Tuesday, November 8, 2016
Reader Response 10
Assignment: In Sixty Million Frenchmen Can't Be Wrong, read the chapter assigned below. Write a response, following the Reader Response Guidelines (above). React to and comment upon at least two of your classmates responses.
Chapter 11: “Since local powers are seen as a threat to France’s unity, the French government systematically strips local communities of their political liberties” (146). Why? How does this statement fit in with what you have learned in previous chapters? Compare and contrast this model with your knowledge of the US.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
David Gibson French 101
ReplyDeleteMrs. Leal.
Local vs Government
Since local powers are seen as a threat to France's unity , the French government systematically strips local communities of their political liberties because the government is afraid that the local communities may take over. The towns with less than ten thousands can have their own police.The French history of their country tells of how they traditionally is ran by the President their. He has much say so. They are afraid of a coup. Even though the French has democratize government the head of the country has much say so. Jean-Marie said the french mayor talks about constituency they never used citizen. The citizens can
are none as republic. Comparing to the other chapters France by assimilation very divers populations. During the 19 century strict laws prevented local communities. The French has communes. They are cheap way of running the territory. Communes build and repair municipal roads but they have no say so national. People pay high taxes, and expect state to do its job.The French compared to earlier chapters are ran by government and people are just aware of their power but cant change anything. The French government is allies to U.S.and much like them except the French have more power when voting
I agree with everything you said. Even though the US thinks France should have more power voting, north america gets taken back by how much the country controls every commune or city.
Deletenot only that the fact that North Americans have not adopted some form of this alarms me because there can be more room for less fighting and more room for what is more important to the country.
DeleteIt is interesting to see how much the French government controls. There seems to be less freedom than in other places.
DeleteWhile assimilation for local powers has been one underlying theme, France developed its own central control administered by its State. One of the reasons that Nadeau and Barlow discussed previously is the competing interests. All throughout France’s history, both competing groups vying for power and their own government competing proved the need for central powers without locally. It was proven right, and changed the course further. Groups of people that try to gain political power are viewed negatively, to say the least, Guadelope was an example.
ReplyDeleteOver time, this even extends to the power that towns in France have over their own affairs. The authors conducted several interviews with mayors to learn how it works. It works with slight power. In this case, “power” is an unwritten misnomer. There’s no ability for towns to initiate action for any department, not even Paris. One quote related France’s centralization and how it effects the French identity feels unsettling. They aren’t citizens, but “The French can only be citizens of one thing: the one and indivisible Republic, and that entity “administers” them at the local level through mayors.” (page 146 term administrés)
This all adds up to a separate style, which was what France’s state wanted. It turns out part of the observations noted in the beginning of this book seem correct for their systems. According to observations, the French mostly agree with this, but I’m haven’t observed enough to say whether its true. .I felt like it was completely unable to agree with the federal state system used in the U.S. On U.S. land, the political events recently likely proved France’s point right, and that it needs a change.
I think you have a very interesting perspective and your response really made me think a little differently than i was about France.
DeleteThe accumulation of power is an interesting topic. There is injustice there
DeleteI think it is very interesting to learn about the fact that communities in France are not even able to have their own police if they have more than ten thousand inhabitants. Communities also aren’t allowed to have their own bank accounts because it is considered a threat to France. Most of the things that I have read so far in this book make me wonder if France seems better or worse than America. I think it is a big problem that France does not allow communities their political liberties. Maybe though that is part of the reason why France’s system seems to work so well. At the same time, I imagine it makes many people upset and feel like they do not have freedom. Frances cities don’t even get to control their own transportation; I think that is just stupid. I mean what does the government of France think these Communities are capable of or going to do? Ruin the country? Rebel? Start a war? I just think there are too many “precautions” taking place in France. These rules could be more of a problem than a solution for the country of France and it could make people want to rebel because of it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your first statement because I also found it interesting. I love how you mentioned about communities not able to have their own bank accounts because it's a threat in their country. You have many great main points about how their government works.
DeleteI am curious to find if the French have a less crime rate due to their method of separating their hired policemen and women to opposite communities from where they live.
DeleteGoing to your question of what does the French government think the communities are going to do, maybe another revolution? I think that might be why they like just having one core controller to avoid any other revolutions.
DeleteYou make a good point at the strictness of the government which may allow it to run more efficiently, but also it may limit freedom to those whom it falls under. It is an interesting spectrum determining how much freedom is worth efficiency and what is the best option.
