First of all, ScoobyTX - you’re right that you don’t fit in with the vast majority of this board. Don’t lose hope. Battling the masses here is the fate of a reasoned moderate or conservative on this board, and it gets tiring, I know. But you’re not shouting into a void.
Second – your point about French colonization messes is particularly sound. And I’d add to the list (at the behest of Mrs. Bricker, who has good reason to know) the disaster that is Haiti. The abysmal economic and governmental quagmire that has long plagued Haiti is directly attributable to the incompetent and inhumane French colonization efforts. Nor is Haiti unique – the French left messes everywhere they played, like an ill-bred toddler who couldn’t clean up toys or diaper too well.
The majority of active posters in GD are not moderate. They lean left, at least from the perspective of the US. The “political compass” threads demonstrated this quite well.
Actually, I find the French preoccupation with America far more pervasive and intense. Ever watch the movie Amadeus? Salieri’s preoccupation with Mozart’s success remind’s me of the French jelousy first towards the British and subsequently the Americans.
Up till the prominence of America on the world stage in the beginning of the 20th century, France took a beating from the English around the globe. They never acquired the glory of a British Empire and their participation in the War of Independance can easily be viewed as motivated by spite towards the British.
Since then however they have watched the British progeny with their English language far outstrip them in technology, wealth and power. The English language has become a world language further marginalizing their own. While ignoring the fact that English had borrowed heavily from the French language, they take great pains to reject new English words and provide their own instead by edict.
America today stands in the way of French delusions of grandeur. They will avail themselves of every opportunity to ridicule the American government and avoid any situation on the world stage where they may appear to be taking orders from America. As far as I’m concerned this attitude has not been positive for the cause of peace, human rights and democracy.
In short, I see no big deal in trashing the France in America. If that is a problem, then what about all the America bashing going on right in America? Is that a problem?
Did the French do anything that can’t be answered with a Tu Quoque? Probably not. (Apply that to all of maziiadar’s post).
Regarding our current problems in the Middle East. Would these problems even be there if the French and British hadn’t done such a poor job partitioning out the holdings of the former Ottoman Empire post-WWI? Probably not. I can say with some certainty that Iraq wouldn’t be a hodgepodge of different mutually hositle ethnicities and religious traditions teetering on the brink of civil war if more thought had gone into drawing the maps in the first place.
Nothing, and I mean nothing is the result of one single causative factor. People in this thread (and in general) tend to take the one causative factor that fits their own bias, and play that one up. To return to the Vietnam issue, the pro-French side either says “Well, France might have made a mess, but the US can’t blame anyone else for their own mistakes made afterward” (which I agree with, to a degree), or “France only did the things they did because they were bribed/ coerced in other ways by the US” (how did France, that paragon of wisdom and independence, allow the silly upstarts in the US to mislead them in such a fashion). Both France and the US contributed to the problem of Vietnam in the 40s and 50s (France in trying to regain its stature as a colonial power too soon after being a German playground, and the US in abandoning a WWII ally, Ho Chi Minh in favor of throwing the French a bone), but I think France’s role was the more damaging.
Delusions of grandeur (an appropriately French word :smack: )- that’s the term I was looking for. The French have been running around thinking they’re Napoleon. (cue stereotypical scene from loony bin with short guy with hand stuck between the buttons of his topcoat, bicorne optional)
Actually, there wasn’t a South Vietnam for the US to try to prop up.
The Geneva accords of 1954 did not create—and were never intended to create—two countries. The accords split Vietnam into two zones, which were never intended to be permanent, and which were to be reunited under supervised elections in 1956.
The reason this didn’t happen is that the United States were worried that the Communists would win. Eisenhower himself conceded that, in an open and fair election, the Communists might get anywhere up to 80% of the vote.
Thus was continued a long US tradition of supporting democracy, as long as the people in that democracy elect leaders acceptable to US interests.
Aren’t you overstating your case a tiny bit though? If the Entente going to war to protect the integrity of Serbia was an ‘attack’ then Britain and France were guilty of unjustified aggression against Hitler for declaring war just because he invaded Poland. And Germany had no pressing reason for getting involved in the Austro-Hungarians’ war other than wanting to give the French and Russians a kicking.
