To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
Languages
Recent
Show all languages
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Equality and Reconciliation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Equality and Reconciliation
Égalité et Réconciliation
Formation2007 (2007)
HeadquartersSaint-Denis, Seine-Saint-Denis, France
Methodsconferences, manifestos
FieldsFar-right and antisemitic activism
President
Alain Soral
Key people
Philippe Péninque
Dieudonné M'bala M'bala
Websitewww.egaliteetreconciliation.fr

Equality and Reconciliation (French: Égalité et Réconciliation) (E&R) is a political association created in June 2007 by Alain Soral,[1] former militant of the French Communist Party, and also a former member of the central committee of the far-right National Front (2007). Other founders are Jildaz Mahé O'Chinal and Philippe Péninque, two former activists of Groupe Union Défense (GUD), a violent extreme right student group now disappeared.

The political association describes itself as cross factional and "left nationalist",[2] and states its intention to bring together "citizens who are part of the nation that determines political action and social policy which are the foundations of the Brotherhood, an essential component of national unity," and that it is "on the Left for work and on the Right for morals."

Most analysts describe the association as belonging to the extreme right and state that it is a breeding ground for future National Front activists.[3] Several observers consider that it is antisemitic as it develops a strong discourse against Israel occupation of Palestinian lands and the Zionist expansionist ideology and lobby in France.[4] On February 14, 2023, the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism (GPAHE) released a report in which it classified Égalité et Réconciliation as a "conspiracy" and "antisemitic" group.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    Views:
    1 875 440
    4 753
    2 027
    985
    398
  • Reconstruction and 1876: Crash Course US History #22
  • The Equity Series: Truth and Reconciliation – Bryan Stevenson with Khalil G. Muhammad | MoMA LIVE
  • The Annual ANU Reconciliation Lecture: Is Australia big enough for reconciliation?
  • National Reconciliation and Negotiation: The Path Forward in Iraq and Syria: Panel 1
  • Big Thinking - Cindy Blackstock - Incremental equality

