Actually, wait. Let me back up a second. I
was working on contract for a Boston-based higher education company, writing
emails and website content to entice foreign students to enroll in American
universities. One day I will write about the higher education bubble, but that
is not today.
I don’t believe it is a coincidence that the
last week I worked at this company ended on January 20th. Indeed, I would be extremely surprised if the travel ban didn’t
adversely affect a company funded through student visas.
But my personal problems, inconvenient as
they are, aren’t what’s at stake here. Instead, I’d like to talk about
immigration, and France.
First off, I want to parenthetically state
that I am not French, my spoken French is poor, and my understanding of French
culture and politics is rudimentary at best. Nevertheless, France is an
interesting case study, and many of its problems are same ones that the world
is struggling to address. While there are no easy answers for their problems,
their attempted solutions have implications which provide a snapshot for the
next several decades of geopolitical activity.
Let’s start with the French concept of
Laïcité. In short, “secularism” is not new in France. Since 1905, the state and religion have been officially separate (though the French
history of secularism goes back at least to Napoleonic times).
This goes somewhat farther than it does in America; the first article of the
French Constitution is: La France est une République indivisible, laïque, démocratique et
sociale (“France
shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic”). Traditionally,
religiously motivated thinking on political matters was incompatible with
reasoned political debate, and candidates who used religious
justifications for their beliefs were marginalized and not taken seriously. Laïcité is, essentially, a political correctness that makes the
mention of religion in political affairs taboo.
This
has changed somewhat, in the last decade, with French President Nicolas
Sarkozy, who argued for a "positive laïcité", specifically, one that recognizes the positive
benefits of religion in society. (Of note, France was historically very
Catholic — separation of the church, not just a church. More on all this a
little later.) Which brings us to another Sarkozy-era policy: the French burqa ban. The ban (which was
ostensibly not religious, by including helmets and other face coverings) was
upheld in the European Court of
Human Rights, which begrudgingly recognized that the French argument of “vivre ensemble” (translated as “living
together”) was legitimate. The defense was literally that the ban helped
protect French culture.
Culture
is such a slippery thing. What makes a culture? Does it need protecting, and if
so, from what? Is it even possible to protect? (Witness the death of France’s
“monokini” beach culture, and the
recent banning of the burkini)
Myself,
I have an inordinate fondness for French culture. My eyes well up at the
thought of Paris in spring, I am overwhelmed with joy at the sight of a boulangerie, and my only happiness in life
comes from consuming French food. Nor am I alone in my adoration, France is an
incredibly popular worldwide tourist destination and culture plays an important
part of it. If the world had a single homogenous culture, with everything the
same everywhere, what would be the point of visiting places? I’ll come back to
this, but first, let’s talk about Algeria.
Algeria is here |
Ignoring
much of the earlier history, Algeria was run as a French colony from 1830 to 1962. Algeria, along with the
neighboring protectorates Morocco and Tunisia, was the center of interest for
France in North Africa. Nor was Algeria merely a source of wealth, in February
1863, Emperor Napoleon III wrote a public letter to the Military Governor,
saying: "Algeria is not a colony in the traditional sense, but an Arab
kingdom; the local people have, like the colonists, a legal right to my
protection. I am just as much the Emperor of the Arabs of Algeria as I am of
the French."
The
Europeans certainly took this to heart, gladly settling throughout the
Maghreb/Barbary Coast, and enjoying the
benefits of French citizenship. The French system of government is organized differently
than the United States’, but it is a decent approximation to say that Algeria
was a state (département), with
full representation and voting rights, albeit with a large population of surly
non-citizens. By the 20th century, more than 10% of the population was
European (mostly concentrated in the cities, where they numbered between 30-40%
of the population).
While
the French policy was ostensibly to “civilize” the indigenous population, in
practice this meant seizing their land and forcing them to learn French (this
should not be surprising to anyone with a modest knowledge of history). And
while they did offer a path to French citizenship, this required complete
submission to the French legal system, and a formal renunciation of certain
aspects of sharia law. This did not go over very well with the native Muslims,
and only a few thousand Algerians took this path to citizenship.
The
remainder mostly stayed mad, and the colonial period was marked by strained
relationships with the native Muslims, the Jews (who became French citizens),
and the colonists. There were too many uprisings to list here, but most of them
ended with a lot of Muslim Algerians dead, and the Muslim population of Algeria
developed a lot of justified resentment to French rule, culminating in the long
and messy Algerian War. By the end of it, the
French government had collapsed and had been replaced with the “5th
Republic” under the Presidency of Charles Du Galle, Algeria declared its
independence, and over 800,000 people fled Algeria for France.
