Re: <nettime> Paris Burning ...revisited

["porculus" <porculus@wanadoo.fr>]

> She
> asks why only the Muslim community was rioting and other minorities are
> speacefull.

you know hombre ze vernacular right/left analysis of the rioting is quite
politically clarified now here, the right reactionnaire claiming that
'muslim community' & ethnicoreligious behaviour clash (as polygamy as you
probably heard) is the orig of the riot i.e. resumed in a moto as 'france
you love it or leave it' & left & progressive right seing there above all a
complex & exhausting political phenomenous (to which they didn't give a real
clue when at the power), mostly social, based on evident fact as + christian
african, 30% of 'white' ('gaulois', non muslim) toke part in the burning
nights etc.. the epitome of complex analysis output was done by the rg
('renseignements generaux', kind of inside political police, as echelon did
for outside, but mostly made by hands & human earz) when their own leaders
even not agree about any organisation & leadership of any kind (religious
political mobster etc) or simple spontaneous chaos output effect

> And she has the example of Marseille. Marseille was the only
> town in France - with a long tradition of Arabs, well, it has a harbour
> etc, at the Mediterranian Sea -, that had some cooperation of the town
> governement with the Mullahs and there were - more or less - no riots at
> all.

It's exactly what my bud jean marie is saying for pointed one exception made
the common rules but yes your are not froggy, & after all a global view of
the case could by some nietzchean transvaluation of value to be seen there
in a divine swap, you know sometimes right & left is just a simple national
idiotism..excuz my ironie but there is a kind of particularism here.
traditionally 'we' denyed the political reality of 'community' & specialy
religiously defined, a mullah is officialy not a political interlocutor..ok
you would say except if you are not catholic or a robespierre atheist & you
would have not quite wrong but there is the declared aim point of the
laicite : all the religions must be confined in a private circle & they
don't exist as 'public' & political basis. + to collect such information as
religion, race, sexual behaviour, as any medical information on any not
anonymous citizen is illegal, amen. ok ok you could jeer but globally it's
the reason the hidjab was banned of the school (yeah the question is to know
if it's really a religious sign etc..) as there is now some who want all
brand, becoming as some religious assimilated sign, would have to be banned
from school too cause if it's true branding banks on some pavlovian output
as religion, it would be nice to keep some public area of early year of the
life free of them (i speak there of public school, furnace of all the
community for the laicite for finding first what is common between all
humanz..but there some find it's the integrism of the laicite, so anyone
could be exposed to integrism menace too etc..etc..).

Well it's all a boring drag & nuisance i blah there, anyway i let to your
analyse why it's possible jean marie lepen could simply & easily rely on
global bagdad multiculturalism brothel model evidence, just for pointed some
french er particularism that need to be er globalised for being
ridicoulouz..well i i was specialy interested by the ned rositer's post
about Sidney/paris parrallel which enlighted better zan me zis point: befor
changing bizness model we have to search for a good global human one to
aply, as plato said about public/private thing for defining what just
politic is







#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net