France Bans Hijabs for Under 18s

[Nakena]

Races don’t exist because they’re frankly stupid.

Hausa people are generally “black” rather than “brown” but are usually genetically closest to Berbers who are almost always listed as “white” than they are to their “black” Fulani neighbors.

Hausas, Pashtuns, and and Italians are all “Caucasian”, even though only one of them are “white”.

Meanwhile, Malagasy people are generally considered “black” despite the fact they genetically should be considered Southeast Asian.
My point is genetic differences exist and certain regions and people of certain skin colors may have general genetic trends and similarities but ultimately race is simply a 15th century myth designed to divide people.

"Black" and "brown" and "white" (or Caucasian) aren't races even if many americans believe that.

[Volodiograd]

Source?

Well? Where is it?

Dude, I'm not spending my life on NationStates.

Here's the source: http://www.linternaute.com/actualite/de ... -dangereux

Sorry it's in French, but it's just the criminality rate per department.

[Islamic Holy Sites]

If you can have subspecies of other mammals

Not for all of them. Subspecies appear when groups are isolated for long enough (in term of generation) compared to their size, and didn't mix again later. Or when they are artificially selected, like in dogs and cows. That doesn't mean they exist for all mammals, and they don't for humans.

Hell through medicine if you are experienced enough, you can identify who may be what ethnicity through X-Rays of skulls.

Nope, you can't. You'll get a different classification of humans if you try to do that than if you use skin color, or blood group, or having curly hair, or ... and you'll get a much higher standard deviation within your subgroups for all other characteristics than you'll have between the average of your groups, which is the symptom of a broken classification.

Imagine if it actually worked like that:

The police break in the person's house. They look at him in the eye. "Oi! You curly hair supremacist! Hands behind your head! We'll escort you to jail."

[Islamic Holy Sites]

Well? Where is it?

Dude, I'm not spending my life on NationStates.

Here's the source: http://www.linternaute.com/actualite/de ... -dangereux

Sorry it's in French, but it's just the criminality rate per department.

Thanks, and I know French so np.

[Kilobugya]

Well? Where is it?

Dude, I'm not spending my life on NationStates.

Here's the source: http://www.linternaute.com/actualite/de ... -dangereux

Sorry it's in French, but it's just the criminality rate per department.

And what does that say ? That departements with high rates of poverty, unemployment and/or dense urban area have high crime rate. Exactly what I'm saying since the beginning. Nothing to do with religions or ethnicity or being migrant.

[Insaanistan]

Races don’t exist because they’re frankly stupid.

Hausa people are generally “black” rather than “brown” but are usually genetically closest to Berbers who are almost always listed as “white” than they are to their “black” Fulani neighbors.

Hausas, Pashtuns, and and Italians are all “Caucasian”, even though only one of them are “white”.

Meanwhile, Malagasy people are generally considered “black” despite the fact they genetically should be considered Southeast Asian.
My point is genetic differences exist and certain regions and people of certain skin colors may have general genetic trends and similarities but ultimately race is simply a 15th century myth designed to divide people.

"Black" and "brown" and "white" (or Caucasian) aren't races even if many americans believe that.

Their the general term used for races but even then can be quite fluid.

I’ve seen Latinos, South Asians and Middle Easterners argue about who properly gets to call themselves “brown”, and even heard many claims black people should be included under the label “brown”. People who refer to themselves as white have historically claimed Italians and Irish are not, and many debate whether Turks, Armenians, Georgians Balkan Muslims etc should be called white as well.

Nevertheless, this just further proves the idea of race is frankly stupid and has little basis in reality.

[Islamic Holy Sites]

Well? Where is it?

Dude, I'm not spending my life on NationStates.

Here's the source: http://www.linternaute.com/actualite/de ... -dangereux

Sorry it's in French, but it's just the criminality rate per department.

Seine-Saint-Denis isn't muslim majority, estimates I know of ranging from 10% or more, but not over 50%. And it has the highest percentage of muslims in France, I think. Checking next one.

