The Hajib is such a contested piece of clothing for two primary reasons. First it is an open and stark contrast to popular western attire, signifying itself as different and abnormal. Second, and more profoundly, that difference has come to carry with it the stigma of mistreatment and abuse of women’s rights in the eyes of the majority of westerners.

They are, as shown in “The Politics of the Veil” Conspicuous showings of one’s religion that may offend others, and as a result banned in public schools. The book goes in detail as to the particular wording chosen to be prescribed to law in regards to the matter because it is in a lot of ways a farce, justified by reason, and limited by self-interest as well as an understanding of realistic reactions by a majority of people. In other words the lawmakers understood that a broader wording of the law would inflame the Christian majority of its citizenry as affecting them distinctly, so it created an ambiguous wording loophole that would avoid affecting most of christiandom, but would still universally affect Muslims who resided in the nation of France. By this means this law, is in reality created solely to, perhaps not discriminate against Muslims, not by its intent, but by its effect; and to encourage the assimilation of Muslims in the nation to a more Western frame of mind.

Sexuality enters the discussion by how the two cultural mindsets differ in their approach to it. For westerners sexuality is supposed to be free and open, and not a basis for discrimination, even if that is not the reality. For Muslim’s sexuality is seen as an instinctual urge to be controlled as the only means of sustaining a civilized society, and to do that they hide the bodies of their women in the public eye who are seen as the object of masculine lust and desire. They are two approaches to a similar topic, and there is something wrong with both, but also the two antagonize one another. For a westerner the sudden difference that a hajib presents can be seen as a source of sexuality, not because it is revealing but because it sharply brings the topic to the surface. It hides and leaves to the imaginations of onlookers the appearance of those beneath, but most importantly it subtly raises the issues of what sexuality means for a woman and a man. By contrast to a Muslim society, accustomed to hajibs and openly hiding or suppressing sexuality of women, and by extension in small part of men, a sudden change to see women open and “on display” for lack of a better phrasing would be seen as highly sexual. Even barbaric. Through “The Politics of the Veil” chapter five on sexuality we come to understand how the contrasting natures of the approaches come to highlight the very topic both try to downplay as a non-issue. Sexuality.

This is why the hajib is such a controversial topic in france, how sexuality is the driving force of the conflicts and debates of the differences between the cultures, and why Islam’s old idea’s shaped their views today to be what they are.

While I did spend time in France, it was limited towards work and I couldn’t really discover France’s many internal norms and tensions. However, I was able to talk with French officers and Legionnaires to gather their various perspectives; one of which was the separation of church and state. While many soldiers voiced their perspectives, the common consensus was that typically fear, is the root to the many tensions in France right now. I agree.

The New York Times article discussed a Muslim woman’s interaction with her fellow citizens and how her religious attire singles her out, making her a target of xenophobia. I think that this growing intolerance is a product of a fear where France is recovering from a multitude of attacks, all of which were perpetrated by Muslims who joined terror networks. Furthermore, France like many other EU nations, have become hosts to a plethora of refugees from war torn regions, and many of them are Muslim. Furthermore, the economic situation and culture class help grow resentment and xenophobia; migrants became a very opportune target. It’s very easy then to create an out-group and to blame an entire religion just because a few madmen decided to hurt civilians.

In creating this out-group, the headscarf is a very visible item of clothing, making it easy for individuals to differentiate between Muslims and non-Muslims. Unfortunately, like the article mentioned, the headscarf is become the 21^st century Jewish Yellow Star. This piece of clothing from a legal standpoint has been debated to whether it violates France’s 1905 law on the separation between church and state. This debate also is driven by older fears of when the church had significant influence over French policy. That said, the utilization of religion in conjunction with terror activities can help nurture the fear of another violent religion.

The debate over the right to wear a headscarf as well as the non-Muslim public’s perception continues as France is currently engaged in dealing with their growing migrant population as well as security fears. I believe that it would be better for both communities to grow lines of communication and transparency. That way, while there is still debate over the separation between church and state, the fear and discontent will slowly decrease.

