Why do the French put up with This?
This isn’t the first time this has happened:
Rampaging youths rioted overnight in Paris’ suburbs, hurling Molotov cocktails and setting fire to dozens of cars. At least 77 officers were injured and officers were fired at, a senior police union official said Tuesday…
This isn’t Paris 1848. The Parisian rebels of the time didn’t do this:
Among the buildings targeted by the youths was a library, which was set afire.
This isn’t the first time libraries have been targeted either. Note these burning ancient books from the Sorbonne (via GatewayPundit)
French rioters burning books stolen from the Sorbonne, Spring 2006.
These people aren’t the noble oppressed rising up against their bourgeois masters: they’re doing it for no other purpose than it’s fun. No doubt some self-styled “leaders” of the rioters will emerge to press a list of grievances against the French government, which in true Gaullic fashion the government will capitulate to. Then these “leaders” who have absolutely no control of the rioters will make some sort of gain before the rioters tire of destroying their own neighborhoods.
And burning libraries. This is barbarism.
French Mime Rioters, Spring 2006
Bublet:
You seem to be fixated on the idea of a single burning library, which you equate to “barbarism”, “book burning” and “burning libraries”. Regardless of past incidents, it is absolutely crucial to understand the reason/s behind rioting in genreal. As the founding fathers of America know well, rioting and destruction can prove to be powerful tools to display one’s disgust with a/their governing body. If a government decides to ignore the will of the people then what choice do they have? Furthermore, when a government takes active steps to limit one’s freedom, what must the people who champion freedom do? Act more civil under oppression? Let’s not be ignorant to the truth of rioting and it’s causes. If people are rioting there is a problem with the government, not the rioters. It’s quite simple: The government works for (or is supposed to) work for the people. They are on OUR payroll, and we feed their families. If the government’s course is not on par with what the people desire then the people have an obligation to become unruly and irate. To call these usurpers of governmental misdirection “barbarians” is not only uneducated, but ludicrous because it assumes that these individuals have no outstanding motive or that they are pillaging just to be destructive (which you assert). If that holds true, then where are the obligatory rapes, murders and other horrific acts associated with reckless destruction of cities and establishments? Thank-god for people who have the tenacity to riot and physically stand up to their governments, we all have reason to thank them for our freedoms. I believe you may still be a smidgen sour towards France for reasons concerning certain middle-east crises. Would you enjoy some freedom fries with that?
18 December 2007, 2:26 amScott Kirwin:
Bublet
You seem to equate rioting with civil disobedience. I recognize that there is a difference between what I’ve mistakenly labeled as “Mime Rioters” as opposed to “Mime protesters.” That’s my mistake.
Peaceful protest is a right to any free people – hence the Right to Free Assembly in our Constitution. However I don’t recall our Founders torching libraries, burning carriages, and torching buildings.
So what is the difference? One is order vs. anarchy. Another would be focus on a set of demands vs. destruction and chaos. While protests can evolve into riots – as they often did during the 1960s – whether they do or not has no bearing on the success of the movement as a whole. In fact one could argue that the riots in Watts and elsewhere in the US during the 1960s damaged the civil rights movements at a critical time. After all, Nixon was elected on a “law and order” for the “silent majority” platform.
As for the French, I don’t like them for reasons that started well before I was born; I blame them for World War II for example (the seeds of that war lay in French reparations demands that Wilson was too sickly and distracted (by the League of Nations idea) to effectively counter. As for today, they have shown themselves weak and incapable of dealing with their failure to assimilate a massive immigrant influx. So I don’t like them, but it goes deeper and is much more complex than the “freedom fries” (see this link for more information.
18 December 2007, 9:04 am