France, the culture wars over head scarves
Earl Evleth
This is a ongoing battle in France over the head scarves.
Some wish to ban them in schools or worn by public employees.
Slightly more (49%) of the Muslim women in France were polled
to be AGAINST the wearing of the scarves than for (41%). So
the idea that this is purely a conflict between the Christian
and Muslim communities is not exactly true. There is a lot of
pressure from the Muslim religious right for ALL Muslim women to wear the
scarves. One is not a "good" Muslim girl or woman unless one wears one. The
conflict can also occur within the family with the males backing
the wearing of the scarves, the teenage girls, sometimes their
mothers not. That becomes a problem of parental or husband-wife
authority.
So there has been nasty exchanges within in the same community.
A considerable portion of the young musulmanes are for integration
into French culture and don`t want to be identified with the
backwardness implied by wearing the scarves. So we have
a ģsisterlyē conflict. There is no solution to this conflict except
time.
With regard to the ethnic French community, there are a variety
of attitudes opposing the scarf wearing.
1) Some, as with the Front National, are basically
anti-immigrant. Ethnically nationalist, they would like all
foreigners to "go home". That most of the young Arab community
in France were born and raised here has not sank into their
mentalities.
2) Some French are basically conformist. Anybody who is born
here and grows up, must receive a French education, speak
and write in France and behave as French. There is no
particular room for ethnic diversity in this group.
3) Some have a strong republican attitude, anti-clerical.
The nation has a large non-religious majority. They
don`t go to church nor have strong religious beliefs.
For them there should be no religious display, no crosses or head
displays from which a persons religious beliefs are
evident in school or in public service. On the street is
a different thing. There are no Christians, Jews or
Muslims in school for this group.
4) Educators don`t like displays and especially anything which
interfers with their educational mission. That mission is
to put out ethnically French students, white, black or brown,
they must be French all educated in the same manner.
So how do Muslims girls take the required swimming lessons
with scarves on? The Islamic religious right does not want their girls in
bathing suits much less without their scarves! Other sports activities are
hard to participate in with scarves on. The religious right do not want
their girls taking biology classes where sex is discussed.
5) French feminists view the scarves as a symbol of religious
repression, so they are against it. This "repression" issue
also exists with a portion of the French left.
On the other side of the fence one has those who are for
freedom of religion and expression.
Whatever, the issue is not simple, the culture war wages.
Earl
Reid
>4) Educators don`t like displays and especially anything which
>interfers with their educational mission. That mission is
>to put out ethnically French students, white, black or brown,
>they must be French all educated in the same manner.
what happens with orthodox jews and sikhs?
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
Walking-food-photos, Wasdale, Thames, London etc "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
and same for Spain at "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
Mxsmanic
> Whatever, the issue is not simple, the culture war wages.
The only party without an opinion is God.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
B Vaughan
wrote:
>
>
>This is a ongoing battle in France over the head scarves.
>
>Some wish to ban them in schools or worn by public employees.
>
>Slightly more (49%) of the Muslim women in France were polled
>to be AGAINST the wearing of the scarves than for (41%). So
>the idea that this is purely a conflict between the Christian
>and Muslim communities is not exactly true.
As far as I'm concerned, the government should make no rules about the
wearing of any religious garb unless absolutely necessary. I can see
that it would be necessary to forbid the wearing of a face veil for an
identity card photo and it might be necessary to forbid wearing a
Roman toga while on duty as a firefighter. However, in the case of
headscarves (or yarmulkes) in school, I don't see any reason why the
government or the school should have anything to say about it. The
fact that many Muslims don't want to wear veils is irrelevant. If many
young Catholics don't want to go to Mass, the government has no reason
to outlaw going to Mass.
>4) Educators don`t like displays and especially anything which
>interfers with their educational mission. That mission is
>to put out ethnically French students, white, black or brown,
>they must be French all educated in the same manner.
In other words, ethnically French means purged of all ethnic
diversity? This is the same sort of reasoning that led France to
forbid parents in Brittany giving Breton names to their children.
>So how do Muslims girls take the required swimming lessons
>with scarves on? The Islamic religious right does not want their girls in
>bathing suits much less without their scarves! Other sports activities are
>hard to participate in with scarves on. The religious right do not want
>their girls taking biology classes where sex is discussed.
In a diverse society, schools have to do their best to accommodate the
beliefs of their various minorities. When I was a child, my family
belonged to a small religious sect that forbid dancing. My school had
folk dances classes as part of physical education. I was exempted from
these classes. Other children were Jehovah's Witnesses and were exempt
from the "saluting of the flag", an exercise that was almost universal
in my childhood but that had disappeared by the time my children were
in school.
In Pennsylvania, where I grew up, Amish children weren't supposed to
go to school beyond elementary school. This was a tough one, but the
state compromised by requiring the Amish families to send their
children to their (private) elementary schools until the eighth grade
and then to organize formal "apprenticeship" training at home for
another two years, for instance on the family farm.
More recently, a young girl in New Jersey who was a committed
vegetarian and animal rights activist won in court the right to be
able to study biology without having to dissect animals. The court
ordered the school to find some other way of teaching her anatomy, for
instance with computer simulations.
As far as I'm concerned, this tension between private beliefs and
public duties is a healthy one. However, there has to be debate and
compromise. I don't understand why only France has this huge problem
with its Muslim students. Other European countries have dealt with
this problem much more flexibly.
-----------
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup
Tim Challenger
> More recently, a young girl in New Jersey who was a committed
> vegetarian and animal rights activist won in court the right to be
> able to study biology without having to dissect animals. The court
> ordered the school to find some other way of teaching her anatomy, for
> instance with computer simulations.
I studied Biology at university from 1978 in the UK, we had disections and
other practicals to do that some might find unpleasant or unethical.
Nothing was compulsory. Either they could just watch someone else do it, or
come to some agreement with the staff to learn the anatomy. Computer
simulations were non-existent in those days. I didn't think that was
particularly unusual even then. When you say "recently" and "won the right"
worries me that this sort of attitude is still common.
Even at secondary school in Biology lessons we weren't forced to do
anything like that (although, most of us boys were chomping at the bit to
collect beakersfull of saliva, throw half-dissected bulls-eyes around the
room and slip a skinned lab-rat in to other pupils' school bags).
--
Tim.
If the human brain were simple enough that we could understand it, we would
be so simple that we couldn't.
Charles Hawtrey
>As far as I'm concerned, this tension between private beliefs and
>public duties is a healthy one. However, there has to be debate and
>compromise. I don't understand why only France has this huge problem
>with its Muslim students. Other European countries have dealt with
>this problem much more flexibly.
Probably for the same reason that the Academie Française worries over
the incursion of terms such as "email" into the language; and the same
reason that French Canadians go around with rulers to make sure that
on bilingual signs the font on the French version is not smaller than
the font on the English version. (Yes, they really do this.) The
obsession of the French with preserving their language and culture
against outside influence is something many of us find difficult to
comprehend, but in the end it's their own business.
--
hambu n hambu hodo
Earl Evleth
"Reid" <don...@fell-walker.co.uk> wrote:
> Following up to Earl Evleth
>
>> 4) Educators don`t like displays and especially anything which
>> interfers with their educational mission. That mission is
>> to put out ethnically French students, white, black or brown,
>> they must be French all educated in the same manner.
>
> what happens with orthodox jews and sikhs?
I don`t about the Sikhs but the Jews or anybody
else can form private schools under contract
with the state. There are a number of Jewish
schools like this and they can do anything
they want in the school, except if they
are under contract they have to teach an
approved curriculum.
That does not prevent them from ALSO teaching
religious subjects.
Few Islamic schools are under contract with the
state since they don`t want to also teach the
state approved curriculum. But there are a few.
Earl
Padraig Breathnach
Worrying about franglais is relatively harmless; attempting to
prohibit people from behaving in accordance with their religious
conviction when that behaviour does not impinge on anybody else is not
harmless: it's oppressive. I am quite willing to tell my French
friends that. A friend who is not prepared to tell you when you are
getting something wrong is not a good friend.
--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
Earl Evleth
Vaughan" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 11:02:55 +0100, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr>
> wrote:
>
I will comment on those items I felt commenting necessary.
> If many young Catholics don't want to go to Mass, the government has no reason
> to outlaw going to Mass.
The other items were about excluding visible signs of religious association,
which applies to Christians also as well as any political declartion (like
political buttons for a particular party, etc).
What one does outside the school wearing scarves or going to mass is not
covered under these kinds of laws. If the Moslem girls want to put
their scarves on on leaving the school grounds, nobody is trying to control
that.
>> 4) Educators don`t like displays and especially anything which
>> interfers with their educational mission. That mission is
>> to put out ethnically French students, white, black or brown,
>> they must be French all educated in the same manner.
>
> In other words, ethnically French means purged of all ethnic
> diversity? This is the same sort of reasoning that led France to
> forbid parents in Brittany giving Breton names to their children.
France has a list of names which you can give you children, yes.
I don`t know of Breton or Basque names are forbidden? This is the
first time I have heard of that. Do you have any information on that
law and how the EU situation might have changed it.
I gave a quick look on the www.google.fr and found nothing quickly.
>
>> So how do Muslims girls take the required swimming lessons
>> with scarves on? The Islamic religious right does not want their girls in
>> bathing suits much less without their scarves! Other sports activities are
>> hard to participate in with scarves on. The religious right do not want
>> their girls taking biology classes where sex is discussed.
>
> In a diverse society, schools have to do their best to accommodate the
> beliefs of their various minorities.
First, sports are considered part of the normal program. Swimming is
for safety reasons, or so claimed.
Are they not to be expose to the theory of evolution because it might
offend religious sensitivities? Or the flat earth people. Should society
protect the rights of parents to keep their children ignorant? Or is it the
responsibility of the collectivity to pass over the "rights of the parent"
to protect the "rights of the child" to be educated in the best manner
society seems fit? Unfortunately there is no easy answer to these
questions. Totalitarians societies will override the rights of the parents
but so will "liberal" societies who don`t want culturally crippled children.
> More recently, a young girl in New Jersey who was a committed
> vegetarian and animal rights activist won in court the right to be
> able to study biology without having to dissect animals.
I never liked that part of the course either, especially when we killed
a live frog. Am I am not a kook in that regard. I don`t remember having
learned anything earth shaking from that experiment.
I think we should avoid cruelty in all forms. This include the cruelty
of enforced exclusion.
The Arabs In France are quite sensitized by the Arabophobia present in the
country (and in the US also) and some see the scarf issue as really an
attack in the Islamic and Arab community in France. I have commented here
before that anti-Arab prejudices in France are far greater than anti-Semitic
sentiments in spite of the support in France for the Palestinian people.
So France is going to have a hard time working through this particular
issue. It is not a black and white situation however, which is why I posted
this item to expose the complexity of the issue.
Earl
Hatunen
<mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Earl Evleth writes:
>
>> Whatever, the issue is not simple, the culture war wages.
