Libert

As arson, rioting and general civil unrest rage on throughout France in the wake of two teenage boys’ accidental deaths, many onlookers and analysts want easy answers to a complex situation confounded by a litany of variables. Already, some have pigeonholed the rioters, most of whom are Muslim African and Arab minorities, as fundamentally Islamic and possibly terrorist-sponsored. While such post-Sept. 11 speculation seems inevitable, current evidence suggests other, more layered realities.

First, there are the social and political realities to take into account. In poor, immigrant-heavy suburbs such as Clichy-sous-Bois, where the two boys died, close-knit minorities, isolated in large part from mainstream French culture, face unemployment rates that are nearly twice as high as the national average and sometimes as high as 50 percent. Restless and without anything to do, these groups complain that to add insult to injury, they lack equal access to France’s generous social entitlements such as adequate housing.

Another facet of the clashing that certainly cannot be ignored are the religious overtones. For more than a century, France has prided itself on its fiercely secular system. While it has worked for most native French, minorities feel that overt secularization has caused them to subdue their passionate, pronounced religious tendencies, which differ from those of French natives’ predominantly Christian ones. This is best exemplified by the aggravation many Muslims felt when legislation passed in 2003 that prohibited girls in school from wearing hijab, the traditional Muslim head dressing for women, or other “overtly religious symbols.”

Concerning religion, it is beginning to look clear that it is not the sole or even necessarily the main instigator, contrary to some claims. Coupled with social and political disintegration, it is more of a catalyst for the disenfranchised to call themselves to action than anything. In all likelihood, if social and political policies were more minority-friendly than they are now, the rioters probably would not be wreaking havoc upon the homes and properties of their native French neighbors. If their religious orientations alone have inclined them to violence, one has to wonder why such individuals choose to stay in a country they seek to destroy.

None of this is to say that the rioters’ political, social or religious frustration justifies the kind of aggression seen across the country, which a police spokesman there said is “without precedent since the end of the Second World War.” Contrary to what the rioters might hope, their behavior has stirred as much disgust in the hearts of native French as sympathy. Many natives now have proof in their minds to substantiate their fears that minorities in the country are indeed unruly, hostile, and not in accord with French culture.

Although the upheaval cannot be analyzed in full yet, a likely foreseeable conclusion is that after the disruption, which is only sustainable for so long, a renewed polarization will grapple France. Flustered minorities have finally gotten the confrontation with the greater society that they felt was necessary, but emotions are still so singeing hot that fair, practical solution to tensions has yet to blossom properly. As riot squads extinguish fires in city streets while new ones continue to spark, the French – both native and of foreign descent – have to figure out what is really separating one from the other.

Tad Hethcoat may be reached at bureacrat85@yahoo.com