Urban
Violence in France
Paul Silverstein
and Chantal Tetreault
November 2005
(Paul Silverstein,
an associate professor of anthropology at Reed College, is
author of Algeria in France: Transpolitics, Race and Nation,
Indiana University Press, 2004. Chantal Tetreault is an assistant
professor of anthropology at the University of North Carolina-Charlotte.)
Dorénavant
la rue ne pardonne plus |
From
now on the street will not forgive |
Nous
n’avons rien à perdre car nous n’avons
jamais rien eu |
We
have nothing to lose for we have nothing |
A
votre place je ne dormirais pas tranquille |
In
your place I would not sleep well |
La
bourgeoisie peut trembler, les cailleras sont dans la
ville |
The
bourgeoisie should tremble, the gangstas are in town |
Pas
pour faire la fête, mais pour foutre le feu |
Not
to party, but to burn the place down…. |
| |
|
Où
sont nos repères? Qui sont nos modèles? |
Where
are our roots? Who are our models? |
De
toute une jeunesse, vous avez brulé les ailes |
You’ve
burned the wings of a whole generation |
Brisé
les rêves, tari la sève de l’espérance.
Oh! Quand j’y pense |
Shattered
dreams, soiled the seed of hope. Oh! when I think about
it |
Il
est temps qu’on y pense, il est temps que la France |
It’s
time to think; it’s time that France |
Daigne
de prendre conscience de toutes ces offenses |
Deigns
to take account of its crimes |
Mais
quand bien même, la coupe est pleine |
But
in any event, the cup is full |
L’histoire
l’enseigne, nos chances sont vaines |
History
teaches that our chances are nil |
Alors
arrêtons tout plûtot que cela traine |
So
stop before it gets out of hand |
Ou
ne draine, même, encore plus de haine |
Or
creates even more hatred |
Unissons-nous
pour incinérer ce système |
Let’s
unite and incinerate the system |
| |
|
Mais
qu’est-ce, mais qu’est-ce qu’on attend
pour foutre le feu |
But
why, why are we waiting to set the fire? |
—Suprême NTM, “Qu’est-ce
qu’on attend” (1995)
Anyone who
was listening to Suprême NTM ten years ago would not be
terribly surprised by the violence that has struck France in
the early weeks of November 2005. The rap group hailing from
Saint-Denis northeast of Paris knew all too well about the everyday
police aggression that shapes life in the decaying housing projects
ringing cities across France. Like NTM, many young residents
of the cités, as the housing projects are known
in French, had simply been asking themselves, “Why are
we waiting?”
As is almost
always the case, the violence began with an incident that might
not otherwise make the front page in a major world capital. On
October 27, after playing an informal soccer match with friends
at a stadium in Clichy-sous-Bois (a municipality neighboring
Saint-Denis), Muhittin Altun, 17, Zyed Benna, 17, and Bouna Traoré,
15, were heading home to end their Ramadan fast when they heard
police sirens. Bouna told the others to run, claiming that members
of the Anti-Criminal Brigade were in pursuit. A security guard
from a nearby construction site had called the police because
he believed the teens were trespassing; other young men present
deny ever having entered the site. Muhittin, Zyed and Bouna jumped
the fence of a nearby electrical substation to escape the police,
but only Muhittin survived. Zyed and Bouna were fatally electrocuted.
The police have denied seeing the three teens enter the substation.
As word spread
about Zyed and Bouna’s deaths, young men from the surrounding
housing projects gathered in protest. In a minor set-to with
police, they burned 15 cars. The following evening, the conflict
had expanded, pitting as many as 400 local youth against perhaps
300 riot police and military gendarmes called in to maintain
order. Although local residents marched peacefully the next morning,
calling both for legal redress for the dead teens and for calm,
attacks on vehicles and public property continued that night.
When, on October 30, Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy went on
national television to promise “zero tolerance”
for the racaille (scum), and when that same evening a tear
gas canister of the type employed by riot police exploded in a
Clichy mosque, the clashes took on a more violent tenor. Within
a few days, they had spread across other housing projects in the
surrounding municipalities, with flaming cars quickly becoming
a daily sight.