DeleteThe statement in the question, fits about France's local government because the distrust of the local power is not a recent trend. In Paris, they're not able to even create their own bylaws for security, traffic, or sanitation. France is more interested on keeping tabs on Paris than any other city in the country. Although Paris is one of the largest cities in France, the mayor of Paris is the weakest in the country. The mayor doesn't have any power over the police or transport. The city doesn't have control over its own public transportation. For a country to have all roads lead to the capital, that could be an issue. In France, cities aren't even allowed to have their own bank accounts. Up until 1982, they weren't allowed to have an input into the city have their own control. In other chapters, the authors explained how the French State created France by assimilating very diverse populations and giving them a single nationality. Their local administration is organized in three levels. The commune is one of them and it refers to any municipality. The commune helps to build and maintain elementary schools and it even houses teachers. I find that very interesting and helpful, because the younger generations are our future. I also, love the fact that it also houses the teachers, because in order for the students to learn, the teachers are important. America is different politically compared to France's government. "Americans have an ingrained resistance to the idea of political centralization"(158). In France, most of their responsibilities are shouldered by the State. Even though the French isn't a very rich community, they still draw a limit on moralizing individual behavior. I would be interested into learning more about France's government and political ways.
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting to compare the and measure the success of education of France and the U.S. since they both fund them differently.
DeleteIn Chapter 11 we learned that in France the government doesn't allow city's to create their own police force, instead it's controlled at the government level. The French have a monopoly police force to keep mayors from controlling their own paramilitary. This is a good safe lock against corrupt politicians but i can see the disadvantages as well. France see's local power as a threat to unity and centralization, that's why they strip power. Because of this along with their ideal of identity resorted to simply being French, their diversity is water down. The State eradicate local languages and deprive any sense of community. In their world France "is" the community. Mayors are basically elected representatives that do government work for free, they run schools, organize elections, and so on. In France all communes are equal but the towns with a population less than 100,000 can have a police force because they can't afford one on their own.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it can have disadvantages to it and although it seems a bit pushy on the governments part it has worked for France so far.
DeleteNice point with the above, Sandra. While that's nice for France, it would seem nicer if that goodness inexplicably transferred here.
DeleteIf only... Brandon Aspan
I think it is so interesting to see that the police can't be created unless at the government level. You brought up some great points!
DeleteThis chapter gives the reason why France’s government controls all of the communities is because the local communities are a threat. These communities have mayors but they don’t have much responsibilities. The French police force is nation wide except for the little communities who can’t afford the french police. That is the only way a community can have their own police but they have as much authority as a college security guard. Comparing France’s under one government to the US’s where each state has different rules, has pros and cons. In the US each state can decide what to teach, what laws to have and how they are going to govern their state. In France the French government chooses what language they’ll speak, what the kids will learn and how law will be and be enforced. In the US when we were just fighting for the right for gay marriage, the ability for states to make their own laws was great for those who were seeking gay marriage or just supportive of it. This then led to our whole country passing the law, that might not have been passed until years later if there wasn’t the impact of the first few states legalizing gay marriage. A pro to the French having complete rule is that everyone is on the same page. Everyone speaks the same language and expects the same things. Yes that might not leave room for individuality but it brings France closer together. That’s something that us, in the US have a hard time wrapping our heads around.
ReplyDeleteI like how you explained that it allows for everyone to be on the same page, which obviously has it's pros and cons as well. But, it is an interesting concept.
Deletei totally agree, although its nice to have our freedoms, it actually does not sound like an entirely bad idea have the country take the rains and not be worried that things around the country will not get done for the common good of the people.
DeleteRachel M. D'Andrea
ReplyDeleteFrance’s centralized government is a product of their historical attempts to create a strong, collective French national identity. As the authors have demonstrated in past chapters, France was once a divided and divisive country with no central identity. After their experience in World War II, France pulled in the cultural reigns by promoting assimilation. They did this through eliminating local languages and deconstructing the sense of community (146). Assimilating the diverse populations within France and creating one identity promoted the idea that French citizens are citizens of the Republic and only the Republic. In this chapter, the authors make the point that while assimilation brought “peace and order,” it also “erased political liberty at the local level” (155). A centralized government prevents the possibility of local governments becoming too strong and trying to go against the State. France allows only miniscule powers to its local governments. For example, only town with populations less than 10,00 are entitled to their own police force, and “mayors are basically elected civil servants who do local chores for the government for free” (148). These communities are not permitted the opportunity to form their own political identities lest they somehow lead to estrangement or conflict. A stark contrast to this lack of local identity and power can be seen when compared to the federal system employed in countries such as the United States. States within the U.S. are granted their own individual sovereignty. Laws, policies, and practices differ across state lines. Unlike in France, local governments are powerful political players to which citizens may feel a special loyalty.
