Marsha Husted

Archive for the ‘Ghetto Commission’ Category

 | вилла лимассол | виллы с яхтой | дома на кипре | недвижимость на кипре -элитный | вилла на кипре | Website Link Building Services | UK Online Shopping | Property Rentals in Cyprus | Auto Loans | Debt Consolidation Loan | Apartments For Sale | Apartments For Sale | недвижимости на Кипре | Недвижимость в Лимассоле |
квартиры на кипре | Недвижимость Кипра | недвижимость кипр | кипр недвижимость | недвижимость на Кипре | недвижимости Кипра | Website Link Building Services |

Property Developers Paralimni Cyprus

Songs From the F Train Composed by Gilda Lyons for piano and mezzo-soprano December 29, 2009 Kwanzaa Celebration Brooklyn Public Library (Main Branch at Grand Army Plaza), Brooklyn, NY Performed by Nicole Mitchell Thomas Bagwell, conductor The first commissioned work of IHAS, “Songs from the F Train” is a setting of poems by three Brooklyn schoolgirls – Samori Covington (age 9), Alexis Cummings, and Najaya Royal (both age 12). The poems were written in a poetry workshop led by Brooklyn writer Angeli Rasbury in Fort Greene Park. Songs from the F Train is a co-commission from American Opera Projects, Fort Greene Park Conservancy and The Walt Whitman Project. More info here: www.operaprojects.org/ihearamericasinging

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylVVWueqZCc&hl=en

Tags : Limited Too Girls Print http://realestatebarcamp.org/joaquinahusselbee/ http://adultonlychild.org/genevievecutting/

продаже недвижимости на Кипре | купить недвижимость на Кипре | Villas in Cyprus | Cyprus Legal Consultants | Law Firms Cyprus | дома на кипре | недвижимость на кипре -элитный | Cyprus Property | Cyprus Villas | виллы на кипре | Cyprus Property | Link Building Services | Property in Cyprus

 | кипр недвижимость | недвижимость на море | недвижимость на кипре в Лимассоле | недвижимость на побережье | недвижимости на Кипре | продажа недвижимости за рубежом |
цены недвижимости на Кипре | элитная недвижимость на Кипре | кипр недвижимость цены | цены недвижимости на Кипре | апартаменты на кипре | недвижимость кипра цены |

Property Developers Paralimni Cyprus | Paralimni Property Developers | Developers in Paralimni Cyprus | Paralimni Developers | Karayiannas Karayiannas | Karayiannas | Karayiannas  | Karayiannas | Karayiannas | Karayiannas | Properties For Sale in Cyprus | Karayiannas | Karayiannas | Karayiannas | Karayiannas | Website Link Building Services | Cyprus Hotels |

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqripjdWS7w&hl=en

My Links : Numerology Life Path 3; http://imadieingbreed.com/sallyschweitzer/

Theatre as Alternative Historical Narrative.: A study of three plays.: Ubu and the Truth Commission,Copenhagen and Ghetto : In this book I examine the way in which fictionalised and dramatised narratives in theatre have the potential to create significant alternative narratives that can potentially be regarded as a crucial part of history writing. This is done through a critical analysis of three historically orientated dramatic texts, Ubu and the Truth Commission by Jane Taylor (1998), Copenhagen by Michael Frayn (1998) and Ghetto by Joshua Sobol (1984). I investigate how these playwrights narrativised history by fictionalising and dramatising events and people of historical importance, and how each of these plays individually contributes to the debate on narrative in historiographical discourse. Drawing on Hayden White?s theory on the poetic and narrative nature of history writing, as represented by his definitive work, Metahistory, I explore different theories and works on the philosophy of history to determine the precise nature of narrative itself as well as the historical work. The theatrical texts singled out demonstrate that these alternative narratives function as a discourse of multi-levelled stories making a contribution to the practice of historiography itself.

Continue Reading

Friends Link : Mother Jones Raising Cain http://realestatebarcamp.org/maxcalixte/

Over this past 4th of July my family and myself had decided to move to Brunswick Georgia. We had lived in Souther Florida for the past 3 years but last winter my last 2 remaining grandfathers, one from each side of the family, had died and the only reason I had moved to Florida in the first place was to help take care of family.

Originally I had a truck reserved to pickup on the Wednesday before the 4th but because of Tires Plus still having my Jeep we could not pick the truck on time. The next day we tried to find a truck but there was none in the entire state of Florida. So I had to make other arrangements which meant enlisting the help of one of my kids friends and renting out a trailer which had to be returned to the location we rented it from. This meant that we would have to fill up with one load and travel to Georgia then return to pick up a second load and again drop of everything in Georgia then return to Florida to return the trailer.

