How satisfied/dissatisfied with your city are you?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Immigrant is not the same thing as minority.

With my statement I was primarily thinking of African-Americans with roots in the U.S. going back several centuries.

But sure, immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean also generally do quite well in the U.S.

[Steely Dan]

with nearly 50 votes now, we've only had one "very dissatisfied" vote.

i would like to hear from that person.

most of us seem pretty satisfied with where we are, with the usual boiler-plate gripes of course ("too expensive", "the winters suck", "traffic is horrible", "taxes are too high", etc.), but i want to know what a "very dissatisfied" person has to say about where they live.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Acajack

With my statement I was primarily thinking of African-Americans with roots in the U.S. going back several centuries.

But sure, immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean also generally do quite well in the U.S.

I don't really agree that African-Americans have had it better than minorities in non-English speaking countries. In fact, after WW2 there were a number of African-American veterans who opted to/tried to stay in France because they were treated better there than in the U.S. I also doubt that African-Americans are better off relative to the average American than African-French are to the relative French person.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I don't really agree that African-Americans have had it better than minorities in non-English speaking countries. In fact, after WW2 there were a number of African-American veterans who opted to/tried to stay in France because they were treated better there than in the U.S. I also doubt that African-Americans are better off relative to the average American than African-French are to the relative French person.

I think the point that was being made that it was better or at least "as good" with perhaps a few exceptions.

Not that it was unequivocally better and that nowhere else comes close.

And not to bash on France but WW2 was a long time ago and back then African-Americans and even black people in general were seen as a "novelty" by most French people.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by bossabreezes

Yeah, the US is not as white as people make it out to be.

I think there's some ambiguity with Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic whites. I have friends who are sisters; Hispanics with European background, one identifies as Hispanic where as her sister identifies as white.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I think the point that was being made that it was better or at least "as good" with perhaps a few exceptions.

Not that it was unequivocally better and that nowhere else comes close.

And not to bash on France but WW2 was a long time ago and back then African-Americans and even black people in general were seen as a "novelty" by most French people.

There are still many people alive today that were alive during WW2. There hasn't even been a U.S. president that was born after the Civil Rights movement. And there likely won't be one for at least another 4 - 8 years.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

There are still many people alive today that were alive during WW2. There hasn't even been a U.S. president that was born after the Civil Rights movement. And there likely won't be one for at least another 4 - 8 years.

I just think the era where the French would swoon over the Golden Gate Quartet and Josephine Baker because they were "exotic" is long over.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I just think the era where the French would swoon over the Golden Gate Quartet and Josephine Baker because they were "exotic" is long over.

But (as far as I know) France doesn't have the same history of sanctioning oppression of its own citizens. I believe slavery was illegal in France before the African slave trade even began. This obviously did not apply to future French colonies, but that brings me to my next point.

People of African, American (indigenous), Asian, and European descent only live together in places that were colonized by a very small group of western European empires. In other words, the only countries you could even test this theory against are English, French, Spanish, or Portuguese-speaking.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

But (as far as I know) France doesn't have the same history of sanctioning oppression of its own citizens. I believe slavery was illegal in France before the African slave trade even began. This obviously did not apply to future French colonies, but that brings me to my next point.

People of African, American (indigenous), Asian, and European descent only live together in places that were colonized by a very small group of western European empires. In other words, the only countries you could even test this theory against are English, French, Spanish, or Portuguese-speaking.

Again, let me re-iterate that I am not bashing on France or any other continental European countries like the Netherlands that have fairly decent records when it comes to race relations. (But they do have Szvarte Piet...)

[mousquet]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

But (as far as I know) France doesn't have the same history of sanctioning oppression of its own citizens. I believe slavery was illegal in France before the African slave trade even began. This obviously did not apply to future French colonies, but that brings me to my next point.

I'm no history enthusiast but we should try to be accurate, so here's what I know about that.

Slavery was first abolished in 1792 when they proclaimed the French First Republic. I'm not sure, but I guess slave trading in remote colonies had begun earlier.
Then Napoleon had to re-establish it. I doubt he was really excited at the idea of doing it (he believed in Republican meritocracy), but his wife was of a wealthy and influential family of settlers, so he had to please her somehow; probably because she knew a lot of influential people in Paris, which was helpful to him.

It wasn't before 1848 and the Second Republic that slavery was abolished once and for all.

Now, the important thing to note is colonial slavery never really affected Metropolitan France. It only helped a couple of Atlantic port cities (mostly Bordeaux and Nantes, I believe) to grow wealthier, 'cause some traders made money of that nasty business in these cities. Other than that, there was no slave from Africa at all here.
They all were deported to the colonies. That's why overseas French regions and counties are much more like the US in that respect. You can sense some old racial conflict in their local cultures to some extent.
Metropolitan France doesn't know about that, because people were spared from the old social constructions based on colonial slavery here.
It still makes a little difference, apparently. Overseas France like Martinique or Fr Guiana hasn't really recovered from slavery yet. I mean, it is still on their minds somehow.
Idk, it just must take long to heal from trauma, humiliation, torture and things settlers used to do to their slaves.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by mousquet

I'm no history enthusiast but we should try to be accurate, so here's what I know about that.

