Breeders of Hate

Remove all ads!

Hard right wing writers in the US are at war – on several fronts – and they have spotted an enemy. Who that may be shouldn’t come as a surprise for some of the older SPers, I’m talking about France, yeah, some may remember the freedom fries …

FRANCE MUST PAY!
FRANCE MUST PAY MORE!
And more recently Our war with france

Chirac’s comment on that last rant was glorious: “Who? I don't know this gentleman. I've not read the article. But if he said that France has become an enemy of the US, I think he's just being silly about it.”

This polite reply doesn’t change the fact something is at odds between Franbce and the US: “ Americans Still Reluctant to Call France an "Ally".

So why is this army of fearless armchair warriors at the loggerheads with France?

If asked they would probably tell it’s their patriotic, therefor righteous, wrath and zeal. But does that really answer the question of why they attack France? Of course, ideology is a strong driving force but what ideology are we talking about here?

The hard right writers, among other things cite france’s veto in the UN security council as the casus belli, then continue with the french oil contracts, french jealousy, timidity and eventually take aim on WW-II.

So what was the reason for the US defeat ast the UN security council? Well, allies aren’t satellites and to listen to other opinions is only natural. And France dared to ask about a plan for post-war order in Iraq! What is so outrageous about that? It was as much a sensible question as it is today - even more as France never got an answer on that ... looking at Iraq today we know why ... And there were a couple of other justified and prudent questions that were brushed aside with: ”Either your with us or with the enemy”.

The next accusation was to cite french oil contracts and their egoistic motives in Iraq. Well, accusing the french of only beeing greedy is getting more and more difficult at a time of the Halliburton self-service occupation where private companies earn billion dollar contracts paid with iraqi and US taxpayers money - unchallenged. Maybe they should add a seinfeldian "Not that there is anything wrong with it ..."

French jealousy. Of course. Besides, jealous for what? “The dominant threesome of France, Germany and Belgium, which created the biggest rift in the history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization by not accepting the decision on common preventive defense of Turkey, has a combined population of 150 million well-educated citizens and stronger export penetration of world markets than the United States.” (With a fraction of the US total population; taken here)

France’s timidity? In the war on terror? Let’s get this straight, France abducted Carlos the Jackal from Sudan, trialed him and put him into jail in France. They got some first hand experience with algerian fundamentalists bombing in france in the 1990s. They actually warned the US not to cuddle too closely with Bin Laden’s Al Quaida and provided some 20% of all close air support missions for US special forces in Afganistan, operating with US Marines from a central asian base.
By linking Al Quaida and Saddam the whitehouse made a wildly unfair draw: They tried to equate opposition to the war with beeing guttless in confronting Bin Laden. That evidently was not the issue between France and the US.

They sure don’t leave out France’s perceived lack of gratitude for liberation in WW-II. Well, just as the US also can’t ever repay France’s support in the US independence war, France can’t repay the US support in WW-II. They accuse France of ingratitude in face of a debth that can never be repaid. So, what worth is this accusation then when you can’t “cash it in”?
Well, the accusation serves a purpose: it’s just an unfair attack to fuel anti-french sentiments. Too many of the people who feel France owes the US one didn’t even live, let alone fight in WW-II.

IMO this hate campaign is and was a relief effort to aid Bush Jr. in the public opinion. His foreign policy has failed. The thuggish bullying of Bush and his goons has alienated friends in europe and asia. This is responsible for Bush having trouble in gaining funds and support for the occupation of Iraq.
Pointing elsewhere may give the time needed for extra spin and blaming France offers an easy, convenient explanation on why Bush failed: France obstructing (they still disagree, don’t they?) at the UN is the reason for Bush’s failure. France served well as a distraction, and it still does. Some folks got that distracted they devoted time and effort to build france-bashing sites for that purpose alone.

And of course, in America patriotism sells well these days.

Whatever their motives are, one thing’s fore sure, the bloodthirsty David Frums, Max Boots, Anne Coulters and Thomas Friedmans on America’s patriotic homefront would never show up in a real war, giving credit to George Orwell’s observation in his “Homage to Catalonia”: “It is one of the worst traits of war, that all war propaganda, all yelling, all lies and all hate steadily come from the people who don't fight” (re-translated from german into english)

But there is hope, a little at least – even when the author had to give tribute (and to contribute) to the actual US zeitgeist: I like France or for example this piece Misguided hostility toward France—well intended, but who are we really hurting?

