WI: The French tried to intermarry with, Frenchifry, and Catholicize the Algerians?

[aenigma]

no clothes being invented that would butterfly out the white race. sounds pretty racist to me.

seems to me he didnt intend it that way and fairly sure the white race would stil exist in sourthern europe
and wait didnt he just claim hes a white supremacist ? how can he then be a racist to white people ?

like i sayd everything is racist to some if they disagree

 

[vortiger]

seems to me he didnt intend it that way and fairly sure the white race would stil exist in sourthern europe
and wait didnt he just claim hes a white supremacist ? how can he then be a racist to white people ?

my comment is clearly a joke

 

[aenigma]

PleAse tske these views elsewhere. This is not the forum to discuss this subject that can be full of bigotry and hatred.

the context is correct but its not the place to discuss this i do agree with that

 

[aenigma]

my comment is clearly a joke

my bad english isnt my native language and i something mis the sarcasm

 

[Lusitania]

the context is correct but its not the place to discuss this i do agree with that

Correct the question of this thread is historical 1830-1960 of ability or inability of French to integrate Muslim Algerians with French. What happening today in Europe is a conversation for chat.

 

[Tibi088]

To those who want to close this thread for racism:
A french Algeria is a pretty often recurring theme of this forum. I agree that this thread went maybe a bit too far but what the OP originally asked for was for France to retain control ower Algeria by instead of only giving privilaged position to the settlers also accepting converts as equals or nearly equals - making intermarriage possible. A policy like this is actually nearly the opposite of racist: it proposes instead of a racial a religious divide of the algerian populace with an added effort for conversion.

After it was pointed out that this would most likely not wotk other - more radical - solutions were proposed and some of those IMO went too far. However genocide was not proposed as alleged by some. And IMO the discussion regarding the conversion between the big religions was pretty interesting was pretty interesting.

 

[Byzantine fanatic]

After it was pointed out that this would most likely not work other - more radical - solutions were proposed and some of those IMO went too far. However genocide was not proposed as alleged by some. And IMO the discussion regarding the conversion between the big religions was pretty interesting was pretty interesting.

Article 7 of the 1994 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples used the phrase "cultural genocide", as follows:

Indigenous peoples have the collective and individual right not to be subjected to ethnocide and cultural genocide, including prevention of and redress for:
(a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities;
(b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources;
(c) Any form of population transfer which has the aim or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights;
(d) Any form of assimilation or integration by other cultures or ways of life imposed on them by legislative, administrative or other measures;
(e) Any form of propaganda directed against them.

We have two clear counts of genocide being openly advocated in this thread.

 

[Tanc49]

Right, let's get back on topic.
First, the abrahamic faith do not convert short of a new prophet. That's an historical fact.
Second, the Muslims were legally second class citizens and could become full citizens if they converted. Few did. How that meshes with separation of Church and State? Beats me
Third, the Church was forbidden to proselytize in Algeria (not sure how explicit the rule was though) specifically to not create more trouble with the Muslim population
Fourth, religion is rarely about religion. It is often a cultural factor, like in Ireland. Nobody cares about saints and predestination, but people care about the crown.
Fifth, forcing conversion would effectively lead to genocide

 

[aenigma]

Right, let's get back on topic.
First, the abrahamic faith do not convert short of a new prophet. That's an historical fact.
Second, the Muslims were legally second class citizens and could become full citizens if they converted. Few did. How that meshes with separation of Church and State? Beats me
Third, the Church was forbidden to proselytize in Algeria (not sure how explicit the rule was though) specifically to not create more trouble with the Muslim population
Fourth, religion is rarely about religion. It is often a cultural factor, like in Ireland. Nobody cares about saints and predestination, but people care about the crown.
Fifth, forcing conversion would effectively lead to genocide

Wel north africa converted from christian to muslim just fine
if those regions where dominated by spain/france earlier i bet its very possible that they would have converted back
but 1830+ is a bit to late for that

keep 2 and encourage 3 would probably have better results though

 

[funnyhat]

Second, the Muslims were legally second class citizens and could become full citizens if they converted. Few did. How that meshes with separation of Church and State? Beats me

They did not exactly have to convert religions, but did have to renounce their "statut particulier" under which they were governed by Islamic law, if they wanted to become French citizens. Most did not want to take that step. (And the French régime was perfectly fine with that.)

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

Madagascar?

Okay, I've had enough of your garbage all over this forum. Advocating ethnic cleansing is against the rules here, so bye bye.

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

There are like 20 open reports on this guy.