On November
7, after nearly two weeks of confrontations in cités around
Paris and other French cities, French Prime Minister Dominique
de Villepin announced a “state of emergency”
across over a quarter of the nation’s territory. The measure
-- which for an initial period of 12 days grants prefects the right
to establish curfews within their regions and the interior minister
the power to close public spaces and order search-and-seizures,
house arrests and press censorship -- derives from an April 1955
law crafted to snuff out support for the nascent Algerian war of
independence. Originally applied for over six months in Algeria
proper, the law has been put into effect on only three other occasions:
twice in metropolitan France during the Algerian war and once in
1984-1985 in the French colony of New Caledonia to suppress an
uprising of the indigenous movement for independence. On November
15, the National Assembly -- with strong support from Villepin,
Sarkozy, President Jacques Chirac and a large percentage of the
French electorate -- voted nearly three to one in favor of extending
the state of emergency for an additional three months.
Colonial
Logic
The colonial
law’s deployment in response to the present crisis points
to an enduring logic of colonial rule within post-colonial metropolitan
France. Like settler cities of the colonial period, contemporary
French urban centers function in opposition to their impoverished
peripheries, the latter being consistently presented in the media,
state policy and popular speech as culturally, if not racially,
different from mainstream France. The application of a last-ditch
instrument of colonial governance indicates a set of structural
tensions within, if not the ultimate failure of, the French state’s
self-congratulatory colonial
“civilizing mission” turned postcolonial “integrating
mission.” For the last 50 years, the state has sought to
transform the children of immigrants and other members of the suburban
underclass into productive and well-adjusted Frenchmen, all the
while bemoaning their resistance to being so transformed. The state
has simultaneously worried aloud, to a public obsessed with security,
about the immigrants’ suspect stability and potential for
violence.
In spite of
these preexisting metropolitan anxieties of the racialized poor
rising up in revolt, and in spite of a history of confrontations
between police and cité residents that stretches
back to the early 1980s, the spread and intensity of the current
violence -- which has resulted in 8,400 torched vehicles and
over 2,600 arrests in nearly 100 towns across France, as well
as one death -- has taken most observers by surprise. Initial
reports sought to link the sudden upsurge to a larger “clash
of civilizations,”
reading the events through the lens of the Palestinian intifada or
the Iraqi insurgency, and searching for the fingerprints of some
terrorist organization. However, social life in the housing projects
in question is marked precisely by a lack of effective organizational
bodies or unifying ethnic or religious ideologies. The rage expressed
by young men from the cités does not spring from
anti-imperialist Arab nationalism or some sort of anti-Western
jihadism, as Fouad Ajami, Charles Krauthammer and Daniel Pipes,
among others, would have it,[1] but rather from lifetimes of rampant unemployment, school failure,
police harassment and everyday discrimination that tends to treat
the youths as the racaille of Sarkozy’s insult --
regardless of race, ethnicity or religion.
Such conditions
have been exacerbated by recent fiscal reforms that have slashed
the social welfare budget and funding for neighborhood associations,
after-school programs, community policing and internships. Since
the mid-1990s, in addition, the Interior Ministry’s hardline
policies toward urban crime have contributed to a de facto militarization
of the housing projects that was magnified after 2001 by the “war
on terror.” In the minds of many cité inhabitants,
the French state has come to be equated with repression, an equation
that has magnified their “hatred”
(la haine) of the system. The roots of the current violence
cannot be addressed as long as the government treats it as a security
problem, rather than a confluence of social marginalization and
anger at the police.
Dual Cities
The cités are
multiracial, and the solidarity their inhabitants feel with each
other is rooted in common social class rather than ethnic or
religious similarity. Housing project construction began in earnest
in the mid-1950s during the Algerian war, following interrelated
imperatives of social uplift and public security, of circulation
and containment. On the one hand, urban planners sought to dilute
white poverty in city centers, allowing poor whites literally
to move to the greener pastures of the suburbs, and resulting
in the emergence of a lower middle class. Built with a minimum
of 500 units in a combination of high-rise towers and low-rise
blocks, the projects were constructed as utopian modernist experiments
in social life, centralizing housing, commerce, education and
recreation in immediate proximity to the factories in which residents
were assumed to work. On the other hand, the cités responded
to security concerns, moving North African immigrant workers
and their families away from the large shantytowns that had become
centers of organizing for the Algerian National Liberation Front
(FLN). In the years that followed, newly arrived African, Caribbean
and Southeast Asian immigrants added to the racial and cultural
mix. There are more racial and ethnic “minorities,” therefore,
in the cités than in other urban areas, but many
whites live there as well.
