I have been following with interest the news that Paris (or rather, the Paris suburbs) is rioting.
The basic story is familiar - some kids were killed, perhaps while being chased by police. The kids were (not white), and the cops were. Add a little poverty and inequality, and boom!
The story has an interesting resonance here in the state of Michigan, as a recent ruling has cleared a ballot initiative which would amend the state constitution, making it illegal to hire based on race or gender.
This 'anti-affirmative-action' amendment, as it is being called, cuts right to the heart of the philisophical difference between France and the United States when it comes to questions of race. In the US, it has been decided (or perhaps I should say 'in the past it was thought') that the disadvantages faced by minorities (racism, sexism, etc) must be addressed in an active way - preferential treatment in hiring, for example. In France, on the contrary, it is illegal to even ask - everyone is a citizen of the republic, and thus the same. This treatment goes so far as to make asking the question illegal, which is why the number of Muslims in France is unknown. It is, to some extent, the old 'melting pot vs. salad bowl' debate.
I would argue, and you are free to disagree, that the French experiment is a failure. Further, I would offer that it should guide us in thinking about the question of minorities here in Michigan. 'Equal' treatment doesn't happen.