Transcription

Episode 21: Reconstruction Hi, I’m John Green, this is Crash Course U.S. History and huzzah! The Civil War is over! The slaves are free! Huzzah! That one hit me in the head? It’s very dangerous, Crash Course. So when you say, “Don’t aim at a person,” that includes myself? The roller coaster only goes up from here, my friends. Huzzah! Mr. Green, Mr. Green, what about the epic failure of Reconstruction? Oh, right. Stupid Reconstruction always ruining everything intro So after the Civil War ended, the United States had to reintegrate both a formerly slave population and a formerly rebellious population back into the country, which is a challenge that we might’ve met, except Abraham Lincoln was assassinated and we were left with Andrew “I am the Third Worst President Ever” Johnson. I’m sorry, Abe, but you don’t get to be in the show anymore. So, Lincoln’s whole post-war idea was to facilitate reunion and reconciliation, and Andrew Johnson’s guiding Reconstruction principle was that the South never had a right to secede in the first place. Also, because he was himself a Southerner, he resented all the elites in the South who had snubbed him, AND he was also a racist who didn’t think that blacks should have any role in Reconstruction. TRIFECTA! So between 1865 and 1867, the so-called period of Presidential Reconstruction, Johnson appointed provisional governors and ordered them to call state conventions to establish new all-white governments. And in their 100% whiteness and oppression of former slaves, those new governments looked suspiciously like the old confederate governments they had replaced. And what was changing for the former slaves? Well, in some ways, a lot. Like, Fiske and Howard universities were established, as well as many primary and secondary schools, thanks in part to The Freedman’s Bureau, which only lasted until 1870, but had the power to divide up confiscated and abandoned confederate land for former slaves. And this was very important because to most slaves, land ownership was the key to freedom, and many felt like they’d been promised land by the Union Army. Like, General Sherman’s Field Order 15, promised to distribute land in 40 acre plots to former slaves. But that didn’t happen, either through the Freedman’s Bureau or anywhere else. Instead, President Johnson ordered all land returned to its former owners. So the South remained largely agricultural with the same people owning the same land, and in the end, we ended up with sharecropping. Let’s go to the Thought Bubble. The system of sharecropping replaced slavery in many places throughout the South. Landowners would provide housing to the sharecroppers--no, Thought Bubble, not quite that nice. There ya go--also tools and seed, and then the sharecroppers received, get this, a share of their crop--usually between a third and a half, with the price for that harvest often set by the landowner. Freed blacks got to control their work, and plantation owners got a steady workforce that couldn’t easily leave, because they had little opportunity to save money and make the big capital investments in, like, land or tools. By the late 1860s, poor white farmers were sharecropping as well--in fact, by the Great Depression, most sharecroppers were white. And while sharecropping certainly wasn’t slavery, it did result in a quasi-serfdom that tied workers to land they didn’t own--more or less the opposite of Jefferson’s ideal of the small, independent farmer. So, the Republicans in Congress weren’t happy that this reconstructed south looked so much like the pre-Civil War south, so they took the lead in reconstruction after 1867. Radical Republicans felt the war had been fought for equal rights and wanted to see the powers of the national government expanded. Few were as radical as Thaddeus “Tommy Lee Jones” Stephens who wanted to take away land from the Southern planters and give it to the former slaves, but rank-and-file Republicans were radical enough to pass the Civil Rights Bill, which defined persons born in the United States as citizens and established nationwide equality before the law regardless of race. Andrew Johnson immediately vetoed the law, claiming that trying to protect the rights of African Americans amounted to discrimination against white people, which so infuriated Republicans that Congress did something it had never done before in all of American history. They overrode the Presidential veto with a 2/3rds majority and the Civil Rights Act became law. So then Congress really had its dander up and decided to amend the Constitution with the 14th amendment, which defines citizenship, guarantees equal protection, and extends the rights in the Bill of Rights to all the states (sort of). The amendment had almost no Democratic support, but it also didn’t need any, because there were almost no Democrats in Congress on account of how Congress had refused to seat the representatives from the “new” all-white governments that Johnson supported. And that’s how we got the 14th amendment, arguably the most important in the whole Constitution. Thanks, Thought Bubble. Oh, straight to the mystery document today? Alright. The rules here are simple. I guess the author of the Mystery Document and try not to get shocked. Alright let’s see what we’ve got today. Sec. 1. Be it ordained by the police jury of the parish of St. Landry, That no negro shall be allowed to pass within the limits of said parish without special permit in writing from his employer. Sec. 4. . . . Every negro is required to be in the regular service of some white person, or former owner, who shall be held responsible for the conduct of said negro.. Sec. 6. . . . No negro shall be permitted to preach, exhort, or otherwise declaim to congregations of colored people, without a special permission in writing from the president of the police jury. . . . Gee, Stan, I wonder if the President of the Police Jury was white. I actually know this one. It is a Black Code, which was basically legal codes where they just replaced the word “slave” with the word “negro.” And this code shows just how unwilling white governments were to ensure the rights of new, free citizens. I would celebrate not getting shocked, but now I am depressed. So, okay, in 1867, again over Johnson’s veto, Congress passed the Reconstruction Act, which divided the south into 5 military districts and required each state to create a new government, one that included participation of black men. Those new governments had to ratify the 14th amendment if they wanted to get back into the union. Radical Reconstruction had begun. So, in 1868, Andrew Johnson was about as electable in the U.S. as Jefferson Davis, and sure enough he didn’t win. Instead, the 1868 election was won by Republican and former Union general Ulysses S. Grant. But Grant’s margin of victory was small enough that Republicans were like, “Man, we would sure win more elections if black people could vote.” Which is something you hear Republicans say all the time these days. So Congressional Republicans pushed the 15th Amendment, which prohibited states from denying men the right to vote based on race, but not based on gender or literacy or whether your grandfather could vote. So states ended up with a lot of leeway when it came to denying the franchise to African Americans, which of course they did. So here we have the federal government dictating who can vote, and who is and isn’t a citizen of a state, and establishing equality under the law--even local laws. And this is a really big deal in American history, because the national government became, rather than a threat to individual liberty, “the custodian of freedom,” as Radical Republican Charles Sumner put it. So but with this legal protection, former slaves began to exercise their rights. They