The trailer we picked up had some problems and we were not able to exceed 30 MPH with the trailer empty or full. This was a big problem so we called roadside assistance to find out what the problem was. This kept us waiting for 2 hours in the middle of some Ghetto. The first time roadside assistance came it turned out that the lug nuts on the wheels weren’t even tightened. The service man thought this would take care of the problem so he didn’t check for any other problems and sent us on our way. We noticed the problem was not fixed so we called back the service man within 10 minutes.

This time the service man noticed that the treads on one of the wheels were bad. You would think that these people would be trained to look for all problems on the first visit rather than having to make more than one trip to fix what should have been fixed on the first visit but apparently with UHaul that is not the way they do things. We had hoped that the problem was finally fixed but learned that we had driven only 10 minutes that there was still a problem.

This time, rather than calling roadside assistance again, we pulled over and unloaded the trailer then reloaded it thinking maybe it was the way we had it loaded. But again this turned out not to be the problem and several times during our trip we proceeded to repackage the trailer. Needless to say we had to finish our trip to Georgia traveling at no faster than 30MPH. What should have only taken 12 hours now took twice the length of time..

Once we had arrived in Georgia at our new apartment we called the roadside assistance people again and they found a local UHaul and told us to swap the trailer out with them, which we did. Now before I go on I want to mention that this trailer rental was only $29.95 a day plus I paid the additional $5 a day for their extra insurance. From past dealings with UHaul I knew that the optional insurance would be the smart thing to do. Mistake number 1 was that I paid the trailer fees with my credit card.

Over the next 2 weeks after we had completed out move the UHaul in Florida, I think it was called 5 points UHaul, they proceeded to charge my card a total of $985.20 in 3 separate transactions. Since I banked with Bank of America I decided to dispute these transactions. Now I never disputed the new charge for the replacement trailer, only the charges for the original trailer because it was Defective. We found out from the 3rd service guy. The one who came out when were getting the replacement trailer that this trailer was a new design that had a longer tongue. Because of this it could not be towed by any vehicle smaller than a half ton pickup which our Jeep was a lot smaller plus it was only 2 wheel drive. UHaul salespeople should have made their people tell all customers this but this was not the case.

Over the past 6 months I have talked with Bank of America numerous times about this dispute in fact I even faxed them all documentation 4 times. According to all my paperwork, had the trailer not been defective a 2 day rental would have only been $34.95 times two. How does this justify $985.20? Even if we had rented the trailer for a one way drop off it would have only cost less than $500. But Bank of America, with their infinite wisdom, Have decided there was nothing wrong with UHaul charging my card the way they did, so in the long run I am in the negative over 4 figures in my account because of this.

I know that a lot of important people have investigation into UHaul because of Cr*p like this. Even the Attorney General of Arizona has am investigation against UHaul. As a result I will never do business again with the following companies, UHaul, Bank of America, and Tires Plus. The last one was because they were trying to fix something they were to have done 2 months prior.

Jeffrey Solochek is the Purple Cow of todays writers always adding his own unique wit and humor to everything. http://www.nosugarcoating.info [http://www.always-free-content.com]

Related : OWC Mercury Pro 800 http://markbatista.isay.co.za/ http://elitwit.com/shawnpuleo/

Master P featuring Snoop Dogg & Soulja Slim Mama Raised Me MP Da Last Don Disc 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nsqg7bb0tk&hl=en

See Also : Price for PH Levels in The http://blog.christal.biz/lcdtvnosound/ http://lcdtvnosound.b2bsosick.com/ http://lcdtvfullhdready.nysctalk.com/

The French Government has officially open a national debate on France cultural identity, in hope of better defining what it means to be French. While most Pundits and 64% of the population know it is a political stunt to garner votes away from the anti-immigration far-right National Front party of Jean-Marie Lepen during March 2010 regional elections coming up. Critics warned that it is a dangerous thing to do because will bring a climate of xenophobia and single out non-white French. French President Nicolas Sarkozy defends the National debate, and contends that “Debating the national identity is not dangerous, it’s necessary.” 60% of French agree that it is necessary, but I doubt they agree on the dangerous part.

This debate will give France neither the answers it seeks nor the outcome it hoped for. What it will do however, is confirm the death of their good old “douce France”, and legitimize the face of the New France.

When in 1998, France won the football World cup, at home with a team heavily composed of immigrants, the team was dubbed Blanc, Black, Beur (White, Black, Brown), and became for all a symbol of hope, integration, equality, freedom, Fraternity. 1998 was for French the culmination of its republican ideals: Rejecting the US model of the “melting pot” and British tolerance of the customs of ethnic minorities, France officially dismisses any consideration of race, creed or color that could undermine national unity. Indeed ethnic minority is not a recognized concept, where the theoretically color-blind state does not distinguish between categories of citizens.