The headscarf which is traditionally worn by Muslim women, also known as (al hijab in Arabic and un foulard in French) as a way of demonstrating and maintaining an aura of decency, modesty, and conservatism. And has been worn for hundreds of years by practicing Muslim women. However, in recent years, especially in Western European countries like France, Switzerland, and Belgium, it has come under a great deal of fire from a variety of mostly European critics who view it as a vestige of a more deeply religious past and one that objectifies and demeans women.

This view—especially popular in France—has its roots in a variety of sources which come together to paint the hijab in a very negative light. The manner in which French national identity manifests itself is very important to understanding the backlash against the hijab being worn within the country. Among the republican values held dear to the French people are the views that all citizens are equal and the same; this comes with the unspoken caveat that entails that all people should make a conscious effort to conform to this standard of sameness. Items of clothing like the hijab and the burka are visible markers that make a Muslim woman stand out from the rest of the local population and which obviously preclude her from conforming (at least visibly) to a clear standard of “sameness” and homogeneity. Thus the first factor that causes a negative view of the hijab to be held by French people is that it seems to be a very obvious and noticeable way of demonstrating cultural difference and the individual identity of a subculture within and apart from the larger national culture that the French population identify with.

This is exacerbated by the fact that in France, there is a long history of racial and religious tensions with Muslim and North African People. The hijab—being worn exclusively by Muslims, often from North Africa—therefore represents the embodiment of the “otherness” of the Muslim people of North African descent and heritage which has in the past so vigorously challenged French national identity and French rule.

Furthermore, there exists a stereotypical vision in the “West” which portrays women in Islam as being repressed and subservient to men. That Muslim women cover themselves in veils—as opposed to the more liberal clothing worn by European women—seems to be a visible marker to European people which reinforces their preconceived notions of Islamic misogyny. Of course, the reality behind the hijab and Islamic treatment of women is far more nuanced and cannot truly be simplified to be expressed by one garment.

These three factors work in confluence with one another to create a negative image in Europe—however inaccurate—of the hijab being both a symbol of Islamic refusal to conform to a collective French national identity and of Islamic misogyny and mistreatment of women.

To answer the question suggesting why “the Veil” was such a huge issue in France, we will need to answer the question based on three issues, which are: sexuality, universalism, and “the laïcité”.

The first issue to the contested veil will be the sexuality related to it. Traditionally in Islam, the wearing of “the Veil”, or hijab, or burka is to cover up Muslim women’s body. While this is mostly no longer true for women living in Europe, and most of them just choose to wear them due to personal/cultural interest (as we can see from the New York times post), the French did in fact develop an impression that the Veil is one of many ways of Islam to oppress to woman in their faith. This kind of “sexual oppression” in the eyes of modern French perspective is clearly unacceptable. To the French, the fact that the Muslim women in their country are actively wearing the veil not only means that they presented themselves as the subject of the Muslim man, they are constantly under the oppression of Muslim man. All of this goes against the equality ideal of France, where all citizens, no matter man or woman have equal rights as a human.

The second issue that caused the veil to become a contested issue will be French universalism. To the French, the wearing of the Veil is a clear sign of disintegration under the values of universalism where everyone should present themselves as “same”. By wearing the veil, the Muslim women are presenting themselves as a “different” element/group in the society, which is unacceptable. In French universalism, it is true that all citizens should be treated as equal, but there are also prerequisite that in order to be treated as same, you will also have to be presented as the same. This means that the Muslims shouldn’t be able to present themselves differently based on their religion. They should only dress like any other French citizen without any other distinction from any other culture other than French culture. According to “The politics of the Veil”, the French totally abhors the idea of multiculturalism in the US where legitimacy is granted to people with a different cultural identity. To the French, there shall only be one identity for its citizens, and that identity is “French”. No matter what sex you are or what religion you practice, you can only be identified as “French”, with the premise that in order for a nation to be stand united as one, there should only be one homogenous cultural identity. Otherwise, there is no way to unite a country as one, as there are people that will be seen as different and therefore treated in a different way.