[Volodiograd]

Dude, I'm not spending my life on NationStates.

Here's the source: http://www.linternaute.com/actualite/de ... -dangereux

Sorry it's in French, but it's just the criminality rate per department.

And what does that say ? That departements with high rates of poverty, unemployment and/or dense urban area have high crime rate. Exactly what I'm saying since the beginning. Nothing to do with religions or ethnicity or being migrant.

Not true. There are several departments which according to your theory should be among the highest, like the Nord and Pas-de-Calais, but are in fact way lower than departments with lower density and lesser rate or poverty, such as the Var or Isère. I insist, this is a cultural problem.

[Volodiograd]

Dude, I'm not spending my life on NationStates.

Here's the source: http://www.linternaute.com/actualite/de ... -dangereux

Sorry it's in French, but it's just the criminality rate per department.

Seine-Saint-Denis isn't muslim majority, estimates I know of ranging from 10% or more, but not over 50%. And it has the highest percentage of muslims in France, I think. Checking next one.

>it has the highest percentage of muslims in France

That's the relevant part, they don't need to be a majority to be criminals, though again it's more about culture than religion.

[Islamic Holy Sites]

And what does that say ? That departements with high rates of poverty, unemployment and/or dense urban area have high crime rate. Exactly what I'm saying since the beginning. Nothing to do with religions or ethnicity or being migrant.

Not true. There are several departments which according to your theory should be among the highest, like the Nord and Pas-de-Calais, but are in fact way lower than departments with lower density and lesser rate or poverty, such as the Var or Isère. I insist, this is a cultural problem.

What's wrong with Arab/Berber culture? Why isn't it possible that in most of the cases, muslims are the ones being robbed/harrassed and thus this is why this is happening?

[Islamic Holy Sites]

Seine-Saint-Denis isn't muslim majority, estimates I know of ranging from 10% or more, but not over 50%. And it has the highest percentage of muslims in France, I think. Checking next one.

>it has the highest percentage of muslims in France

That's the relevant part, they don't need to be a majority to be criminals, though again it's more about culture than religion.

So I have a bandit culture. Why, thank you very much.

[Kilobugya]

Not true. There are several departments which according to your theory should be among the highest, like the Nord and Pas-de-Calais, but are in fact way lower than departments with lower density and lesser rate or poverty, such as the Var or Isère. I insist, this is a cultural problem.

There are lots of factor in play. Not just poverty but income inequality, inside the department or with nearby departments. Climate can have a small effect too.

Cultural factor is definitely not preponderant at all. As I said above, it's not specific to current France. High poverty, high income inequality, high density lead to crime. It's true in Brazil and Mexico, it's true in Seine-Saint-Denis and Bouches-du-Rhône, and it was true a century ago, regardless of Muslims being present or not.

[Volodiograd]

>it has the highest percentage of muslims in France

That's the relevant part, they don't need to be a majority to be criminals, though again it's more about culture than religion.

So I have a bandit culture. Why, thank you very much.

You can change your culture though. And it's mainly a problem in case of a cultural shock, if you're living in a country which doesn't belong to the same cultural group as you.

Not true. There are several departments which according to your theory should be among the highest, like the Nord and Pas-de-Calais, but are in fact way lower than departments with lower density and lesser rate or poverty, such as the Var or Isère. I insist, this is a cultural problem.

There are lots of factor in play. Not just poverty but income inequality, inside the department or with nearby departments. Climate can have a small effect too.

Cultural factor is definitely not preponderant at all. As I said above, it's not specific to current France. High poverty, high income inequality, high density lead to crime. It's true in Brazil and Mexico, it's true in Seine-Saint-Denis and Bouches-du-Rhône, and it was true a century ago, regardless of Muslims being present or not.

You're acting as if there one only one type of crime and a single path to it. It's not the case. In that case, the cultural factor is of major importance.

[Insaanistan]

So I have a bandit culture. Why, thank you very much.

