Bastille Day deaths

[Murphy101]

It mentioned some of these are third generation. There is no "allowing them to stay". They are French citizens, not people there on visas.

Yes and it also mentioned they still don't think of hem selves as French. Citizenship can be revoked. Policies change. By all means if they don't want to be French - I can understand why the French would show them the border.

 

Not saying I necessarily agree with anything.

 

But they are still valid questions even if we don't like the questions or possible answers.

[Murphy101]

European powers, Russia & the US meddled, bent, controlled nations for sometimes generations, bending them to their own wills and using them as pawns in their own geo-political quests for power.

 

Tunisia didn't achieve independence until 1956 (I refuse to use the phrase "France granted Tunisia independence"; it's so loaded with arrogant assumptions that it was theirs to take & give & decide..)

 

Colonialism is something that I think is not well understood in NA. I think our history as "old" colonies makes us think it's some ancient old artifact when it's not....

I don't think colonialism ever stopped. It just became the more subversive and back door politics method you mention in your first paragraph.

 

As for who has the "right"... To the victor goes the spoils and the conquered usually gets no say. Right or not, that is how it has always worked and I don't suspect it will change anytime soon. It's not like before colonialism every one just got merrily along and politics and fighting for resources and culture clashes didn't exist. And the end of colonialism, which I don't think really happened, it has just morphed into something else, didn't change that either.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Yes and it also mentioned they still don't think of hem selves as French. Citizenship can be revoked. Policies change. By all means if they don't want to be French - I can understand why the French would show them the border.

 

Not saying I necessarily agree with anything.

 

But they are still valid questions even if we don't like the questions or possible answers.

 

One issue is that many of the French have never considered them French.  The French have never been fond of mixing with other cultures which has made assimilation difficult for immigrant groups.

[Faithful_Steward]

I am so sick of people making excuses for terrorists.

[regentrude]

If the French don't want them there, then why do they allow them to stay at all? Why did they ever give them citizenship? Is it a case of they started as an insignificant number of people the govt/society was not concerned about having influence in changing culture or erroneously presumed would actually adopt the French culture and now it is much larger? Which still doesn't answer my previous questions, but explains how it likely typically starts.

 

Because they were considered French.

France has an unusual mixture of jus soli and jus sanguinis for determining citizenship, which, again, can be traced back to its history with colonialism.

Laws about naturalization have been tightened in the 1990s.

Prior, any person born in France to parents born in the French colonies before their independence was automatically a French citizen by birth. A 1993 law has changed it to an opt-in procedure at age 18 for children born after 1994.

 

 

Edited July 15, 2016 by regentrude

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I am so sick of people making excuses for terrorists.

 

**scratches head**

 

Who has made any excuses?  However, if you don't believe that colonialism and other factors haven't contributed to the situation we are in today, then I am not sure what to say.

[bibiche]

I am so sick of people making excuses for terrorists.

I don't think anyone is making excuses for terrorists, but it is a fact that there are reasons that people become radicalized. Being marginalized in society is a major factor. Unless we examine the reasons (maybe this is what you think of as "making excuses"), we cannot make changes necessary to hopefully prevent future radicalization.

[ktgrok]

It may not be that they didn't want to be French, but that the French wouldn't accept them. 

 

Also, at the time, the country they came from WAS technically French. 

[umsami]

Colonialism is a big thing.  I have a friend who is Algerian, but holds dual citizenship because he was born before Algerian independence.  He's actually more comfortable speaking/operating in French than Arabic.  In his soul, he is French, for lack of a better term. 

 

A big part is disenfranchisement.... but it's not just that.  You also have to have somebody willing to exploit it.  That's where Daesh/ISIS comes in.  Because of policies of often the West towards the Middle East, they can exploit that as well.  Remember, Osama bin Laden was pissed over all of the deaths Bush 1's sanctions (implemented by the UN by championed by US) against Iraq caused to Iraqi citizens, often children.  (Estimated at anywhere from half a million  to 1.5 million deaths).  Think about that for a minute.  We are still outraged (rightly) over the roughly 5,000 deaths in the US we can attribute to Islamic terrorism.  They are attributing over 1.5 million deaths to US sanctions.    Don't think that they are any less outraged than you are over your countrmen's deaths.  Add in to that, that many of these were children.  It made it quite easy for Osama to recruit people.  (Showing videos of dying/mangled children is a common radicalizing tactic.) 