participated in the political process by direct action, such as staging sit-ins to integrate street-cars, by voting in elections, and by holding office. Most African Americans were Republicans at the time, and because they could vote and were a large part of the population, the Republican party came to dominate politics in the South, just like today, except totally different. Now, Southern mythology about the age of radical Reconstruction is exemplified by Gone with the Wind, which of course tells the story of northern Republican dominance and corruption by southern Republicans. Fortune seeking northern carpetbaggers, seen here, as well as southern turncoat scalawags dominated politics and all of the African American elected leaders were either corrupt or puppets or both. Yeah, well, like the rest of Gone with the Wind, that’s a bit of an oversimplification. There were about 2,000 African Americans who held office during Reconstruction, and the vast majority of them were not corrupt. Consider for example the not-corrupt and amazingly-named Pinckney B.S. Pinchback, who from 1872 to 1873 served very briefly in Louisiana as America’s first black governor. And went on to be a senator and a member of the House of Representatives. By the way, America’s second African American governor, Douglas Wilder of Virginia was elected in 1989. Having African American officeholders was a huge step forward in term of ensuring the rights of African Americans because it meant that there would be black juries and less discrimination in state and local governments when it came to providing basic services. But in the end, Republican governments failed in the South. There were important achievements, especially a school system that, while segregated, did attempt to educate both black and white children. And even more importantly, they created a functioning government where both white and African American citizens could participate. According to one white South Carolina lawyer, “We have gone through one of the most remarkable changes in our relations to each other that has been known, perhaps, in the history of the world.” That’s a little hyperbolic, but we are America after all. (libertage) It’s true that corruption was widespread, but it was in the North, too. I mean, we’re talking about governments. And that’s not why Reconstruction really ended: It ended because 1. things like schools and road repair cost money, which meant taxes, which made Republican governments very unpopular because Americans hate taxes, and 2. White southerners could not accept African Americans exercising basic civil rights, holding office or voting. And for many, the best way to return things to the way they were before reconstruction was through violence. Especially after 1867, much of the violence directed toward African Americans in the South was politically motivated. The Ku Klux Klan was founded in 1866 and it quickly became a terrorist organization, targeting Republicans, both black and white, beating and murdering men and women in order to intimidate them and keep them from voting. The worst act of violence was probably the massacre at Colfax, Louisiana where hundreds of former slaves were murdered. And between intimidation and emerging discriminatory voting laws, fewer black men voted, which allowed white Democrats to take control of state governments in the south, and returned white Democratic congressional delegations to Washington. These white southern politicians called themselves “Redeemers” because they claimed to have redeemed the south from northern republican corruption and black rule. Now, it’s likely that the South would have fallen back into Democratic hands eventually, but the process was aided by Northern Republicans losing interest in Reconstruction. In 1873, the U.S. fell into yet another not-quite-Great economic depression and northerners lost the stomach to fight for the rights of black people in the south, which in addition to being hard was expensive. So by 1876 the supporters of reconstruction were in full retreat and the Democrats were resurgent, especially in the south. And this set up one of the most contentious elections in American history. The Democrats nominated New York Governor (and NYU Law School graduate) Samuel Tilden. The Republicans chose Ohio governor (and Kenyon College alumnus) Rutherford B. Hayes. One man who’d gone to Crash Course writer Raoul Meyer’s law school. And another who’d gone to my college, Kenyon. Now, if the election had been based on facial hair, as elections should be, there would’ve been no controversy, but sadly we have an electoral college here in the United States, and in 1876 there were disputed electoral votes in South Carolina, Louisiana, and, of course, Florida. Now you might remember that in these situations, there is a constitutional provision that says Congress should decide the winner, but Congress, shockingly, proved unable to accomplish something. So they appointed a 15 man Electoral Commission--a Super-Committee, if you will. And there were 8 Republicans on that committee and 7 Democrats, so you will never guess who won. Kenyon College’s own Rutherford B. Hayes. Go Lords and Ladies! And yes, that is our mascot. Shut up. Anyway in order to get the Presidency and win the support of the supercommittee, Hayes’ people agreed to cede control of the South to the Democrats and to stop meddling in Southern affairs and also to build a transcontinental railroad through Texas. This is called the Bargain of 1877 because historians are so good at naming things and it basically killed Reconstruction. Without any more federal troops in Southern states and with control of Southern legislatures firmly in the hands of white democrats the states were free to go back to restricting the freedom of black people, which they did. Legislatures passed Jim Crow laws that limited African American’s access to public accommodations and legal protections. States passed laws that took away black people’s right to vote and social and economic mobility among African Americans in the south declined precipitously. However, for a brief moment, the United States was more democratic than it had ever been before. And an entire segment of the population that had no impact on politics before was now allowed to participate. And for the freedmen who lived through it, that was a monumental change, and it would echo down to the Civil Rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s, sometimes called the second reconstruction. But we’re gonna end this episode on a downer, as we are wont to do here at Crash Course US History because I want to point out a lesser-known legacy of Reconstruction. The Reconstruction amendments and laws that were passed granted former slaves political freedom and rights, especially the vote, and that was critical. But to give them what they really wanted and needed, plots of land that would make them economically independent, would have required confiscation, and that violation of property rights was too much for all but the most radical Republicans. And that question of what it really means to be “free” in a system of free market capitalism has proven very complicated indeed. I’ll see you next week. Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller. Our script supervisor is Meredith Danko. The associate producer is Danica Johnson. The show is written by my high school history teacher, Raoul Meyer, and myself. And our graphics team is Thought Café. Every week there’s a new caption for the libertage. You can suggest those in comments where you can also ask questions about today’s video that will be answered by our team of historians. Thank you for watching Crash Course. Don’t forget to subscribe. And as we say in my hometown, don’t forget to be awesome. reconstruction -