After the
economic downturn of the 1970s, dreams of social mobility for
residents of the housing projects quickly faded into nightmares
of physical and economic immobility. The number of industrial
jobs has fallen by 50 percent since 1954 to a mere 20 percent
of the total, with the vast majority of jobs currently being
offered in the service sector and requiring a certain level of
formal education. By the early 1990s, youth unemployment nationwide
was as high as 20 percent -- twice the average among all age
groups. In certain cités, the figures have been
even higher, with unemployment among young residents on average
above 30 percent, and as high as 85 percent.[2]
Today, the cités are
dilapidated, with an atmosphere of sterility, social exile and “distress” (galère).
Most of the shopping centers built in the middle of the housing
projects have closed, due to lack of local capital and occasional
petty crime, and smaller stores near the complexes have a high
turnover rate. The concrete and other prefabricated materials
used in construction have not weathered well; as of the early
1990s, an estimated 80 percent of the buildings suffered from
some combination of water damage, insulation problems, broken
elevators or worse. A number of structures have been torn down
in the interim. These buildings have not been replaced, and since
1989 over 300,000 more apartments have phased out than built,
resulting in overcrowding and squatting. The public housing shortage
has turned deadly: since April 2005, 48 poor immigrants have
died in three separate fires in makeshift municipal housing and
abandoned buildings in Paris.
As the development
of public transportation has failed to keep pace with the growth
of the suburban population, the cités have become
isolated as well. While Parisian subway and commuter rail lines
extend into the proximate suburbs, for instance, there are only
about 120 stops for several thousand communes in the region,
with the further suburbs served, if at all, by local train service.
Indeed, according to a 1990 report from the French National Institute
for Statistics and Economic Research, nearly 60 percent of these
suburban municipalities lack their own train station. Little
has changed in the intervening 15 years. Radially laid out, the
commuter and train lines connect the suburbs directly to Paris,
leaving only bus service and the occasional tramway to link suburb
to suburb. Those lines that do connect the suburbs to Paris are
under heavy surveillance, with fixed cameras and roving patrols
of police, military gendarmes and conductors empowered to make
arrests. The result is the relative physical and symbolic separation
of cités from each other and from Paris proper.
The stigma of isolation, along with the housing projects’ poor
physical appearance and impoverishment, has made residence in
certain cités an impediment to being hired for
a job, further worsening unemployment.
It is not
surprising, then, that French housing projects have developed
a sophisticated informal economy -- including a series of gray-market
institutions revolving around the drug trade or the fencing of
stolen consumer items. Daily open-air markets operate in the
shadow of boarded-up shopping centers, providing the quotidian
requirements of food, clothing and school supplies. Those residents
with vehicles have created an informal taxi service to carry
neighbors to and from transportation centers or places of work,
commerce or entertainment. Through after-school tutoring programs,
cultural and religious associations in the cités constitute
a parallel, if severely under-funded, education system that attempts
to compensate for the depressed conditions in French schools:
poor facilities, overcrowded classrooms and teachers unknowledgeable
about or inflexible to the students’ multicultural needs.
The same associations also provide day care for working mothers
and legal advice, particularly on immigration documentation.
Indeed, such a parallel structure operates with the tacit knowledge
and minimal funding of the French state, which has largely devolved
the provision of many social, educational and legal services
to local associations.[3]
Infernal
Spiral
On the other
hand, the gray market brings increased state scrutiny to the cités,
including from the police. The large police presence ironically
increases tensions with inhabitants, tensions that often have
escalated since the early 1980s into full-scale incidents of
violent popular unrest -- termed “riots” (émeutes)
by the national media -- particularly when security forces have
arrested or killed young residents. The violence associated with
these clashes often targets police stations, shopping malls,
municipal centers, and other state and commercial institutions
symbolically associated by housing project residents with their “exclusion.” In
the summer of 1981, following a police raid in the Cité
de la Cayolle in Marseilles in which a number of women, children
and elderly residents were injured, young male residents firebombed
the shopping centers and police stations throughout the area. During
the same period, the Lyons suburb of Les Minguettes exploded in
a series of violent confrontations between young men and the police.
In an estimated 250 separate incidents often referred to as “rodeos” by
participants, groups of young men would steal a car, engage police
in a chase, and then abandon and burn the vehicle.