And mind, it’s all about the war on terror ... and re-election

/end rant

 

The hostility of the right toward France really is steeped in ideology. Even before 9/11 and, while the second Bush adminstration was just a gleam of hope in the mind's eye of Corporate America, there had always been this feeling that France was really at heart a nation of "socialists." One only had to listen to the right wing rant about the "decay of Europe" and that somehow France was at the heart of this decay, which was leading Europe away from hard-core capitalism and the gospel of Adam Smith. Hence, the recent hostility is a mere extention of those feelings of the right, IMHO.

 

Ahem! I'm so right-wing that I don't let my right hand know what my far-right hand is doing - but I'm also a lifelong francophile. Vive la France! I view France's decline with despair, not delight - and France's position on the Iraqi conflict was deeply painful to me because it was so strategically short-sighted. Oh, for the days when France was ruthlessly republican, not perilously petty!

Americans are irrationally bitter at France now for the same reason they are irrationally absorbed with the Hexagon other years - our nations' relationship is emotionally intense, and wounds are felt that much more deeply.

I think Colin Powell said it best: "America and France have been in marriage counseling for two hundred years."

 

GM - Sorry, I used the word "decay" instead of "decline." I'm sure there is a fine distinction there.

Since I'm not on the right, I don't think France is neither in decline nor decay. IMO, they showed more courage and good sense than most of us would have expected by not allowing themselves to by bullied or hoodwinked by the Shrub gang. For that, I also say: Vive la France!

[ October 04, 2003, 20:20: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

I would like to point out that Chirac is very right-wing, when it comes to domestic policies Chirac has more common with Bush II than what the socialist Blair has.

I have no problem seeing that many people dont like French politics overly much, I know I am not all that fond of many of their EU politics. France is very arrogant and have a very bloated self-image. However when it comes to Iraq and the so called war on terror I actually admire their staunch stance, alienating the US is not to their own benefit, no matter the amount of oil contracts they may have had with Saddam.

It is funny that what some people call decay others call progress. In my opinion western Europe has progressed towards a more democratic, open and "just" society, really putting an effort into not repeating the mistakes of the past. In some ways that cannot be said of all the world.

 

That would be great, because I really like Eminem.

But the francophobia of the Americans is, as I already previously stated, mainly symbolic in nature in my opinion. For one, there is no real link between the US and France which would explain this France-obsession. France is a European country, which, like all European countries, is tiny compared to the US. The US, being the 3rd biggest country of the world and about 3000 miles away, why the heck are they so obsessed with France ?

So, for me consists the American francophobia in bundling all Continental-European vices in "France". Lazy alcoholics, no work ehtics, morally degenerated, poor, ****ing around like bunnies, socialists, "catholic", so dam blasé about their "cultural superiority", cowards, still dreaming about the empires of the past,war-mongering-colonial dorks, would immediatly start savage wars among eachother without the benevolent watch of the big brother on the other side of the pond, everything they've got, inclusively and most prominent their democratic institutions, they owe to the Americans, and show not the least sign of respect or thankfulnes.

Why France as symbol ?

Francophobia in British literature, which follows the well established pattern of show as much contempt to your neighbouring country as possible.

Belongs to the four bigger Western European countries, among Italy, the UK and Germany. So, can be "seen" without magnifying glass.

"France" once was the most populated country of Europe, with representing 1/4 of the whole European continent. This makes them a big player in history books and the relative decline since the population-explosion on the rest of the continent, reducing the share of the French to 1/10 is to nice to not make a connection to the relative decline of Europe compared to rest of the world.

A copyright issue, concerning "democratic" institutions and impact on world-wide democratic developments.

"Puritan" world view, started by the pilgrim-fathers.

 

*shrug.

I think people are making mountains out of mole hills. I espescially think there is plenty of hyperbole floating around from both sides of the Atlantic, including the title of this thread:

"Hate breeders?" Please. I skimmed through the first two articles and saw a bunch of people who thought they were being cute and funny. I also saw the writer refer to himself as Candaian by the way.

