Karl E. Meyer, a former member of the NYT editorial board, has an op-ed in the NYT today on immigrant integration and non-integration in France. Not a new or underexamined topic but very much de l’actualité these days, in view of the anti-immigration/anti-Islam demagoguery under Sarkozy’s presidency (and particularly during the current campaign). Meyer says
These opposing approaches to what it means to be French — one rooted in an uncompromising ideal of assimilation, the other grounded in the messy realities of multiculturalism — struck a chord with me. While researching a book on the politics of diversity with my wife, Shareen Blair Brysac, I encountered not only the exclusionary attitude prevailing in metropolitan Paris, but also the more tolerant worldview epitomized by the port city of Marseille — a worldview that the rest of France would be well served to embrace.
When it comes to immigration/ethnicity/race, Marseille really is exceptional in France, in that français de souche are likely a minority (and many, if not most, white folks there—apologies for the Americanism—have recent origins in Corsica, Spain, Italy, North Africa pied noir, Armenia, Greece, Lebanon, Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews, etc.; and as there are no banlieues to which poorer immigrant-origin populations are relegated, everyone lives in the city). The Marseille exception, which is well-known in France—though is not necessarily presented as a model to emulate—, was the subject of three lengthy and admiring articles by American journalists in the last decade (two of whom are conservatives): Christopher Caldwell in The Atlantic, Jeffrey Tayler in Harper’s, and Claire Berlinski in Azure. Though several years old they’re still worth reading (two are unfortunately behind subscriber walls; if I find free links to them, will post).
UPDATE: The full text of Claire Berlinski’s article is here.
2nd UPDATE: Journalist and writer Ursula Lindsey, who has been reporting from the Arab world—notably Morocco and Egypt—since the early ’00s, has an article in the Spring 2017 issue of The Point, “Lesser evils: Election season in Marseille.”
I saw the article this morning and was so intrigued I got the book and started reading it on the train to and from Paris today. Have not reached the chapter on Marseille but yet but I was fascinated by the tale of ethnic conflict in, of all places, Flensburg, between the Danes and the Germans. 🙂
I disagree to a certain extent: 1) there are “banlieues”: the quartiers nords. Sure, you can take a swim in the Calanques, but the Marseilles projects are just as bad as some around Paris. 2) there may not be ethnic conflict but there is violence – since the beginning of the year, it seems that an unordinate percentage of very violent murders took place in Marseilles. Drug trafficking is pretty bad and the “hits” tend to be drug-related.
In today’s morning news, there is again a gangland killing in Marseilles. Historically, the city always was a point of immigration and of multi-cultiralism, no doubt, just look at the geography, it is quite different from small villages isolated in central France.
I was reminded how, some summers ago, neighbours in my little town close to Paris had a cousin from Marseilles staying with them. He left his car parked outside in front of their house and suspicious and watchful residents of our street called the police – the car had “13” numberplates, meaning Marseilles, and they therefore assumed there was a gangster around. This idiotic stereotyping of whole groups of people should really stop.
Why the NYT has suddenly decided to market Marseilles as a “diversity” paradise is unclear…
No need to go to Marseilles, Arun – climb up to Ménilmontant, and you will have the same patterns. The messy reality of multicultural urban life. Annoying, draining on a daily basis, rich and diverse. There is an alchemy there no state-enforced policy can produce. It is not all good, far from it, but to me it is better than in the banlieues.
I live in Marseille for over ten years now. Downtown, in a popular district. I still am unable to convey a clear opinion that would summarize my understanding of the city. As a city of 0,8 millions it is poor, unrulable and disorderly, always was, most probably will always be. It is part of its genes if city have genes. Think of Naples. This has some positive aspects and many irritating ones. People here have a very strong physical and emotional attachment to the city, unknown in Paris, Lyon or Bordeaux. But perhaps in Toulouse. And it is not because of the O.M. ! I do believe the feeling of being Marseillais does transcend the communautarist feelings. I dare say most people feel Marseillais as much or possibly more then being muslim, jew, armenian, corsican, etc. That is THE major positive achievement of this city. But no politician for 2 600 years can claim he is responsible for that. Maybe that’s why the greeks settled there in the first place.
Interesting comments all. Merci. Massilian, you nailed it.