Many of those left behind, including the Harkis (Muslims loyal to the French
regime), were butchered, and I
mean that very literally.
Much
of France’s modern Muslim population is directly descended from the repatriated
Harkis (many of whom spent years in internment camps before being moved to housing projects), which
is why I’ve spent so much time talking about this. A lot of immigration activity
in the intervening years were Muslim families being reunited on French soil.
And even if many of them were not technically citizens, their children are by
virtue of being born in France.
So,
bringing us towards the current year, we have a whole bunch of historically
mistreated and mostly poor Muslims living in France, who have been given a rough
deal over the last few decades and, understandably, have relatively little
interest or opportunity to assimilate into French society. Also, as you might
expect, the French were not especially welcoming to their refugees, even the
ones that were ethnically European and spoke French. To sum up, it was a pretty
bad situation all around.
Now
it’s finally time to bring another big piece of the puzzle into play: Le Pen,
and The National Front.
I
would like to take a second to direct any readers interested in the history of
far-right political parties to read my series on Fascism and Tribalism, as many of these movements share
important commonalities. As one would expect, far-right Nationalist views have
a long history in France, with clear ideological lines leading from the
pro-monarchy faction opposing the French revolution (the original 1789 one, which is apparently still
a force actively shaping French politics), to the Action Français (which supported the Vichy
Regime and was an ideological cousin of Fascism), to the current Front National
(FN). In the case of the FN, the FN party formed as a direct reaction to the war
in Algeria, with many of the members, including Jean-Marie Le Pen himself (who reminds me
strongly of Lyndon LaRouche),
having fought against Algerian independence.
At any rate, the party of Jean-Marie Le Pen did not enjoy much electoral support, struggling
until the 1980s, when they were able to form a coalition (the French political
system is structured differently) with the center-right Rally for the Republic
and centrist Union for French Democracy parties. Since then, they have
struggled to maintain more than 10-15% of the vote in most places, with a
crushing loss to Chirac in 2002 (Chirac refused to debate Le Pen on television,
and won 82% of the vote, with polls indicating that over half the votes were
cast specifically to block Le Pen).
In
2010, Le Pen (the “Devil of the Republic”) stepped down as president of the FN,
and was succeeded by his daughter: Marine Le Pen. Since coming to power in the
party, she has attempted to “de-demonize” the National Front, attempting
to soften their image, dialing back their public xenophobia, and threatening to
sue anyone who called the FN “extreme right”. This, coupled with the rise in
right wing nationalism worldwide has led the FN to a
projected first round victory in the upcoming election. Needless to say, Marine
Le Pen has also benefited from the rise in
anti-Islamic sentiment throughout France, as well as from a spate of high
profile riots and terrorist attacks .
There
have been accusations of criminality, as well as
investigations into Le Pen’s financial ties and support from Russia (with corresponding public statements), allegations of Russian interference in the election, money, and a
mysterious visit to Trump Tower.
But
it’s poor form to attack the arguer, instead of the argument. The issues (and
contradictions) raised by Le Pen are worth discussing on their own merits, whether
or not she eventually turns out to be a Russian plant. But I’m wondering at the
central contradiction: we have an anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim “France first” party,
led by the daughter of a man who fought to keep Algeria as part of France. Issues
of a “migrant wave” aside, the Muslims the
National Front is struggling against are the children of the Harkis, who fought
for France against their homeland of Algeria.
And,
since I started writing this piece, Emmanuel Macron, a "left-wing" candidate in
the French presidential election, is dealing with backlash and falling poll
numbers amid criticism of his statement that France’s history in Algeria was a
“crime against humanity”. That the sharpest
criticism has come from Le Pen should not be a surprise, but what is shocking
(to me at least) is the degree to which this view is controversial at all. It
would appear, judging by the reaction, that a sizable plurality of France has
yet to come to an honest account of their colonial history.
Looking
at it, I don’t see why it’s controversial that the French should apologize to the
people they massacred. In fact, I’ll go on record and say that if you kill a
bunch of people, you have to at least say you’re sorry afterwards. It just
seems like common sense. Clearly, I’ve bitten off more than I can chew with this
particular essay, because I haven’t even got to the part I really want to talk
about: Déclinisme.
It
should not be surprising that the people who brought us Sartre, Foucault, and
Derrida are heavily interested in the decline of civilization. Nor should it be
surprising that Le Pen and the right are able to harness this national
zeitgeist towards their own ends. But what I want to talk about is something my
audience might find uncomfortable: what if they’re right?