Slavery was first abolished in 1792 when they proclaimed the French First Republic. I'm not sure, but I guess slave trading in remote colonies had begun earlier.
Then Napoleon had to re-establish it. I doubt he was really excited at the idea of doing it (he believed in Republican meritocracy), but his wife was of a wealthy and influential family of settlers, so he had to please her somehow; probably because she knew a lot of influential people in Paris, which was helpful to him.

It wasn't before 1848 and the Second Republic that slavery was abolished once and for all.

Now, the important thing to note is colonial slavery never really affected Metropolitan France. It only helped a couple of Atlantic port cities (mostly Bordeaux and Nantes, I believe) to grow wealthier, 'cause some traders made money of that nasty business in these cities. Other than that, there was no slave from Africa at all here.
They all were deported to the colonies. That's why overseas French regions and counties are much more like the US in that respect. You can sense some old racial conflict in their local cultures to some extent.
Metropolitan France doesn't know about that, because people were spared from the old social constructions based on colonial slavery here.
It still makes a little difference, apparently. Overseas France like Martinique or Fr Guiana hasn't really recovered from slavery yet. I mean, it is still on their minds somehow.
Idk, it just must take long to heal from trauma, humiliation, torture and things settlers used to do to their slaves.

I think you're confusing the French Empire with France.

Abolitionism, or the abolitionist movement, was the movement to end slavery. This term can be used both formally and informally. In Western Europe and the Americas, abolitionism was a historic movement that sought to end the Atlantic slave trade and set slaves free. King Charles I of Spain, usually known as Emperor Charles V, was following the example of Louis X of France, who had abolished slavery within the Kingdom of France in 1315.

...

Revolutionary France abolished slavery throughout its empire in 1794, although it was restored in 1802 by Napoleon as part of a program to ensure sovereignty over its colonies. Haiti (then Santo Domingo) formally declared independence from France in 1804 and brought an end to slavery in its territory.

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

Slavery was illegal in France itself for the entire history of the African slave trade, but it was not completely outlawed in French colonial possessions until the 1800s.

[bilbao58]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I just think the era where the French would swoon over the Golden Gate Quartet and Josephine Baker because they were "exotic" is long over.

Oh definitely! I have an African-American ex who spent four months in Paris with me in 1984 who can back me up, too.

[mousquet]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I think you're confusing the French Empire with France.

Maybe. The thing is I don't know what 'French Empire' means.

Nowadays, it's kind of insulting to overseas France to say they'd be a bunch of colonies. It hurts many of them, especially when you're from Metropolitan France, so we have to call them regular France, or at least legitimate regions of the French Republic.

It may sound disturbing to people from independent countries in the Americas, but that's the way it goes. The cohesion of our country is at stake here.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by mousquet

Maybe. The thing is I don't know what 'French Empire' means.

Nowadays, it's kind of insulting to overseas France to say they'd be a bunch of colonies. It hurts many of them, especially when you're from Metropolitan France, so we have to call them regular France, or at least legitimate regions of the French Republic.

It may sound disturbing to people from independent countries in the Americas, but that's the way it goes. The cohesion of our country is at stake here.

Because they aren't colonies any longer. But they were colonies the same way that the Haiti, the Louisiana Territory, or Quebec were colonies of France.

[bilbao58]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Because they aren't colonies any longer. But they were colonies the same way that the Haiti, the Louisiana Territory, or Quebec were colonies of France.

I think Mousquet is talking about certain "départements d'outre-mer" that are actually still part of France. Like Hawaii is a state.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by bilbao58

I think Mousquet is talking about certain "départements d'outre-mer" that are actually still part of France. Like Hawaii is a state.

Yes, I know. They were French colonial possessions in the past. It's only been in the past half century or so that they became part of the Republic of France.

[mousquet]

@Bilbao This is it. Five of them, the most populated - La Réunion, Mayotte, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Fr Guiana - got the administrative status of 'région' (counterpart of a state in the US federal system) long ago, which is more significant than a 'département', that's only like a county, with less prerogatives than a region.

Some others have a status making them more autonomous, due to their particular needs and geographical traits. It is the case of Fr Polynesia and New Caledonia, the most remote from Paris.
Some are really tiny, like Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon that's really a microscopic community like a village, so they depend very much on their ability to deal with and travel to their neighboring Canadian provinces.

Each one of them has their very peculiar traits, forcing the French Republic to grow less centralized and more flexible. Metropolitan France doesn't benefit from any federal-like system yet, but I guess you could say overseas regions and communities do to some wide extent.

[bilbao58]

Originally Posted by mousquet

@Bilbao This is it...

OK, I'm just being silly here, but do people in Saint-Pierre et Miquelon speak with a French accent, or a Québécois accent? Or worse? A French-Newfie accent?

[mousquet]

^ They speak like Parisians and most people from mainland France. That means they don't have any noticeable accent.
I don't know how by the way, because they're obviously the most Canadian French and the most French Canadians you could think of.

As far as I know, their economy is mostly based on fishing. And they work hard out there. They are less lazy than most of us are over here in Paris, I got to say.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by bilbao58

OK, I'm just being silly here, but do people in Saint-Pierre et Miquelon speak with a French accent, or a Québécois accent? Or worse? A French-Newfie accent?

It's not a silly question at all.

They have their own accent which is much closer to the European French accent than to the Québécois accent.

Though they do have some subtle intonations (and a bit of vocabulary) in common with Acadians, who are the French speakers of Canada's Atlantic provinces.