Although most
property damage in recent urban violence has been concentrated
in low-income neighborhoods, teens have also attacked the property
of their middle-class neighbors. Housing projects are adjacent
to single-family homes whose owners are pursuing the suburban
dream of affordable real estate in semi-rural settings. For many
male teens, burning cars constitutes a masculine rite of passage
to mark one’s social affiliation with peers and one’s
spatial affiliation with the cité, in opposition
to the urban center and its police forces. Although the US media
has mistakenly referred to “gangs,” these groups
are not organized in that manner. Rather, loose and fictive kinship
between “older and younger brothers” (les grands
et les petits frères) binds the youth of the community
together.[4] In some instances, grands frères censor violence
in cités, by condemning, and thus preventing, vandalism
and graffiti.
At other times,
the “rodeos”
have been sanctioned or at least understood as a direct response
to police violence. Referring to the 1981 incidents in Les Minguettes,
one local activist commented, “It was from the moment of
police provocations that the youth began to become aggressive….
The rodeos were to respond to everything they had undergone, they
and their parents…. The rage they had in themselves was
directed at the cars.”[5] Two
years later, similar confrontations occurred in neighboring Venissieux,
leading to the weeklong occupation of the housing project by a
regiment of 4,000 police officers. During the same year, young
men of the Monmousseau cité of Les Minguettes engaged
police in a violent struggle after the latter had broken into an
apartment suspected of harboring stolen goods.
In the 1990s,
the confrontations attained an almost routine pattern. To cite
just a few incidents: youth and riot police clashed in November
1990 in the Mas-du-Taureau cité of the Lyonnais
suburb of Vaulx-en-Velin after the death of resident Thomas Claudio,
21, in a motorcycle chase with police; they battled in March
1991 in Sartrouville (Paris) after the killing of Djamel Chettouh,
18, by a Euromarché supermarket security guard; they tangled
again in May 1991 in Val-Fourré after the death of Aïssa
Ihich, 18, who asphyxiated after being denied his asthma medicine
while in police custody; and the two sides faced off yet again
in June 1995 in the Parisian suburb of Noisy-le-Grand after the
police killing of local youth Kacem Belhabib in a motorcycle
chase. These clashes generally involved the destruction of cars,
gymnasiums, schools and shopping centers. Such violence and property
destruction, when portrayed by the media as “riots” or
even “rampages,” has fed negative stereotypes of
the housing projects and contributed to the infernal spiral.
Full Circle
The November
2005 disturbances, dubbed events of “unprecedented gravity” by
Villepin, respond both to this long history of confrontation
and, more immediately, to Sarkozy’s racially charged insults
after the initial few days of car burnings. At a deeper level,
the clashes are a reaction to the symbolic violence perpetrated
by politicians and journalists against young French citizens
in cités, who are repeatedly and mistakenly described
as “foreigners” (étrangers) and scolded
for their purported unwillingness to “integrate” into
French society. Sadly, the expected “integration” for cité youth
is measured by a punishing formula of loss of culture -- their
parents’
native language, religious faith and cultural traditions -- added
to unreasonable expectations that they should succeed, against
all odds, in school and work. The March 2005 ban on Muslim headscarves
in public schools, the state’s refusal to recognize Eid al-Adha
(the feast marking the end of the pilgrimage to Mecca) alongside
Catholic festivals as a national holiday, Chirac’s history
of excusing racism as a justified response to the “noise
and smell” of immigrants -- all this is seen as more proof
of French society’s rejection of cultural and religious diversity
and the hypocrisy of a Republic that would claim to treat all of
its citizens equally. The headscarf ban also provided glaring evidence
of the arrogant disregard of the political class, particularly
the conservatives who are presently in power, for the underlying
socioeconomic problems besetting Arab and Muslim communities in
France. Rather than address the real causes of minority exclusion,
the state engaged in alarmist mobilizing around a cultural symbol.
Along with
their poverty, unemployment and isolation, these continual reminders
that they are outsiders in France have led the youths of the cités to
fashion a dynamic subculture that connects low-income housing
projects across France through new styles of speech, dress and
music. The term racaille, used by Sarkozy to mean “scum,” has
long been used in the cités to mean “gangsta.” Like
its counterpart in American urban argot, when applied by marginalized
youths to one of their peers, the word is intended to capture
both how he is stigmatized by polite society and how he is valorized
as an anti-hero of cité subculture. French hip-hop,
like its American analogue, plays on words, so that in NTM’s
line “les cailleras sont dans la ville”(the
gangstas are in town), racaille becomes caillera.