This was really good use of what the chapter was about, especially with emphasizing the 'removal of local languages'. So, it seems that you found a neutral stance towards what's in this part throughout, unlike me.
DeleteThis is a great summary and you included some good points. I like the use of quotes too!
DeleteThis chapter focused on why France limits the local powers because they believe that if a local community has overload on power it will cause a ripple on their unity. This being the case, one of the systematic strips is in their police force. The only police that France contains is that equivalent to our FBI. There is no local police officers and sheriffs around, there is only one group of officers. Out of the policemen, only ⅓ of them actually carry guns. Which, would not be a bad idea to incorporate here in America due to the recent incidents over the years. An example of their limited power is shown in the police of Meaux. They simply act like our campus police, in not having much power to do much but look out for people. Not only that but, the mayors do not have supreme power and can make their own decisions. All decisions are made by the state. The mayors are simply volunteers who do local government chores for free. They act as a supervisor for that city. One thing France does have similar to North America is the way it is divided. Here we have cities that have towns that fall into counties or districts. Well the French have a similar system. They have the commune which is their towns, they have departements which are boundaries (like districts or counties), and the regions which act as borders to break up the departements. This limit of power I think ties in well with the previous chapter dealing with their jobs, it makes it simpler.
ReplyDeleteThe French government has control over all of the communities because they view the local communities as a threat. Cities are not even allowed to create their own police forces, unless they have more than 10,000 people. For example, Paris is not allowed to create bylaws for security, traffic, or sanitation as the government is very observant of Paris. Public transportation is also controlled by the French government. The government controls power over numerous aspects of France such as the language, education system, and how laws are enforced. This may explains why the government works so well. This is very different from the systems in the US. The French have communes to help run the area through building and repairing the municipal roads. French citizens expect their high taxes to pay for what is needed throughout the country.
ReplyDeletethe state in this chapter is futhrer explained stating that it has all control over what is enforced and what laws, regulations, and policing is established in France. the state has so much power that even mayors have no control over the paramilitary force(144). what i found to be very astonsihing is that fact the that the French State actually created france by asslimilation, assimilation has been used throughout countless points in the book, but in this chapter it clearly states it gave a very diverse group of people a more structed nationality, how the State did that was by eradicating local power, eliminating local language, and depriving local populations of any sense of community(146). what i find not so good about the French state is that in stead of having just a political control , there tends to be this life control from birth that should not be extreamly expressed through removal of qualities of the French people, but rather change certian outcomes in stead of changing the chemistry of the man. but after reading i found that the French State had one thing that wass impressive, they had the ability to control a nation, compared to how North America runs our people is based on an individualistic base; " North American communities have very little means of enforcing policies like these, so they appeal to people's morals(158). at least in France there is this living in harmony that i can see that America might not learn to do because of the way we enjoy all of our freedoms.
ReplyDeleteFrance might not see the crime waves that America does, but I don't think they live in harmony. That's hard to do when you know the government on the local level has absolute control.
DeleteI found it interesting how you talked about France's ability to exert its control over the entire nation through the concept of not dividing power between states- interesting perspective.
DeleteIn the chapter we have learned that France’s centralized government, is a result of them searching for an identity in the world. This has been a battle for them over the course of many years. Though the French have a history of being segregated and always on the opposite ends of the pole, they found out the importance of assimilation through the struggles and battles that occurred in WWII. This surge in assimilation has created the need for more police force in the eyes of many local government politicians. To show off their control, the local governments put these French communities in a strict vice grip that no one dares to try and escape from. Compared to our government, there are similarities but a lot of differences as well. While we are governed by the local governments, it isn’t as strict or as suffocating as the French’s police force. Our federal law enforcement is more close to France’s local police than anything. Some may argue this style of policing is the way to go because crime is not as likely to happen with the cracking down communities. I personally don’t think that’ll stop anybody from stealing, killing, or fighting especially if it means their survival. We saw a taste of this in our history with prohibition and like speakeasies, crime will always happen as long as economic conditions remain constant. France knows what it feels like to not have as much crime on the streets but with all this power in the French government, you have to wonder do citizens ever really feel safe
ReplyDeleteI like that you brought up crime in France- it would be interesting to see the relation of crime rates within cities in both France and the US.