>
>The only party without an opinion is God.
Did she tell you that?
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Earl Evleth
Hawtrey" <chaw...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> Probably for the same reason that the Academie Française worries over
> the incursion of terms such as "email" into the language;
The Academie might worry about this but nobody else does!
They do funny things anyway, the elected Giscard to their body today.
> and the same reason that French Canadians go around with rulers
> to make sure that on bilingual signs the font on the French
> version is not smaller than the font on the English version. (Yes, they
> really do this.) The obsession of the French with preserving their language
> and culture against outside influence is something many of us find difficult
> to comprehend, but in the end it's their own business.
Are you aware of the anti-Hispanic sentiment in the USA!!
Language protectionism is pretty strong, Anglos don`t want any instruction
in Spanish.
Languages don`t need protecting, they take a course of evolution which
is largely uncontrolled by those who speak it.
Earl
Charles Hawtrey
wrote:
>Are you aware of the anti-Hispanic sentiment in the USA!!
My wife is a first-generation Hispanic immigrant, so yes.
There is no denying that there is some anti-Hispanic sentiment in the
USA. But it is not widespread beyond a few redneck elements and is
certainly not officially sanctioned. My in-laws have never had any
trouble outside of an incident at a gas station many years ago in the
deep South. At the risk of opening a new can of worms, I suspect that
anti-Hispanic sentiment in the USA is comparable to anti-Semitism in
France: there's no denying it exists to some extent, but it appears
more wide and deep from the outside than from the inside.
>Language protectionism is pretty strong, Anglos don`t want any instruction
>in Spanish.
Which Anglos? Maybe a few protectionists. The "English-only"
movement is generally regarded as a fringe group. In fact Spanish is
by far the most commonly studied foreign language in the USA.
>Languages don`t need protecting, they take a course of evolution which
>is largely uncontrolled by those who speak it.
Agreed. But try telling that to the Academie Française. :-)
Donna Evleth
Dans l'article <htpgtvk8qiad3s2pq...@4ax.com>, B
Vaughan<m...@privacy.net> a écrit :
> As far as I'm concerned, the government should make no rules about the
> wearing of any religious garb unless absolutely necessary. I can see
> that it would be necessary to forbid the wearing of a face veil for an
> identity card photo and it might be necessary to forbid wearing a
> Roman toga while on duty as a firefighter. However, in the case of
> headscarves (or yarmulkes) in school, I don't see any reason why the
> government or the school should have anything to say about it. The
> fact that many Muslims don't want to wear veils is irrelevant. If many
> young Catholics don't want to go to Mass, the government has no reason
> to outlaw going to Mass.
One of the problems in the schools involves course material. The scarves
are not really compatible with physical education (required in France as it
is in the US) or with chemistry labs. Chemistry is optional, depending on
the student, but physical education is not. The physical education
requirement has often been gotten around by the family providing false
medical certificates, so that the girls will be excused from PE, so that
they don't have to remove their scarves at any time. I don't approve of
this. I do not approve of a law banning the headscarves, but I do feel that
everyone should respect the school curriculum.
Donna Evleth
Earl Evleth
"Padraig Breathnach" <padr...@MUNGEDiol.ie> wrote:
> Worrying about franglais is relatively harmless; attempting to
> prohibit people from behaving in accordance with their religious
> conviction when that behaviour does not impinge on anybody else is not
> harmless: it's oppressive. I am quite willing to tell my French
> friends that. A friend who is not prepared to tell you when you are
> getting something wrong is not a good friend.
Again to stress a point some Moslem women make, the wearing of the head
scarves is a political declaration to them, not a religious one.
That is at the heart of the culture war going on.
They see nothing is modern Islam which requires them to cover up an any
one of the four ways.
The scarf
The Hijah
The Niqab
The Burqa
And the object to people telling them how to dress.
The Burqa is full non-Monty, one never sees the idea so the individual.
Lastly when Chirine Ebadi received the Nobel Prize she received in without
wearing any scarf.
So the question is whether the wearing of the scarf in France is a religious
or political declaration. In either case, the long tradition in France
has that this can not be done in public schools.
So, for some the issue revolves around that issue.
Earl
Go Fig
"Donna Evleth" <dev...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
Do you think they should have to remove the scarf to get a picture for a
driver's license ?
jay
Thu, Dec 11, 2003
mailto:go...@mac.com
--
Legend insists that as he finished his abject...
Galileo muttered under his breath: "Nevertheless, it does move."
Earl Evleth
Hawtrey" <chaw...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>> Language protectionism is pretty strong, Anglos don`t want any instruction
>> in Spanish.
>
> Which Anglos? Maybe a few protectionists. The "English-only"
> movement is generally regarded as a fringe group. In fact Spanish is
> by far the most commonly studied foreign language in the USA.
I thought the reaction in California was fairly strong?
>> Languages don`t need protecting, they take a course of evolution which
>> is largely uncontrolled by those who speak it.
>
> Agreed. But try telling that to the Academie Française. :-)
>
Nobody talks about them here. The only people I know who talk about them
are Americans remarking on the their trying to protect the language, with a
hahaha!
I love their uniforms and carrying of swords. Sort of like kids wearing
their Zorro outfits. But I hold a special place in my heart for the
the Pope`s Swiss Guards. And Queen Elizabeth also has some strange people
around her, travels in horse and carriage, at times, and gives 21 gun
salutes to those visitors passing through town.
In fact it is all pretty hahaha.
Earl
Earl Evleth
gofig-3705F0....@news-60.giganews.com, "Go Fig" <go...@mac.com>
wrote:
>
> Do you think they should have to remove the scarf to get a picture for a
> driver's license ?
>
Yes, especially if they have a beard.
Earl
PS: basically one can not wear a hat or sun glasses regardless of sex
The problem comes with a photo without a scarf had to be matched with a
person with a scarf.
DNA anyone?
Gordon Forbess
wrote:
>Language protectionism is pretty strong, Anglos don`t want any instruction
>in Spanish.
If you are talking about formal bilingual education programs, they
were a failed experiment in California. They did not die because
anglos were protecting the English language. They died because
English immersion is more effective, and teachers and administrators
are increasingly being evaluated (and funded) according to
standardized testing results.
Gordon
Hatunen
<evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>On 11/12/03 18:45, in article 3fd9aaea...@News.CIS.DFN.DE, "Charles
>Hawtrey" <chaw...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>> Language protectionism is pretty strong, Anglos don`t want any instruction
>>> in Spanish.
>>
>> Which Anglos? Maybe a few protectionists. The "English-only"
>> movement is generally regarded as a fringe group. In fact Spanish is
>> by far the most commonly studied foreign language in the USA.
>
>I thought the reaction in California was fairly strong?
California voters and legislators have turned down attempts to
discriminate against Hispanics and Spanish. In fact, the recently
recalled governor, Grey Davis, was elected to office against a
previous governor who had expressed favor of a law to limit
Hispanic rights (i.e., those of non-citizens).
That is not to say there is not a group of California curmudgeons
who regard the Hispanics with panic.
Hatunen
Bilingual education is also now out in Arizona as well, save for
certain cases. As in California, a significant part of the
Hispanic population is opposed to bilingual education as being
totally ineffective in serving the needs of their children.
Mxsmanic
> Did she tell you that?
I do have her e-mail address, but I'm not allowed to give it out. It
gives a new meaning to top-level domain.
Mxsmanic
> The obsession of the French with preserving their language and culture
> against outside influence is something many of us find difficult to
> comprehend, but in the end it's their own business.
Unfortunately, they indulge their obsession in the wrong way, by
treating the symptoms, rather than the cause.
For example, the decline of French is an effect, not a cause. It is the
consequence of the declining influence of France in the world. The
incursion of English words into French is a consequence of the
overwhelming influence of the United States in the world. The only way
to change the balance is to change the influence wielded by these
societies, but the French attempt to fix the problem by simply outlawing
English words and coming up with French translations for them. That
never works, alas! although it is a lot easier to attempt, I'll grant
that.
Mxsmanic
> Worrying about franglais is relatively harmless; attempting to
> prohibit people from behaving in accordance with their religious
> conviction when that behaviour does not impinge on anybody else is not
> harmless: it's oppressive.
So you would support the right of someone to wear a KKK outfit or Nazi
uniform to work or school, right?
Mxsmanic
> They see nothing is modern Islam which requires them to cover up an any
> one of the four ways.
Does the Koran explicitly require any type of covering? I've read the
Koran in the past but I don't recall what it says (if anything) on this
topic.
If the Koran doesn't say so, it's not Islam.
Mxsmanic
> They do funny things anyway, the elected Giscard to their body today.
Giscard's career ambitions have been to accumulate as many honors as
possible. At least that is my impression. I read once that he quit the
Freemasons when he found out that he couldn't skip levels and just go
right to the top.
> Language protectionism is pretty strong, Anglos don`t want any instruction
> in Spanish.
Neither do Hispanics, if they want their kids to succeed in the United
States. Only a number of special-interest groups who profit greatly
from the creation and maintenance of captive audiences really support
instruction in foreign languages. If everyone speaks Spanish, then only
Spanish-speaking groups can communicate with them, and they are isolated
from the mainstream ... and a lot of Spanish-speaking groups like that
idea.
Mxsmanic
> Do you think they should have to remove the scarf to get a picture for a
> driver's license ?
Yes. Hair is an important part of identification. The whole purpose of
a scarf among Muslims is to hide, so clearly it conflicts with the
purpose of ID photos, which is to reveal.
Women who don't want to remove the scarf can simply do without a
license. The most conservative Muslims don't want women to drive,
anyway, so this should make them happy (cf. Saudi Arabia).
Donna Evleth
Dans l'article <gofig-3705F0....@news-60.giganews.com>, Go Fig
<go...@mac.com> a écrit :
Not necessarily. It depends on the kind of scarf, and whether it gives a
good view of the face.
Donna Evleth
Donna Evleth
Dans l'article <c5ihtvoto30gamocu...@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic
<mxsm...@hotmail.com> a écrit :
> Go Fig writes:
>
>> Do you think they should have to remove the scarf to get a picture for a
>> driver's license ?
>
> Yes. Hair is an important part of identification. The whole purpose of
> a scarf among Muslims is to hide, so clearly it conflicts with the
> purpose of ID photos, which is to reveal.
I don't quite agree here. It is too easy to change the color of one's hair.
Being a bottle blonde who just went to the beauty shop today, I know
something about that. I am very sure I would look a great deal different if
I allowed my hair to go to its natural gray.
Donna Evleth
>
Padraig Breathnach
>Again to stress a point some Moslem women make, the wearing of the head
>scarves is a political declaration to them, not a religious one.
>
The problem, as I am sure you recognise, lies in the word "some".
>That is at the heart of the culture war going on.
>
>They see nothing is modern Islam which requires them to cover up an any
>one of the four ways...