I read the NY Times piece and was expecting some awful rhetoric calling for serious reprecussions and all I saw was a commentary saying he thought France was shooting itself in the foot.

I saw a poll that said the positive view of France in the US dropped when tensions were high but are now trending upwards to the point that it's 66% favorable with only 6% viewing France as an enemy.

I think to take this and then say "hate breeders" is really over the top. I was expecting a link to the KKK or neo-Nazis or something.

I honestly think that a lot of what Ragusa and Yago wrote is a byproduct of speculating about the psyche of ~280 million people from thousands of miles away. I think it may be a bigger issue in Europe and maybe y'all are speculating that it must be a big issue in the US as well.

Honestly though, I don't think most Americans give France enough thought for it to be 'symbol' like Yago said. It's hard to 'hate' something you don't think much about.

It's probably a problem that Americans don't spend more time thinking about other nations but, well, the average American doesn't. I think it's largely a byproduct of the size and population of the US.

So, I guess I'm simply saying, I think you're overreacting to say 'hate breeders' and that while the US and France have been at each other let's not overblow the whole thing. (and it's not one sided - it would be like an American saying 'hate breeders' about some French because of the push to remove certain English words from the French language - everyone can be silly, but don't make more of it than it is.)

[ October 04, 2003, 22:07: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

Well, after you picked up my punchline, a few thousand miles away. Yes, that's about it. I wonder why so much dirt is thrown at the French from so far away. And I do not think that this dirt is coming out of my imagination.

And point of being "symbolic" is, that people do not think too much about it.

Well, I do not know if that's a big issue in the US, if some Europeans would be puzzled by alleged "anti-americanism" or puzzled by the, already mentioned, waves of contempt raining down on the French.

But I wonder, if it such a none-issue, why do say they make polls about it ? And why are there articels in the New York times, which I think is not a small paper ?

And this American says, he was having some emotional relationship to France and the same would be found by a lot of other Americans. I wouldn't say by 100 % of 300 millions, but maybe 40% ? This:

Well, if CNN can make assumption about the psyche of some 400 millions, living on the continent of Europe, I think it's my privilege to make assumptions on the psyche of CNN and the culture CNN is from. CNN

Moscow and Paris in one sentence.

But I am happy to see, that "Anti-Americanism" is wide-spread in the USA too. If I remember my history classes right, there a few demonstration against the Vietnam war in the US too. And a lot of Americans do not cherish LBJ or Nixon either, obviously, "anti-americians" .

And I am not the only one wondering why France is in a spotlight, I guess.
Wikipedia -> Anti-French-Sentiment

And my lingering question, why singling out France ? Well, I have found a theory. You may come up with a better and convince me.

Edit: Why not Spain ?

[ October 05, 2003, 01:25: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

For me it's not so much the american psyche. I'm much more interested in the "cui bono", who benefits from the ant-french propaganda - that IMO is way more interesting.

I mean country bias usually is something for the "masses", but I assume that the writers promoting it in magazines and newspapers or on other media are relatively well educated people and it would surprise me when they, except perhaps when demanding to nuke mekka, write driven by gut feeling. So, if now, what is the purpose?

 

France isn't toeing Bush's line and so makes a convenient scapegoat for his problems.

 

France is not seen as a symbol of anything.

Generally Americans don't have misgivings about the French people. As far as stereotypes are concerned, they are considered rude, pompous and with horrid hygene (do not bath at least once a day - most Americans bath twice a day).

But this is besides the point, and Americans really don't think that this is the reality. What we do really dislike is the French Government.

The French Government surrendered to the Nazis. In addition, they seem to oppose the use of force in almost every circumstance. This is a major black mark! In the United States, cowardice is considered the most fatal of personality defects.

When the United States needed to attack Libya for their role in the murder of the people on airplane over Scotland, the French would not allow us to use their airspace. Just their airspace! This was also during the Cold War and when NATO was a strong defense against Communism and other forms of evil regimes. This was seen as a form of betrayal and, of course, cowardice.

There is no American propaganda blaming the French all the world's problems or demonizing the people. The United States is not the Middle East! America is not Nazi Germany.

