Skip to comments.Clash in Paris Metro Leads to Closure
Posted on 03/27/2007 11:39:29 AM PDT by SmithL
PARIS, France (AP) --
About 100 youths clashed Tuesday with subway inspectors and police at Paris' Gare du Nord metro station, which was closed to traffic following the altercation, transportation officials said.
A standoff between police officers and about 100 youths was still under way early Tuesday evening, said officials from Paris' RATP public transport authority.
The incident began when one of the youths punched two subway inspectors during a routine ticket check
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Ah... those fractious youths again.
Youths? That's pretty vague.
Those crazy French yout's. What's next? Car burnings?
Youths?? A lot of them look like they are in their 20`s and older if you ask me. All primed and ready not to work in Surrenderland.
What's new here?
Yeah...probably just a rambunctious bunch of Catholic boys on their way home from catechism class.
Jaques, Pierre, and Judeaux at it again? Or might it be Abdul, Omar, and Muhammed? Don't count on the frog press to make the differentiation.
I guess they have to take the subway, now that there's a shortage of cars.
I don't think they have to make it. Their reading public already knows without it being told.
Wow...I was just in the Gare du Nord metro station yesterday afternoon, on my way to Charles de Gaulle airport (and getting out of France).
Are there any cars left to burn?
Thank God there were no cars around. You know how the French youths get urges of pyromania around cars.
That's a major station hub. This would bring the city to a screeching halt toute suite.
Yes, the Gare du Nord metro station is a major transportation hub. I recall going through there a number of times. This is not in one of the slums.
Nasty hood around there.
If you're switching from the RER coming from the north to Metro lines on the Right Bank, it's a popular place to transfer.
I beg to differ. Ever walk toward the northeast from that station?
Well why on earth should the little socialists have to pay for train tickets? They are being given everything else, why not a free ride at someone else's exxpense.
Paris? It looks more like Washington, D.C. or Detroit! I thought French people were white!
If you want on or off to the list, go to the link and follow the instructions.
There's a picture in comment 1, if you're looking for something more precise.
French are Europeans but they have lots of people from their former colonies (hence that "Eurabia" thing going on around FR). Most are light-skinned, but not all--and definitely not in the major cities. The same in the United States.
*(rhetorical question). And while your comment wasn't exactly intelligent, you yourself could be.
The fruits of a socialist utopia.
If I posted my opinion of your comment, it would be removed. I trust you could use your imagination; my opinion is other than charitable.
There are some not-so-nice areas near the Gare du Nord. Most people in the station aren't from the neighborhood, they're there because it's a major rail hub (metro, commuter, regional and inter-city) that handles 180 million inter-city rail passengers alone per year. Compare that to the 4.3 million that New York's Penn Station sees, and you get a sense of how big this is.
Oh, and put your eye back in!
I was TRYING to eat lunch while reading! ROFL! Anyone know the Heimlich maneuver?
French people haven't been white for a long time.
The black population itself is probably 5% of the population. The Beurs are probably 10-15%. Southern French are Mediterranean and relatively dark. It's a very diverse country racially and ethnically.
I haven't been there in a long time, I must confess.
Somewhere on this site there's a great set of World War I photos from the French Army in the trenches on the Western Front. One of the more surprising thing in the pictures is the number of black soldiers from French Africa. Something like 10-15% of French forces during the war were blacks, either from the overseas departments or the African colonies. The Empire made a substantial contribution to the war effort.
This is the thing about France that makes it so very different from the rest of Continental Europe. The rest of the countries in Europe very nearly correspond to racial (in the European sense), ethnic and linguistic lines. France of course corresponds to linguistic lines, but that is only because of 200 years of public education. There is a French culture, but it is like American culture - learned, adopted from the state that cobbled the country together. France doesn't descend from one tribe, but is at the crossroads of Europe and incorporates all of the tribes of Europe. And then France and England raced to conquer and colonize the whole world, so you end up having French Asians and French Africans, French Polynesians and French Amerindians.
There is an old saying in France about the difference between France and England in this idea of who is French, or can be French. It is "Est anglais qui peut; est francais qui veut" - literally "Is English who can be; is French who wishes to be". Or in other words, one can choose to be French, because to be French is to adopt a language and a culture, but one cannot choose to be English, because it's an innate ethnic quality, like being Dutch or Swedish or Polish or Czech or Serb.
This is all because France was for centuries not just the biggest state in Western Europe, but the most populous state in Europe (it was not until after 1800 that the population of Russia exceeded that of France, and then only slightly for a long time). France was big in terms of territory, but vast in terms of the polyglot of tribes and peoples and cultures. What made France was the monarchy welding it together with one faith, one law, one God, one King. Before there was anything like the sense of ethnic nationalism, which the Napoleonic Wars and the French Revolution ended up awakening in Europe, there were the various kingdoms of Europe. But all of them except for Muscovy in the far East, were little bits of Kingdoms, confined to one ethnic group or another. Yes, there was The Empire (Germany), but it was an utter sprawling mess composed of over a thousand petty kingdoms, and an Empire in nothing but name. The Emperor had title, but no command.