>
I know little about Islam, but I understand that the role of women in
Islamic society is determined by history and tradition more than by
the Koran. Covering-up is a concomitant of religion rather than
something at the core. But it's there, and it is sincerely observed by
many. One encounters veiled women on the streets of Paris.
>Lastly when Chirine Ebadi received the Nobel Prize she received in without
>wearing any scarf.
>
A single instance signifies little.
>So the question is whether the wearing of the scarf in France is a religious
>or political declaration.
>
And the core difficulty is that one cannot know for sure in any one
case. To me, it seems to be the safest and wisest course to see it as
religious, and also not to make a special case of it in any way -- so
that if other students wish to use headwear, to tolerate that also.
>In either case, the long tradition in France
>has that this can not be done in public schools.
>
A long tradition is not necessarily an honourable tradition. Public
execution was also a long tradition.
French schools generally do not prescribe uniforms for students nor
even, so far as I know, enforce dress codes. In that circumstance, to
single out one particular thing and proscribe it seems targeted and
petty.
>So, for some the issue revolves around that issue.
>
There may also be some who pretend that it revolves around that issue.
Padraig Breathnach
>Padraig Breathnach writes:
>
>> Worrying about franglais is relatively harmless; attempting to
>> prohibit people from behaving in accordance with their religious
>> conviction when that behaviour does not impinge on anybody else is not
>> harmless: it's oppressive.
>
>So you would support the right of someone to wear a KKK outfit or Nazi
>uniform to work or school, right?
Wrong.
Padraig Breathnach
>Earl Evleth writes:
>
>> They do funny things anyway, the elected Giscard to their body today.
>
>Giscard's career ambitions have been to accumulate as many honors as
>possible...
and diamonds.
Lennart Petersen
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:4rhhtvs4mlfuf0ru5...@4ax.com...
> Earl Evleth writes:
>
> > They see nothing is modern Islam which requires them to cover up an any
> > one of the four ways.
>
> Does the Koran explicitly require any type of covering?
AFAIK, no
And covering is used in the cities only, not in the countryside where it's a
hindrance to the work on the fields.
Hatunen
In the USA there are no laws prohibiting the wearing such items
in public, so far as I know; I believe such laws would be
considered unconstitutional as an infringement on the free
expression of political opinion. Nor, are there laws prohibiting
the wearing of such to school. Many school districts probably
have dress-code regulations that would prohibit the wearing of
political dress, but not KKK or Nazi specifically. Because school
kids are minors, and because schools are not considered public
areas, the constitutionality issue is evaded, although a
regulation that specifically prohibited KKK or Nazi items would
probably be challengable on constitutional grounds.
Mxsmanic
> >So you would support the right of someone to wear a KKK outfit or Nazi
> >uniform to work or school, right?
>
> Wrong.
Explain why the KKK or Nazi outfit is unacceptable, whereas religious
garments are.
B Vaughan
wrote:
>On 11/12/03 15:26, in article htpgtvk8qiad3s2pq...@4ax.com, "B
>Vaughan" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 11:02:55 +0100, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr>
>> wrote:
>>
> I will comment on those items I felt commenting necessary.
>
>
>> If many young Catholics don't want to go to Mass, the government has no reason
>> to outlaw going to Mass.
>The other items were about excluding visible signs of religious association,
>which applies to Christians also as well as any political declartion (like
>political buttons for a particular party, etc).
My analogy was not intended to address the location of the behaviour,
but the fact that you seemed to justify the French policy by a
statement that more Muslims opposed head scarves than approved them.
>> In other words, ethnically French means purged of all ethnic
>> diversity? This is the same sort of reasoning that led France to
>> forbid parents in Brittany giving Breton names to their children.
>
>France has a list of names which you can give you children, yes.
>
>I don`t know of Breton or Basque names are forbidden? This is the
>first time I have heard of that. Do you have any information on that
>law and how the EU situation might have changed it.
Maybe the issue doesn't get much press in France.
>I gave a quick look on the www.google.fr and found nothing quickly.
I have found reference to the issue on google.co.uk, but can't find
anything with dates. I've read about it at various times in the past.
I remember reading that the restrictions had been loosened, but I
don't know when.
I myself would find it objectionable that parents can't choose any
name they please for their child. (I know that not only France has
these restrictions.)
-----------
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup
B Vaughan
wrote:
>On 11/12/03 16:36, in article 3fd88d38...@News.CIS.DFN.DE, "Charles
>Hawtrey" <chaw...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> Probably for the same reason that the Academie Française worries over
>> the incursion of terms such as "email" into the language;
>Are you aware of the anti-Hispanic sentiment in the USA!!
Private sentiment is very different from government policy.
>Language protectionism is pretty strong, Anglos don`t want any instruction
>in Spanish.
In fact, most local governments in areas with a significant Hispanic
presence make sure that all material is available in Spanish and
English. My sister is a social worker in an area with only a small
Hispanic presence, but she and her co-workers have been required to
learn basic Spanish so that they can at least negotiate the first
contact with clients.
Another fact is that the education establishment is mostly intent on
keeping Spanish language instruction. The biggest opposition is
usually from Hispanic parents who don't want their children put in
bilingual classes whether they like it or not. They feel it should be
optional, while the teachers' unions are afraid that making it
optional will put lots of bilingual instruction teachers out of work,
>
>Languages don`t need protecting, they take a course of evolution which
>is largely uncontrolled by those who speak it.
And in fact, the efforts to make English the official language of the
US have mostly fizzled out.
Earl Evleth
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> but the French attempt to fix the problem by simply outlawing
> English words and coming up with French translations for them.
When have the outlawed English words? The use of French
is only required in official documents, no other domain.
There is no general requirement
Words otherwise are used according to their practicality.
If you google www.google.fr for
"e-mail" you get 3,800,000 hits
the recent suggested alternative is
"courriel", which gets 188,000 hits
and older term is too long
"courrier électronique" gets 200,000 hits
So obviously "e-mail" will stick. Nobody in France is
going to change the "Stop" signs into French for instance,
one will still park in a "parking" or buy a fancy apartment
in a place which has "standing". But the French will still
say "merde".
Official Government documents might require one of the two French
representations but rest of the French world will use "e-mail".
That is consistent in order than everybody speaks and reads
the same language.
Next, the lab I was in published nearly everything in English.
Nobody came with an order to published only in French or even
some of the time. A really dictatorial linguistic policy
would require that. Of the over 100 articles I publish
not one is in French. Ironically a couple are in Spanish because
my Cuban colleagues wanted to publish in Spanish. I had
to do my yearly reports in French but that was the only
imposition. That is a reasonable one.
Basically, this whole language thing has been exaggerated not
by the French but by the Americans.
Earl
Earl Evleth
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Does the Koran explicitly require any type of covering? I've read the
> Koran in the past but I don't recall what it says (if anything) on this
> topic.
>
> If the Koran doesn't say so, it's not Islam.
I think there is an imposition of "modest dress" for women. But in even
Arab males dressed from head to foot in Arabia!
Earl
Earl Evleth
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Earl Evleth writes:
>
>> They do funny things anyway, the elected Giscard to their body today.
>
> Giscard's career ambitions have been to accumulate as many honors as
> possible. At least that is my impression. I read once that he quit the
> Freemasons when he found out that he couldn't skip levels and just go
> right to the top.
He wanted his family inscribed among the Nobility of France, this was
refused. The d'Estaing part was acquired by his grandfather buying
a Chateaux. Of the some 6000 family names claimed (by those having
them) to be in the Nobility only about 1500 are authentic.
>> Language protectionism is pretty strong, Anglos don`t want any
instruction
>> in Spanish.
>
> Neither do Hispanics, if they want their kids to succeed in the United
> States.
I think I will let Hispanics answer that one.
Most European aspiring parents want their children to know more than
their mother tongue.
Since the Hispanics will eventually take over a portion of the USA
they have a vested interest in not losing their language and culture.
Earl
Thomas Peel
Earl Evleth schrieb:
>
> This is a ongoing battle in France over the head scarves.
>
> Some wish to ban them in schools or worn by public employees.
>
> Slightly more (49%) of the Muslim women in France were polled
> to be AGAINST the wearing of the scarves than for (41%). So
> the idea that this is purely a conflict between the Christian
> and Muslim communities is not exactly true. There is a lot of
> pressure from the Muslim religious right for ALL Muslim women to wear the
> scarves. One is not a "good" Muslim girl or woman unless one wears one. The
> conflict can also occur within the family with the males backing
> the wearing of the scarves, the teenage girls, sometimes their
> mothers not. That becomes a problem of parental or husband-wife
> authority.
>
> So there has been nasty exchanges within in the same community.
>
> A considerable portion of the young musulmanes are for integration
> into French culture and don`t want to be identified with the
> backwardness implied by wearing the scarves. So we have
> a łsisterly˛ conflict. There is no solution to this conflict except
> time.
>
> With regard to the ethnic French community, there are a variety
> of attitudes opposing the scarf wearing.
>
> 1) Some, as with the Front National, are basically
> anti-immigrant. Ethnically nationalist, they would like all
> foreigners to "go home". That most of the young Arab community
> in France were born and raised here has not sank into their
> mentalities.
>
> 2) Some French are basically conformist. Anybody who is born
> here and grows up, must receive a French education, speak
> and write in France and behave as French. There is no
> particular room for ethnic diversity in this group.
>
> 3) Some have a strong republican attitude, anti-clerical.
> The nation has a large non-religious majority. They
> don`t go to church nor have strong religious beliefs.
> For them there should be no religious display, no crosses or head
> displays from which a persons religious beliefs are
> evident in school or in public service. On the street is
> a different thing. There are no Christians, Jews or
> Muslims in school for this group.
>
> 4) Educators don`t like displays and especially anything which
> interfers with their educational mission. That mission is
> to put out ethnically French students, white, black or brown,
> they must be French all educated in the same manner.
>
> So how do Muslims girls take the required swimming lessons
> with scarves on? The Islamic religious right does not want their girls in
> bathing suits much less without their scarves! Other sports activities are
> hard to participate in with scarves on. The religious right do not want
> their girls taking biology classes where sex is discussed.
>
> 5) French feminists view the scarves as a symbol of religious
> repression, so they are against it. This "repression" issue
> also exists with a portion of the French left.
>
> On the other side of the fence one has those who are for
> freedom of religion and expression.
>
> Whatever, the issue is not simple, the culture war wages.
>
> Earl
Some weeks back, a Muslim teacher here in Germany had her case thrown
out at the highest court for the right to wear a head scarf in school.
She had previously been suspended from teaching while wearing a
headscarf, and had lost her case before a lower court.
The court effectively did not reach a judgement, but rather stated that
rulings on educational issues are the responsibility of the individual
federal states.
T.
meurgues
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 11:02:55 +0100, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >This is a ongoing battle in France over the head scarves.
> >
> >Some wish to ban them in schools or worn by public employees.
> >
> >Slightly more (49%) of the Muslim women in France were polled
> >to be AGAINST the wearing of the scarves than for (41%). So
> >the idea that this is purely a conflict between the Christian
> >and Muslim communities is not exactly true.