For Jean-Marie Lepen, however, the team was not French enough, because it had too many non-whites. So much for color-blind; this is when the debate should have taken place.

Failing to capitalize on the euphoria of 1998, and returning to business as usual, France reaped the first fruits of its policies in 2001, during the friendly football game between France and Algeria. As soon as the Marseillaise (French National anthem) started, fans started to boo loudly. While the action sparked outrage, most were quick to mention that the booing was not made by Algerian fans whose resentment toward France is historically based, but by French-born second and third-generation immigrants with French nationality. Strike 1

During the 2002 presidential election, Jean-Marie Lepen managed to make it to round 2, raising national concern over growing racism, and anti-Semitism in France. That election did not only reveal the complacency of the government toward social issues, but the hidden face of the French society. Strike 2

In 2005, already frustrated by their condition of life, and their constant harassment at the hand of the police, the youth in the banlieues (ghetto, project) went on a rioting spree that made International Headlines, lasted for 4 weeks, causing roughly 200 euros of damages. Strike 3

The malaise that exists in the Banlieues is real, and mainly affects French-born minorities with French nationality, immigrants with French citizenship, and both legal and illegal immigrants struggling to make a living. Most of them are from African origin, and usually referred as Blacks and Arabs. They are marginalized by the society regardless of their legal status or citizenship. They are blamed for the social ills in France, and at the exception of a few sports stars, the rest of the minority are not really French to the general white population.

Then interior minister Sarkozy response to the civil unrest was to blame the “Rascals”, and clean up the Banlieues with Karcher (a high pressure detergent made in Germany). Many have also blamed the civil unrest on Polygamy, since many African immigrants are from West Africa, and Muslim Arabs. As a matter of fact, Sarkozy based part of his presidential campaign on promising tough laws on immigration, reaffirming the French national identity, and giving more rights to the police. As soon as he became president, Sarkozy appointed Eric Besson minister to a newly formed Immigration, Integration, and National identity and Solidarity development ministry.

Today, Sarkozy, the son of a Hungarian immigrant, and Besson, who was born in Morocco from a Lebanese mother, and lived there until he was 17, are setting a National debate with the undertone that Immigrants have a hard time integrating the French society because they do not understand what it means to be French. They are also trying to sell the speech that this is for a national unity, and to facilitate the assimilation of immigrants. Indeed, when they say Immigrants, really, what they are implying is African immigrants, notably Arabs and blacks. How can one not recall the national debate on allowing Muslim women to wear their head scarf in school? During a recent speech, Sarkozy took new aim at the face-covering, all-enveloping Islamic robe worn by a very small minority of Muslim women, saying there is “no place for the subservience of women” in France.” Yes, it is all about subservience, just like Canada has recently announced in its immigration policies that it will not tolerate “Foreign Barbaric Practices” in Canada. Riecently, Sarkozy voiced his support to the Swiss government over their decision to ban the construction of minaret in their country.

It is obviously very clear that Sarkozy who has an acute understanding of Islam can make such claims, naturally the appearance of Half naked women in buses stops and billboard has nothing subservient, or maybe the thriving porn industry that is anything but taboo in France, is a call for the glorification of women.

Among the questions Besson has suggested for the debates: Should France implement “integration contracts,” which would set minimal levels of language and cultural knowledge for citizenship; and should students be required to sing the national anthem “La Marseillaise” at least once a year?

Some fear that these types of questions – even the debates themselves – invite assumptions that generations of immigrants have already undermined France’s identity and may provoke nationalist sentiments long championed by Le Pen. “When you put immigration and national identity side by side, it creates the notion that immigration poses a threat to national identity – which can inspire racism,” Mouloud Aounit, president of the Movement Against Racism and for Friendship Between Peoples, told the daily l’Humanité on Nov. 2. “But this debate also reveals an identity crisis of a part of French society… and the failure of its model of integration, which doesn’t allow people to do just that.”

The question is how will that bring forth a different or modified setup than the one that already exists? Can France really answer those questions? If France is going through an identity crisis, it is probably because it failed to look from within to see among its immigrants what the modern French people should look like. Blaming generations of immigrants as undermining the French Culture is like blaming your reflections for the changes you made to yourself. When France decided to colonize Africa, it took upon itself to spread the French language and the French Culture. It did its best to educate African people about the way it functions so they could serve its “empire” better. France was proud to see its loyal subjects mimic all that was French. When Africans started to immigrate in France, it was important that they be able to speak French, understand the French system and evolve in a French community. France set up schools all across Africa, where they would teach French language, French culture, French values, and yes, even “la Marseillaise”. The only characteristic that was left out is that in spite of all that, THEY WOULD NOT BE FRENCH.