 

That is before our recent Iraq war which created chaos.... was based on lies....and currently can count about 150,000 civilian deaths as its collateral damage, as well as a destroyed country.   Before our war in Afghanistan where we tend to have a habit of bombing weddings and such with drones.  There have been 2000 deaths this year alone and countless people displaced.   

 

We here in the West, remember 9/11, we remember San Bernadino, we remember Brussels.... we remember Charlie Hebdo.  Don't kid yourselves that there are events just like that... only sadly more numerous.... and with far more devestation....that are not only remembered, but used by Daesh to radicalize disenfranchised Muslim youth.

 

We also can't forget that we created the modern Jihad culture.  We indoctrinated them 30 years ago... changed the school textbooks... awoke the tiger....so that they would fight the Soviets.  Unfortunately, that philosophy went beyond Afghanistan and now hurts the world. All paid for by US tax dollars courtesy of the CIA.   

 

It will take time to change/re-educate the culture.  Are we even trying?  I have no idea.  I'd like to think that new curricula are being created that emphasis peace and nonviolence (things that can easily be taken from Qur'an and Ahadith.)  But are they?  It will also be much more difficult now with the INternet and Internet Shaykhs who preach their hate to a much wider audience.  The Saudis were very effective in exporting their no-questioning fundamentalist Wahabi-brand of Islam.  So far, nobody has spent a similar amount of money supporting/promoting a more tolerant kind of Islam, and even countries which have had one (such as Turkey) are being affected by Wahabism and fundamentalism.  Sadly, I think we will see a lot more of this, before it gets better.

 

 

[goldberry]

Yes and it also mentioned they still don't think of hem selves as French. Citizenship can be revoked. Policies change. By all means if they don't want to be French - I can understand why the French would show them the border.

 

 

 

I don't think I'm understanding you correctly.  These people were born in French colonies.  They are French citizens.  Are you saying that because they don't feel part of French culture in France, and don't feel it's a culture they want to embrace that their citizenship should be revoked?  That  France should "show them the border" because of a situation that France created?

 

If I don't happen to feel part of American culture, or in fact disagree with much of it, should I have my citizenship revoked?

 

I hope that I'm not understanding you, because otherwise your suggestion is deeply concerning and has very far reaching implications.

[goldberry]

I am so sick of people making excuses for terrorists.

 

Being a student of history, understanding the history of a region and how all the pieces fit together to form the current situation, is not excusing terrorism.  It is being a responsible, functional, educated adult.

[goldberry]

  We indoctrinated them 30 years ago... changed the school textbooks... awoke the tiger....so that they would fight the Soviets.  

 

Holy crap.  How many average Americans know about that or understand the implications?

[Murphy101]

Being a student of history, understanding the history of a region and how all the pieces fit together to form the current situation, is not excusing terrorism. It is being a responsible, functional, educated adult.

I agree with you in that.

 

But also, at what point are people going to be expected to quit blaming the past and make sane decisions for the present and future?

 

For how many generations or decades should the French be made to feel like they deserve this bc of past political actions most of them had just as little decision in making as the immigrants? I know you are not blaming the French or excusing the terrorists, but I can totally see how it could come across that way too.

 

And no, I am not necessarily advocating revoking citizenships or anything else. I'm just asking questions.

[Murphy101]

It may not be that they didn't want to be French, but that the French wouldn't accept them.

 

Also, at the time, the country they came from WAS technically French.

From the devil argument...

 

Why should the French have to accept them? Do the French as people and a sovereign nation not have the right to determine for themselves what cultural identity they want and to decide to foster that over immigrant populations they allow to live there?

