This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
this article does not even mention the positive role colonialism supposedly had (increasing health care, infrastructure development, etc) how could this article be neutral with only the anti-law view exposed? not even the law... (check the French version). The French presence (not its imperialist rule) in Indochina and North Africa was supported by locals (BAWOUAN, Harkis) who joined the French ranks and fought the independence armies, so there must have been some positive aspects for these people to fight with their lives?! I mean focusing on the negative aspects can also be considered as revisionism and negationism. Shame On You13:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why was this law repealed? Don't people want citizens of their country to feel good about it??? Otherwise how can they work constructively for their nation, like, if they think it's shit and immigrants are the best? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.169.233 (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why was this law repealed? Don't people want citizens of their country to feel good about it??? Otherwise how can they work constructively for their nation, like, if they think it's shit and immigrants are the best?
It's a straw dog argument to say "...if they think it's shit and immigrants are the best...". How is that article saying that in way? It would seem that you did not give much thought to your arguments, nor to the effects of colonialism and imperialism on the world (not just French colonialism). Having a law to "...people want citizens of their country to feel good about it???" is like forcing people to be "happy": fake, and imposed. Imposed like colonialist attitudes and policies.
As for the repealment of the amendment (read the article again...), I would suggest you... ...read the article again.
As for "bringing in healthcare", to other cultures, I'd suggest that you step out of colonialist thinking for once and give a thought to what cultures other than your own have/had.
TBH, I suspect that the previous comments have some vested interest in this law staying like it was.
Here the question is a question of neutrality, which in wikipedia terms mean providing both or several point of views. Those various point of view should help to understand what the page says.
Now the law did not say which were the positive role. Facts might exist, for instance, in 1879, the number of students in French-algerian lycées were around some 3414 including 180 indigène, giving a ratio of 5,27% [1]. At that time, there was also some debates about health [2]. Might be this could have be more... or less... But neither the 2005 law, nor its proponents/detractors did entered in such details. This could be a reason to not enter in such details in this wikipedia article.
Indeed main critics were not about the fact that this could be positive or negative, but rather about the relation between the law and history. There is also the cultural background paradigm which makes everybody look at colonialism with a negative a priori. It looks like wikipedia yet address those considerations.
You might believe such a law could help citizens of their country to feel good about it. 2005 French riots and citizens such as fr:Chérif et Saïd Kouachi or Amedy Coulibaly might prove there is such a need of unity and friendliness/conviviality. Anyway, might be nobody found the way to solve such issue. Anyway, source would be needed to address such topic.
Nobody if forcing anybody to be "happy": except the Don't Worry, Be Happy song, and Happy (Pharrell Williams song). I assume he does not want to force people to be happy, but expect the law could have helped them to live together with people around them and in peace and in harmony.
The idea to step out of colonialist thinking to give a thought to what cultures other than your own have/had. is interesting. It looks like the law was more in a step out of anti-colonialist thinking to give a thought to what positive could exist. The Neutrality of Point of View would be more to step out both of colonialist thinking and anti-colonialist thinking, to have a more neutral, pragmatic, historic view. I assume this could be the Wikipedia approach.
Sorry, that is all utter bullshit. Would you like to defend slavery? Shall we balance the Holocaust article with the Nazi "point of view"?
When you can find mainstream, accredited, peer-reviewed, professional historians and political scientists who have published on how French colonial rule was beloved by those colonized people, add references to their writing. That this article, which restates the most basic mainstream academic writing on the subject, is tagged as "biased" because it doesn't say enough nice things about colonialism is obscene, and evidence of something VERY wrong with Wikipedia's process.T L Miles (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Might be it could be enough to say, as it appears in the mainstream newspaper Le Figaro, that from the Gérard Longuet point of view, nobody doubt of the unfairness of colonization, although it was an improvement of the previous ottoman society. [3] From his point of view the (today) problems of Algeria are not caused by France. He considers that people who have their origin in African migration, should not be kept in the idea they are ain a country which would constantly bad behave against their territories of origin. [4].
After all, at some times, some have considered that presence of France in Algeria helped the country to have its border, and to stop some kinds of slavery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.188.226 (talk) 14:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You asked «Shall we balance the Holocaust article with the Nazi "point of view"?» Two wrongs do not make one right: I do not understand what link could exist between the two topics. Anyway, it looks like it is yet done, for instance with The_Holocaust#Motivation.
Also, if we consider similar events, some consider that Franco was involved in the Civil War and in the Spanish miracle.
The point is that each article should be taked in its own tak page.