>
> wearing of any religious garb unless absolutely necessary.
That's exactly what was saying the jurisprudency until now. The
jurisprudency was only accepting schools regulations forbiding scarves
in chemistry and sport when they could be dangerous. Consequently some
muslim girls are not doing sport since there can be too some medical
dispenses for sport. Nevertheless it poses more problems to evaluate
schoolchildrens EQUALLY notably at the exams which are equal and
national in France like the BAC if some don't want to do all the
matters of the curiculum or prefer to put themselves in danger for
stupid religious reasons of wich public schools wich are lay by
definition don't care. The public school is religiously NEUTRAL for
all and the teatchers just consider that it's up to anyboby, who
doesn't agree, to go in a private school if he wants to show
conspicuously (ostensiblement) his religious belief. The situation
would be different if there were no private schools at all.
In any school there is regulations. Some impose to wear uniforms, some
don't mix girls and boys, some consider that religions have not to
interfere in their curiculum. French public schools just deal with
religious foods by normally offering several dishes to choose.
I heard on radio that there is about 1500 teenage girls in french
public schools with scarves wich represent roughly 50 classrooms and 2
or 3 schools. So a very small minority. There are much more at the
university where they had few problems until now because they are
tolerated as adults. On this amount of 1500, the teenage girls who are
expelled because they do proselytism contrarily to the principle of
laicity and annoy the others, after decisions taken in common by the
school teatchers, are counted only by units every year. But this is
often mediatised a lot since a few years.
I know an adult woman with a black muslim head scarf to whom nodody
tells anything, but in some case apparently there are problems too,
since for the first time this year I heard the case of a mediatised
case in an administration (Paris).
I suppose that it's this multiplication of cases which pushed the
governement to announce a law (to which I was first hostile).
I can see
> that it would be necessary to forbid the wearing of a face veil for an
> identity card photo and it might be necessary to forbid wearing a
> Roman toga while on duty as a firefighter. However, in the case of
> headscarves (or yarmulkes) in school, I don't see any reason why the
> government or the school should have anything to say about it.
It has to say about it if the specificity of this very school requires
religious neutrality. It says nothing if it's not the case.
The
> fact that many Muslims don't want to wear veils is irrelevant. If many
> young Catholics don't want to go to Mass, the government has no reason
> to outlaw going to Mass.
>
> >4) Educators don`t like displays and especially anything which
> >interfers with their educational mission. That mission is
> >to put out ethnically French students, white, black or brown,
> >they must be French all educated in the same manner.
>
> In other words, ethnically French means purged of all ethnic
> diversity?
Ethnical diversity ? Do you think that we are painting the blacks in
pink here or that curry, or couscous is forbiden by law ?
This is the same sort of reasoning that led France to
> forbid parents in Brittany giving Breton names to their children.
Ridiculous. I know many person with breton names : Soizic Corne,
etc... Recently their was a "stagiaire" named Lannick in my office.
Furthermore if some were tempted to do that in the 19th c., which I
don't know, that would have been contrary to the law even the one of
1791 which was requiring first names already used in history and not
worst that the changing of emigrants names, arriving in Ellis island,
in a more anglo-saxon way.
> >So how do Muslims girls take the required swimming lessons
> >with scarves on? The Islamic religious right does not want their girls in
> >bathing suits much less without their scarves! Other sports activities are
> >hard to participate in with scarves on. The religious right do not want
> >their girls taking biology classes where sex is discussed.
>
> In a diverse society, schools have to do their best to accommodate the
> beliefs of their various minorities. When I was a child, my family
> belonged to a small religious sect that forbid dancing. My school had
> folk dances classes as part of physical education. I was exempted from
> these classes. Other children were Jehovah's Witnesses and were exempt
> from the "saluting of the flag", an exercise that was almost universal
> in my childhood but that had disappeared by the time my children were
> in school.
There's a difference between not participating to a lesson, by defect,
which is exceptionaly possible in France, and deambulating with a
"pink tchador", pushing the other girls to do the same.
> In Pennsylvania, where I grew up, Amish children weren't supposed to
> go to school beyond elementary school. This was a tough one, but the
> state compromised by requiring the Amish families to send their
> children to their (private) elementary schools until the eighth grade
> and then to organize formal "apprenticeship" training at home for
> another two years, for instance on the family farm.
It is required in France to go to school until a certain age. 16 I
think. But you can do it at home with a professor too, in a private
school or by mail, etc... Nevertheless if you don't give education to
your childrens it's punished by law.
> More recently, a young girl in New Jersey who was a committed
> vegetarian and animal rights activist won in court the right to be
> able to study biology without having to dissect animals. The court
> ordered the school to find some other way of teaching her anatomy, for
> instance with computer simulations.
You are not obliged to dissect animals. I made a BAC with biology
specialisation. When one day we were asked to dissect frogs for the
electrical experiment on their heart, those who didn't want to dissect
just looked since we did it by couples of 2 persons.
> As far as I'm concerned, this tension between private beliefs and
> public duties is a healthy one. However, there has to be debate and
> compromise. I don't understand why only France has this huge problem
> with its Muslim students. Other European countries have dealt with
> this problem much more flexibly.
For the reason that France is the only lay country in western Europe
as far as I know. All the other having officialised religions in their
institutions and giving more or less privileges to the one or the
others (MPs, money, etc...), they can't consequently deny to the ones
what they have accepted for the others. France wich is lay simply
doesn't care of these "rapports de force".
Second because the french muslim community is far superior to any
other in western europe and consequently has automatically generated
more problems with fundamentlist attitude.
First I was against a law considering that the actual jurisprudency
was enough. But I've ask informations to someone working with me. She
told me that where she lives the teenage girls who don't wear scarves
are insulted and treated of whores. But some consider too the scarf as
a fashion or wear it by conviction. Just next to her flat in
Cergy-Pontoise, wich is a rather normal area, there is a couple wich
forbids their girl of 10 years old to play with anybody non muslim,
oblige her to wear a black tchador from top to toes and send her to a
private muslim school with teatchers choosen by Saudi Arabia. I'm
wondering if she likes that.
I have changed a little my mind because some really exagerate and put
in jeopardy the liberty of those girls.
Finally, I find totally ridiculous the choice of different hours for
girls and boys in swimming pools since in France we have the habit of
mixity wich is the general rule. As you sayed I don't see what
necessary reason could justify that.
didier Meurgues
Earl Evleth
"Padraig Breathnach" <padr...@MUNGEDiol.ie> wrote:
> Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>> Again to stress a point some Moslem women make, the wearing of the head
>> scarves is a political declaration to them, not a religious one.
>>
> The problem, as I am sure you recognise, lies in the word "some".
I gave the statistics in the original post, it was 49% for dumping the
scarfs, 41% against it.
What is true is that one is not hearing about them in the English press,
but they get French TV interviews so their point of view is known.
> I know little about Islam, but I understand that the role of women in
> Islamic society is determined by history and tradition more than by
> the Koran. Covering-up is a concomitant of religion rather than
> something at the core. But it's there, and it is sincerely observed by
> many. One encounters veiled women on the streets of Paris.`
I have had several Arab doctoral students, including one woman, a Prof at
the University in Algers.
They don't come in one size, there is a spectrum of behaviors. The wife
of my one Syrian student went to a French school in Damascus, spoke
obviously excellent French and was very westernized. The one Prof
spoke French as her first language, at home. She was a good Moslem,
however.
The proper Moslem woman is modest in behavior, that is about all.
She can dominate her male partner in various ways, but has to be
careful for him not to lose face. What goes on in the family
is another thing, they are not all that subservient. We saw
in the Algerian revolution against the French what role they
could play.
One Beurette interview on TV tonight said she wore a scarf all through
her school period because her father insisted. When she got out
on her own she wanted to be like the rest of the world.
So there is a culture war going on within their own community. And the
situation has become politicized. Some Arab girls are obviously challenging
the system out of rebellion and getting attention.
None of the motives on either side are that pure.
>> Lastly when Chirine Ebadi received the Nobel Prize she received in without
>> wearing any scarf.
>>
> A single instance signifies little.
Symbolic, never the less. She risks being killed as it is.
>> In either case, the long tradition in France
>> has that this can not be done in public schools.
> A long tradition is not necessarily an honourable tradition.
It is the republican tradition, it is the result of the long war
between the religious Catholic right in France and the anti-clericals.
The cross was removed from the school around 1900.
> Public execution was also a long tradition.
And ended. The US has yet to catch up!
> French schools generally do not prescribe uniforms for students nor
> even, so far as I know, enforce dress codes. In that circumstance, to
> single out one particular thing and proscribe it seems targeted and
> petty.
Wrong, you can`t wear a cross, a star of David, a skull cap or a
politically declarative button. So it is not limited to one thing.
Earl
Mxsmanic
> Since the Hispanics will eventually take over a portion of the USA
> they have a vested interest in not losing their language and culture.
I expect that they will be assimilated into the mainstream, rather than
"take over" anything.
Mxsmanic
> When have the outlawed English words? The use of French
> is only required in official documents, no other domain.
Sounds like outlawing to me.
Earl Evleth
Vaughan" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:21:58 +0100, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr>
> wrote:
>
>> which applies to Christians also as well as any political declartion (like
>> political buttons for a particular party, etc).
>
> My analogy was not intended to address the location of the behaviour,
> but the fact that you seemed to justify the French policy by a
> statement that more Muslims opposed head scarves than approved them.
If you reread my original posting I did not take a postion but was
laying out the position of others. I thought that was necessary
for people to understand what the culture war was about.
I think I otherwise indicated that I am worried about Arabophobia
in France, and that this would make things worse. But I wanted
to stress the there is conflict within the Arab community
in this whole issue.
>> France has a list of names which you can give you children, yes.
>>
>> I don`t know of Breton or Basque names are forbidden? This is the
>> first time I have heard of that. Do you have any information on that
>> law and how the EU situation might have changed it.
>
> Maybe the issue doesn't get much press in France.
Well, after I wrote this I remember that my Syrian students children
were born in France and he gave them Arab first names. That
was allowed.
The French don`t get excited about first names, there is always a
Jean-Pierre grandfather to name the baby boy after. My wife reminded
me that there are some commonly used Breton first names. So the
idea that first names are controlled that strictly must be false.
> I myself would find it objectionable that parents can't choose any
> name they please for their child. (I know that not only France has
> these restrictions.)
The problem is that parents name their kids stupidly at times and
their kids end up not likely their first name. My father was
Earl too, I was a Jr. I never liked that. My wife detests
her first name.
The irony with my Arab student is that his first name is Emile.
French first names were used in Syria. But he want his sons,
born in France and French citizen, to have Arab names. Tarek, one of them
does not like his Arab name and goes by the first name of Gillaume now. He
is a business man and does not want to advertise his Arabness but his
Frenchness.
So you are concerned about the "rights of the parents" but nobody
ever things about the kids who might not like what their parents
selected! One woman we know has a first name of "Sunshine", hates it.