 

Is that not in at least some part, what those colonies that attained independence wanted the right to do when they fought France colonization?

Edited July 15, 2016 by Murphy101

[goldberry]

I agree with you in that.

 

But also, at what point are people going to be expected to quit blaming the past and make sane decisions for the present and future?

 

For how many generations or decades should the French be made to feel like they deserve this bc of past political actions most of them had just as little decision in making as the immigrants? I know you are not blaming the French or excusing the terrorists, but I can totally see how it could come across that way too.

 

And no, I am not necessarily advocating revoking citizenships or anything else. I'm just asking questions.

 

The last French colony gained independence in 1977.

 

I think another poster was right that our history as "old" colonies skews our viewpoint on this. This is not generations ago.  France had colonies.  Those people are French citizens.  Those colonies are no longer French, but the people still have French citizenship.  They don't blend in well with the French citizens in France, but now are trying to co-exist.  There is no way that will not take a long time hash out.

 

So when you are referring to the "French" not deserving this, the people living in France are not the only French.  

Edited July 15, 2016 by goldberry

[ktgrok]

From the devil argument...

 

Why should the French have to accept them? Do the French as people and a sovereign nation not have the right to determine for themselves what cultural identity they want and to decide to foster that over immigrant populations they allow to live there?

 

Is that not in at least some part, what those colonies that attained independence wanted the right to do when they fought France colonization?

 

But the point is, most of these people, or at least a majority of them, are NOT immigrants, in that they were born French citizens. Born with French citizenship, but treated as second class citizens. For generations. Living in ghettos, etc. 

 

Honestly, it is more accurate to think of them as similar to Jewish populations in Germany or Poland, than as immigrants, in many ways. The Jews too were forced into ghettos, treated as second class citizens, etc. But with the lens of time we wouldn't say "well, the Germans had a right to determine their cultural identity...."

[Murphy101]

The last French colony gained independence in 1977.

 

I think another poster was right that our history as "old" colonies skews our viewpoint on this. This is not generations ago. France had colonies. Those people are French citizens. Those colonies are no longer French, but the people still have French citizenship. They don't blend in well with the French citizens in France, but now are trying to co-exist. There is no way that will not take a long time hash out.

 

So when you are referring to the "French" not deserving this, the people living in France are not the only French.

So people born in 1977 are nearly 40 years old. And it's their children who are being radicalized. Children for the most part who didn't grow up under colonialist rule.

 

At what point are they just making excuses by using the acts by or against their parents and grandparents for violence?

 

Yes people living in France are not all French, do the French not have a right to change that?

 

Of course nothing happens quickly.

And of course it seems nothing happens without bloodshed either.

 

With the reasoning being given, this seems more on par with rebellion/revolution. And putting out rebellion/revolution is almost never peaceful either.

Edited July 15, 2016 by Murphy101

[goldberry]

 

Why should the French have to accept them? Do the French as people and a sovereign nation not have the right to determine for themselves what cultural identity they want and to decide to foster that over immigrant populations they allow to live there?

 

 

 

Along with what ktgrok said, a majority in a country don't get to decide that they don't like some of their citizens because they don't match their cultural identity, and therefore want them to leave or revoke their citizenship.

 

This isn't about immigration. Those people were born as French citizens.  That gives them the same rights as French citizens.  They are not "allowing" them to live there anymore than other French people are allowed to live there.  They were granted that right upon their birth as French citizens.  They just happened to be living in a country other than France when that happened.

[Murphy101]

But the point is, most of these people, or at least a majority of them, are NOT immigrants, in that they were born French citizens. Born with French citizenship, but treated as second class citizens. For generations. Living in ghettos, etc.

 

Honestly, it is more accurate to think of them as similar to Jewish populations in Germany or Poland, than as immigrants, in many ways. The Jews too were forced into ghettos, treated as second class citizens, etc. But with the lens of time we wouldn't say "well, the Germans had a right to determine their cultural identity...."