Amilcar Cabral said that “the ideal for foreign domination, whether imperialist or not, would be to choose 1) either to liquidate practically all the population of the dominated country, thereby eliminating the possibilities for cultural resistance; or

2) succeed in imposing itself without damage to the culture of the dominated people-that is to harmonize economic and political domination of these people with their cultural personality.

France certainly applied both methods at some point and to a certain degree, but if they have succeed in imposing themselves to the African culture, and enjoying a period of time where for too many Africans, France was what Israel is to Jewish people, things have changed. By marginalizing the second, third generation of immigrants, and denying them full-fledged French patriotism, they have reversed their cultural advantage. Unable to claim France has their homeland; many French-born immigrants resorted in identifying with their newly arrived brothers and sisters. It is therefore not surprising that the booing of the Marseillaise was not an isolated incident.

The same thing happened during a France-Morocco game in 2007, and again in 2009 during France-Tunisia that really showed that France does not learn anything, as the summoned a singer of Tunisian origin called Laam to sing the French national Anthem. Laam was loudly booed, while Amina who is from Tunisia was cheered for singing the Tunisian National Anthem. In 1998 when France won the World cup, people danced in the street in Brazzaville, Congo, to my dismay of course, but that’s not the point. On November 18, 2009, France finally qualified for the world Cup in South Africa. People, mostly of Arab-decent walked out in the street, danced on top of cars and celebrated all night. One may assume that they were happy for France until…the abundance of Algerian flags revealed that they were actually celebrating Algeria’s qualification to the world cup at the hand of Egypt, which happened the same day.

France conundrum is easy to assess, on one side it has an aging population, hard to replace due to slow birth rate, on the other, it has a bunch of young people mostly out of immigration who still have a strong attachment with their ancestral home, and finally, its youth is more in tune with Coupe decale than Francis Cabrel. This National debate has more to do with rekindling or implanting French Patriotism in a generation that has finally reconnected with its roots. This debate is secretly generated by the fear that what France has done to others is finally happening to them. The debate has absolutely nothing to do with National unity, integration or assimilation. To justify the debate, Sarkozy said a few things that are equally offensive than they are ignorant:

The peoples of Europe are welcoming and tolerant: it’s in their nature and in their culture. But they don’t want their way of life, their mode of thinking and their social relations distorted.

I assume Mr. Sarkozy that the people of Africa were so intolerant and unwelcoming that they saw the eve of Colonization coming to them. Maybe you think that the peoples of Africa absolutely do not care about their way of life and mode of thinking, which is why you claim in Dakar that they have yet to enter modernity. Naturally you must think that we were eager to learn French, embrace a culture that rejects family values, desecrate marriage, and has to put everything in writing because its word cannot be trusted, lie to gain, tortures other human beings, and has no problem disrupting the social structure of others for the sake of a few gallons of oil. Yes, Sarko, we don’t mind having our way of life, mode of thinking and social relations distorted, it however did happen and still does, and you are a player in it; So unless you are willing to repair those wrongs, please do not complain, it is fair game.

“France is a nation of tolerance and respect, but it also asks to be respected,” Sarkozy told farmers in southeastern France earlier this month. One cannot reap the advantages of living in France “without respecting any of its laws, any of its values, any of its principles.”

I suppose Mr. Sarkozy that France respected the people of Africa when it established Françafrique, I assume it tolerated them when it set up massive deportations where Airplanes were a modern version of slave boats. I suppose we, Africans never asked to be respected, which is why you had no problem interfering in our affairs, corrupting our leaders, abusing our natural resources and forcing our people to live in unbearable condition while on your soil, when yours live like emperors on ours. Maybe it is OK for French mercenaries and politicians to bend national rules to reap the benefits of our natural resources without respecting our laws. I concur that you are in favor of your many perverted citizens who find it principled and valuable to sexually abuse, and traffic our youth, fostering prostitution and disseminating diseases with the knowledge that medical care are not always available. Maybe this is what you call advantages.

How would Sarkozy dare to compare our values when Lilian Thuram and Patrick Viera were criticized by Sarkozy and his colleagues for finding human enough for them to offer Football tickets to undocumented immigrants who had endured so much in their journey for a better life; No, Sarkozy thinks it is much better to travel to Chad and free some nurses who were smuggling African kids by hundred outside of their home country. I guess child Trafficking is one of the value Sarkozy does not want to see distorted.