You can change your culture though. And it's mainly a problem in case of a cultural shock, if you're living in a country which doesn't belong to the same cultural group as you.

There are lots of factor in play. Not just poverty but income inequality, inside the department or with nearby departments. Climate can have a small effect too.

Cultural factor is definitely not preponderant at all. As I said above, it's not specific to current France. High poverty, high income inequality, high density lead to crime. It's true in Brazil and Mexico, it's true in Seine-Saint-Denis and Bouches-du-Rhône, and it was true a century ago, regardless of Muslims being present or not.

You're acting as if there one only one type of crime and a single path to it. It's not the case. In that case, the cultural factor is of major importance.

Berber culture doesn’t turn them into criminals.

[Fahran]

A religion and a political ideology are two different things, even if course there are some influences between the two. A Catholic can be anything from Liberation Theology or Franquist. An atheist can be anything from marxist to libertarian. The same goes for all other religions. An Islamist is to a Muslim what a Franquist would be to a Catholic - someone who wants to impose his religious view to the population through an authoritarian government.

Islamism is a pretty broad political ideology. It doesn't necessitate an authoritarian government in every case. In part because social pressure can accomplish quite a lot and in part because some people actively want to live a lifestyle that's compatible with sharia and don't need to be coerced to put on a niqab or to not drink alcohol.

[Fahran]

As I said, by that logic we're all Africans. It doesn't matter how far back it happened, only that it happened.

Ethnicity isn't defined exclusively by genes, but also isn't quite the same as nationality, which is a legal rather than a social construct. A person, regardless of country, who speaks German, who washes down their sausage with Bavarian beer, who has a discernibly German name, and who self-identifies as German is quite plainly an ethnic German. His or her descendants may become something else due to assimilation, cultural mixing, and cultural shifts, but that has more to do with culture than with genes or bloodlines.

[Fahran]

Cultural factor is definitely not preponderant at all.

While poverty, income inequality, and population density do matter, social and cultural factors matter as well. There's a reason criminal gangs developed among the Italians in the United States as pervasively as they did. They had strongly established criminal and bandit subcultures in Sicily and Calabria that were imported alongside other cultural facets such as names, food, and people. They also imported social hierarchies and attitudes that came into play, and that allowed them to dominate less well-organized street gangs. Ethnicity absolutely plays a part in the formation of many criminal gangs because it makes sense to fall back on your in-group for protection when white hooligans and gangsters begin terrorizing your community. There's a reason some gangs are exclusive about race and ethnicity.

[Islamic Holy Sites]

As I said, by that logic we're all Africans. It doesn't matter how far back it happened, only that it happened.

Ethnicity isn't defined exclusively by genes, but also isn't quite the same as nationality, which is a legal rather than a social construct. A person, regardless of country, who speaks German, who washes down their sausage with Bavarian beer, who has a discernibly German name, and who self-identifies as German is quite plainly an ethnic German. His or her descendants may become something else due to assimilation, cultural mixing, and cultural shifts, but that has more to do with culture than with genes or bloodlines.

Tell that to Great Pacific Switzerland.

[Fahran]

Tell that to Great Pacific Switzerland.

I intended to tell it to everyone there.

Part of the problem with genes and bloodlines as a measure of identity between generations is that people really aren't as insular as we make them out to be, especially when anti-miscegenation laws aren't put in place and rigidly enforced. Jewish people regularly married and had children with goyim in Europe despite priests, rabbis, and laypeople discouraging these unions. Black people regularly married and had children with white people in the United States despite laws making this illegal. Heck, even racist slaveowners did this not infrequently. Similarly, I imagine it's not uncommon for Muslim women to marry non-Muslim men especially in countries where populations are less segregated and less intolerant - the US most notably. That means that your bloodlines are going to get mixed up very, very quickly.

[Insaanistan]

Tell that to Great Pacific Switzerland.

I intended to tell it to everyone there.