Ideology

Defending the position of Alain Soral, the founder of the organisation, whose position can be summarised in the title of a text which he wrote: "Left for the workers and Right for morals,",[5] for a national reconciliation, Equality and Reconciliation advocates the union of the "Labour left" (Marxist) and the "Moral Right" (Nationalism and Patriotism) in response to capitalist globalization and its consequences which are considered harmful, on the model of the Proudhon Circle, which brought together trade unionists, anarchists, and Maurrassians.

Alain Soral's analysis criticised liberal financial capitalism and the involvement of traditional political parties in it. At the same time the Socialist Party and the UMP were the target of his attacks. Formerly from the French Communist Party, Alain Soral considers that this party collapsed after renouncing class struggle and because of the competition - in electoral terms - of the Trotskyites, represented especially by parties such as Workers Struggle and the League of Revolutionary Communists. They, notably Olivier Besancenot, according to him were complicit in the policies of Nicolas Sarkozy: sharing the same policy of "selective immigration" defended by Nicolas Sarkozy and demands for regularization of undocumented migrants from the extreme left, he accused Olivier Besancenot of supplying to Nicolas Sarkozy a "humanist alibi" to its "neoliberal" policy, which would make him a "useful idiot" for the system.

Also rejecting a "Federal" Europe, considered to be a "Trojan horse" of liberalism, he advocates a return to national sovereignty in order to implement a policy of "national preference" which would apply to "ethnic" French people and those who have immigrated who have become "integrated" and those born in France of foreign descent. He wants to rally opposition to the Treaty of Rome 2004 which established a Constitution for Europe, and is particularly opposed to the European Budget Pact.[6]

Even if the FN, who are traditionally anti-communist, rejects the class struggle, E&R believes that the class struggle (of Marxism) and Poujadism (historical ideology of the FN) might get confused in a more general project of "defense of workers", the employees, and the owners of small businesses (SMEs).

