Maurice Szafran violently taking me to task about what I have denounced in the media treatment of the case of the Blues - that attempt, more or less free to impose a way of interpreting ethnic, nationalist, and sometimes even racist athletic failure of the selection year 2010 - I want to return to this controversy, and reading that in fact the journalist Marianne.
I have been careful in my speeches written and audiovisual works, to make the distinction between the failure of sports both its other interpretations. Of these interpretations, we find several kinds: those that explain the failure by some sort of sporting failure civilization (the defeat of the blues would win the money-king, individualism, etc.). Those growing link to this explanation, more or less explicitly, this failure civilizational ethnic origin and / or social Bleus. The lack of collective sense of the team is linked to communal divisions, the shelving of a particular player would be based on anti-white racism, etc. .
Those moving in this direction, as Alain Finkielkraut, simply take over and finally tackle racist stereotypes, anti-poor, anti-suburban, situations - most importantly - they have had of second-hand information. I have not seen, in fact, that all the distinguished commentators on the national indignity of Blues Domenech had the opportunity to share the intimacy of their dressing room. Approximate recovery and interpretation - and ideological - of rumors: the makings of a lynching irrational are in place. Recipe that works well, to see how exasperation to the legitimate sporting fiasco, we went to a national outburst somewhat disproportionate.
Maurice Szafran missed it all, or is, more likely, pretending not to see it. That's right. More surprising is his reasoning, which is in fact based on one argument: Maurice Szafran is the voice of the people. Who disagrees with him is "unable" to "take into account the real, unable to hear" these millions of citizens outraged by "the young retarded" and unable to hear as "Disgust" that "rises from the streets, pubs, villages" (sic).
Not having the ear as fine as Maurice Szafran, I will not have the audacity to claim intimate knowledge of the secret thoughts and private conversations, "millions" of French and Marianne readers. What I know however, that's life for my constituents, residents and residents of my constituency popular Essonne. Among them those of Grigny youngest city in France, crossing town of considerable economic and social difficulties, city, certainly far removed from living quarters where this reporter found. I see how young "immigrant" still struggling to find work, study longer, or just get by. I see how these galleys are too often linked to the rejection of part of French society that does not seek to understand, and takes away with arguments or value judgments that we know well
What we do not make me say what I did not say. This is not because we came from suburban poor that one is necessarily vulgar, or that one has the right not to honor a teacher or an adult. But why not see the injustice that is wrong with youth sports, from scratch, very good living, when you let the rich with impunity perpetrators and beneficiaries of the financial crisis, or when is satisfied with a glass ceiling which makes the paths to success in middle and upper classes are closed to youth popular strata of society?
I do not pretend to define the "left suitable "or" morals. " But what I know to be neither moral nor decent, it is this society of "two weights, two measures", which depending on whether you come or not good neighborhoods, depending on whether or not you have the wrong skin color we showed great indulgence, or otherwise complete intolerance towards you.
And I bear even less is the media ratonnade a so-called Republican Left, which never ceases to speak of a "republic" which in fact n exists only for some and not others. Yes, I think the mixed republic. I never thought it was idyllic: it is instead an ongoing struggle for acceptance of its rights and duties. I was the first elected left to denounce and fight both communalism and the rise in violence is because I am intransigent on these issues I can not let them make false accusations, and interpretations that unduly stigmatize and globalize.
Things are said. I'd rather be with these people I speak to defend my republic, that side of sermonizers who do not know that from the smaller end of their lens of choice.
Julien Dray
0 comments:
Post a Comment