Parents can be stupid.
There is another side of the first name coin. The French take into
account the parental stupidity factor. The first rule is "don`t
socially handicapped the kid" with some cutsy name. Some names go out of
style. My wife`s Grandmother a "Mabel" did not want any grandchild named
"Mabel". Mabel is not now an "in name". So, for boys, "John" is safe,
and there have been "Johns" in family history since 1450. Long lasting
like "Jean-Pierre". But forget Scott and Eric and whatever is currently
popular.
Earl
Earl Evleth
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Sounds like outlawing to me.
Bank robbery is outlawed, using English is not.
Earl
Miles
Charles Hawtrey wrote:
>
> Which Anglos? Maybe a few protectionists. The "English-only"
> movement is generally regarded as a fringe group. In fact Spanish is
> by far the most commonly studied foreign language in the USA.
English only is not for the preservation of culture and language. It's
to stop unneccesary expenses in having to print all government forms and
documents in multiple languages. There is not need for it. When I
travel to Mexico I do not demand that they talk to me in English and
give me only English papers to fill out. Sometimes they do, sometimes
they do not. I will learn the spanish needed to be able to communicate
properly in another country.
The English only movement is not to prevent spanish from being taught.
It's only for official government communications and documents. How
many languages should be printed up and who pays for it?
Miles
Go Fig wrote:
> Do you think they should have to remove the scarf to get a picture for a
> driver's license ?
They can wear their full dress anywhere they please but if they want to
drive, they'll need a form of identification. The scarf needs to come
off for such purpose.
Alan Harrison
"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:BBFEA82F.1F2C3%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
> Wrong, you can`t wear a cross, a star of David, a skull cap or a
> politically declarative button. So it is not limited to one thing.
We discussed this issue in a seminar on a course I'm teaching.
I think the students reached a consensus that hijab isn't quite the same as
the other religiously significant items of dress, Wearing a crucifix or
kippa is a sign of religious devotion. The former is ceratinly not a
requirement of Christianity nor is wearing or not wearing one seen as an
issue of morality. While not all Muslim women wear hijab, those who do
perceive it as a requirement of modesty and therefore as an issue of sexual
morality. The "beurettes" who wish to wear a headscarf would probably regard
a demand to remove it not as the equivalent of a Catholic girl taking off a
crucifix but of taking off her blouse.
Alan Harrison
Padraig Breathnach
Earl has made the point that some wear it for political reasons, and I
accept that this is probably true. But one can't practically
discriminate between those who wear it for religious reasons and those
who wear it for political reasons. It's a classic student outflanking
move; they do that sort of thing all the time in relation to all sorts
of things.
It might be annoying but, in cases like this, it might be best to
gather up one's annoyance and find a more suitable object for it.
Something like chewing gum in school. Now, that's a real pain.
Yves Bellefeuille
> Probably for the same reason that the Academie Française worries over
> the incursion of terms such as "email" into the language;
I'm always amused when anglophones get all excited about the Academie
francaise. They think that it has much more importance than it really
does. I've worked as a professional translator-revisor for over ten
years and I've never even *seen* the "Dictionnaire de l'Academie".
Robert and Grevisse (the authors of the standard French dictionary and
grammar, respectively) are much more influential that the Academie, and
neither is French.
About 15 years ago, the Academie made a perfectly sensible proposal to
spell "oignon" as "ognon", which is the way it's pronounced, but nothing
ever came of it.
Many languages have academies, but anglophones seem to be obsessed with
the Academie francaise.
Yves
--
Yves Bellefeuille <y...@storm.ca>, Ottawa, Canada
Francais / English / Esperanto
Esperanto FAQ: http://www.esperanto.net/veb/faq.html
Rec.travel.europe FAQ: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/travel/europe/faq
Yves Bellefeuille
> As far as I'm concerned, the government should make no rules about the
> wearing of any religious garb unless absolutely necessary.
The French attitude is not only that the state should be neutral in
matters of religion, but also that it should be neutral regarding
whether one should believe in religion or not. Any expression of
religious opinion in a state context -- and public schools are obviously
run by the state -- is unacceptable.
American presidents like to say "God bless America"; the French find
this shocking and unacceptable. (And I agree.)
randee
outlawed in US. Although as I understand it there are still some small
pockets of resistance in the more remote corners of Utah and Arizona.
Dunno if Europe allows plural marriages, anybody?
--
wf.
Padraig Breathnach wrote:
> Worrying about franglais is relatively harmless; attempting to
> prohibit people from behaving in accordance with their religious
> conviction when that behaviour does not impinge on anybody else is not
> harmless: it's oppressive. I am quite willing to tell my French
> friends that. A friend who is not prepared to tell you when you are
> getting something wrong is not a good friend.
Charles Hawtrey
wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, chaw...@hotpop.com (Charles Hawtrey) wrote:
>
>> Probably for the same reason that the Academie Française worries over
>> the incursion of terms such as "email" into the language;
>
>I'm always amused when anglophones get all excited about the Academie
>francaise. They think that it has much more importance than it really
>does. I've worked as a professional translator-revisor for over ten
>years and I've never even *seen* the "Dictionnaire de l'Academie".
"Excited" isn't quite the right word. I can't think of a single word
that fits, but we (if I may speak for Anglophones) tend to think the
pronouncements of the Academie francaise are silly but harmless, like
Don Quixote tilting at windmills. The Academie probably gets more
attention because its actions seem consistent with certain stereotypes
about French cultural chauvinism.
--
hambu n hambu hodo
randee
Mxsmanic
> The French attitude is not only that the state should be neutral in
> matters of religion, but also that it should be neutral regarding
> whether one should believe in religion or not. Any expression of
> religious opinion in a state context -- and public schools are obviously
> run by the state -- is unacceptable.
Explain state-owned churches, then.
Earl Evleth
<unk...@unlistedspam.com> wrote:
In France, English is widely accepted professionally, out of necessity.
As I wrote, all my articles and almost all of the French colleagues articles
were in English.
I was hired into the CNRS without speaking French, it was not a condition
for my employment. My professional competence and what I would bring
to the group were the main considerations. It was assumed that I would
learn French. Since all verbal activity in a French lab is in French,
one does learn French. I have had American colleagues who went to
Germany or Holland, same thing, they learn the language out of
everyday necessity.
People coming to give seminars in France can give them in English, Germans
scientists often did. I can`t imagine an invited foreign speaker at an
American
University speaking in his or her mother tongue. And obviously speaking
English well is a condition for obtaining a post at an American University.
French would be required for those teaching here too. But the French are
also quite tolerant of those who speak French poorly as long as they
are on a learning curve.
The French will even allow Americans to take driving tests for a French
drivers license with a English speaking agent!
Speaking a "latin" languages gives one a feeling for others. In fact
years ago a group of "latin speaking" quantum chemists formed an
international group at which the talks were given in the mother tongue of
each speaker. Scientists from Spain, France, italy, Portugal and
South Ameerican gave talks. One could understand what each individual
was saying because using visual aids allowed one to see tables or
figures which explained things too. So while one did not get every
word, one understood.
Scientific English is stylized in a way that those who do not
need to speak perfectly in face-to-face encounters. They usually
do. But I have corrected a lot of papers for French colleagues,
some wrote better English than I did. My wife also aided
those who did better since she has a eye for errors.
While Americans have the notorious reputation of not speaking other
languages, this is not as true as one might think. I would say
that about half the American seminar givers in our lab spoke
reasonable French. But they are under no international pressure
to do so, so many do not. Of all the nationalities the Germans
seemed to be the most multi-lingual (rulling aside the Swiss).
We hired a number of Germans as University teachers in France over the last
10 years.
All those I encountered spoke good French and English.
We have one Black friend, Cecil, living in the South Central LA war zone of
Watts-Lynwood who speaks and writes excellent French. He communicates daily
with people in France by the internet, so his writing is quite
good. He also has spent considerable amount of time in Africa.
He is a giant of a man, 6ft 5 inches and at least 250 pounds.
You can see us all "a Table" in LA.
http://homepage.mac.com/evleth/PhotoAlbum10.html
"Cecil, Lallia, Earl, and Donna at dinner in LA"
Lallia is an American born woman of Algerian-French heritage.
Ironically, of the three "a table" Lallia does not speak
French (although has French nationality). Born in Brooklyn, she has a slight
NY accent. We are the core group, along with Lars from Holland, supporting
Barry, a American naturalized African who is in prison here in France.
Barry at one time spoke no French, but prison life has furnished him
with an education.
One learns languages in a variety of ways, or sometimes not at all.
There is no single path.
Earl
Earl Evleth
Harrison" <alanth...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> I think the students reached a consensus that hijab isn't quite the same as
> the other religiously significant items of dress, Wearing a crucifix or
> kippa is a sign of religious devotion. The former is ceratinly not a
> requirement of Christianity nor is wearing or not wearing one seen as an
> issue of morality. While not all Muslim women wear hijab, those who do
> perceive it as a requirement of modesty and therefore as an issue of sexual
> morality. The "beurettes" who wish to wear a headscarf would probably regard
> a demand to remove it not as the equivalent of a Catholic girl taking off a
> crucifix but of taking off her blouse.
It seems to me that actual number of incidents of conflict over wearing
the scarves is small, therefore the whole debate has ane element
of "much ado about nothing much at all".
As I said, the main issue and worry in France should be over the larger
issue of discrimination against Arabs generally, the "Arabophobie".
The Stasi report is attempting to play off that aspect and recommend
changes which would reduce the phobic content.
Next, the other side of the Fence, those in the Islamic community
against scarves, is not getting sufficient play in the English language
press. Part of this movement may be by those Algerians of Berber descent
against Arabization (including making Arab the official language in
Algeria).
So the culture wars in the Muslim community are more complicated that
the Anglos realize.
Lastly, some of the wearing of scarves are part of the "teenage" rebellian
against adult authority, it is seen in some of the confrontations.
People do things for at least two reasons
1) the one they verbalize
2) the real one.
The real one is involved in the culture war. Religion, in some cases, is
secondary.
Earl
Bjorn Olsson
> Charles Hawtrey writes:
>
> > The obsession of the French with preserving their language and culture
> > against outside influence is something many of us find difficult to
> > comprehend, but in the end it's their own business.
>
> Unfortunately, they indulge their obsession in the wrong way, by
> treating the symptoms, rather than the cause.
>
> For example, the decline of French is an effect, not a cause. It is the
> consequence of the declining influence of France in the world. The
> incursion of English words into French is a consequence of the
> overwhelming influence of the United States in the world. The only way
> to change the balance is to change the influence wielded by these
> societies, but the French attempt to fix the problem by simply outlawing
> English words and coming up with French translations for them. That
> never works, alas!
Well, it seems to have worked almost perfectly for icelandic. It is
still almost completely free of anglisisms, despite their country
being exposed to even more anglosaxon cultural influence than France.
