nationalism was not -becoming- in France by that time, it -became- back in 1789 Economic oppotunities or at least the perception of such, their own country is poor enough that they are willing to take abuse if it means bettering themselves

um, what? humans are genetically programmed to be racist? or are you speaking for yourself?
 

Typo

Banned
It's a sort of xenophobia, think about it, Humans and animals in general are evolved into fearing outsiders.
 
I think Captain Poplar may be correct in assuming that Napoleon III's "Arab Kingdom" project would be the best way to achieving better assimilation. From what I have read he was effectively circumvented by Colon officials on the ground, who were not sympathetic to the natives and misallocated tribal land to the colonials. I don't think this project, even if successful, will increase the french settlers there though - but it will potentially keep the natives relatively happy.

According to the ever reliable wikipedia, only 3000 Algerians in 100 years ever denounced their faith to become French citizens. Part of the denouncement included not accepting the competence of the religious courts for personal disputes. If we amend the requirement for the religious courts and denouncement of their faith, I think we can encourage more to become citizens. With such a small number there is no way for the majority of Algerians to consider themselves French. I can't see the mainland accepting religious courts running parallel to their own legal system, but perhaps restricting that aspect to Algeria will suffice?

Thank you.

Regards,
Euromellows
 
Top