We’re nearing the 5 year term of the second longest war the US has ever fought (with no end in sight) and it seems the relationship between France and America has cooled down and is back on its regular track.
Was France right or wrong to oppose the American led war in Iraq (She was right)? But never mind. This episode of our stormy common history is but another instalment of a unique bound that links our two countries.
Thanks to the American media in general and the Bush administration in particular, about all Americans know what the position of France was regarding the sombre decision to invade a Middle East country. But how many know what Germany’s position was? Or Russia’s and China’s ones? The same as the French but it’s mainly France and the French (notwithstanding Chirac!) which are reminded.
You’ll tell me it won’t change any American’s perception of France, save for a tiny minority of “apostates”… and you’re right. There were those who’ve always considered the French as ungrateful, treacherous, unreliable “allies” and those who’ve always looked at them as a wise, sophisticated, historically minded lot. And both groups will be sure to have been proven right!
What matters in the end is that, more than any other country, France stays apart in the collective mind of many Americans, for better or worse. But this particular relationship is a part of each country’s history and identity and that’s fine with me. Isn’t it more entertaining than the relations between Portugal and Canada for example?
10 commentaires:
LOL, Yes.
I would say a spicy relationship.
Hi kd
Spicy seems much appropriate indeed!
The picture comes from the film "Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf" as everyone has recognized.
But it's not that much appropriate since the fight between Liz Tayor and R. Burton was mutual whereas in our case, it's the American media and politicians who declared war on France and the French with no response from this side of the Atlantic.
Pouring French wine in the gutter didn't harm the French at all (they didn't even know) but those who made it made fools of themselves alone.
All the same, the "Freedom fries" episode went unheeded in France but only showed how ridiculous some politicians could be in Congress.
The New York Time had a piece where it was written "Only an imbecile -or a Frenchman- would not be convinced by the evidence produced by C. Powell to show the existence of WMD".
One couldn't find in one single French media anything of this magnitude against Americans.
At the end of the day, unfortunately, this episode of American wrath only confirmed all the usual prejudice that are held vis à vis the US. And the US did it alone!
It seems to me Flocon, that the reaction of Americans to France upsets you and befuddles you... The reaction of the French to Americans and the U.S. often upsets me and befuddles me... such is life.
Yes, more interesting than say the relationship between Portugal and Canada... that goes without saying..
I do prefer people (be they French or United Statesians, or Mexicans, or whatever) who have a more balanced view of different cultures.
Also, Flocon, it might surprise you to know that I have met enough Frenchies to know that no two are alike... I've met Frenchies who are more conservative than I am, more leftist than I am, those who think that all Americans are imperialist French haters, those who think that Americans love the French, those who understand that people from all countries have various aspects which render any analysis rather complex... etcetera etcetera...
I've learned not to judge people based upon the lowest common denominator nor upon popular media...
Joann
A distinction must always be made between the people living in a country and the country itself.
For sure, a population of whatever country isn't the addition of million individuals, it's more than that. It has a life of itself.
Regarding the press campaign that took place 5 years ago, it's the media and some people in the administration which led the dance and gave the tempo to which the citizens of America were invited to react vis à vis the French. Americans as individuals weren't responsible for what happened.
As to how I feel regarding Americans per se, this post was clear enough, wasn't it? ;-)
Your last comment, I could'nt agree more with it.
The pursuit of warfare requires several stages, which include planning, execution, and a diplomatic solution. Each phase is difficult, and no matter how much effort goes in to the planning stage, every assumption isn’t worth a damn once the first bullet is fired. At present, it would seem to me that coalition forces in Iraq are in the “pacification” stage, but I suspect a significant US presence will continue in Iraq for quite some time. The mere presence of US forces in Iraq no more suggests “a state of war” than it does at any other location where we find US troops positioned. It is possible that individuals will commit assaults against coalition servicemen long into the future, even after some authority declares the region “pacified.” In my mind, the alliance won the war; winning the peace is another matter.
If a national leader wishes to influence global decisions, then he must first realize that a world leader is not the same thing as the world’s leader. Leadership involves much more than issuing press releases, issuing orders to the military, and then insisting that everyone pursue business as usual. Rather, it requires that a president place the entire country on a war footing.
Not every government decision reflects the views of its citizens, which is why it is possible for nations to declare a war not popularly supported by the people. It is the job of presidents and high-ranking officials to convince the people — in the manner of FDR after Japan’s attack at Pearl Harbor — that war was indeed necessary. Mr. Bush clearly did not make his case to all Americans and as a result, the loss of troops is nearly transparent to many people. It is a clever ploy because when citizens are unaffected by warfare, political leaders anticipate carte blanche freedom of action. If Mr. Bush could not convince Americans to throw their full support behind the war, how could he influence potential allies?
I have always held the view that a nation must act in its own interests. If the French government decided not to join the coalition, it was because coalition diplomats failed to present a convincing argument that doing so was in French interests. On the other hand, if President Chirac agreed to join the coalition, then we must infer that doing so would put forth the French agenda. It is a simple matter, and one that should not inflame the passions of governments or citizens. Mr. Bush’s claim that nations who do not join the coalition stand against it was sophomoric — but this is the problem with American politics. We have more politicians than statesmen. There is no greater evidence of this than the Freedom Fries episode. Moreover, anyone who would pour wine into a drain deserves capital punishment.
I think you are correct that media coverage inflamed many — but not most — Americans. It is preferable if more citizens understood that sound bites and one-liners are not the full story, and that journalists are writers, not diplomats; you can fill warehouses with subject matter journalists do not understand. More to the point, the business of journalism is to sell advertising and produce bias. In short, why does anyone care what a journalist thinks?
None of this has anything to do with friendships that may exist among people of different nations. The notion that the governments of the US and France are friends is pure poppycock. They may cooperate in matters beneficial to both, and disagree in areas when there is an absence of the perception of national interest. Personal friendships are much different — such as when Flocon invited my wife and I, and our three house pets, to visit with him for six or seven months; there is no better example of true friendship. :-)
Finally, I can assure you that with a population of 300 million Americans, there are at least 150 million opinions. An assumption that everyone in a country shares the same view lacks a sophisticated understanding of human nature. So we should assume that the people of France are as politically diverse as we are; that there is not a single solution to every problem.
Thank you for yet another thought-provoking article, and for putting up with such a long commentary.
As to how I feel regarding Americans per se, this post was clear enough, wasn't it? ;-)
Yes, Flocon, I do understand that in many ways you like Americans, per se, and that it is the phenomenon of French bashing in the American MSN that you are dealing with here, as well as the French bashing that takes place with certain Americans. However, I have to second what Mustang said:
I think you are correct that media coverage inflamed many — but not most — Americans.
Congratulations! You are a Blogger of the World.
Mustang,
Many, many points to consider in your comment. Thanks for taking the time and pain to elaborate...
I globally agree with your positions on different topics.
"you can fill warehouses with subject matter journalists do not understand."
Oh yes, oh yes! It's so plain obvious when I hear and read certain pieces on French TV or newspapers... Since illiterate and uncultured parrots are paid to expose their ignorance, I feel like I could also write in these outlets.
Regarding your home pets, it would be my pleasure to accomodate them, I've struck a deal with my local butcher...
They'll be welcome by my own loved ones...
Blogger of the world!!!
Woah, that's an accomplishment! Thanks a lot. And now I'm on my way to stardom.
LA must be thanked for he's the one who introduced my blog to Social Sense.
But now, what a responsibility weighs on my shoulders! I'll have to be up to the task... ;-)
Enregistrer un commentaire