Bjorn
Earl Evleth
"Padraig Breathnach" <padr...@MUNGEDiol.ie> wrote:
> Earl has made the point that some wear it for political reasons, and I
> accept that this is probably true. But one can't practically
> discriminate between those who wear it for religious reasons and those
> who wear it for political reasons. It's a classic student outflanking
> move; they do that sort of thing all the time in relation to all sorts
> of things.
The pressure to reduce religious dress in western societies has stretched
to the church. I live in a very Catholic area of Paris, surrounded by
convents, so we get a lot of nuns, sisters and priests on the street.
The traditional garb for females has evolved from what was a dress
from form the middle ages, not very practical in modern times.
So conservative dress has come into style replacing the habits
of yesteryear.
Some people need a uniform to feel like they are members of the group,
a form of external and internal advertising.
If one wishes to read about a local culture war in American I advise
reading Stephen Bloom's "Postville", about Hasidic Jews coming to
a small down in Iowa and facing the mild but real anti-Semitism
of Lutheran Iowa. In fact racism exists on both sides of that
fence with the Hasidics expressing the view of the basic
superiority of Jews over non-Jews. That arrogance is matched
by the Christians assuming that Jews are faulted in not
accepting Christ.
The "message" of special dress at least IN PART must be both defensive
and offensive, the declaration "I am different" and also that
"I am superior" in some fashion to you.
The toning down the dress code in Catholic "professionals" says
to me that "I am not superior" but this is my way of doing things.
The collective egoism aspect goes away.
Earl
Earl Evleth
Bellefeuille" <y...@storm.ca> wrote:
> Many languages have academies, but anglophones seem to be obsessed with
> the Academie francaise.
It is mostly the Americans who joke about it. Indeed one rarely
hears about the Academy or Jerry Lewis, and when one does
it is here.
Earl
Padraig Breathnach
>Explain state-owned churches, then.
God works in mysterious ways.
Earl Evleth
Hawtrey" <chaw...@hotpop.com> wrote:
Yves point and my observation is the the Academie is an Anglo obsession.
As an Ango I agree. The organization makes the news when it elects
a new member, like yesterday`s election of Giscard. Since Giscard
is "known" to me a great man of "letters" this will, without doubt
polish up the image of the club a bit more.
But for most of us, it makes us remember the great words of Caesar (?)
"je pisse, je passe"
earl
Padraig Breathnach
>The pressure to reduce religious dress in western societies has stretched
>to the church. I live in a very Catholic area of Paris, surrounded by
>convents, so we get a lot of nuns, sisters and priests on the street.
>
Earl, perhaps you reveal a monocultural mindset in referring to "the
church". You did say in another thread that you do not write easily,
so I won't make too strong an inference. But I am amused.
>The traditional garb for females has evolved from what was a dress
>from form the middle ages, not very practical in modern times.
>So conservative dress has come into style replacing the habits
>of yesteryear.
>
Largely. But in France (more than in Ireland, for example) one still
sees nuns in traditional habits, or modified versions of them. The
custom of Catholic priests wearing black garb and a Roman collar is
still very strong. Do people in France ever voice objection to such
traditions?
>Some people need a uniform to feel like they are members of the group,
>a form of external and internal advertising.
>
Agreed. But the question is complicated by views about modest dress,
especially modest dress for females.
Like most heterosexual males, I find female pulchritude pleasing to my
eye. But if any female wants to refuse me the opportunity to
appreciate her beauty, I respect her right.
In a town I know well in Brittany, there are a number of members of a
Protestant cult where the women cover their heads outside the home
(perhaps in it, too, for all I know, but I suspect not) and wear long
shapeless dresses. This includes girls attending state schools. Nobody
objects; it seems to be regarded as quaint and quite harmless.
I mention these Christian customs to raise a question: is the concern
about how students garb themselves confined to a concern about how
some Islamic females dress? Might the opposition to the veil be
political, as you suggest some regard the wearing of it?
>The "message" of special dress at least IN PART must be both defensive
>and offensive, the declaration "I am different" and also that
>"I am superior" in some fashion to you.
>
Your analysis is, I think, too definitive. Where special dress is a
quasi-uniform, it can indeed signify "I am different" or "I am
superior", but not necessarily both. But a dress code which reflects a
view about what is becoming and modest is not the same as a uniform.
>The toning down the dress code in Catholic "professionals" says
>to me that "I am not superior" but this is my way of doing things.
>The collective egoism aspect goes away.
>
Just a side-note: the Pope has indicated that he would prefer nuns to
return to wearing the habit. The nuns I know are quite deaf to his
wishes.
[See what you have achieved? I have been embroiled in discussion about
freedom of expression, where some might have thought that I wished to
curb such freedom. And now here I am defending such rights.]
Padraig Breathnach
>Padraig Breathnach writes:
>
>> >So you would support the right of someone to wear a KKK outfit or Nazi
>> >uniform to work or school, right?
>>
>> Wrong.
>
>Explain why the KKK or Nazi outfit is unacceptable, whereas religious
>garments are.
Implicit advocacy of hatred.
laurent
> Yves Bellefeuille writes:
>
> > The French attitude is not only that the state should be neutral in
> > matters of religion, but also that it should be neutral regarding
> > whether one should believe in religion or not. Any expression of
> > religious opinion in a state context -- and public schools are obviously
> > run by the state -- is unacceptable.
>
> Explain state-owned churches, then.
These churches are buildings inherited by local towns and villages,
it's part of the "patrimoine". But the French state can not subsidize
the building of new churches/synagogues/mosquees, with the exception
of Alsace and Lorraine which were under German rule when the
separation of church and state occurred in France (1903)
Mxsmanic
> God works in mysterious ways.
God doesn't have anything to do with churches.
Nathalie Chiva
> I gave the statistics in the original post, it was 49% for dumping the
> scarfs, 41% against it.
It's not exactly that (I read the piece), it's 49% for a law against scarves, 41%
against such a law. Which means that 49% of muslim women in France are so much
against scarf wearing that they want a law against it, while 41% doesn't - but it
doesn't mean that those 41% want to wear a scarf - they just don't want a law
against it.
Nathalie in Switzerland
Padraig Breathnach
>Padraig Breathnach writes:
>
>> God works in mysterious ways.
>
>God doesn't have anything to do with churches.
You asked her?
Mxsmanic
> Implicit advocacy of hatred.
Implicit, or inferred?
And why is advocacy of hatred unacceptable? Because you don't like it?
Some people might feel the same way about the advocacy of a particular
religion "implied" by religious garb.
Mxsmanic
> These churches are buildings inherited by local towns and villages,
> it's part of the "patrimoine".
Why are they still ruled by the Catholic church, then?
Nathalie Chiva
> France has a list of names which you can give you children, yes.
No, not anymore. That law was changed at the beginning of the 90's. It was replaced
by a "reverse" law: You can give any name you wish to a child, but it must not
expose that child to ridicule (so that really offensive names, or ridiculous ones,
can be refused by the State).
Nathalie in Switzerland
Earl Evleth
<ran...@zianet.com> wrote:
Zach and his fellow Imperialist Americans (some Americans were against this
war of aggression and acquisition of territory through war), in taking over
Mexican territory, created a situation in which "racial memory" may be
operative. "Pay-back" lies in the future.
Next, I believe there are over a million Cubans in South Florida and do you
think they will go "home" after Castro?? It is more likely Cuba and South
Florida will be integrated into a single ethnic unit. After all, Florida too
was Hispanic turf before acquired by the US.
Another feature of Hispanic population concentration which escapes the
Anglos is their concentration into various cities. American Blacks
were forced to do this, especially in the North. Chicago, I believe, is
the most segregated city in the USA with regard to Blacks.
But some Texas cities are 80-90% Hispanic, like Brownsville. This
concentration must yield a heavy use of Spanish in these areas.
California is about 30% Hispanic, 10% Black, and a quantity of Asians
which add up to make the Anglos a minority. California will not have
Mexican but Mexicans was a heavy admixture of Anglo culture but they
will neither be Mexicans nor Anglos.
There is a book which I have not read yet
Mexifornia: A State of Becoming Mexico
by Victor Davis Hanson
Hanson is a good writer, an academic historian and what I would call
a member of the intellectual right in America (there are only a couple
of them at that!). He is also from a central valley farmer background.
He teaches at Fresno State University. But he is first class and
certainly would qualify for a better academic job, but I think he
is central valley all the way. As a lefty, I don`t like his politics
but I do like his intellect.
My simple advice to people in South Florida and the western USA is to
learn Spanish. Our daughter, who lives and works there, and detests
Cubans, speaks the language, as well as French and Japanese (and a bit
of English). She gets a kick in listening onto the Cubans talking,
thinking she is another Anglo who does not understand!
Earl
Earl Evleth
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Explain state-owned churches, then.
Please do, where are they?
Earl
Earl Evleth
42e37e54.03121...@posting.google.com, "Bjorn Olsson"
<bjo...@ida.his.se> wrote:
> Well, it seems to have worked almost perfectly for icelandic. It is
> still almost completely free of anglisisms, despite their country
> being exposed to even more anglosaxon cultural influence than France.
>
> Bjorn
Iceland is small and would have to worry about external cultural
pollution.
France is bigger and historically it has had a habit of culturally
gobbling up whoever came onto its territory.
Your Viking ancestors came down from the North and mess around in
Northern France, settled in. But where are there the vestiges
of Viking presence?
Your ancestors probably married local women and the women
raised the young and taught them the "French" of that epoch.
A couple of generations later, Viking genes were still around
but not Viking culture and language.
This French gobbling up process occurs through the language.
To speak French is to become French. To speak English is
not to become English or American. The French language does
not need protection in France. The percentage of English
words in French is perhaps now around 5%, yet the percentage
of French words in English is 30%. If anybody needs
protection it is English!
The problem we have in France right now is a lack of full
assimilation of the recent arrivals from North Africa.
That has to be worked on. Exclusion is certainly not the
answer and so it is a "bad" word right across the French
political spectrum. Trying to deal with the head scarf
problem is part of total problem. The French culture
works on the principle of cultural homogeneity, not linguistic
purity. So dumb issues on what to call a "bulldozer"
(which was a subject of long debate at one time) no longer
play a role in the debate, head scarves do.
I am just updating people here as to the here and now,
any linguistic debate is depassé.
Earl
Padraig Breathnach
>Padraig Breathnach writes:
>
>> Implicit advocacy of hatred.
>
>Implicit, or inferred?
>
Implicit.
>And why is advocacy of hatred unacceptable? Because you don't like it?
>
Because it is bad for society. And I am a social being; I even enjoy
dining with others.
>Some people might feel the same way about the advocacy of a particular
>religion "implied" by religious garb.
>
They cannot justify it if the religious belief is not based on or
particularly supportive of hatred.
meurgues
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, B Vaughan <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> > As far as I'm concerned, the government should make no rules about the
> > wearing of any religious garb unless absolutely necessary.
