11-14-2015, 10:34 PM -
(11-14-2015, 10:03 PM)Makween Wrote: My whole point is that you can't reduce a term to 'its origins' and pretend it exists in a vacuum. Â References to an Islamist 'fifth column' have been being made for years by the far right now; regardless of the term's origins, its meaning has evolved in that context. Â The Swastika uh oh, Godwin's law etc) was originally a Hindu symbol of peace, but no-one sees it in that light now. Â The analogy isn't perfect, but the point is that meanings evolve over time. Â The uses to which a phrase has been put in the past have an impact in the present.
Don't agree about the riots at all. Â You can't just point at a phenomenon as complex as that and use it as evidence of a separate, equally complex phenomenon. Â Quite apart from anything else, you're making the assumption that banlieue rioters are/were all Muslim. Â The banlieues are more racially diverse than the media give them credit for and even those with the highest immigrant populations are often home to many of sub-Saharan, Christian origin. Â It's just a separate phenomenon.
Your figures regarding the numbers of extremists in France are again based on conjecture and a lack of research. Â You're making the assumption that those who have been radicalised come from radical families, saying that it isn't generation-specific; the trouble there is that sociologists have recognised a 'return of Islam' in the younger generations. Â It's not seen as family-driven, but spread by hate preachers and often in jails. Â I wouldn't really want to hazard a guess at how many French Muslims fall on what could be described as a broad spectrum of anti-state positions, and until a satisfactory line can be drawn between those opposed to the state for Islamist reasons and those who opppse it for totally different reasons and often aren't Muslim it's barely a discussion worth having. Â I suspect you'd find that many who didn't shed any tears over Charlie Hebdo would feel differently about yesterday's senseless killing of civilians, though.
We also need to get past this 'Muslims/immigrants vs. France' rhetoric. Â There will have been victims who were Muslim last night, and victims who were of immigrant origin. Â Fundamentalist Islam's victims (and I'm talking in a broader sense than just terrorist attacks here) are more likely to be Muslim/of immigrant origin/based in the banlieues than anything else.
You'll need to explain that bit in more detail, I've not said that it exists in a vacuum and it has been applied to different groups of people throughout the years. The meaning has not changed though, it always has and always will describe a subversive group (real or hypothetical) of people that hold intentions against the state/society they are a part of. I don't think that is a good comparison by the way, because to my knowledge Hindus haven't stopped using the symbol because they're concerned about how it was appropriated by european fascists, in fact doing so would give legitimacy to that appropriation.
I'll drop the riots point because that was the weakest example I gave of three and the one you isolated. I never meant to suggest that this was purely a demonstration of muslim rage and without social context, it was to highlight the ethnic ghettos that France has and that you mentioned in previous posts that I thought were very good in describing the differences between the UK and France on this particular issue. I do believe that it is a symptom of the contempt for the state and that does apply to some muslims although I'll concede that these were not islamic riots.
Those figures are based on the number that you made so I'm more than happy to accept it's conjecture and lacks research if you'll do the same. Again, I'm not making assumptions I listed those things as possible causes but made no determination as to what would be the origins of such belief in any given individual. I think there is definitely a gang like element, in that young people find a place within a group and this just happens to be their particular group.