DeleteFrance having no real local government and everything being control by their government sounds like a dependence of a higher power. The local communities not having a real say so over their policing sounds like America years ago and modern day America only they are not dealing with crime as much.
DeleteLast reply was given by David Gibson.
DeleteIn chapter 11, Barlow and Nadeau discuss the absence of local authoritative figures in France- the only police force that exists is called Police Nationale, which is equivalent to the FBI within the United States. The absence of a local police force has proven to be a problem in France, due to the fact that there isn’t a set group of people that can enforce less urgent or more trivial regulations. Even though the city of Paris would be able to eradicate inconsequential issues such as cleaning up animal droppings through the usage of local officers, Nadeau and Barlow state, “The government won’t allow it. The Police Nationale is the police in Paris. The city of Paris can’t even make its own bylaws for security, traffic, or sanitation,” (144). This is because France does not trust local power- in fact, they are seen as a threat to France’s unity. Therefore, the government systematically strips local communities of their political liberties; in fact, cities are not even allowed to have their own banks. This is quite different from the US government- policies such as these are not enforced, and the efforts of local policeman are given a higher level of importance than local French policemen. The US practices this by allowing each individual state to create its own policies or laws, thus giving more power to local authorities and officials. This concept makes sense because it exemplifies the US’ individualistic nature, through its division of power to each individual state.
ReplyDeleteDavid Gibson
DeleteI agree with you. If a country have no part of local policing and the government runs the say so of it. Then their is no real justice against crime. There is no way that a you can receive justice and good policing if only ran by the
government. You will have bad policing and a bad economy depending on the government to do all your affairs for you.
That is the same quote I used! Isn't it so strange how different that aspect of France is from America? I do believe though that having one government and legislation actually helps unification of the country rather than having separate laws for every state, county, and town.
DeleteTim Kirby
ReplyDeleteReader Response #10
The Unification of France is something that the French are very prideful about. From what we have learned in previous chapters France is very proud of its culture and heritage. They want to keep the French culture alive. Having many local communities jeopardizes that possibility. The best way to stay unified is to stick together and to not have many separate communities making up different legislation to live under. Living under one government gets rid of the threat of France dissipating. “The French State actually created France by assimilating very diverse populations and giving them a single nationality” (146). What I found so interesting were the degrees and the specificity of some of the examples given. For example, The Police Nationale is the police in Paris. The city of Paris can’t even make its own bylaws for security, traffic, or sanitation. That actually makes it more organized in my opinion. In America, there are so many different laws and legislation that it is impossible to keep track of it. The concept of having no local communities is so different than in the United States. We are called the United States, not the United Country of America, right off the bat there are separate communities. Within those states which have all separate laws, there are different counties, and then towns. The more “organized” we try to become, the more distant and complicated it becomes from the country. There are two completely different approaches in France than in America. Reading this book more and more, I’m beginning to think that America might be the one looks strange.
Mathew Dumay
ReplyDeleteFRN 101
11/12/2016
Reader Response 10
Because France is a centralized country, local authorities can be seen as a threat to the main entity. This seems to make sense, being that the purpose of a “State” is to have unity. But within smaller factions (local authorities), if there is division, that will lead to the greater division of the entire entity as a whole. Progress of a nation can not be made when there is division-that’s why for years, the U.S. government has found ways to constantly keep the Americans complacent by announcing new projects, and releasing stimulus packages. But in America, we divvy out power, to the local authorities to maintain structure within the community. One could argue that it is the local authorities who actually affect our lives more on a daily basis than those sitting in Washington. We can see that when there is an uproar within a city, they call the local authorities right away. Also, with “stop and frisk”, and the militarization of police, local authorities already have a mass amount of power. The concept of power is a difficult concept, because too much can corrupt, while too little can cripple. When there is centralized power, if that power is corrupt, then you can expect citizens of that nation to breed corruption as well. But within a balance of power, if ever within one of the communities there is corruption within the local power, that could also spread and corrupt other parts of the “State”.