>
> The French attitude is not only that the state should be neutral in
> matters of religion, but also that it should be neutral regarding
> whether one should believe in religion or not. Any expression of
> religious opinion in a state context -- and public schools are obviously
> run by the state -- is unacceptable.
>
> American presidents like to say "God bless America"; the French find
> this shocking and unacceptable. (And I agree.)
In fact the principle of laicity mainly tries to says that no religion
is superior to another, without opposing itself to the implicit
(not-sayed) existence of God in itself : to take an extreme... case,
Robespierre for example was proclaming the existence of a "common"
"supreme being" to all... The representants of each religions
apparently didn't agree. :+) So, as the US presidents apparently
think, this simple expression should not be considered contrary to
laicity in itself. But IMO such an expression traditionaly and
regularly linked to the function of a chief of state would
nevertheless be considered has an expression of faith and so,
implicitly (unfortunately or not), towards a particular religion. That
could be considered unfair for those who don't believe in god. In
France the politicians who make proclamations of faith (like Mme
Boutin) are so rare that it would be also more amasing to hear one
from a president.
But such a tradition is not really a problem IMO. All people prefer to
keep some of their particular traditions. Beginning with France. :+)
didier Meurgues
Mxsmanic
> You asked her?
Sometimes I refer to myself in the third person.
Earl Evleth
<Nathali...@ci.unil.ch> wrote:
Agreed, I overly simplified the debate.
Earl
Mxsmanic
> Implicit.
That is only your inference.
> Because it is bad for society.
Do you hate the KKK and Nazis?
> They cannot justify it if the religious belief is not based on or
> particularly supportive of hatred.
They can't justify it to you; but you don't seem to have any objective
arguments in favor of your position, which apparently varies greatly
depending on your subjective opinion.
Earl Evleth
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> laurent writes:
>
>> These churches are buildings inherited by local towns and villages,
>> it's part of the "patrimoine".
>
> Why are they still ruled by the Catholic church, then?
What to you mean ruled? Owned?
The facts are than there a hell of a lot of rural churches which don`t have
priests and don`t function. So the government takes over keeping them
repaired. Maybe. Some of them are not worth protecting.
If you buy a Chateau in France you may be able to get local financial help
to keep the place from falling into total decay. The roof is the most
important feature of an old structure, if that goes and starts leaking the
wood goes, the roof falls in, then water gets into the walls and the stone
work starts going.
I don`t know the decay time of an average structure would be but I would
suspect that 100 years of total neglect is more than enough to reduce a
structure into an unrecoverable ruin.
We have a running family joke, when driving through the French countryside
and seeing a old farm house with the roof caved in. We then say "travaux
prévue" and chuckle.
The local real estate office might advertise this place with a "travaux
prévue". This would span a broad spectrum of properties in poor condition.
But the challenge to the buyer would be "formidable". You can buy an old
place for 50,000 euros and spend another 50,000 bringing it up to minimum
standards, another 50,000 for something better and so on. If the roof
is gone, forget it.
However, if the structure is "classé" you can get some subsidizes for saving
the structure. This is a trap, however.
Earl
Padraig Breathnach
>Padraig Breathnach writes:
>
>> Implicit.
>
>That is only your inference.
>
That's being specious.
>> Because it is bad for society.
>
>Do you hate the KKK and Nazis?
>
No. But I hate what they advocate.
>> They cannot justify it if the religious belief is not based on or
>> particularly supportive of hatred.
>
>They can't justify it to you; but you don't seem to have any objective
>arguments in favor of your position, which apparently varies greatly
>depending on your subjective opinion.
>
No, it doesn't. My position is not simplistic.
B Vaughan
wrote:
>Next, the other side of the Fence, those in the Islamic community
>against scarves, is not getting sufficient play in the English language
>press. Part of this movement may be by those Algerians of Berber descent
>against Arabization (including making Arab the official language in
>Algeria).
>So the culture wars in the Muslim community are more complicated that
>the Anglos realize.
I certainly have read about the tensions over headscarves within the
Arab community, not only in France, but also in Turkey and Iran. I
can't remember which parts of the English language press have covered
this issue, but I have read more than one such article. I would say at
least three or four in the past several years.
To me this is irrelevant to the issue as to whether headscarves should
be allowed in schools. I agree with both Alan Harrison and Padraig
Breathnach. It is not the same thing as a Christian wearing a
crucifix, because a crucifix on a neck chain is a symbol of private
devotion, in no way required or even recommended by the Catholic
religion, while a head scarf worn for religious motives is a
requirement of that person's faith. Even if you can find Muslims who
state otherwise, there are enough religious authorities who demand it
to make the wearing of it seem mandatory for a devout Muslim.
I believe that the yarmulke is required of Orthodox Jewish males; if
so, so I would say that is the real equivalent.
It reminds me of an interview I read with a priest in Sicily who was
opposed to the building of a mosque in his parish. He objected on two
points:
1. the Muslim immigrants in his parish are poor and have need of
housing above all. The money would be wasted on a mosque when there
are so many more pressing needs. To which I ask, Have other pressing
needs ever stopped the Catholic Church from building churches in
Africa?
2. Islam does not require a building to pray in. Muslims can pray in
any sort of place, therefore a mosque is superfluous. To which I ask,
Where is it written that Christians can only pray in churches? I can
point to a passage in the gospel where the Lord Himself refutes this
idea.
]
>Lastly, some of the wearing of scarves are part of the "teenage" rebellian
>against adult authority, it is seen in some of the confrontations.
This is one excellent reason why the state should remove itself
completely from the issue.
>People do things for at least two reasons
>
>1) the one they verbalize
>
>2) the real one.
This is surely an enormous assumption. There may be mixed reasons for
every action but who are you to judge the validity of the various
motives?
-----------
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup
B Vaughan
>Well it was done in the US; the plural marriages of Mormonism were
>outlawed in US. Although as I understand it there are still some small
>pockets of resistance in the more remote corners of Utah and Arizona.
Actually, the prohibition of polygamy is an interesting case. No one
is prosecuting these cases anymore, unless there is the additional
issue of compulsion or marriage of minors below the legal age. I feel
that the reason polygamy is being tolerated is that it would be very
difficult to sustain a legal challenge to this law. The law as I
understand criminalizes polygamy even if the multiple marriages are
not registered with the state. In other words, the Mormon
fundamentalists "marry" their wives only under some private vow,
although they make make one marriage official.
Why is a such a polygamist a criminal when a man who has relationships
with half a dozen different women without marrying them not a
criminal? The state may be justified in not giving its imprimatur to
plural marriages, but if someone wants to marry several women under
some private religious contract I don't see how the state can
interfere unless they want to impose chastity on everybody.
>Dunno if Europe allows plural marriages, anybody?
I don't think any European country does.
B Vaughan
wrote:
>On 11/12/03 22:01, in article 17dhtvs419jctd1cu...@4ax.com, "B
>Vaughan" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>> France has a list of names which you can give you children, yes.
>>>
>>> I don`t know of Breton or Basque names are forbidden? This is the
>>> first time I have heard of that. Do you have any information on that
>>> law and how the EU situation might have changed it.
>>
>> Maybe the issue doesn't get much press in France.
>
>Well, after I wrote this I remember that my Syrian students children
>were born in France and he gave them Arab first names. That
>was allowed.
>
>The French don`t get excited about first names, there is always a
>Jean-Pierre grandfather to name the baby boy after. My wife reminded
>me that there are some commonly used Breton first names. So the
>idea that first names are controlled that strictly must be false.
I since saw a mention of 1970 as the date that Breton names first
became included in the list of approved names. However, I also saw
another web page that indicated that many Bretons still feel that many
Breton names are not included. Neither of these pages had any
authorative references so I didn't make a note of them.
>> I myself would find it objectionable that parents can't choose any
>> name they please for their child. (I know that not only France has
>> these restrictions.)
>
>The problem is that parents name their kids stupidly at times and
>their kids end up not likely their first name. My father was
>Earl too, I was a Jr. I never liked that. My wife detests
>her first name.
Lists of approved names would scarcely solve your problem. Nor do I
find it sufficient justification for the petty interference in what
should be the private sphere. There are things that I see parents
doing every day that are of far greater harm to a child than a silly
name.
I recently saw a funeral notice in my town for an elderly woman named
"Atea" (atheist). Obviously her father was a good communist, but it
didn't seem to prevent her from having a funeral mass.
B Vaughan
Do you know where I can find a brief history of the law, including the
dates when restrictions against certain types of "non-French" name
were removed?
B Vaughan
wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, B Vaughan <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> As far as I'm concerned, the government should make no rules about the
>> wearing of any religious garb unless absolutely necessary.
>
>The French attitude is not only that the state should be neutral in
>matters of religion, but also that it should be neutral regarding
>whether one should believe in religion or not. Any expression of
>religious opinion in a state context -- and public schools are obviously
>run by the state -- is unacceptable.
I think that forbidding someone to dress as their religion requires is
far from neutral. A person sitting next to me in a Burkah in a
classroom hardly represents the state forcing me to believe anything.
>American presidents like to say "God bless America"; the French find
>this shocking and unacceptable. (And I agree.)
I get irritated by politicians who drape themselves in flags and
Bibles, but as far as I'm concerned they can say "God" as much as they
want as long as they don't try to make me say it. I feel differently
about teachers or others who have a captive audience making references
to religion. I am in favor of removing crosses from schools, public
hospitals and courtrooms in Italy. Other than that, and other places
where people are constrained to be, I don't favor any restrictions.
B Vaughan
>B Vaughan<m...@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<htpgtvk8qiad3s2pq...@4ax.com>...
>> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 11:02:55 +0100, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr>
>> wrote:
>> >4) Educators don`t like displays and especially anything which
>> >interfers with their educational mission. That mission is
>> >to put out ethnically French students, white, black or brown,
>> >they must be French all educated in the same manner.
>>
>> In other words, ethnically French means purged of all ethnic
>> diversity?
>
>Ethnical diversity ? Do you think that we are painting the blacks in
>pink here or that curry, or couscous is forbiden by law ?
I was only commenting on Earl's statement that the mission of the
schools to "put out ethnically French students". A statement like this
seems to deprecate diversity, don't you think?
>This is the same sort of reasoning that led France to
>> forbid parents in Brittany giving Breton names to their children.
>
>Ridiculous. I know many person with breton names : Soizic Corne,
>etc... Recently their was a "stagiaire" named Lannick in my office.
>Furthermore if some were tempted to do that in the 19th c., which I
>don't know, that would have been contrary to the law even the one of
>1791 which was requiring first names already used in history and not
>worst that the changing of emigrants names, arriving in Ellis island,
>in a more anglo-saxon way.
I am trying to find the history of this practice. I saw a mention on a
Breton culture page that said that Breton names became possible in
1970. If you can find any specific references, I would appreciate it.
It certainly was more recent that the 19th century that the Breton
language was suppressed in France.