The third issue that caused the veil to become a contested issue will be the “the laïcité”, or basically a French-style secularism where the state is defended from the influence of religion (Unlike American secularism which is the other way around). The wearing of the Veil in public places and especially in schools are seen as a religious influence on the state, which is deem to be a violation of its constitution. Adding this to the fact that in an age while radical Islam movement is vibrant. The fight to ban the wearing of the Veil is seen to be a battle to defend the French way of life by rejecting any suspected Islam-related culture. Even if they were very much insufficient, like the example in Belgium, where there are only 50-100 people in 1 million Muslim populations that wear the burka, yet they still tried to ban it and made a huge deal about it.

For the question of why the headscarf is a contested piece of clothing I want to talk about the New York Times article “The way people look at us has changed: Muslim Women on life in Europe.” by Lillie Dremeaux, It seems common words used are “go back home”, “integration”, and “recognized”. The French people feel that muslims, especially the women, need to be labeled and then integrated into society. In other words they must conform to our ideals if they want to be like us. But muslim women such as Mira Hassine make the argument that the more they try to integrate “we are constantly reminded that to be properly and completely integrated, we must give up our principles and our religion.” (Hassine) Then having to decline western pleasures like alcohol and certain other events “we isolate ourselves. And once you start isolating yourself, you’re no longer integrating.” (Hassine) Instead of being recognized as a French citizen the French use abstact object like clothing to reaffirm the idea of what it really means to be French in their eyes. The terrorist attacks further drive their actions not because they believe it makes them feel secure but because they do this out of fear.

In “Politics of the veil” by Joan Scott the debate over the headscarf is targeted from the very beginning. “For some European nations it is a way of taking a stand against Islam.” (pg.3) It is very interesting that these rules have come to France so recently due to France’s connection to Muslim society. North Africa and the Middle East have had a large presence of French influence since the early 19th century. The muslim population today in France is probably the 3rd,4th, or 5th generation of muslim families. But differences have always remained.

“We cannot understand contemporary debates about the veil without this history: in French eyes, the irreducible difference and thus the inassimilability of Islam.” (pg.45)

In my opinion we cannot undermine how important these recent attacks on Europe have been and the borders shared between nations in Europe. A lot of young muslims are being marginalized and the ultimate weapon is fear. Islam is a religion of peace but the most recognizable trait we can think of is a piece of clothing which we have spat on and disrespected.

If I were too choose the best concept described in Shanty-town kid by Azouz Begag it would have to be assimilation. Based on the simple fact that Azouz at a young age was really determined to not be contempt with being at the bottom. “I did not like being poor and the weak pupils in class. I wanted to be among the top of the class alongside French children.” (46) Being alongside French children is a sign of understanding, as he increases his ability to learn and perfect a skill he improves himself and accepts who he is. Integration gives the impression of different people being brought together but one could say that France is not accepting of who the “others” are. Also the fact that one person like Begag’s teacher can influence someone so much, shows that no matter who you are some of the simplest forms of encouragement can shatter those invisible walls.

When it comes to France’s reception of muslim immigrants there are different scenes I wanted to concentrate on. One was when the students and Azouz walked into class. “This morning we will have a lesson in correct behavior… I was simply a disgrace where correct behavior was concerned.” (44) The non-French or others must be correctly informed on correct behavior. Can this be interpreted as encouragement as to how to behave or French societies continual judgment of others? “They all put their hands up to say something to talk about their experience, to show their moral compliance with today’s lesson. We Arab kids had nothing to say.” (45) Another scene was during the conversation between Azouz, Moussaoui, and Nasser. They tell him that he is not Arab and that he also won’t let them copy his work. French society has created a divide where an individual has to make a choice between being French and Arab. “You’re not an Arab… And at break, why are you always with the French kids?” (75-76) Sometimes your people can hold you back. “But you have to decide whether you’re with them or with us! You have to make your mind up.” (76)