Part of the problem with genes and bloodlines as a measure of identity between generations is that people really aren't as insular as we make them out to be, especially when anti-miscegenation laws aren't put in place and rigidly enforced. Jewish people regularly married and had children with goyim in Europe despite priests, rabbis, and laypeople discouraging these unions. Black people regularly married and had children with white people in the United States despite laws making this illegal. Heck, even racist slaveowners did this not infrequently. Similarly, I imagine it's not uncommon for Muslim women to marry non-Muslim men especially in countries where populations are less segregated and less intolerant - the US most notably. That means that your bloodlines are going to get mixed up very, very quickly.

It’s mainly Muslim men marrying non-Muslim women, but Muslim women do occasionally marry non-Muslim men.

[Grinning Dragon]

I don't think it's govts business to dictate what article of clothing one should or shouldn't wear. IMO, the best course of action would have been to provide protections/avenues for redress for those who don't want to wear a particular set of clothing.
The way France went about this is only going inflame and cause resistance.

[Fahran]

It’s mainly Muslim men marrying non-Muslim women, but Muslim women do occasionally marry non-Muslim men.

That's not too surprising given social pressure and cultural conventions in the Dar as-Salaam. That's kinda why I emphasized Muslim women marrying non-Muslim men since, historically, that was much less common and actually discouraged by religious authorities. Largely for the same reason that Jewish men weren't supposed to marry non-Jewish women.

[Major-Tom]

I'm all for secularism, but somebody wearing a hijab in a public setting hurts nobody. It's a fucking hijab, it's completely innocuous unless you are a member of the Islamic faith who ascribes meaning to it. And, if you are one of those people, by all means, wear one if you'd like.

[Fahran]

I'm all for secularism, but somebody wearing a hijab in a public setting hurts nobody. It's a fucking hijab, it's completely innocuous unless you are a member of the Islamic faith who ascribes meaning to it. And, if you are one of those people, by all means, wear one if you'd like.

I wouldn't say it's wholly innocuous. The reason the Taliban imposed the burqa as consistently and sternly as they did was to leave a lasting impact on the culture of urban Afghanistan in particular, where the burqa had become rare as a result of secularization and modernization efforts. Cultural regalia, such as burqas, hijabs, blue jeans, and bikinis, do matter a great deal. They give us a good deal of insight into prevailing cultural attitudes and values. In this case, they tell us about religion, the role of women in society, attitudes towards modesty and sexuality, and broader gender dynamics. I really don't think we can insightfully approach most issues with an individualist paradigm, especially not when everyone else approaches these issues from a collectivist or sociological paradigm.

[Major-Tom]

I'm all for secularism, but somebody wearing a hijab in a public setting hurts nobody. It's a fucking hijab, it's completely innocuous unless you are a member of the Islamic faith who ascribes meaning to it. And, if you are one of those people, by all means, wear one if you'd like.

I wouldn't say it's wholly innocuous. The reason the Taliban imposed the burqa as consistently and sternly as they did was to leave a lasting impact on the culture of urban Afghanistan in particular, where the burqa had become rare as a result of secularization and modernization efforts. Cultural regalia, such as burqas, hijabs, blue jeans, and bikinis, do matter a great deal. They give us a good deal of insight into prevailing cultural attitudes and values. In this case, they tell us about religion, the role of women in society, attitudes towards modesty and sexuality, and broader gender dynamics. I really don't think we can insightfully approach most issues with an individualist paradigm, especially not when everyone else approaches these issues from a collectivist or sociological paradigm.

Well, first off, burqas and hijabs are quite different, as I'm confident you know. Second, yes, the hijab is an indicator of cultural values, of collective religious and social beliefs, but it does extend to the individual level as well. And when it comes to freedom of religion, I tend to take the individualist route. The origins of the hijab are interesting, I may not even be fond of the cultural and religious ideals that spurned its commonality in the first place.

But, for me, I see a case like this as a clear cut in terms of my belief system. If I believe that people ought to wear what they want, so long as it doesn't harm those around them, then logically I'll defend their right to do so with more of a focus on the individual right to expression than questions of collective meaning and prevailing cultural attitudes.