The changing of immigrant's names in Ellis Island was not a practice
of the state. It was sometimes the result of a misunderstanding (or
laziness) on the part of the official processing the immigrants, it
was sometimes because the immigrant was illiterate and couldn't spell
his own name, and sometimes because the immigrant himself wanted to
Anglicize the name. However, there was never a policy that required
that name be anglicized.
>> >So how do Muslims girls take the required swimming lessons
>> >with scarves on? The Islamic religious right does not want their girls in
>> >bathing suits much less without their scarves! Other sports activities are
>> >hard to participate in with scarves on. The religious right do not want
>> >their girls taking biology classes where sex is discussed.
>>
>> In a diverse society, schools have to do their best to accommodate the
>> beliefs of their various minorities. When I was a child, my family
>> belonged to a small religious sect that forbid dancing. My school had
>> folk dances classes as part of physical education. I was exempted from
>> these classes. Other children were Jehovah's Witnesses and were exempt
>> from the "saluting of the flag", an exercise that was almost universal
>> in my childhood but that had disappeared by the time my children were
>> in school.
>
>There's a difference between not participating to a lesson, by defect,
>which is exceptionaly possible in France, and deambulating with a
>"pink tchador", pushing the other girls to do the same.
The pressuring of other girls to do the same could really be a problem
which the school should have to address. However, if girls are
permitted to dress as they please and told that prosyletyzing will not
be tolerated, that would be a worthwhile compromise.
>> As far as I'm concerned, this tension between private beliefs and
>> public duties is a healthy one. However, there has to be debate and
>> compromise. I don't understand why only France has this huge problem
>> with its Muslim students. Other European countries have dealt with
>> this problem much more flexibly.
>
>For the reason that France is the only lay country in western Europe
>as far as I know. All the other having officialised religions in their
>institutions and giving more or less privileges to the one or the
>others (MPs, money, etc...), they can't consequently deny to the ones
>what they have accepted for the others. France wich is lay simply
>doesn't care of these "rapports de force".
Is France really the only lay country in Europe? In what sense do you
mean "lay"? As far as I know, many other countries have no official
religion. Germany and the Netherlands, for instance, have no official
religion. If "lay" means that religion must be hidden, it become sort
of an official secularism, which is almost a religions itself.
In the US, public schools are "lay" in the sense that there is no
mention of religion in the schools (although some schools are
beginning to flout this law). This means, for instance, that no
Christmas carols are sung and no Christmas displays are allowed.
However, within reason, the students are permitted to dress as their
religion requires. Head scarves are widely worn. The US also has a
very large Muslim population.
>Finally, I find totally ridiculous the choice of different hours for
>girls and boys in swimming pools since in France we have the habit of
>mixity wich is the general rule. As you sayed I don't see what
>necessary reason could justify that.
Like it or not, Europe is becoming a country of immigrants and what
seems perfectly reasonable to a French person may offend the
sensibilities of the new residents. To insist that they instantly
become French in their most private beliefs only generates hostility.
Surely their children and grandchildren will be assimilated all too
well. The only alternative would be to preselect immigrants and accept
only those who profess themselves willing to adapt, but I don't like
that idea either. And usually until a person arrives in a new country,
they don't realize what they will find offensive. For example, when I
came to Italy I felt totally ready to accept the cultural differences
that I would find. But I do find the heavy hand of the Catholic Church
a bit much. (I'm sure many Catholics in the US would be equally
annoyed by the way their Church behaves in Italy.) I'm now an Italian
citizen and I feel entitled to criticize. But if you are right, I
should bite my tongue and bow to the superior right of Italian
culture.
O'Donnell Tribunal
If I want to wear a swastika T-Shirt in school should I be permitted
to do so? Of course the ban on scarves is oppressive; it is forcing
people to be french.
It is defining frenchness in a way that excludes the scarf
The french commonality (commonweal?) has a perfect right to do this.
It is forced assimilation, and quite appropriate.
O'Donnell
> Worrying about franglais is relatively harmless; attempting to
> prohibit people from behaving in accordance with their religious
> conviction when that behaviour does not impinge on anybody else is not
> harmless: it's oppressive. I am quite willing to tell my French
> friends that. A friend who is not prepared to tell you when you are
> getting something wrong is not a good friend.
Sigvaldi Eggertsson
> Mxsmanic <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<6jhhtvkhp54uvs5rf...@4ax.com>...
> > Charles Hawtrey writes:
> >
> > > The obsession of the French with preserving their language and culture
> > > against outside influence is something many of us find difficult to
> > > comprehend, but in the end it's their own business.
> >
> > Unfortunately, they indulge their obsession in the wrong way, by
> > treating the symptoms, rather than the cause.
> >
> > For example, the decline of French is an effect, not a cause. It is the
> > consequence of the declining influence of France in the world. The
> > incursion of English words into French is a consequence of the
> > overwhelming influence of the United States in the world. The only way
> > to change the balance is to change the influence wielded by these
> > societies, but the French attempt to fix the problem by simply outlawing
> > English words and coming up with French translations for them. That
> > never works, alas!
>
> Well, it seems to have worked almost perfectly for icelandic. It is
> still almost completely free of anglisisms, despite their country
> being exposed to even more anglosaxon cultural influence than France.
>
> Bjorn
Yes, and the reason why it works is that foreign words are not
outlawed, it is the users of the language that voluntarily keep the
foreign words to a minimum.
bar...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Evleth) wrote:
> I don`t know the decay time of an average structure would be but I would
> suspect that 100 years of total neglect is more than enough to reduce a
> structure into an unrecoverable ruin.
Naturally it would depend on structural and climatic factors, but I
suspect much, much less than a century would be needed in a relatively wet
environment like most of western Europe - 10-30 years, maybe?
Mxsmanic
> No, it doesn't. My position is not simplistic.
Thus far, you haven't shown it to be objectively defensible, either.
Mxsmanic
> I don't think any European country does.
France tolerates polygamy in immigrants under some very tight
restrictions, the details of which I've not investigated completely,
since polygamy is not a concern of mine.
Mxsmanic
> What to you mean ruled? Owned?
No, operated, supervised, and controlled. For an example, just walk
over to Notre-Dame, or indeed to any old church.
Padraig Breathnach
>Padraig Breathnach writes:
>
>> No, it doesn't. My position is not simplistic.
>
>Thus far, you haven't shown it to be objectively defensible, either.
I don't feel an obligation to when somebody is doing no more than
trying to get in cheap shots.
Earl Evleth
Vaughan" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 23:22:17 +0100, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr>
> wrote:
>
> I since saw a mention of 1970 as the date that Breton names first
> became included in the list of approved names. However, I also saw
> another web page that indicated that many Bretons still feel that many
> Breton names are not included. Neither of these pages had any
> authorative references so I didn't make a note of them.
Again, the only time I have seen this issue arrise is among English posters.
I don`t remember seeing anything in the French press on this in the 30 years
we have lived here. It is not an important issue.
As I mentioned, my Arab student give Arab names to his children
so that was not forbidden.
Earl
Earl Evleth
Vaughan" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:21:32 +0100, Nathalie Chiva
> <Nathali...@ci.unil.ch> wrote:
>
>> Earl Evleth a écrit :
>>
>>> France has a list of names which you can give you children, yes.
>>
>> No, not anymore. That law was changed at the beginning of the 90's. It was
>> replaced
>> by a "reverse" law: You can give any name you wish to a child, but it must
>> not
>> expose that child to ridicule (so that really offensive names, or ridiculous
>> ones,
>> can be refused by the State).
>
> Do you know where I can find a brief history of the law, including the
> dates when restrictions against certain types of "non-French" name
> were removed?
Natalie does clear up that point.
Note she is posting from Switzerland although with a first name like Natalie
is probably from the French region.
But as I said, this is not a biggie in France. If nobody is demonstating in
the streets it is a non-issue!
Earl
Earl Evleth
Vaughan" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:17:28 -0500, y...@storm.ca (Yves Bellefeuille)
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, B Vaughan <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> As far as I'm concerned, the government should make no rules about the
>>> wearing of any religious garb unless absolutely necessary.
>>
>> The French attitude is not only that the state should be neutral in
>> matters of religion, but also that it should be neutral regarding
>> whether one should believe in religion or not. Any expression of
>> religious opinion in a state context -- and public schools are obviously
>> run by the state -- is unacceptable.
>
> I think that forbidding someone to dress as their religion requires is
> far from neutral. A person sitting next to me in a Burkah in a
> classroom hardly represents the state forcing me to believe anything.
>
>
It would be an issue In the final exam. Who is behind that Burkah!
Earl
Earl Evleth
70d8ab2e.03121...@posting.google.com, "Sigvaldi Eggertsson"
<sig...@binet.is> wrote:
> Yes, and the reason why it works is that foreign words are not
> outlawed, it is the users of the language that voluntarily keep the
> foreign words to a minimum.
New words generally enter the language because they more accurately describe
something.
What of the problems I found is that some very useful French words do not
find there way into English where there are needed.
Take for example the words: Bricolage, bricoler.
The English term is an awkward "do-it-yourself"
The French term exists in one word. It also has the impression
at times of having done something in a rough or poor manner.
For instance one comment on the European constitution is
"Constitution européenne : Un bricolage pitoyable ----"
The current war in Iraq could be termed as "une Guerre bricolée par
le crétin Bush". If I repaired my sink, that would be a legitimate
bricolage. If I bought tools I would go to "Mr Bricolage", a supermarket
of tools.
So the word has flexibility defined by context, making it even
more useful.
But clearly the word is superior to anything in English.
Another recent word in French is bidon. A bidon is a jerrycan,
and after WWII when shanty towns were built around major cities
in war divestated Europe, jerrycans were use in the construction,
thus they got the name of bidonvilles.
From that the term "bidon" came to means something really terrible,
stupid.
So a critique of the war in Iraq could call it a "une Guerre bidon".
One of the things that happens with a type like me is that I will
mix French and English in my conversation with others who will
understand what I am saying, coming up with a hyrbid version.
I noticed listening to people speak Arab in Algers that about
one word in 5 is French. Languages evolve in this fashion.
One sometimes borrows to be chic but more often borrows because
the foreign word best describes, in one word, what one is saying.
Anyway, I really recommend bricoler-bricolage for English speakers!
Earl
Earl Evleth
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Earl Evleth writes:
>
>> What to you mean ruled? Owned?
>
> No, operated, supervised, and controlled. For an example, just walk
> over to Notre-Dame, or indeed to any old church.
The French Governmet owns important historical structures if this assures
their physical survival.
From the web:
"When the French government officially separated itself from the Roman
Catholic Church early in the 20th century, it took ownership of all
cathedrals owned by the church, and they became public buildings. This
included Notre-Dame.
The cathedral is now technically managed by the Caisse Nationale des
Monuments Historiques (the National Historical Monument Trust), a government
agency that is responsible for most major landmarks.
Services are still held inside the cathedral by the Catholic church,
however, and it still manages the cathedral in many respects as if it still
owned the structure."
So in that sense you statement that is is controlled by the state is
misleading, the state is holding it in trust.
Earl