Mark my words: sticking up for Sarko

Salut! has not always been so kind to Nicolas Sarkozy. But in the spirit of le fair-play britannique, I devoted this week's column on words at The National to a defence of the French president's controversial use of a pejorative, some would say vulgar, term when visiting a Parisian suburb at a time of heightened tension between authority and many young residents, most of them black or of North African Arab origin.

The story has its origins in Argenteuil, a suburb to the north of Paris that could be said to have gone from nondescript to moderately grim in the 30 years or more that I have known it.

Close friends live there, or lived so until they moved just outside; I have been lost there looking for their home (until I worked out that it was actually easier to find). I have dined in its second-best Indian restaurant (the assessment came from my friends) and judged it the finest such meal I'd bought in France, though still a long way short of any reasonably good London curry house. And I've see Alain Stivell there, in a not very good concert.

On the day Sarko visited, I was not present. He was then Jacques Chirac's interior minister and was given a rowdy reception, the sort of welcome some youths of la banlieue would probably always give the holder of job title also known as le flic numéro 1.

His response to to that welcome is still talked about today.....
....

For three years, since before he became president of France, Nicolas Sarkozy has been dogged by one word: racaille.

The most common translation surfaced again recently on these pages. Mr Sarkozy, the article recalled, had been accused of describing immigrant youths in the slums around Paris as “scum”.

Before publication, the writer had agreed to the inclusion of a qualifying phrase, that this was an allegation made “perhaps unfairly but persistently”.

The words were added at my suggestion, but the intention was neither to please the French nor impose an unreasonable change. My colleague accepted that as one who had worked in France at the relevant time, I knew something of the fuller story of Mr Sarkozy’s use of the word, and indeed of its meaning.

Let me say that I hold no brief for the president. In fact, I wanted his principal rival, Ségolène Royal, to reach the Elysée Palace, even if I came to attribute this hope more to idealism than common sense.

I do believe, however, in what the French touchingly call le fair-play britannique.

Before considering definitions of racaille, I should retrace Mr Sarkozy’s steps to Argenteuil, a Parisian suburb I know well.

The visit occupies its own place in modern French history, especially the history of the riots that erupted throughout the country towards the end of 2005.

The belief that Mr Sarkozy, then the interior minister, called immigrants, or rioting immigrants, scum is widespread. The truth is less simple.

On the day of his visit, the riots had not even begun. They did so two days later after two boys were electrocuted in a power substation, possibly - though the detail is in dispute - while hiding from unwarranted police attention.

In Argenteuil, Mr Sarkozy did not introduce the word racaille. It was used by a woman who was fed up with the criminal activities of certain youths on her estate. Mr Sarlozy looked up towards her flat, pointed towards jeering, missile-throwing crowds and replied: “You’ve had enough of that bunch of racaille? We will rid you of them.”

In other words, the minister was repeating a word used to him by a member of the public. Neither was aiming a catch-all insult at immigrants or their families; they were referring to delinquents, whatever their roots.

It is true that racaille, in its harshest translation, means scum. It can also mean riffraff, rabble or rascal. French teenagers use the term towards one another. So, I am told, though my well brought up French wife shudders at the thought, do exasperated parents when rebuking unruly children.

The Guardian, a British newspaper that Mr Sarkozy would not count among his friends, quickly noticed these distinctions and instructed writers to prefer the milder translation of “rabble”.

To some extent, this missed the point. Racaille is beyond question a pejorative term. What it means to the academic or journalist matters less than how it feels to be described as such.

Most of us would probably agree that it is a word best avoided by people of authority, even when talking about louts who make life miserable for others.

But it does not seem too much to ask pundits to reflect on timing, circumstances and semantics before treating the president as a man convicted of abusing an entire ethnic group. They might also bear in mind that no one, to my knowledge, has refuted Mr Sarkozy’s assertion that the woman who urged him to do something about la racaille was of North African Arab origin.

Comments

[Bill Taylor]

It could be argued that a government minister should be held to higher standards and that Sarkozy should have chosen his words, or word, more carefully. But in the heat of the moment, and given the myriad shades of meaning that "racaille" appears to have, I think the Guardian's reaction was absolutely the right one: to give him the benefit of the doubt. Obviously, his opponents, who continue to belabour him with this, would disagree.
As an aside, I'm a little unclear about the situation in which this happened. You say that on the day of Sarkozy's visit to Argenteuil, the riots had not even begun. But, in the next paragraph, you have him pointing toward "jeering, missile-throwing crowds."
Does that not constitute a riot or was it the build-up to something more serious?

[Colin]

....no, this was routine, low-key disorder by comparison with what happened in dozens of cities and towns throughout France - buildings burnt to the ground, cars overturned and set on fire, looting, serious attacks on police and pompiers (and also on journalists, though no one cared too much about that) - in the period that followed the electrocution of the boys.

[Bill Taylor]

It seems, alas, to take kidnapping or worse to bring a journalist into the sphere of public consciousness. Shooting the messengers (or keeping them tied up and blindfolded in a cave) is somewhat beyond the pale. But beat them up and steal their equipment and at least half their readers will probably say only, "Serves them right."

[Tim]

Have I had a glass of wine too many, but what on earth is all this with the layout and repetition of facts (not to mention a French video with no subtitles)?

First there is an italic lump (with a never-ending 62-word second sentence) then a second part with different indents. Then follows normal reading but with info from the italic slab repeated.

Yours, Confused of Exeter
or the racaille of blog readers

[Keith]

I cannot help thinking that if I was on the ground under a rain of missiles, I would react with a little less restraint than describing the culprits as scum, riffraff, rabble or rascals. It would almost certainly involve something Anglo Saxon and the swift return with interest of the aforementioned missiles.

[Colin]

Tim had a point on layout and rather than blame Typepad again, I have tried to make it easier on the eye.

However, all standfirsts (journalistic jargon for introductory text) at Salut! are italicised and follow the tradition of offering a synopsis of what follows and/or, as here and despite Tim's complaint, new or different thoughts. Beyond the necessary statement that the piece is about a particular controversy, and has its origins in a visit by Sarkozy to Argenteuil, I am not sure what he means by repetition.

I could, of course, merely state that what follows has been taken from The National, and leave it at that without the slightest amplification. Indeed, I have essentially done that on occasion when time has been against me.

But to do it each week would defeat the object of Salut!, which aims to be much more conversational than even a personal column. The detail about Argenteuil is an obvious example, even if it doesn't remotely work for Tim.

The clip gives a flavour of the occasion being described, whether or not the viewer has any or enough French to follow the narrative. I do not have the technical ability to add subtitles to YouTube videos, but Sarko's words, which are at the heart of the discussion, are translated in my article.

[Tim]

Point taken Colin. However, I cannot imagine such a lengthy standfirst - that somehow diverts into Indian eating preferences - appearing in print (even a DT colur supplement). Once a sub, always a sub and if I can boil a 1,000 word PA story down to a paragraph, that's me.