Laban Tall confuses me (and not just me). Only last week he was criticising me for favouring the crumbling of Western society by the removal of its Christian underpinnings.
Today he comes out in high praise of a country where secularism is state policy, where schoolchildren who are too open in professing their Christian faith could find themselves in trouble with the law and where the Muslim population dwarfs that of Britain.
Personally, I love France to pieces, but why Laban should find his nirvana there is more than curious. But he has definitely supped from a good bottle of Burgundy and liked it.
He even prefers French traditions to British ones: he praises the venerable French practice for hoisting numerous tricolors on every public building, while denigrating what he might call the 'native Brit' practice of being supremely reticent in where we display our national drapery (a tradition that, I fear, is fading).
He deplores the fact that the British population is rising only as a result of immigration and of the higher birthrates of existing immigrants. The French, though, are producing 'French' babies. Really? Would Laban care to enlighten us on the 'native' (in Laban-speak) proportion of this fertility spike? I would be surprised if he can, as the French government keeps no statistics on the ethnic makeup of babies born there.
A 19th century song comes to mind. It's from Gilbert and Sullivan's The Mikado. The Lord High Executioner is making up his 'little list' of society miscreants, which includes the unfortunate personage who:
praises in enthusiastic tone
all centuries but this, and every country but his own.
Is Laban auditioning for the part?
Heee. Quality G&S quote.
They do, however, have much more "make babies, now!" sounding policies than Britain. And it's not uncommon, nor restricted to the disadvantaged (look at herve gaymard) to have a lot of babies.
And, at least in the eyes of the law, everyone born in France is French. End of story. Not sure Laban feels that way about certain British people.
Posted by: Katie | 21 June 2005 at 08:40 AM
The ST article LT linked to says "Experts say that only a quarter of the population growth can be explained by immigration."
I imagine that's where he got the figures from.
Posted by: a | 21 June 2005 at 08:53 AM
Yes, my problem with Laban is that he divides babies into two sections: the 'native' ones (although I have never seen his definition of 'native') and the 'others'. And then he makes comparisons between 'immigrant' British babies and 'French' ones in France. As you say, in France everyone is French, full stop.
Certainly the French welfare system makes it more advantageous for people to have babies - and a good thing too.
Posted by: Third Avenue | 21 June 2005 at 08:54 AM
a - my problem is not with his immigration figures. It's with the implication he makes that British babies are from 'non-natives', whereas those in France are somehow 'French'.
Posted by: Third Avenue | 21 June 2005 at 08:58 AM
The opening accusation's too simplistic for my taste. For Laban to favour (as you do) France's pro-population welfare policy, the explicit secularity of the French state seems pretty irrelevant. At any rate, the US could also be characterised as a secular state with strict rules to keep religion out of schools - but you'd not be surprised for Laban (or me) to look kindly upon its policy. We can all find things to like in this country or that country - most people on the Left think highly of the strict First Amendment rules in the US, for example - without buying the whole thing.
You're probably right that the traditional reticence is disappearing, although I think that the assumption of reticence is again oversimplified. In the late Victorian and Edwardian period, there's lots of historical evidence to suggest that things weren't so modest (Jingoism? the Scout Movement? Empire Day parades?). Our image of laid-back patriotism is more a product of mid-century England, where it was so unquestioned as to need no assertion. Not that I'm suggesting that you might be hankering after a rose-tinted 1950s, but...
Either way, that time has gone, in large part because patriotism has become odd. Modest demonstrations of patriotism, of the sort that would have been barely noticed in the 1950s, now irritate the small number of multi-culti freaks, who in turn annoy the larger number of rabble-rousers - and when patriotism becomes questioned, it becomes more strident.
Posted by: Blimpish | 21 June 2005 at 09:15 AM
"the explicit secularity of the French state seems pretty irrelevant"
Nope. Laicite is (part of) the reason numbers are not kept on the ethnicity of babies. Laicite and the lack of statistics on ethnicity and immigration in France are bound up in creating the idea of "Frenchness"
The policy has worked its magic on Laban apparently, if he considers all French babies (no stats on ethnicity) French and therefore positive results of a pro-baby national stance, versus some British babies being "non-native" (where we do keep the stats) and therefore more of them filthy furriners taking over.
Posted by: Katie | 21 June 2005 at 09:31 AM
Blimpish - I won't deny that there's a certain amount of mischeviousness in my posting; something I'm sure Laban can take.