Assimilation, integration, insertion, and acculturation are all terms that French leaders have used to describe the process by which Algerians and other Muslim immigrants have been received in post-colonial France. While each term sounds similar they are unique in the sense that they have very different ramifications. For example, assimilation is the process by which a person or persons acquire the social and psychological characteristics of a group. An example of this could be the French forcing their lifestyle upon nearly everyone who was not French, especially the colonies. Integration could be defined as “to bring (people or groups with particular characteristics or needs) into equal participation in or membership of a social group or institution.” An example of this could be regrouping in The Shantytown Kid. Insertion is the action of inserting something. An example of this could be similar to those of assimilation but in a more direct sense; the French imposing their own ideas, beliefs and customs upon Lyons while they attempted to maintain independence. And lastly, acculturation is “cultural modification of an individual, group, or people by adapting to or borrowing traits from another culture; also: a merging of cultures as a result of prolonged contact.” An example of acculturation is Azouz Begag entrance into the French educational system, and does very well in addition.

After World War II the French were thought of to have this “melting pot” characteristic, attempting to mix and unify many different regions and cultures under the umbrella of France and French culture. Those in this melting pot included then-France’s colonies with many Muslim inhabitants. Of the terms French leaders coined in the French-Muslim immigration era, a clear example of integration in The Shantytown Kid includes the process of re-grouping. Regrouping was a process that families of Algeria would unite on French soil after they were integrated into society under the twelve thousand Algerian quota. We can see here that Algerians are forced to integrate into French society and with that they were inserted into their new roles. Hence, insertion takes place. Also, another example of assimilation includes the work that Azouz’s father would do in the construction industry under the Evian Accords. Azouz’s father would wake up at five o’clock in the morning day after day only to partake in grueling labor for an unfair wage. While this was a very common practice with immigration to America in the late 1900s as well, the immigrants were forced to assimilate into the culture.

Assimilation, Inegration, Insertion, and Acculuration have similar but not identical meanings. Assimilation is to pick up social and psychological mindsets of a group. To think and behave as they do. Integration is to become a part of. In the instance of a culture/race in dealing with a country that can be accomplished by assimilation. But it can also be a case of a culture/race being accepted as a part of the nation’s heritage and what is considered “normal”. So, either becoming “normal” or being accepted as “normal”. Acculturation is when individuals adopt cultural traits and social patterns of another nation. It is shallow, and often an imitation that occurs almost naturally through time spent with another culture. An example would be how one can pick up a regional accent for their language that is not considered normal for them simply by spending time in another area or region where it is considered normal. This concept extends to other language groups and their mannerisms. Azouz Begag from Shantytown Kid would have brushed with each of these concepts, if perhaps unknowingly, but most strongly with Assimilation and Inegration.

The case for Assimilation can be made with how the French created, and reinforced an atmosphere to support it. People from the Shanty town experienced daily the contrast between their society and their perception or experience of French society. Their town was poor, cruel, and harsh a place to live for some. Everyone had less. By contrast the French were wealthy, had better educations and stadards of living that showed. One of the natural conclusions of this was a perpetuation of a sense of French superiority. That, for everyone, reinforced the idea the French were the best and everyone should want to be “French”. With this message some, such as Azouz, began to adopt, or try to adopt, French ways of thinking, mannerisms, and social conducts. Others outright rejected them, seeing their culture as free of fault and the French as the sole cause for their circumstance. That conclusion led to harsh treatment of those who tried to assimilate and become more “French”, often treating them as Traitors as it was for Azouz at times. That is assimilation.

