From: "john.kaman" <john.kaman-AT-wanadoo.fr> Subject: [BOU:] Islam Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 10:11:43 +0100 I cannot respond to all of the remarks made in response to my post but I can try to clarify what emerged as a rather oblique message. First of all, my remarks were addressed to the integrist form of Islamism and not to the overwhelming majority of Muslim men and women whom I have found to be ethical, peace loving and generally kind people. This is what I meant when I made the distinction between the sunnite majority here in France which supports the government's position on the veil as opposed to the more extreme manifestations of Islam which of course do not. Secondly, I wholeheartedly believe that Turkey is the best example of a modern, laic, civilization with Muslim roots; it deserves admission into the European Union and is being stalled only because of its Muslim past. In the meantime, as its society evolves there are stresses and strains between modernity and medievilism, which I believe the offended poster would admit. What sets me off however are ignorant remarks by so-called scholars that Islam is the one progressive force standing between the US and world domination. Most Islamic nations supported both Gulf wars, albeit with some reluctance and internal turmoil; I fail to see how their support of US imperialism stands between me and US imperialism, a statement that is absurd on its face. Furthermore to say that secularism or laicism is a right wing movement is not ignorant; it is stupid. Whether France's laic traditions began in 1805 or 1905 is irrelevant; the position is broadly based in France as demonstrated by recent polls show something like 80% of the population supporting the government's stand. By contrast you from the United States do not seem to object to George Bush's mix of politics and faith which has resulted in substantial distortions of constitutional rights and represents a felt danger to the rest of the world. I suppose you think that faith based programs as an alternative to secularism are progressive. And it really angers me to see someone who is supposed to be a scholar manipulating quotations when he thinks he can get away with it. The url to a brief Bourdieu statement does not in any way say that France's laicism is zenophobic--neither the word nor its synomyms appear anywhere in the text. The subject of the text, roughly translated as "One problem can hide another" is that the real problem in France is not the veil but the failure to provide some means for the increasingly large Muslim population to integrate into French society. This was true when Bourdieu wrote and it is true now. France's failure to accept French born Muslims full rights as citizens is a national shame and one of the biggest causes of so-called crime in France. What are second generation, HLM-based youth to do but rebel? I am sure there are things I have not replied to but I am equally confident that there are those among you who will point out my inconsistencies and omissions. John M. Kaman ********************************************************************** Contributions: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Commands: majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Requests: bourdieu-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005