Within cités, those who might be labeled la
racaille due to their activity in drug dealing are viewed
with a mixture of reverence and moral ambivalence. For many young
people growing up in cités, the entrepreneurial
skill of la racaille is admired as they establish le
business (illicit commerce) in areas where other commercial
enterprise is severely lacking. Thus, the denigration of cités as
existing outside bourgeois French society comes full circle as
the means and measure for the social and economic success of cité dwellers
diverge more and more from the unattainable ideal of belonging
to the bourgeois France of equal (and legal) opportunity.
Nightwatchman
State
The government’s
response to urban unrest has been twofold: neo-liberal economic
policy and the effective militarization of the cités.
In the first place, it unveiled a series of urban renewal plans
designed to reintegrate the cités in question into
national and global economies and transform their inhabitants
into productive citizens. These plans reached perhaps their most
elaborated form in Gaullist Prime Minister Alain Juppé’s
1995-1996 “Marshall Plan”
(which included the “National Urban Integration Plan” and
the “Urban Revival Pact”). With the goal of luring
young residents from the street economy into the formal economy,
the plan delimited 744 “sensitive urban zones”
(zones urbaines sensibles) in which local associations would
receive state subsidies to hire young residents to work in paid
internships. At the same time, the plans established 44 “enterprise
zones” (zones franches) in especially “hot areas” (quartiers
chauds), providing tax incentives to encourage the return of
businesses scared away by the rise in suburban violence. Like the
original Marshall Plan designed to reconstruct wartorn Europe,
Juppé’s plan depended on an insertion of capital into
decapitalized areas, though this time with a neo-liberal twist,
with local associations and multinational corporations acting as
the prime agents of change.
In the time
that has passed, and particularly under the management of the
minister of urbanism, Jean-Louis Borloo, the corporate character
of these reforms has been extended, while funding to associations
and social services have been cut as part of a more general belt-tightening
necessitated by France’s 2002 entry into the European Monetary
Union. While attempts at austerity reforms to other parts of
the public sector (such as public workers’ retirement benefits)
were met with national strikes that effectively shut down the
country, the slashing of the funding to the cités had
encountered little resistance until the current violence. With
salaries for local social mediators eliminated, municipal governments
became further distanced from their younger residents. The cutting
of official after-school tutoring programs has only increased
the ineffectiveness of a school system that historically has
been prone to steer cité residents (and particularly
children of immigrants) to virtually useless vocational diplomas.
Increasingly, lower middle-class residents of these areas are
sending their children to the burgeoning private schools, leaving
the public institutions as warehouses for the truly disadvantaged.
Local associations have found their already tenuous ties to the
younger generation, who tend to regard association leaders as
having “sold out” to the state, even further attenuated.
While there has been a rise in religious (and particularly Islamic)
associations in the cités, even these have remained
ineffective at organizing local youth. Indeed, the repeated public
cries for calm by these associations and their corresponding
mosques during the recent violence went largely unheeded -- including
even the fatwa issued by the umbrella Union of Islamic
Organizations of France forbidding all those “who seek
divine grace from taking part in any action that blindly strikes
private or public property or can harm others.”
Alongside
neo-liberal economic policy, since the 1990s the French government
has responded to the “crisis”
of the cités with increased police intervention,
predicating urban renewal on social and political quiescence. The
portrayal of the cités as sites of potential violent
unrest was coupled with a growing fear that the housing projects
had become recruitment zones for soldiers of jihad, an alarmism
which politicians on the French right and far right have repeatedly
mobilized to gain electoral support and to argue for heavy-handed
security measures, if not the deportation of Muslim immigrants.
Newspaper reports decried the growth of “Islamist summer
camps,” and described the suburbs as part of a global terrorist
network stretching from Paris to Algiers to Kabul to Chechnya and
beyond.[6] Police certified these fears with the shooting of Khaled Kelkal,
a French-born Algerian from Vaulx-en-Velin accused of playing a
role in the summer 1995 Paris subway bombings attributed to the
Algerian Armed Islamic Group. Such concerns were only magnified
by the September 11, 2001 attacks, the arrest of French-born Moroccan
Zacarias Moussaoui as the “twentieth hijacker” and
the discovery of French citizens among the Taliban forces in Afghanistan.