Equality & Reconciliation therefore supports the FN and its president Marine Le Pen, while constituting an independent structure that wishes for a "patriotic" union with the disillusioned left, the "bobos" and victims of the "financial right". Some originators of the association, such as Chatillon Frédéric and Philippe Peninque are also close to Marine Le Pen.[7]

The movement also expressed their approval of non-aligned countries, such as the Russia of Vladimir Putin (for whom they organized a welcoming committee during his visit to France in late 2009, in partnership with the Embassy of Russia and the French Russian community[8]), the Venezuela of Hugo Chávez, Serbia, Iran, and Palestine. The movement opposes the French Zionists, who he accused of playing a game contrary to the interests of France and the French Jewish community. The movement also opposes feminists and is against women working outside the home.[9]

Activities

The association, which is present in most regions of France, offers many activities: militant, intellectual, cultural and sporting. If it was originally intended to become a political party (the transition was to have taken place in March 2010[10]), they have finally renounced this idea,[11] preferring to do politics differently.

The official website offers a press review and a review of videos available on the internet. A poster campaign was announced on 14 July 2008, the poster is composed of a slogan "Long live nationalism!" encircled by portraits of important contemporary political figures: Fidel Castro, Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chavez, Patrice Lumumba, and Thomas Sankara.[12]

Alain Soral participated in 5th position, in the "anti-Zionist List" presented in the Ile-de-France region by Dieudonné for the European elections in June 2009, and received 1.30% of votes in the region.[13]

In 2010, Equality & Reconciliation launched a poster campaign entitled "We want a French Chavez[14]!, "Marking an ideological proximity and support for the Venezuelan President in his fight against "American imperialism".

Universities

On 8 and 9 September 2007, at Villepreux, the first summer university of the association was held, organized by Marc George and which was attended by Dieudonné, Christian Bouchet, Jean-Marie Le Pen,[15] Farid Smahi,[16][17] Serge Ayoub,[18] Jean Robin,[19][20] also Giorgio Damiani, webmaster vox NR; and Ugo Gaudenzi, director of the Italian daily Rinascita.[21] The event was also assisted by some former militants of GUD, such as Philippe Peninque and Gildas Mahé.[21]

A second University of the association took place at Villepreux on 1 and 2 November 2008. Alain Soral made a presentation on his trip to Serbia and closing remarks, Jacques Cheminade spoke on the global economic crisis and Christian Bouchet on geopolitics. Eight workshops were also organized, devoted to the EU against the nation, the economic line of E&R, Marx and the nation, the strategy of E&R, propaganda and activism, the French identity in 2008, communication tools available to the association, and cultural resistance.[22]

Membership

In March 2008, the association claimed 600 members,[23] however Marc George, then national coordinator, announced in May of the same year "800 supporters and 300 paid up members."[24] In September 2009, Alain Soral announced that the association had 800 members, mostly young.[25] The association claimed the same number in spring 2012. E&R always maintains that 150 demonstrators marched in Paris under the banner of the movement on Labour Day, 1 May 2008,[26] in the parade that the National Front organizes every year.

Controversy

According to the blog "Extreme Rightist(s)" in February 2010, Marc George, secretary general of the movement, was dismissed from his post for publishing on the website of the Association a video looking at the Harkis apology and announcing a possible memorial to the death of François Duprat.[27] He left the organization shortly after.[28]