Of course Mr. Sarkozy is not alone, since other members of his cabal are willing to follow in his missteps: In future an immigrant arriving in Germany and wishing to stay may have to sign an “integration contract”. That is the idea of the Integration Minister, Maria Boehmer. The contract would set out basic German “values,” including “freedom of speech” and “equal rights for women”. The idea behind this is the club: if you join you have to accept the rules. “Anyone who wants to live here for a long time,” says the minister, “and who wants to work has to say ‘yes’ to our country”.

Did Africans said yes when you forced millions of them to relocate in Europe? Did African said yes when you destroyed their economies forcing them to go in foreign places so they could make a living? Did Africans said yes to a relationship with the West that is one-sided? Did Europe say Yes when we asked for equal trade? Did you say yes when we attempted to set the prices of our own products? Dumping, globalization, Tariffs, did we say yes to all that as well?

For generations, France and others have meddled in African affairs, disrupting societies, values and structure. They have imposed their way of life, and government. They have created the conditions that triggered a massive brain drain they benefited from. They have compelled immigrants to live in Europe yet, still retain their African culture. Now that they witness the strength and the resolve of that culture, they are afraid; now that they see that young immigrant’s heroes are issued from their own neighbourhood, they are concerned. Andre Valentin, mayor of a little city in France said during the national debate that took place in what some may refer as a town hall: We have to be very careful, and act, because if we don’t, we are going to be swallowed.

The truth is that they are going to be swallowed, but it is the French culture of old that is going to be swallowed. It is the French culture that was keen to penetrate other cultures, and stupidly believed that it would not have a counter-effect that will be swallowed. As Hama Tuma said:

France does not know itself really. There was a time it considered itself an Empire, an era that ended after Vietnam and Algeria, though someone has forgotten to tell France that, and thus it continues to strut as a big Empire with tin pot dictators of small countries in Africa fawning over or under it in a Françafrique that is as laughable as the British Commonwealth.

The Empire syndrome gives an obsession with History and the need to mould others into one’s will or under one’s rule and diktat. Furthermore, France has suffered many humiliations (1870, 1940, etc) but it has refused to accept or acknowledge this heavy weight of history and pretends all is well in its pursuit of grandeur.

Arguably, the distance that existed between Francophone and Anglophone in Africa, and was often attributed to a language barrier, was equally inherited by the petty rivalry between France and England, and was passed on when imposed to us. Those distances are being broken everyday, as Africans understand that they have more in common between themselves than with France or England.

There is only one concern the Africans must have, and that is if the struggle for equality generates a greater interest than it should in this debate from African immigrants in France. If immigrants see in this debate their last chance to be full fledged French; some may jump into it too fast and with both feet. If that happens, France would reach its goal, and as Jean-Marie Lepen’s daughter Marine advocates, “Forcing the immigrant to choose a nationality.” For their sake, African immigrants should resist the urge to place too greater value on their French nationality at the expense of their African origin, because France banks on that to recreate the petit-Bourgeois who once roamed African Colonial elite protectorates. Chinweizu recalls in his classic book “the west and the Rest of us”, that the British have already played with those technical distinctions that are reminiscent of what is at stake with this national debate:

“The colonies were technically British territory; the protectorates were technically African territories under British protection.(…)The people in the colonies could demand the rights of British citizens, whereas the people of protectorates could not…obligations of British citizenship could be imposed upon the colonials but not on the protected persons (…)The impact of Colonization of the protectorates was to force African nationalists to choose between an Anti-colonialism aimed at liberation from imperialism and at the restoration of sovereignty to African protectorates, and an alternative anti-colonialism aimed at reforming the despotic manners of foreign rule and at winning civil liberties for African subjects of the European empires (…) By demanding civil liberties available in the empires, African would be tacitly accepting their forced inclusion within them. They would be acquiescing in their assimilation by European empires, cultures, histories and Traditions. And the most they could expect to attain, as people or a territory, would be dominion or local autonomy within the empires, not sovereignty outside them. Those who rightly saw the goals of African anti-colonialism as the overthrow of alien rule, the return of political sovereignty to the peoples of the continent, and a return of Africa to her own cultural and historical stream, were disturbed at such an insidious opportunities opened up by the colonization of the protectorates. Legal adoption and cultural assimilation by Europe was not the proper goal of African anti-colonialism. An ameliorated but indefinite colonization was not a prospect to choose over initiatives of restored sovereignty.”

If we substitute Territory with Identity, and sovereignty with dignity, we have a clearer picture of what this national debate can do; it can back into a corner African immigrants, and require them to “assimilate” or embrace French culture as the government sees it fit. By doing so, as assimilated French they may be under the pressure to adhere to France’s policies, and action in Africa. In the same process, they will be forced to choose between their new home and their roots. France would love more than anything to see African immigrants reject their culture and fully embrace a French identity; this is politically logical and helpful, thus dangerous. Hama Tuma again reminds us that:

The identity crisis that has struck France has thrown it into a contradiction in which it considers islands inhabited by dark skinned fellows as its overseas territories and the people as French at the same time, as it yearns feverishly to keep its basically white identity.

