I'm invested in this discussion over at Crooked Timber. The question at hand is whether the French are right in banning the use of the hijab (the customary Muslim headscarf) in institutions like their schools (I'm not sure if the ban extends to just wearing it in public as well). Lots of conversation about freedom of expresson, freedom of religion, etc.
Few in the discussion seem to grasp that different societies have different social rules. Most of the discussion seems to revolve about whether the French are right or wrong. There are some dissenters to the general chain of thought (I am one of them) who feel that either the French have the right to mandate certain changes in order to maintain the structure of their society or that these young women don't have a freedom of choice (in their home or Muslim society) to not wear the veil and that it is a control mechanism.
What is striking to me is the general arrogance exhibited by most in the discussion. The presumption is that the French don't really understand freedom of expression or religion. The commenters seem to be erudite and well educated but the narrowness of the viewpoint really bothers me.
I made the point that French society was much better integrated than American society and one fellow points out that we don't see Africans in positions of power in the French government. While somewhat true, I think one only has to ask black men in America and black men in France how comfortable they are to see what I'm talking about.
I was listening to Tavis Smiley on NPR last night (the black radio talk show host) and he was "testifying" in a church in North Carolina. He made a couple of comments to the effect that people like Condi Rice (national security advisor to Bush) don't represent African-Americans in this country and you should have heard the "Amens" from the congregation. Their is real concern amongst the African-Americans of this country that the current administration doesn't care for their concerns and isn't investing in their community.
I could go on, but I suspect I'm preaching to the choir.
Posted by artandscience at February 14, 2004 09:18 AMThere was a guy I have heard a lot about, said something about wanting to see the day when people would be judged on the content of their character rather than on the color of their skin.
He was killed for saying it (among other similar things).
The Enlightenment as one of the forces that led to the founding of this country seems to be forgotten. So the nations where its ideas took root and where many of the founders learned the ideals embodied in the declaration and the constitution are also forgotten.
I get the sense that destiny and fate had more to do with America's place in the world, rather than hard work and sacrifice and integrity.
Posted by: paul at February 14, 2004 01:46 PMHelp me understand this post... are you for or against the banning of the Islamic dress in French schools? I'm kinda dazed today, sorry ;-)
Although I don't understand the French culture, it seems like a poor move to enforce the removal of the headscarf. I heard a news report state that it is to stop the spread of Islamic fundementalism (spelling?) - but will this really stop it, or bring greater alienation?
Posted by: michael at February 14, 2004 03:56 PM"What is striking to me is the general arrogance exhibited by most in the discussion. The presumption is that the French don't really understand freedom of expression or religion."
That doesn't bother me, though I suspect it may be true. What bothers me is that a completely forseeable result of this legislation is that the most fundamentalist Muslim parents, the ones who force their daughters to wear the hijab will remove their daughters from public schools, severing the last secular contact that these poor girls have. The rule dooms the most vulnerable to even worse oppression.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at February 14, 2004 07:50 PMThat's one of the first valid counter-arguments I've heard. Unfortunately, it may be the case that this current generation will not necessarily benefit as much as succeeding generations. One could equally well argue that it was a very tough road for those African-Americans in the American south of the 1960s to go to white-dominated schools. Theirs was not a pleasant lot but I believe that they would say it was worth it.
I think the benefit for those who are helped by this is greater than the harm done to the few who are pulled out of secular schools. I don't know how much contact they (the young women forced to wear the hajib) have with non-Muslims but I imagine it is still substantial unless they are completely cloistered.
In some ways this seems to be akin to the recent law in California requiring English as the official language. I wholeheartedly approve of this as I've seen the ghettoization (real word?) of both the Hispanic and Asian communities over the course of several generations. The population of these communities can be so great as to allow an individual to grow up within them and never need to speak English. But this leads to all kinds of abuses and the inability to seek help outside the community.
Maybe this whole discussion is about the value of the "melting pot" and whether homogenization is a good or a bad.
Posted by: stefan at February 14, 2004 10:54 PMThe hajib goes back to the Megalithic faith and is seen in the Corsican attacar. The attacar is the act of a male who deliberately snatches the scarf from the head of a woman and has been the cause of either instant marriages or many Corsican vendettas. To study the phenomenon within other cultures gives one insight that sloughs off the complexity at issue in Paris. Parisians are proud of their society that cost quite a few lives in the past. The subsumption to identifying with the crowd can seem humiliating sometimes, but that's democracy.
Regards,
Matt
If anyone can find my post at Crooked Timber, I would appreciate knowing where it is.
Regards,
Matt