Well.. Sorta did. Israel was formed in part just so hat the Jews no longer tolerated in German would have somewhere to go. Because none of the other nations were exactly lining up for the influx of immigrants either. (Personally I think it was all a shameful mess, but there it is all the same.)

 

Are you suggesting the need to make a "French - north African" state?

[ktgrok]

Well.. Sorta did. Israel was formed in part just so hat the Jews no longer tolerated in German would have somewhere to go. Because none of the other nations were exactly lining up for the influx of immigrants either. (Personally I think it was all a shameful mess, but there it is all the same.)

 

Are you suggesting the need to make a "French - north African" state?

 

No, I'm saying that we should encourage France to stop treating some of their citizens so badly, and encourage greater multiculturalism to avoid another world war. It was wrong to put the Jews in ghettos based on their religion, and it is wrong to treat French muslims badly as well. It doesn't end well. 

[goldberry]

 

Yes people living in France are not all French, do the French not have a right to change that?

 

 

 

No, you've got that statement backwards.  Not all French live in France, or came from France.  And no, the French who live in France don't get to stop people that legally are French citizens from coming there.

 

"The French" include French citizens living in other countries.  

 

In response to this comment:  At what point are they just making excuses by using the acts by or against their parents and grandparents for violence?

 

I get the impression they are upset about the way they are being treated now. The way they are being treated now, though, has its roots in the colonialism experienced in the past.  

[TranquilMind]

"despite the ceaseless news about war, crime, and terrorism, violence has actually been in decline over long stretches of history"

 

Better Angels of Our Nature 

 

I've lived over rather a large stretch in history and it certainly doesn't seem that way. 

[hornblower]

Yes people living in France are not all French, do the French not have a right to change that?

 

.

Define French.

 

What are you saying here, exactly? What makes someone French or not?

 

Are you suggesting mass expulsions? Pogroms? Based on what criteria? Who gets to decide who is French enough?

[Murphy101]

Along with what ktgrok said, a majority in a country don't get to decide that they don't like some of their citizens because they don't match their cultural identity, and therefore want them to leave or revoke their citizenship.

 

This isn't about immigration. Those people were born as French citizens. That gives them the same rights as French citizens. They are not "allowing" them to live there anymore than other French people are allowed to live there. They were granted that right upon their birth as French citizens. They just happened to be living in a country other than France when that happened.

I agree with you.

 

But apparently many of the culturally French people do not given what you and others have said about their attitudes towards their French-north African population.

 

Majorities decide things like this all the time. Have been at least since the Hebrews rebelled in Egypt.

Edited July 15, 2016 by Murphy101

[hornblower]

Majorities decide things like this all the time. Have been at least since the Hebrews rebelled in Egypt.

 

Are you suggesting that if the majority of Americans decided to expel a religious or ethnic minority then that's ok?

 

The point of studying history is to learn to be better. I hope we don't see a slide back into these sorts of barbarisms just because they happened in the past.

[goldberry]

I agree with you.

 

But apparently many of the culturally French people do not given what you and others have said about their attitudes towards their French-north African population.

 

Majorities decide things like this all the time. Have been at least since the Hebrews rebelled in Egypt.

 

That may be true.  But in that case, it is the majority in the wrong, not the minority for asking to have their legal rights respected.

 

None of that excuses violence on either side.  It is just sad that it always comes to that.  :crying:  Tired of talking about the details....

Edited July 15, 2016 by goldberry

[Murphy101]

I am not suggesting anything.

 

I am asking questions based on history.

 

Historically, there's only so many ways this type of thing plays out.

 

And at no point should anyone confuse discussion of historical or likely outcomes and questions of same with what I think is morally acceptable. Alas, they rarely coincide.

[chiguirre]

I agree with you.

 

But apparently many of the culturally French people do not given what you and others have said about their attitudes towards their French-north African population.

 

Majorities decide things like this all the time. Have been at least since the Hebrews rebelled in Egypt.

