By Giada Bianchi The creation of an enemy on the inside. Nowadays, in France, we´re living in what could be the systematization of a racist speech, going by the hand of disrespect. On the term “banlieue”, it is added, besides as a social fact to an eth …
By Giada Bianchi
The creation of an enemy on the inside.
Nowadays, in France, we´re living in what could be the systematization of a racist speech, going by the hand of disrespect.
On the term “banlieue”, it is added, besides as a social fact to an ethnic reference to a subject considered of “certain race”, considered as “another”, in contrast of the “national”. In that sense, the young people called as the “young of banlieues”, are young proletarian victims of rampant racism from the bourgeoisie in the City centres, from the politics of social segregation guided by the State, and from a stereotype publicity of one kind of press.
Almost it could be said of a “Muslim racialization”, through which, it is designated to one category of the national population to which it is assigned a religious connotation stigmatizing that which makes a whole combination between culture, language, origins and religion: with this on mind, exists an exact racist speech, that attacks Islam, not like a religion between so many others, but like a global danger, “anti-France”, “anti-Europe” or “anti-West”.
Actually, that speech, is based on a ridiculed Islam that hasn’t got much to be with Islam as a religion but it is seen as a guilty one, an enemy and of an easy way to be identified. A side of that speech, that reminds us of racism or a social Islamophobia, is the politics of Islamophobia that is transmitted through the figure of the terrorist and this is the base of publicity for Right politicians.
Political parties in government then have a heavy responsibility because by supporting political speeches and increasingly restricting security and the freedom of citizens, and, justifying these practices by the’ terrorist threat’ in fact condones and make possible these ‘links’ especially in the lower classes where the ability to critique is largely destroyed by the order of more “basic” concerns such as unemployment, job insecurity, low wages.
In that way, phrases like the one of Nadine Morano, delegate of UMP, under the situation of a debate about national identity: “ I like a young Muslim when it’s French, when he loves his country, when he finds a job, if he does not speak the French of his neighbour, and he does not wear his cap on backwards” are pernicious.
Another, example, is the creation of a Ministry of Immigration and National Identity created under the Presidency of Nicolás Sarkozy (created on May 18th 2007 and eliminated in 2010), accompanied a debate about national identity, a manifesto was also written around by twenty researchers and intellectuals that denounced acts of xenophobia related with this institution and the danger this, represented to democracy in Liberation.
Despite the indignation of intellectuals and despite the removal of that ministry, its short life endorsed the nationalist excesses and xenophobia as hostility towards foreigners in assigning responsibility for social problems to migrant workers, and, increasing the tension between different sectors of the population against each other. This classic French nationalism based on nationality or skin colour diversifies fascist movements to take on a speech that has more to do with the old habits of FN (Front National) but is much more radical, more uninhibited and has a foothold in a populist fringe because it offers a revolutionary nationalism.
Identity: (Bloc Identitaire Radical Network) have an “anti-capitalism” facade which is “national and social” this is well-known French nationalism while relying on a vision of social ethnodifférentialiste which is promoting a nationalism and European white supremacy. They are primarily aimed at the petty bourgeoisie and the proletariat with a speech based on the assertion of a “white” identity and “European” face “Muslims” and “Islam” is a a threat to the cultural, racial so-called “native” French, meaning “white and Christian.”
This policy trend is found sometimes aligned with factions of the Jewish minority in the name of the fight against “Islamization” and in a broader context refers to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Zionism. This is to use the anti-Islamic violence specific to these radical movements to also be a speech that would prohibit any accusation of anti-Semitism and racism, and in fact bypasses the French legislation concerning the words and deeds racist (Islamophobia is not a racist crime unlike anti-Semitism).
Alongside identity we find lesser-known yet thriving movements, especially among former members of the FN began to radicalize the policy of Marine Le Pen, who succeeded her father, trying to give a picture of a more moderate party and the Solidarity party is an example of France inspired by racist ideas and ethnodifférentialistes of the kind of Gobineau. It tends to justify colonization, the status of the native population, massacres and colonial oppression, so here we are witnessing a proliferation of speech and books that revisit the dark past of the relationship between France and Algeria and who have a very specific audience, praising colonization and those who defend those accused of Islamophobia and racism using it as a pretext against those of Algerian nationality and origin.
On that theme, there is a very controversial book just published, Vive l’Algérie française , from Robert Ménar and Thierry Rolando. A text that praises the benefits of French colonization in Algeria and accredits a whole speech that re-evaluates the past from the belief that Republican France had admitted its fault. In that context, the fact of developing the term “Black Foot” or “Pied Noir” advances the idea of French superiority vis-a-vis North Africans and once more the racism hides and transforms behind the idea of nationalism.
Finally, a new current of so-called traditional values of the old and glorious France and radical Catholicism has come out during the debate on the new law on the marriage of same-sex couples law that finally was adopted on 23rd April. The ‘movement for all‘ behind this include political figures hitherto little known to the general public. It was supported by a variety of fairly dubious associations (an enlightening survey was also published on this subject by Le Monde) proposing a new discriminatory idea by passing the act of law (the citizens of one same state are equals to the law and enjoy of the same rights without discrimination of sex, religion, language, culture or skin colour) after a supposed act of religious law marriage as an institution would then be subject to a substantive discrimination linked to the idea of gender equality law. This could have remained confined to a challenge to moral or religious rights except that this movement was soon joined that of Identity thus creating a nationalist front, which brings together both fascists, racists, Islamophobia and homophobia.
A very radical movement “The spring French” (under the direction of Mrs. Béatrice Bourges) behind which lurk extremist Catholic associations, among others “Civitas”, also benefited from the opportunity to surface, although subsequently it has been brushed aside by the official spokesman for “Movement for All”. Yet, it is still involved looking for the opportunity to raise its public profile and and gain a number of sympathizers. The Identity Block gave them an open door is an example. Excesses associated with the movement have also been evident in recent events (April 21, 2013) where there has been resurgence in the marches and rallies in the public square and Nazi salutes. The true face of this pseudo-nationalism has finally been shown in a big way.
(by Giada Bianchi, translated from the French by Alonso Ravela)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License.