The Kenyans had an attorney general called Charles Njonjo who believed he was British and looked down upon his countrymen. For a while, Idi Amin imagined he was a Scot. Emperor Bokassa called De Gaulle Papa and took himself as French. Some Arabs think they are white and discriminate against Black Africans while in Ethiopia, the birthplace of human kind, the people think they are the one and only chosen people. Delusions and illusions over identity, a mess into which the argument seeking French want to wade in.

I can empathize with France, losing one identity is not a jolly experience, and seeing one’s culture erode is a painful experience, but instead of blaming the immigrants, shouldn’t France learn from them? After all, they have done the same thing to them.

When someone kills another human being, it is called homicide; when it is an entire nation that is killed, it is called genocide. When one country is taken by force, plundered and abused, it used to be called an Invasion, now it is called Intervention. When it is half a continent that is taken by force, abused and plundered, it used to be called Colonization, now it is just called Françafrique.

Things change, and France has to deal with it. This national debate will not produce any fruits because its timing is poor, its intention are wrong, and its ambition is plain dangerous.

France claim that this debate is to fight discrimination; discrimination is fought by exchange and understanding, not by forced integration. France also claim that the debate is to help immigrants assimilate, they already did, they have assimilated the French Culture into their African background; now it is time for the French to assimilate the African culture into the French background. When two nations meet, a cultural exchange is bound to happen. France is the one who forced the meeting, now if they want to understand the exchange; they are the one who need to review their history, not the immigrants. A look at the contribution of Immigrants to France history is in order to understand not what it means to be French, but what France has become. Emmanuelle Saada, a sociologist and historian at Columbia University and France’s Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales said ” I am amazed at this debate. It’s a political event (and) doesn’t represent any deep need in society; National identity is not up to us to establish as a norm for us to conform to. National identity just happens…. In a big sense, it is outside our control.” And, she adds, “It’s not for any government to decide.”

For many French citizen who were either born in France or were naturalized France, this debate is bitter sweet, because on one side, it may offer an opportunity to revindicate their rights to be french, but on the other side, it seems to penalize them for a part of their history they had no control in; as many of them are quick to defend their African ancestry and the circumstances that forces them and their descendant, both Africans and French to seek a better life in France. They will remind France that they did not ask to be colonized by France, France, came to them. France imposed its languages, values and morals to Africans.

At some point it was even forbidden for Africans to speak their national languages. They (France) used Africans in their different wars ( W1,WW2,Indochina…). The current immigrants parents, grandparents died for “LA PATRIE”.

France even requisitioned cows,chickens, eggs, rice and what not for what they called “effort de guerre”; furthermore, Some of the survivors, in the case of the 2nd world war, were even killed by the same French army they fought for just for asking their money after the war (CAMP THIAROYE). The survivors of WW2 are only receiving a quarter of their pension compared to their french counterpart. President Chirac was supposed to repair that injustice but did not,we do not know if Sarkozy did…

After the 2nd World War, France is the One who called on Africans to rebuild Paris…This is how the first big waves of Africans whether from the West, Center or North arrived in France. Once again they took Africans, used them, and parked them in those ghettos that they call “cites”. They never thought about the future, they never thought that those people to whom they gave permission to bring their wives would have kids that could or would stay in France… All of the sudden they want all of them to disappear from the French soil.

As long as those people would not feel integrated, meaning respected and non discriminated, things like booing the national anthems are nothing compared to what could happen in the coming years.

You can not expect for somebody who was born from foreign parents or in a country other than France to fully embrace the French culture and totally reject his or her values and cultures. Integration is a two-way process you give and receive at the same time.

That is one thing American people understood and why this nation is what it is. English, Italians, Irish, Mexicans, Caribbean,Africans, Asians all contributed to this country because they felt fully integrated. At the same time they embraced for most of them the “American way of life”.

The French governing elite has to be very careful with this kind of identity debate because it is very dangerous. We all know what the policy of “Ivoirite” led to in Cote d’Ivoire for example. That is the same kind of mentality that – when pushed to the extreme – led to Nazism and other fascism in Europe.

We have no choice but to live together so it would better for everybody to take, learn and share cultures with the “other”.

That fear of being “swamped” by the “other” is a nonsense nowadays as the world is now a small village as we are so mixed and interconnected.

For any country that has a strong culture, this conclusion is not hard to understand. If France understands what a National Identity is, they will realize that they do not need a National Debate…au contraire.