 

Many Southern whites vigorously objected to ending Jim Crow too. That doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do. Majorities can profoundly mistreat minorities. That's why western democracies need to have protections in place to defend minority rights against majority decisions.

[umsami]

Holy crap.  How many average Americans know about that or understand the implications?

 

Very very few.  It's an uncomfortable truth.  I guarantee it won't be mentioned in any history text books.  It's so much easier to blame "the other" than look at how we created this. 

[chiguirre]

Some of the story is told in Charlie Wilson's War which is a good movie. If you've never seen it, I'd highly recommend it.

 

If you'd like some background on the French in North Africa, there's a classic movie called the Battle of Algiers that is a good starting place. For the story of North Africans in France, a good starting spot is Days of Glory (the original French name is Indigenes). It was nominated for an Oscar.

[madteaparty]

Yes and it also mentioned they still don't think of hem selves as French. Citizenship can be revoked. Policies change. By all means if they don't want to be French - I can understand why the French would show them the border.

 

Not saying I necessarily agree with anything.

 

But they are still valid questions even if we don't like the questions or possible answers.

It can't be revoked so easily because you'd result in stateless citizens. Hollande tried something like this and it was voted down. If I recall.

[umsami]

My heart just aches for the parents who are missing their little ones.  I ache for everybody, but that has got to be so so difficult.  I hope they are all safe in hospitals somewhere. :( :(

[ChocolateReignRemix]

France is turning into the terrorist's European punching bag. France is not alone in Europe in its colonial history or its treatment of immigrants or its inability to integrate refugee communities or in having a society of haves and have nots.

 

One feels that perhaps its proud history of secularism is at the core of the hatred for the French. I don't agree with aspects of the way that secularism is expressed, but man, there is no way after any attack on a secular nation, I won't stand up in solidarity with their right to a secular state free from religious coercion.

 

And why should France be forced at the hands of terrorists to change that anyway ? 

 

In any case, killing French families ( including fellow French-Tunisians and Muslims ) is unlikely to create an environment in which any of the economic or social disparities can be addressed. So if this attack is related in any way to the condition of Tunisians in France, it was an enormous and evil own goal.

 

There are a million and one ways to protest inequality that don't involve killing children. I won't do those at the bottom of the pile the disservice of assuming they don't have the intelligence and morality to choose better options at all times.

 

One thing to keep in mind is that those behind the attacks do not desire peace or better conditions for Tunisians in France.  They are simply using the unrest created by those conditions as a recruiting tool.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

But hey, French blaming is the done thing after a terrorist attack. Happened after Hebdo, happening now. 

 

The situation is multifactorial. And waiting maybe 48 hours to condemn France is surely entirely possible ? After all, she is your (US) oldest ally ?

 

France should not be condemned.  The past is what it is.  However, when trying to come up with sensible solutions that expand beyond simply blowing **** up elsewhere in retaliation, understanding the root causes of what is happening is important.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

There's unrest and recruiting going on in many places. It's not like France is some special case of post colonial horror that makes it complicit in the death of its own citizens...at least not to any greater extent than the fools who set this evil loose in the ME.

 

 

The U.K. has also had issues.  What they have in common is a history of colonialism and a large community of immigrants plus relatively recent immigrants (2nd and 3rd generation) with a high level of unemployment and other economic barriers combined with a lack of assimilation. This allows for the recruitment of homegrown terrorists who can be used by ISIS, etc..

Edited July 15, 2016 by ChocolateReignRemix

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 Eh, 24 hours later, with blood still on the esplanade, it comes across as victim blaming. Which happened with bells on re Hebdo, and is a reaction I will never forgive and perhaps over-sensitizes me to discussion re this attack.

 

 

I disagree.

[hornblower]

I don't see where France is being blamed? Historical events & colonial history are being blamed.  

[Guest]

France should not be condemned. The past is what it is. However, when trying to come up with sensible solutions that expand beyond simply blowing **** up elsewhere in retaliation, understanding the root causes of what is happening is important.