England was the only other Kingdom in Europe whose basic bone structure came down from the Dark Ages, like France's did, but England was a little bitty thing compared to France. In 1800, there were maybe 8 million English. There were about 38 million French. France simply dwarfed everyone, because it was truly a Kingdom that expanded into the void and ended up holding so many peoples within its bounds for so long that they BECAME something new: French.
This is most similar to China, in the East, and in a real sense the overwhelming influence France had for a thousand years on the whole of Europe was due to the same thing that gave China such influence over the rest of East Asia: sheer volume of people and relative size and wealth have a powerful centripetal draw. France was about the limit for a medieval kingdom. The Empire was well past it, and flew to pieces.
Insightful post. Comparing the results of English Colonialism (a great number of people descended from other people from the British Isles most comfortable with those most like themselves) with French, Portugese, and Spanish Colonialism (a great number of people descended in part from the people colonizing but primarily from the original inhabitants who have adopted certain key aspects of the colonial power's culture--e.g. Catholicism, an official language, and some of the bureaucratic structure), I've often thought of some of these differences as the result of differences resulting from a world view that begins with a Catholic starting point versus one that starts from a Protestant starting point. Two of your four welding points (one faith and one God) bring this aspect out, but you have much to add that I had not thought about. Among other things, by identifying four welding points (the other two being the King and the law), you make it evident that the revolution, by dumping three of the four ends up relying exclusively on the law, which will change much.
Nice post. It gives me more to think about. Do you read Belloc?
I have not read Belloc. I am honestly quite poorly read in the traditional sense, because I eschew reading other people's opinions of what happened, much preferring to read actual legal documents, annals and looking at treaties. My basic assumption is a fundamentally Catholic and Christian one: that human beings are everywhere the same, with similar motives, and always have been since the dawn of man. So, culture and leadership inflect the expression of human desires, but only to a degree. The human desires are the same, and medieval Japanese or the Chippewa hunting parties are not really any more difficult to understand than modern Americans. Given the extremely multiracial nature of my family, I have had nothing but resounding confirmation of this intellectual prejudice of mine. Although it's not true, technically-speaking, that there is nothing new under the sun, it is true in terms of the human heart and human motivations.
You mention the difference between Catholic and Protestant colonization, and it is so, yet between the three Catholic colonial powers: Spain, Portugal and France there were nevertheless key differences that made the outcomes quite different. Of note, although Brazil speaks Portuguese, and the rest of Latin America speaks Spanish, the ties with Spain are distant and vague, nothing like the close heart-ties between England and America, and certain nothing like the universal sense of "La Francophonie", with French troops to back it up!, that still persists in most of the former French Empire. Consider that there are over a million French citizens in the Americas, and that the EU literally touches Canada (the islands of St. Pierre et Miquelon are integral parts of France), and the EU is literally in the Caribbean (the departments of Guadeloupe, Martinique and French Guiana are not colonies, but integral parts of France, with seats in Parliament and direct votes for the President - like Hawaii vis-a-vis the USA); there is a strong difference between French colonial history and everyone else's.
We needn't parse it too hard. When the French spoke of "la mission civilizatrice", they were completely seriously. When they spoke of "black Frenchmen", they MEANT it, and blacks and whites were on a plane of complete juridical equality in France, not a sham equality, since the 19th Century.
It is true that the King himself is gone, and has been gone since 1870, but the centralizing power, the centripetal force of the French state, remains. The French State is at the apex of all things in France, and the French, left right and center, cannot envision how it could be otherwise and run effectively. On the margins there is SOME appetite (mostly in the UDF) to try and disengage the day-to-day management of all affairs by the state, but even among the UDF there is no belief that the State doesn't have the POWER and RIGHT to regulate everything. It is, rather, the sense that the State doesn't do some things well, and so should ALLOW private actors greater freedom of action, always, however, subject to supervision.
Une foi, une loi, un Dieu, un Roi! is still the principle of France, really, though the "King" is now "la Republique">
"liberte egalite fraternite" all sound great on paper. Unfortunately, in practice, it is nowhere near true. After living in France for more than 12 years, I have found the French to be anything but. They are racist,anti-semitic,anti-American.I realize this is a large generalization with exceptions, but on the whole, it is asrounding to see people give lip service to those values, and live exactly opposite.
The leftist elites are the most guilty on the anti-semitic and anti-American counts, although I was shocked to find it on all levels of French society.
They can say "youths". We know exactly what they mean. They can not hide the facts by deleting un-PC words.
Lying media lets us see the truth in spite of itself.
Well, the French ARE free. Liberte has been taken to the point of the libertin.
The egalite and fraternite parts need some work.
"liberte" and "Liberty" are nowhere near the same thing.
Indeed, the same could be said of that type in the US and even the whole world.
Having spent some travel time out of the Paris metro region, I do say that I have liked many of the French I have encountered.
I have found the French to be wonderful, warm, gracious, and hospitable people. Of course, as an American, the group is pre-selected in a way.
Most of the French people I know have strong American ties through school, ancestry, or interest.
"I'm Singin' In the Rain.....Just Singing In the Rain..."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.