Returning to the OP, irrespective of the relative merits of the French and US governments’ position on the issues of the day, the endless demonization of other countries and their seems to me to be a particularly futile and idiotic pastime. Whether it’s “The French”, “The Americans”, “The Chinese” or whatever, trying to reduce the complexities of history, international politics and the opinions and behaviour of tens or hundreds of millions of people into some populist soundbite just isn’t very clever and contributes to nothing except ignorance and misunderstanding. Every single topic tossed about in this thread so far has probably had an entire bookshelf written about it without a definitive consensus emerging, so why on earth should it be possible to roll them all up into a single answer?
Having said that, countries do the things they do because they feel it is the right thing for them to do at that time. Over the last couple of hundred years France, Britain, America and every other major country have all veered back and forth between fighting side by side and stabbing each other in the back as they see fit - I see no reason why that trend wouldn’t continue in future.
I heard that guy Napoleon got around some, though. Not as long-lasting as the Britsh empire, and yes, eventually defeated by the British, but definitely with some enduring global consequences.
“The masses”? Isn’t that a rather condescending way of putting it? “Battling the masses” around here is also the fate of moon-hoax theorists, climate-change deniers, and Communists, to name a few; so minority status per se is not necessarily anything to be smug about.
My post was not a defense of France; it was a genuine question. I have no idea if they left more colonization messes than the British or not. You saw a tu quoque were there was only a request for information, and no argument or defense of anything.
Dunno about the “boycott France” bandwagon per se, but there were definitely some Republican leaders who jumped on the “trash France” bandwagon. The “Freedom Fries Boys”, Republican Reps. Walter Jones and Bob Ney, spring to mind.
France left messes in (by no means a complete list): Haiti, French West Africa (includes Ivory Coast), French Equatorial Africa (Chad, Congo), French Indochina (Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam). They also left more functional former colonies elsewhere. Any scorekeeping between the British messes and the French messes is going to be trivial- they both botched things here and there.
I think the reaction, particularly from many conservatives, went well beyond just “disappointment”. I don’t know how much of it was genuine anger at France and how much was just an artful political maneuver to rally the base, but there was quite a bit of it. It was definitely stressed in Republican reactions to the Kerry campaign:
I’m sorry, perhaps I spoke in a manner open to misinterpretation. I wasn’t trying to suggest that Britain and France were the aggressor for having declared war on Austro-Hungary; I was merely pointing out that Germany’s invasion of France was a legitimate decision given the fact that they were already at war- i.e. it was not a “suprise attack” or even an unjustified one. And Germany had a very good reason for wanting to prop up Austro-Hungary: they were Germany’s only ally amongst the five Great Powers, and to abandon them would leave Germany dangerously isolated. The Germans certainly didn’t seek war with Russia and France at the same time which is what supporting Austro-Hungary in this situation led to.
Despite your valid point about American culpability, it’s worth pointing out that between 1804-1838 France was engaged in its own, very savage war to try and quell the Haitian rebels. But as you mention, “Papa Doc” Duvalier and the present state of Haiti can be traced to the American invasion, not the French colonisation.
Difficult question. I suppose the short answer is Yes with a but: the French were less successful (mainly because they were slower) than the British in pulling out of their colonial possession post-WWII: for example, the French left behind Algeria and Vietnam, the British India and… actually, India is about the best example. The BUT is that the situations were often very different, and that the situations that the British left behind when they pulled out were often less successful than they seemed: for example, India and Pakistan, the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, deterioration of the situation in most African colonies over time. The main problem, I suppose, is that the British (and the French) drew big squares on maps, and declared those countries, then left. They took little account of tribal or ethnic boundaries, which is one of the reasons for the savage civil wars in central africa over the past 50-odd years. You might say that, because they never had quite as much investment as say, the French did in Algeria, the British were better at pulling out their soldiers with the minimum of fuss, but that neither side left behind a particuarly good situation in their wake.
On the other hand, there are so many factors in the mix (including the fact that because the British were more successful at obtaining colonies than the French, they tended to cherry-pick the countries that had the most natural resources and would be the least rebellious, leaving the French with a bunch of colonies just waiting to become failed states) that you cannot make a clean comparison between the two. If you were to draw up a (totally inaccurate and misleading) “scoresheet”, I suppose the British might come out top- but only just, and there are issues like whether you include Northern Ireland (the original, and least successful, British colony).