Indeed, the very day before the violence began in Clichy-sous-Bois,
Chirac had invoked the “real terrorist risk” to justify
a proposed increase in surveillance of televisual and Internet
media.[7]
Surveillance
measures have been supplemented by direct policing. Responding
to a perceived growth of cité “lawless zones
(zones de non-droit) in which the law of the Republic
is totally absent,”[8] the 1995-1996 plans added 200 plainclothes inspectors
to the already expanded suburban security forces to eliminate
what were effectively no-go areas for the municipal police. In
1999, Socialist Prime Minister Lionel Jospin took these surveillance
measures a step further, mobilizing 13,000 additional riot police
and 17,000 military gendarmes to patrol these same “sensitive
urban zones.” In 2003, Sarkozy further increased these
numbers as part of his larger post-September 11 war on terror.
These measures have led police to roust youths assembled in the
entryways or basements of public housing buildings where prayer
rooms had been established, detain countless suspected terrorists,
deport hundreds of undocumented immigrants and engage in the
quotidian harassment of young cité residents. The
police have become the sole agents of the French state with whom
many residents of the housing projects have any sustained contact.
In this respect, it is clear how an historical antagonism between cité youth
and the police can translate into an outright hatred for the
French “system” as a whole.
There is an
added irony in France’s nightwatchman approach to the cités.
Nearly every euro the state has saved by “tightening the
belt” on the cité public sector has been
redirected into security forces. Every attempt at “integrating”
(or “civilizing”) underclass residents of the cités into
national political, economic and social norms is undercut by treatment
that labels these populations as
“not French” because of what they look like or where
they live. As such, the colonial dual cities described by North
African urban theorists Janet Abu-Lughod, Zeynep Çelik,
Paul Rabinow and Gwendolyn Wright -- in which native medinas
were kept isolated from European settler neighborhoods out of competing
concerns of historical preservation, public hygiene and security
-- have been effectively recreated in the post-colonial present,
with contemporary urban policy and policing maintaining suburban cités and
their residents in a state of immobile apartheid, at a perpetual
distance from urban, bourgeois centers.[9]
Suspect
Citizens
The functioning
of such de facto urban apartheid has broken down in the current
violence, as the French state’s worst nightmares of --
and NTM’s revolutionary call for -- an entire cité generation
in revolt seem to have come to pass. Such a nightmare had been
envisioned, not only in the austerity and policing measures that
are its condition of possibility, but also in the fantasies of
xenophobic politicians like Jean-Marie Le Pen, who deployed the
violence at a November 15 Paris rally for his 2007 presidential
campaign: “For years, if not for decades, we’ve been
repeating our alarm of a massive immigration from outside Europe
that will result in the submergence and ruin of France.”[10] Whereas previous confrontations were largely containable within
a given housing project, the initial violence in Clichy-sous-Bois
spread within a few days to neighboring municipalities within
the northeastern Parisian suburbs of Seine-St-Denis, shortly
thereafter to neighboring regional departments, and by the end
of a week’s time across all of France and even into neighboring
countries. The mimetic quality of the confrontations and attacks
on property belied less an underlying organizational structure
than a commonality of life under social and economic conditions
which had, after years of budget cuts and overzealous policing
in the cités, reached a breaking point. While one
should not underestimate the role of new media -- from televised
images of police-youth confrontations at home and abroad to weblogs
and cellular SMS messages -- such means do not constitute motive.
In this sense,
the immediate triggering event of the electrocution of the two
adolescents, followed by Sarkozy’s inflammatory promise
to “pressure-wash” (nettoyer à Kärcher)
the racaille out of the housing projects, mattered less
than the structural conditions set in place by the simultaneous
cutting of public funding to the cités and a protracted “war
on terror” applied to a harassed and impoverished population
enduring chronic racial discrimination. Enacting a colonial-era
emergency law, pursuing the deportation of long-term residents
and generally violating the civil liberties of suburban citizens
can only exacerbate these tensions over the long haul, even if
Sarkozy’s self-described “firmness” puts a
halt to what he calls France’s “sharpest and most
complex urban crises.”
In the end, the French state’s prolonged treatment of a segment
of its own citizenry as racially suspect and intrinsically prone
to violence -- as potential enemies within -- has proven to be
a self-fulfilling prophecy.

|