What
if France really is declining? More to the point, what if it’s already doomed? While
there are severe demographic challenges lurking in Europe’s
future, and although the French birthrate has declined past the point of replacement, they’re still
doing better than most… right? Maybe not. Quick note on the stuff to follow,
this isn’t as robust as the data I normally provide — a direct consequence of
the fact that France has laws against racism that extends to the concept of race. As a result, there is no
officially recorded data available tracking demographic changes in France. That
means there is no easy way to know what’s happening, unlike in America, where there’s clear
evidence of these trends.
This
is the kind of headline that makes some people nervous and violent. At this
point, most of the intelligentsia is familiar with the concept of “white backlash”, and the resulting long
term political trends are eminently predictable (this link is from 2014). But, returning to
France, neo-reaction blogger Steve Sailer has pulled together some
data that I’m going to take at face value for this
article (I don’t have enough French to adequately review his sources).
Steve,
who is not off the hook for the race stuff (I’ll get to that in a second),
found a way to estimate the percentages of births in France to parents of
non-European ancestry. The French government tests newborn babies for sickle
cell anemia if and only if both parents (or one if only one is known) come from
regions with high genetic risk for the disease, or if there is a family history
for the disease. He found a steady increase, from 25.6% in 2005 to 38.9% in 2015.
He also noted that in the Paris region (Île de France), the rate was 73.4% in
2015. This, coupled with the falling birthrate, suggests a significant downward
trend in births to European French.
Look.
Please don’t get it wrong. I know racism is bad. And, more to the point, I know
that discussing it is often taboo, and talking about race is extremely
difficult, especially on the Left. But I also know that if the Left is going to
seriously challenge the [alt] Right on issues like this, they need to provide a
stronger case. Because a not-insignificant percentage of the population are worried
that they and their culture are going extinct (14 words
is a well known example of this). Really responding to this viewpoint takes far
more than what the Left is currently doing (some combination of ignoring it,
disinterest, and actively praising multi-culturalism). Telling someone who
(rightly or wrongly) is concerned for their children’s future to get over it,
and that they’re racist for thinking it, is not and cannot ever be a winning
strategy. I’m not sure what the answer is, but we have to do better.
But
back to culture. Now this is a very shallow and selfish argument, and almost
certainly not germane to the discussion but I like French culture. I like walking through the arrondissements, carrying a baguette and whistling Aux Champs-Elysées. Yes, I might have a
problem. And while I’m also interested in visiting the Maghreb (I hear Morocco
is amazing), I don’t want France to lose whatever essential quality it is that
makes it what it is.
And,
loath as I might be to admit it, the National Front has a point about Islamic
culture being incompatible with secular western values. It is not difficult to
see why conservative Muslim communities might have trouble adjusting to Laïcité — their views on women’s rights, gender segregation,
homosexuality, alcohol, and Judaism put them far out of step with modern French
society.
America
is also dealing with these issues. And, places with higher concentrations of
Muslims in America are seeing similar ethnic and political tensions. Places
like Dearborn, Michigan get extreme attention from the right,
who are using rhetoric and voicing concerns indistinguishable from the ones
echoed by the National Front. I don’t claim to know how to effectively respond,
but an effective response probably shouldn’t look like this one (from the huffington post).
My
conservative readers are likely shouting at their screens about me missing the
obvious conclusion to all of this, but I don’t think it’s that simple. At the
risk of being wishy-washy, both sides make strong points, but the outcome is
still very much in doubt (though, as I’ve mentioned before in “Don’t Be a Reactionary”, conflict is part of the
plan on both sides).
The
most important takeaway I see, other than the fact that France is struggling right
now, is that the left’s current definition of culture is woefully insufficient.
At the very least, the long term consequences and implications have not been
adequately explored. The toxic and dogmatic atmosphere surrounding “leftist” identity
politics is more than amenable to right wing co-opting.
As the penalties for being seen to transgress from the ideologically accepted
lines become more severe (witness the backlash
Uber has received, despite their protestations to the contrary), the more
reasonable rightwing reaction movements will seem.
This is slightly off the
main topic, but in a world where #killallmen
can trend, it’s not so surprising that a “men’s rights” should exist. A brief
viewing of the “#whitepeople” hashtag will see (non-white) people talking about
how they don’t like white people, and white people who are talking about white
genocide and posting swastikas. Which is not to say that the two are
equivalent, but neither one is making things better for the world. Is it a
choice? Is this just the price we have to pay to hold back cultural homogeny?
I’m
not sure, but writing about this already seems anachronistic, like I’m
swimming against the tide of history. While I’d like to believe otherwise, I
sincerely doubt that there exists some answer that can placate all sides.
Eventually, we’ll have to choose.
Daniel, Good insight on a difficult topic BUT your only enjoyment in Life, French Food?? Get over it !!
ReplyDelete