It's rare so it bears stating - I agree with this 100%. History does matter in understanding how and why radicalization or the outcome of it flourishes more in some regions then others, at least as much as the current sociopolitical climate of France. They do factor into this. That doesn't mean France is at fault in any way for the actions of an individual or the doctrine he may have ascribed to. But prevention or actively addressing this violence in the future means understanding why it came about in particular groups and why it is being expressed where and how it is.

[Murphy101]

I don't see where France is being blamed? Historical events & colonial history are being blamed.

Nearly every European country has a very similar history and a very similar issue with immigrant populations, but when they suffer at the hands of batshit terrorist - no one seems to be saying basically, "oh well it's totally understandable given that the parents and grandparents of these people once lived under colonialism and if those countries would just adopt more of the immigrant culture then this wouldn't be a problem."

 

It's not ignoring history to point out that for sure comes across as blaming.

 

France is the nearest and easiest ally target of many western countries than these terrorist hate. And I agree with Sadie that the terrorists are using France as a punching bag for the west in general.

Edited July 15, 2016 by Murphy101

[ktgrok]

Are muslims and others as marginalized in other European post colonial nations? Or are they more assimilated?

[hornblower]

I did say the revolting response to CH colors my response on this one, perhaps unfairly.

 

I think focusing on colonial history - shared by many nations around the world - lets us forget the unique French factor of secularism. The radicalizing stew of colonial history + inequality exists all over Europe - why then, France, over and over ?

 

I think a colonial history in Morocco, Algiers and Tunisia is different than a colonial history in central & south Africa. 

 

But you raise an interesting point. So is your view then that the secularism that they're implementing is making them a bigger target? 

 

And so what is it about that that is making it so? 

 

And while France is being repeatedly targetted recently, haven't other countries also had troubles? Offhand I'm thinking of Theo Van Gogh who was Dutch but haven't there been other incidents of fundamentalists attacking western european citizens? 

 

[hornblower]

Sadie, not arguing, just asking. Just in case I wasn't clear. 

[Murphy101]

Are muslims and others as marginalized in other European post colonial nations? Or are they more assimilated?

They are often just as marginalized (at least according to them) and not much or at all more assimilated than in France. Keeping in mind many do not want to assimilate to the countries they migrate to, regardless of how they ended up there.

[goldberry]

I confess I haven't heard much about France's secularism being a target.  Why would a secular society be more threatening (or "Western") to Muslims than a Christian society?

[Murphy101]

I confess I haven't heard much about France's secularism being a target. Why would a secular society be more threatening (or "Western") to Muslims than a Christian society?

I do not know if I agree secularism is why France is being targeted. Or even that France is the most secular government.

 

However, I could see the rational that the opposite of a religion is not a different religion, but a lack of it. If one were to have that perspective, I could see how they (any religion/culture) would be more threatened by secularism forcing all religion out of the public sphere than navigating how to get along with those of a different belief.

 

Again, not saying I agree with any of it, but I do think it is an interesting theory.

Edited July 16, 2016 by Murphy101

[hornblower]

So, I haven't been following France terribly closely in the past 18 -24 months so I may be way off base....but my sense is that their particular flavour of secularism had a not so subtle taint of anti-Islam sentiment.  I'm thinking specifically of the attempt (was it successful?) to control what clothing Muslim women wear.   

& I'm not too sure that Christianity wasn't being given a more special and protected status?  My sense - & again - this, I admit, is a bit of an impression based on very cursory checking in on the current affairs - was that secularism was being used against one faith more enthusiastically than others. 

Comments welcome.

[MercyA]

Why would a secular society be more threatening (or "Western") to Muslims than a Christian society?

 

Here's a start:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering

 

I admit the ban on headscarves in public schools hits rather close to home for me, since I do cover. That said, I have nothing against secular governments, only secular governments that prevent the free expression of religion. 