Integration is hard to do in practice, because realistically the only way for a cultural group of people to consider themselves and be considered a part of any nation is for their lifestyle to be accepted as normal, unfortunately in practice with colonial nations this was never really applied. Instead it was attempted through assimilation, a self-defeating practice and therefor never really succeeds on a intended scale. In Shantytown kid you can see the failure of integration through assimilation that results in heightened tensions in the region between two distinct groups of people convinced their right, and anyone who tries to become more like the other or sympathize is ousted for it. As happened to Azouz with his community.

I think a better word to describe the process of which the Algerian immigrants were received will be undermining, where the Muslim immigrants had mostly retained their own culture. However, in order to be truly accepted into the society they will have to give up most aspect of their own culture or to at least adopt the French culture as the “primary culture”. For the adopter of the French culture as their primary culture, they would often face a lot of tough decision. Not only culturally speaking it was already hard for the new adopter, what’s even harder for them is their social status in the society. For the native French, the French culture adopter will never be quite “French” enough because of the ethnic descent. On the other hand, in the eyes of the more resilient Arabs/ Muslim immigrant, the now “culturally converted” French Arab will become non-Arab for them, because to them, these “French Arab” is even worse than the French themselves, for them, these “French Arab” are traitors. People who betrayed their own culture, their own ethnicity and are now on the side of the French as a “lesser French”. This is the reason why I used the word “undermine” is because the French are actively promoting the adoption of French culture between Arab immigrant, but not only are they treating the adopter as “lesser French”, the French are also plotting to turn their own people against their once brethren. For the new French Arab, there is no turning back; they will have to stay on the side of the French because they were already seen as a traitor from the Arab side. All they could have done is to stay on the French side even if they were treated as “lesser French” since they simply do not have a choice anymore.

Two scene that is shown in the “Shanty-town Kid” that can be used to proven the point above will be the scene of an old lady asking Begag for help in page 60-61 and the other scene of a few other Arab kid denouncing Begag for being not Arab in page 74-75. The first scene was a scene from page 60-61 was an Arabic woman trying to ask Begag to “take good care” and “help” her own son in school. It was basically asking Begag to cheat for her son without using the word “cheat”.  The only reason the woman had given Begag to do so is because they are both Arab. However, for Begag, “both being Arab” was not a good enough reason for him to “help”/cheat for the woman son and potentially harm his goodwill he earned from the teacher. The woman is obviously not pleased with the answer that Begag had given her, seeing him as more or less a traitor for not “helping her son”, even though he is simply protecting himself of his hard work. On the second scene, it was about a several Arab kids outright denouncing Begag for not being and an Arab, because Begag had refused to let the others copy his homework. This was a similar case that happened in the first scene, but instead of like the woman knowing that she stands on the moral low ground for asking someone to cheat, the kids just think that Begag as an Arab just like them should share the answers with them for granted. We can see a clear influence of solidarity of the kids from their parents, however; their parents did not teach them the correct moral/ethical values that come along with the value of solidarity.

Azouz Begag’s Shantytown Kid is a story that in my opinion really encompassed the conflict of integration and assimilation. For Azouz, he describes an environment where the native French population was seen as superior as well as something that the migrants needed to strive for. There are two scenes in the book that really caught my attention. There was a point in the story where Azouz discusses his resolve to become French, and another point where Azouz would give constant examples of clan rivalry.

Azouz wanted to completely become “French” and leave his shantytown behind. He admitted that, “I was ashamed of my ignorance. For a few months now I have been resolved on changing sides. I did not like being poor and the weak pupils in class. I wanted to be among the top of the class alongside the French children” (46). Azouz saw his French peers as superior individuals the he needed to work towards. However, no matter how hard he tried, he couldn’t escape his identity.

Another factor in the story was the distinction between the French locals and the Shantytown. Azouz describes the poor conditions of Le Chaaba in the very beginning of his story. He discusses his daily routine as well as its chaotic nature. For example, as members of Le Chaaba attempted to improve their conditions with a heating oil tank, its constant eruption would cause problems for the community. This failure is an example of the very different conditions between the French locals and Azouz. One can see why children like Azouz would aspire to leave their shantytown and become “French.”