 

Actually France helped us during the 1st Gulf War and they also helped us in Afghanastan. And if you think there isn't people who hate the French just check out O'Rilly or Ann Coulter and see them spew venom at them.

 

Blackhawk, you cite three points: Surrender, Cowardice and aversion to use force. You're wrong every time.

• Surrender to Nazi germany: Well, despite all collaboration france never reached the unchallenged lows of the norwegian Quisling regime; you also overlook the wide popularity of the resistance. Second, with your army crushed as a result of a obsolete static defence strategy you don't have much choice.
• Cowardice and too gutless to use force: You mention the bombing raid against against Lybia. Well, you do probably not know that France actually dedicated ground troops to Chad to fight ... Lybia. Yeah, the very Lybia it didn't allow the US to overfly their territory to.
  Coward and opposition to the use of force - and opposed to the US at all cost ....
  France doesn't hesitate to use military force, among all europeans powers they have, with the brits, the most developed ability to do so. Besides, all of europe, UK excluded, opposed operation Eldorado Canyon. The series of french interventions in Africa, always including ground troops, is very long. Just as their list of successful co-operation with the US.
  
  You do not understand the background of the french opposition to operation Eldorado Canyon. Unlike the US, France had a very serious arab terrorism problem at home in the 1980s continuing to the 1990s, including a few series of heavy bombings throughout the country. Basically they saw no need to provoke more bombing by supporting the US retaliation strike - their opposition was to protect their population. You have to see the bombing of the french airliner as a direct result of the french opposition to Lybia - some 150 french casualties - that is a serious and justified concern you cannot cavalierly dismisses as "cowardice".
  At that time the only americans targeted were tourists by accident and soldiers - the rest of America was still peacefully slumbering in tele-tubby land until it suddenly woke up on 9/11 in 2001, bewildered and confused about why terror came to the US. It came there last, some 30 years after it started to plague the rest of the world.
  
  Short of questioning the actual *need* of striking Lybia - use of force is a tool, and not the goal in itself - why kill people when you can achieve your aims in a different way? The french opposition to invade Iraq included questions for the imminent threat posed by Iraq, you know, the sort of questions the president doesn't reply anymore as he has moved on: The Saddam had no WMD but bad breath and silly thoughts and evil plans for "one day" credibility gap. And the french had concerns about post-war Iraq. That iirc is another point Bush has trouble with. But the french were evil to speak out first what you can read daily in all US newspapers - that the US intelligence had a credibility gap. Considering the actual level of knowledge their point of view was pretty reasonable.
  
  Yes, it is oldfashioned to want a sound reason to start a war but europe takes international law seriously. Treaties and organisations especially.
  
  The american pre-emption bull shows first fruits, giving credit to the destabilising effect of the whole idea: Israel just bombed Syria for no reason other than to show strength, and of course, against international law. Encouraged by Iraq they are on the way to get totally out of control - made possible by a US secretary of state protesting while he's undermined by administration officials and senators sending support letters to Israel, making visits and holding speeches contrary to official US policy - IMO that's short of treason. And this destabilising effect of lowering the tripwire to war was another thing Villepin has pointed out. Coward or just not naive?

You shouldn't believe every beertale America's alehouse strategists tell you about France. The internet offers almost instant information - why not use it?

[ October 06, 2003, 15:52: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

We (us Americans) should just get over it. Chill dude,

 

As has been mentioned before, the writer of those first two articles was David Frum, a Canadian and a hell of a writer. We Canadians (well, some of us) HATE the French and their whining -- as far as many of us are concerned, it's the whining in Quebec that keeps Canada from becoming great -- all that effort to deal with a minority that isn't even repressed annpoys us, and when DeGaulle said "vive le Quebec" during a visit, many of us felt like transferring that anger to the continent.

As for me, I think France is a bully, just as much as the Americans are -- France has had no problem threatening smaller countries with economic penalties in the EU if they don't fall in line with French policies. Does that make them evil? No. The US would do the same. But when their interests and policies run counter to mine, sure I'll rip on them, same as I'd do with the States or even with my own government. It doesn't make me stupid or short-sighted, just an equal opportunity critic.

Too damn easy to just write things off to "dumb (insert direction here) wingers."