 

[Dargonaut]

Wel north africa converted from christian to muslim just fine
if those regions where dominated by spain/france earlier i bet its very possible that they would have converted back
but 1830+ is a bit to late for that

keep 2 and encourage 3 would probably have better results though

Christianity during that time had a very tenuous grip over the berber people, especially the indigenous nomads. It wasn't really that difficult. Even large swaths of Europe was pagan at the time. Christianity didn't really have the social capital at the time, meanwhile the muslims who came in like a hurricane did.The 18th century is too late to pull out an islam that is entrenched in every part of Algerian society. The country today is 97% muslim. It'll be ireland all over again. Making them more Francophone is much more possible.

 

[Drunkrobot]

The historical pattern seems to be that mass conversion of an area, even supposedly 'primitive' religions like the Mesoamericans and the Germanic pagans, often requires the deliverance of some extreme violence by the converters to break up the social cohesion of the old religion, see Charlamagnes visit to the Saxons as an example.

Not only is forced religious conversation cultural genocide, it quite often requires some genocide genocide to take place beforehand to be successful.

 

[Gloss]

The historical pattern seems to be that mass conversion of an area, even supposedly 'primitive' religions like the Mesoamericans and the Germanic pagans, often requires the deliverance of some extreme violence by the converters to break up the social cohesion of the old religion, see Charlamagnes visit to the Saxons as an example.

I disagree, even if we take into account all the coercion going around, "conversion by the sword" is one of the worst way to explain how and why most religious conversion happens, be it Islam, Christianity or most other religions.

 

[Tibi088]

Article 7 of the 1994 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples used the phrase "cultural genocide", as follows:

Indigenous peoples have the collective and individual right not to be subjected to ethnocide and cultural genocide, including prevention of and redress for:
(a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities;
(b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources;
(c) Any form of population transfer which has the aim or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights;
(d) Any form of assimilation or integration by other cultures or ways of life imposed on them by legislative, administrative or other measures;
(e) Any form of propaganda directed against them.

We have two clear counts of genocide being openly advocated in this thread.

cultural genocide =/= genocide. Main point of difference: one has as a goal to murder a whole people. What you describe has the goal of making them like someone else or moving them to a different location. If you cant see the difference maybe the problem is with you.

And whats more, integrating and/or assimilating people has always been the goal of every single government. They dont want dissenters. Its not necesserily evil thogh we could find some really evil ones if we wanted to.

 

[Byzantine fanatic]

@Tibi088 the Nazis had plans to move the Jews to Madagascar before the war. That turned out to be impractical... and we all know what happened next. I don't think it's a coincidence that @Baby Kata mentioned sending people to Madagascar... I think you know what the Endlösung der jüdischen Frage is... if not there is always Google...

 

[Tibi088]

@Tibi088 the Nazis had plans to move the Jews to Madagascar before the war. That turned out to be impractical... and we all know what happened next. I don't think it's a coincidence that @Baby Kata mentioned sending people to Madagascar... I think you know what the Endlösung der jüdischen Frage is... if not there is always Google...

I know of the Madagascar plan and I already stated in my first post that later OP - i didnt specify but i think it was obvious - went too far. I didnt check her alleged other threads but guessing from the attitude I think it was probably - I cant say for sure as i didnt check - right to ban her. However I want to be able to disuss possible religious conversions or maybe the possibility or impossibility of turning Algeria french without being banned for proposing genocide.

 

[Lusitania]

cultural genocide =/= genocide. Main point of difference: one has as a goal to murder a whole people. What you describe has the goal of making them like someone else or moving them to a different location. If you cant see the difference maybe the problem is with you.

And whats more, integrating and/or assimilating people has always been the goal of every single government. They dont want dissenters. Its not necesserily evil.

We had that in the USA, Canada and other immigrant countries where people were expected to assimilate to their adoptive country culture, language but not always necessarily religion. The issue for example with the Canadians was how they tried to assimilate the native populations that existed here and what cultural, social destruction occurred due to the misguided racist attempts to stop them from being "indian" and become "Canadian" but incidentally those that came out of the program damaged and all still faced discrimination and were looked as natives just dressed as "whites" but in meantime lost connection to their culture. Leading to many social problems such as alcoholism and other problems.

The issues here in this thread is a different culture, religion moving into a region, being the minority and how they could convert the locals to their side be that language, religion, culture or all three. The problem was that even those who did convert and tried to assimilate were never treated as French citizens but always as 2nd class citizens better than the 3rd class natives but not same as true French.

 

[CountPeter]

cultural genocide =/= genocide. Main point of difference: one has as a goal to murder a whole people. What you describe has the goal of making them like someone else or moving them to a different location. If you cant see the difference maybe the problem is with you.

And whats more, integrating and/or assimilating people has always been the goal of every single government. They dont want dissenters. Its not necesserily evil thogh we could find some really evil ones if we wanted to.

The point you are missing in the above UN declaration is the enforcement of assimilation through law.

What this can and has meant isnt merely a policy aimed at cultural integration, but outright punishment/violent enforcement for not abandoning your identity.