As for displays of patriotism - well, I remember my first trip to continental Europe as a child, where I was struck forcibly by the amount of national flags on display everywhere. At the time this (along with 4th of July celebrations in the States) was considered a slightly bizarre, even vulgar, foreign habit, something the Brits did not indulge in and which they sniggered at.
Since then, flag waving has increased dramatically in the UK. I rather suspect that it would shock someone time-travelling from the 1950s or even the 1980s. Whether it is a good or a bad thing is, of course, a matter of opinion, but the amount of Union Jacks and St George's Crosses on display is certainly a recent innovation in British life. The multi-culti freaks, as you call them, may protest, but their protests have been amazingly unsuccessful.
The Victorian period is an interesting one. It's true that this period more than any other invented the British notion of pageantry and jingoism (as well as strong republican sentiment). But whether it is any more or less representative of the British way of life than any other is a matter of debate.
Posted by: Third Avenue | 21 June 2005 at 11:40 AM
Katie: no - the fact that France aggressively promotes indigeneous population growth has no necessary link to secularism. Giving welfare to mothers who stay at home doesn't also require an aggressive state secularism, does it? Would it only be OK for Laban to back pro-population policies if they're implemented by Iran?
You're also inferring that Laban's problem with immigrant birth is solely racial and not at all cultural. The French are, as you say, committed to assimilating migrant workers, sometimes in ways that the Guardian leader page probably wouldn't be so keen on here. I don't know what Laban's position here would be, but personally I'd be much less concerned with immigration if there was a strong tradition of integration here too - but there's not.
3A: Mischief appreciated, worry not. As I said about the multi-culti freaks - their protests against a little bit of patriotism usually provoke a lot more, creating the very up-front (and often ignorant) demonstrations we say today.
Re the historical aspect - two points in reiteration:
1. Indeed, we can't say Victorian ways represent a continuing British life more than any other - but ditto for the 1950s. At any rate, these things have always ebbed and flowed - Festival of Britain was 1951, and in the 1960s you had horrendous Wilsonian "I'm Backing Britain" stuff.
2. As I hinted, it's here that even you're betraying a bit of nostalgia for the 1950s, and not without reason. Personally, I'm a very reserved sort, and I much prefer the quiet, unsaid patriotism of those times. But that we built out of a very deep culture, which has been thoroughly gutted between the changes of the 1960s (socially) and the 1980s (economically). There is no going back, but we can all appreciate that things have been lost along the way - even if more than offset by other gains.
Posted by: Blimpish | 21 June 2005 at 12:14 PM
Blimpish - ok, just reread your comment, and thought you were saying that not counting the ethnicity of babies and official secularity were related.
No, of course, you're right, the welfare for mothers thing doesn't have anything to do with immigration or laicite. Sorry.
I was saying that the secularity was relevant to the lack of distinction Laban is able to make between "native" and "other" French babies, where he can in Britain.
And on the integration side, if there's anything the Netherlands shows us, is that integration/assimilation doesn't always make you immune from trouble... But I'm not sure Britain's way of doing things works either. What will? Remains to be seen. I'm curious about the Sarkozy approach.
Flagwaving: whereas American flagwaving is all about respect for the flag itself and rules about what you can do with it, (the 4th sees the flag on EVERYTHING - did you know you're never supposed to throw away something with the flag on it? Now think about all those independence day paper napkins...), british flagwaving isn't about THE flag, it is about putting the flag ONTO other things.
In Britain you are more likely to see someone with a Union flag on their miniskirt than a flagpole outside their house that they raise and lower the flag from religiously every day, as you do all over the States.
I'm not sure what this difference means, but it must mean something...
I don't find that French citizens do a lot of flagwaving. They leave that up to the State. Am I wrong? Do you disagree?
Posted by: Katie | 22 June 2005 at 04:17 AM
Katie: yes, you're right that integration doesn't always work, but that's a matter of practicalities rather than principles. Sometimes, the British Government seems positively aghast at even the idea of trying integration, let alone doing it.
About British flagwaving - I think the current outgrowth of 'patriotic' display is a vulgar response to the itch of perceived political correctness-type pressures. People feel that they have to show their pride in country but haven't got the long traditions (public in the US, state in France) which have evolved into subtle customs.
Posted by: Blimpish | 22 June 2005 at 05:10 AM