Notes and references

  1. ^ "Alain Soral presented "Equality and Reconciliation"(Fr)", L'Organe magazine, 21.
  2. ^ "On Communism and Nationalism: Itinerary of a French Intellectual" allocution prononcée à Vénissieux le vendredi 2 mars 2007.
  3. ^ E&R, Enquiry on the breeding grounds of the FN, consulted on 2 February 2013
  4. ^ "Entretien avec Alain Soral sur l'arrestation de Dieudonné et la liberté d'expression en France". Egalité & Réconciliation.fr. Retrieved 27 February 2019.
  5. ^ Integrated Transcription, website of E&R.
  6. ^ Anti-TSCG, the game of seven families, Slate, 28 September 2012
  7. ^ Equality & Reconciliation : Enquiry on the breeding ground of the FN, Street 89, 9 May 2012
  8. ^ Abel Mestre et Caroline Monnot, "Alain Soral and his association make sheep eyes at Putin" Archived 10 December 2012 at the Wayback Machine, blog "Extreme Rightists" of journalists quoted in Le Monde published by their website on 26 November 2009
  9. ^ Objectifnumber1 (21 May 2013). "SORAL VS FEMINISTE". Retrieved 27 February 2019 – via YouTube.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  10. ^ Abel Mestre et Caroline Monnot, "Duprat, the idol of soraliens; Sidos on CD and other digital news", blog "Extreme Rightist(s)" of journalists from the daily Le Monde published by the site on 12 February 2010 Archived 29 January 2013 at the Wayback Machine
  11. ^ Abel Mestre et Caroline Monnot, "End of the party for Alain Soral" Archived 30 January 2013 at the Wayback Machine, blog "Extreme Rightist(s)" of journalists from the daily Le Monde published by the site on 23 février 2010.
  12. ^ "E & R appears and steals the street!", site of Equality & Reconciliation, 14 July 2008
  13. ^ "Dieudonné unveils its list of 'anti-Zionists'", The Point, 9 May 2009
  14. ^ ""We want a French Chavez"" (PDF). Retrieved 27 February 2019.
  15. ^ "Speech on the occasion of the Summer University of Equality and Reconciliation" Archived 15 November 2008 at the Wayback Machine Website of the National Front, 10 September 2007.
  16. ^ "Speech Farid Smahi on the theme of citizenship" , website of Equality & Reconciliation, 21 September 2007.
  17. ^ Nicolas Gauthier, Nicolas Gauthier, "First Summer School of Equality and Reconciliation: A little  of the Proudhon Circle ..." Archived 30 December 2013 at the Wayback Machine, Editorial National-Hebdo, the site of vox NR, 12 September 2007.
  18. ^ "Alain Soral: findings of UDT at Villepreux", website of Equality & Reconciliation, 21 September 2007.
  19. ^ Jean Robin, published in Jewish News, Equality & Reconciliation, 23 January 2008
  20. ^ French anti-Semitism is well, thank you for it!   Archived 6 January 2013 at the Wayback Machine Survey & Debate, 13 April 2012
  21. ^ a b Jean-Yves Camus, "Alain Soral together with Le Pen, Dieudonné and Islamists" Archived 23 September 2013 at the Wayback Machine, Jewish News, No. 994, 3 October 2007.
  22. ^ "Egalite et Réconciliation". www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr. Retrieved 27 February 2019.
  23. ^ figure announced by Alain Soral to [1] Radio Parisian Here and Now, on 29 March 2008.
  24. ^ "E & R Podcast # 1 - Marc George", website of Equality & Reconciliation, 20 May 2008.
  25. ^ "during an interview on a chat show that can be heard here". Retrieved 27 February 2019.
  26. ^ "Video Mayday - E&R the huge national wave", 6 May 2008
  27. ^ Abel Mestre et Caroline Monnot, Abel Mestre and Caroline Monnot, "Equality and Reconciliation in its (heads of) work(s)" Archived 28 January 2013 at the Wayback Machine, blog "Extreme Rightist(s)" of journalists from the daily Le Monde published by their website 15 February 2010
  28. ^ Abel Mestre et Caroline Monnot, Abel Mestre and Caroline Monnot, "No more bets on Equality and Reconciliation" Archived 10 December 2012 at the Wayback Machine, blog "Extreme Rightist(s)" of journalists from the daily Le Monde published by their website 16 February 2010

External links

This page was last edited on 16 May 2024, at 12:51
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.