 

ETA: Not victim-blaming here, just answering a question. ☮ 

Edited July 16, 2016 by MercyA

[Matryoshka]

Except for the glaring mis-truth -- no one has said or implied that " it's totally understandable...". Who here has said these countries need to adopt more of an immigrant culture??

Really,I think some of the greatest minds have spent years trying to understand what factors help radicalize people. Colonialism has been at the forefront of many. Don't you think colonialism plays a part in it? And I don't think nearly every European country has a similar history and similar issue with immigrants, as you claim.

 

Not all European countries have a similar profile of colonies in comparison to France.  France colonized a bunch of countries in North Africa that were both quite close to them geographically and majority Muslim, which is a big part of why they have the highest Muslim minority in Europe.  Their colonies gained their independence much more recently than the other European countries.  

 

England colonized countries all over the world, but only a few were majority Muslim and almost half a world away.  I do think the Muslims in Britain are more accepted and assimilated generally than in France.  England has also had quite a bit terrorism over the past century from colonizing Northern Ireland.

 

Spain colonized mostly countries in the Americas, and very few (if any??) that are Muslim today.  Their contentious past with Islam goes back to 1492 when Ferdinand and Isabel expelled all the Muslims (and Jews) or forced them to convert.  But that's a bit farther back in the past...

 

Portugal colonized lots of countries in the Americas, Asia, and more southern countries in Africa - far away and I think few or none are majority Muslim - in fact I think the Iberian Catholic colonial powers tended to just mass convert their subjugated colonies to Catholicism, by and large...

 

Belgium and the Netherlands had a lot of colonies for such small countries, mostly due to their position on the coast - colonial expansion had a lot to do with who had the bigger naval force.  Belgium has also had a lot of problems with terrorism lately.

 

Germany colonized almost nothing outside of Europe.  Their 'colonial' history was mostly invading neighboring countries during WWII.  Germany does have a significant Muslim minority, but they are mostly immigrant workers from Turkey, not from a colonial legacy.

 

Russia also colonized mostly neighbors, but it held on to the countries longer during the Soviet era.  ISIS has found fertile ground for radicalization in Chechnya especially since the Chechens have been trying to kick the Russians out for years.

 

Most Scandinavian countries didn't colonize much of anything (at least since the Viking era).  Well, Denmark has Greenland, but I'm not anticipating a big uprising.  Eastern Europe is mostly landlocked and couldn't do a lot of far-flung colonizing if it had wanted to.

 

So, France does have a bit of a different history with colonization in respect to which countries it colonized geographically and culturally, how they viewed the by definition French citizens who came to live in France from their colonies, and how recent that history is.

 

NONE of that excuses any of the atrocities that have happened in France - in NO way.  But if the question is 'why does France seem to be a special target?' - "doesn't it have just the same history as the rest of Europe?    

Edited July 16, 2016 by Matryoshka

[MercyA]

 I'm thinking specifically of the attempt (was it successful?) to control what clothing Muslim women wear.   

 

Yes, please see my links in post #111.

Edited July 16, 2016 by MercyA

[LisaKinVA]

Are muslims and others as marginalized in other European post colonial nations? Or are they more assimilated?

 

I can speak to Italy...

 

A large number of immigrants (those that came 20-40 years ago, and raised their children here) are not Italian citizens.  Their children are not Italian citizens.  They are educated in the Italian public schools, can attend university, but cannot secure jobs, own businesses, and have a very bleak existence.  Here's a PDF outlining what seem to be fairly simple terms to become an Italian citizen.  Major issues blocking naturalization are:  lack of documentation and lack of financial resources.  

 

There is a lot of crime (especially in the south).  I won't call it petty -- because it's big business for cartels, and has become increasingly brazen and violent.  I will also say that there is an "understanding" that as long as terrorists do not attack Italian sites, they will be given safe passage.  However, I cannot cite documentation for this...it's just briefing talk. That said, when bombs go off in our area, it isn't terrorists setting them.  It's done by cartels who wish to drive businesses out for whatever reason (they are also set to prevent loss of life).