Regis Zoula is an independent writer and author. I speak fluently and write French and English, and will translate text from either language to the other. I hold a Bachelor in International business. I am also knowledgeable in Political Science, and Business consulting. I am currently working on my first novel.

Thanks To : Soul Searching http://jonathanmoreno.seekkel.com/ http://lcdtvusbinput.siamdude.com/ Sally Rico

get this music for free at mp3cult.net Mercedes – Pussy (Ft. Ghetto Commission)- Rec Mercedes – Pussy (Ft. Ghetto Commission)- Rec Mercedes – Pussy (Ft. Ghetto Commission)- Rec

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsB0ay8u1YU&hl=en

My Links : Silit Vision e30 Cookware Quench Gum Resealable Variety Sudoku Shack Variations To http://lcdtvdvdcombo37.elektrotechnika.it/ http://wandacabrera.fansklub.com/ http://openaircinemas.com/lcdtvlg42/

Ghetto Commission – Devil’s Playground (From No Limit Presents: Mean Green; Major Players Compilation)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abT2vU8s5Ls&hl=en

Tags : Pampers Pampers Active Fit Mally Bib Firetruck http://imadieingbreed.com/sallyschweitzer/

Da Next Level ©1999 No Limit Records

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtGq99JAsmk&hl=en

Friends Link : Shapes Play Learn Foam http://zeldaallensworth.miniboutiques.com/

This groundbreaking leadership research by has received extensive endorsements and enthusiastic reviews from well-known prominent business, political, and academic leaders who either participated in the study or reviewed the research findings. You will discover the proven success habits and secrets of people who, in spite of difficult or life threatening challenges shaped their own destiny to become successful, effective leaders. The full results of this research will be presented in the upcoming book by Dr. Howard Edward Haller titled “Leadership: View from the Shoulders of Giants.”

The nine initial prominent successful leaders who overcame adversity that were interviewed included: Dr. Tony Bonanzino, U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch, Monzer Hourani, U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye, Dr. John Malone, Larry Pino, U.S. Army Major General Sid Shachnow, Dr. Blenda Wilson, and Zig Ziglar.

The data from the above nine research participants was materially augmented by seven other successful leaders who overcame adversity including: Jack Canfield, William Draper III, Mark Victor Hansen, J. Terrence Lanni, Angelo Mozilo, Dr. Nido Qubein, and Dr. John Sperling.

Additionally, five internationally known and respected leadership scholars offered their reviews of the leadership research findings including: Dr. Ken Blanchard, Jim Kouzes, Dr. John Kotter, Dr. Paul Stoltz, and Dr. Meg Wheatley.

This is a short biography of one of the principal participants who generously contributed their time and insight for this important research into the phenomenon of how prominent successful leaders overcome adversity and obstacles. This is Senator Daniel Inouye’s story.

Daniel Inouye is the eldest son of Japanese immigrants who worked on the Hawaiian sugar plantations where Daniel was born and raised. He lived in what he described as a “Japanese-American ghetto.” He went to the local Hawaiian school, at which “the student body was 90% ethnic Japanese.”

As a young boy, Daniel accidentally fell and broke his left arm in a terrible compound fracture. The local doctor, an Ear, Nose and Throat specialist, set the arm. It mended, but not well. In his autobiography, Inouye wrote, “My arm hung limp and crooked and I could barely move it” (1968, p. 49). After two years of searching his parents, “contacted the best orthopedic surgeon in Hawaii,” who reconstructed Dan’s “left arm and made it good as new.” That incident formed the basis of Daniel’s career goal: to become an orthopedic surgeon. He told the orthopedic surgeon who repaired his arm and restored it to full use, “I’m going to be a doctor, like you.” He faced racial discrimination when he was nominated to the local honor society in high school and was made to feel most unwelcome there.

While still in high school, Dan became a volunteer with the local chapter of the American Red Cross. Then the “entire world turned upside down” on December 7, 1942. After the bombing, the secretary of the local American Red Cross chapter called young Daniel into action immediately, having him “help with injured people who had been rescued from fallen debris, as well as the other wounded that needed treatment.” Daniel shared that his life had been changed by the bombing of Pearl Harbor:

The war came along, and the challenge was immense, not just physical, but emotional. My loyalty, together with those of my generation, was questioned. We were looked upon as enemy agents, and our friends of Japanese ancestry were placed in camps, without any trial. And that was something that, though I was fairly young, I felt had to be overcome.

Though Daniel was of Japanese descent, he was “100% American.” The following year, when President Franklin Roosevelt finally allowed the Nisei (second-generation Japanese-Americans) to join the United States military, Daniel attempted to enlist, but he was turned down. Unwilling to accept “no” as an answer, he requested information from the draft board concerning his rejection. The clerk found that Daniel was “working 72 hours a week at the aid station” of the local chapter of the American Red Cross. Dan was told, “You’re already making an essential defense contribution, and you’re enrolled in a pre-med course at the University, and Lord knows we’ll be needing doctors.” So he dropped out of the University of Hawaii and quit his job with the Red Cross. Then he re-applied.

This time his application was accepted. Inouye was bright and eager to serve. “In the military, there was another challenge, or obstacle.” Dan said, “I was the assistant squad leader. Then, the youngest person was about two years my senior, and the oldest was about 15 years my senior.” Because these were Japanese-American soldiers who all came from “a society where age makes a difference . . . where elders are looked upon with a bit more respect than the younger ones, it was a challenge. So,

I had to work overtime at that, to justify that position.”

He was promoted rapidly, first to corporal and then to sergeant. Daniel and his unit were sent to Italy to fight. He earned a battlefield commission to second lieutenant while fighting in Europe. In one battle in Italy, near the end of World War II in Europe, young Lieutenant Inouye had his right arm essentially shot off. In spite of the intense pain, he insisted on remaining at the battle scene, directing and protecting his troops, though he had tourniquets on his right shoulder and the stub of that arm. He was decorated for his heroism, receiving a Bronze Star, a Purple Heart, and the Distinguished Service Cross. He was also recommended for, and later received, the Congressional Medal of Honor. Lieutenant Inouye was transferred back to the United States to receive treatment and rehabilitation for his wounds.

Senator Inouye told me, “I specifically chose to do my rehabilitation as far away from Hawaii as possible,” because he had always been sheltered. He explained, “I had experienced only limited contact with anything outside my Japanese-American neighborhood.” He wanted to see how other people lived, and became cultured in the ways of the “hoale” [white] world in the process. “I underwent a ‘Pygmalion transformation,’ learning how to formally dine with silver and china, attending cultural events and meetings with as many different types of people as I possibly could.”

Inouye shared that his generation, “in Hawaii, [came] from [Japanese-American] ethnic enclaves [who] spoke a strange brand of pidgin-English. So I felt that if I lived in a community where you were literally forced to change your way of communicating, it would help. And it did.” Daniel specifically noted, “In fact, the highest compliment paid was when I returned home to Hawaii, and I opened my mouth to see how [my mother] was, she said, ‘You speak like a ‘hoale’!” During his lengthy rehabilitation, Daniel decided to finish college, get a law degree, and then enter into public service.

He left the U.S. Army as a captain, returned to the University of Hawaii, and married a Japanese-American girl, Margaret Awamura. He completed “law school with a Juris Doctorate at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. in just two years,” and then returned to Hawaii, where he “took and passed the Territorial Bar exam.”

In 1959 he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives for the new State of Hawaii, becoming the first Japanese-American ever to be elected to the U.S. Congress. Inouye was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1962, and has been re-elected every six years since then. Senator Daniel K. Inouye is the third highest-ranking member of the United States Senate.

Copyright 2006 © Howard Edward Haller, Ph.D.

Howard Edward Haller, Ph.D.
Chief Enlightenment Officer
The Leadership Success Institute
www.TheLeaderInstitute.com
HowardEdwardHallerPhD@msn.com

Howard Edward Haller, Ph.D. is the Chief Enlightenment Officer of the Coeur d’Alene, Idaho based The Leadership Success Institute. His Doctoral dissertation in Leadership Studies at Gonzaga Univ. included interviews with prominent US leaders in business, politics & education.

The initial nine prominent leaders who overcame adversity included: Dr. Tony Bonanzino, U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch, Monzer Hourani, U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye, Dr. John Malone, Larry Pino, U.S. Army Major General Sid Shachnow, Dr. Blenda Wilson, and Zig Ziglar.

Then seven more leaders, who overcame adversity, were interviewed including: Jack Canfield, William Draper III, Mark Victor Hansen, J. Terrence Lanni, Angelo Mozilo, Dr. Nido Qubein, and Dr. John Sperling.

Five internationally known and respected leadership scholars offered their reviews of the Dr. Haller’s research findings including: Dr. Ken Blanchard, Jim Kouzes, Dr. John Kotter, Dr. Paul Stoltz, and Dr. Meg Wheatley.

http://www.TheLeaderInstitute.com

Thanks To : Secret to Eating at Sennheiser EH 250 Digital Price for S’mores Recipes From Classic http://keithhooper.qn.bz/ http://lesbian-and-bi.com/kayhardaway/ http://eulaalbritton.kofti.pl/