Dennis a =E9crit :
> There has been an extreme amount of ignorance on both sides in this
> thread. One could make the arguement that France is ruled by the mob -
> the government doesnt listen to the "people" but strives to survive. The
> US has in the past taken the stance that we are part of the world and
> what helps the world helps us. Best example is the Marshall plan that
> rebuilt Europe. The bi-product was the benefit to the US so your
> thinking is inverted. The US has had success: Germany and Japan. An
> arguement can be made for all of Eastern Europe but it would be
> balanced by the neglect of Hungary in 1956 and Czechslovakia in 1968.
> Vietnam we shared with the French. The middle east as a problem was
> created by Englan/France at the end of WWI. As to the sorting out of
> messes by the rest of the world - which ones? We havent seen any
> leader****p out of Europe.
>
> I find it impossible to defend the current state of our politics but on
> balance our record is much better than France. Our revolution didnt end
> in a blood bath and dictator****p.
Dear Dennis,
I appreciate your reasoning but I would urge you not to fall in the
trap of pride.
As a French, I sometimes participate in heated debates over respective
merits
of such and such policies. There is a trait, which we do not advertise
widely, to
be very critical of ourselves (some would even say overcritical or
masochist).
We are the first to regret revolution bloodbath, to despise the way
lives were wasted in 1914, we loath the colonization and its war... We
are full of regret but we know
that we went through these events and survived and got wiser...
The history of the USA proper is so far quite simple for it encomp*****
few centuries.
However, its identity is still weak. I would say it's still in the
nation building process.
The official US history is far more rosy than the official history for
France (where corpses in the closet are getting more shown). The US
history textbooks are very reminiscent of
old texts written by the victors. The purpose of which is to create the
"we" the consensus
the funding myth pivotal to the society.
If you want to challenge your mind, try reading Howard Zinn' s "A
people's history of the USA." He is clearly bending to the left but the
factual part of his work shed light on parts of US history usually
ignored. When reading history, you must be cynical. As explained Larry
Kolb in his book about CIA, they had "wargames" where they impersonated
world leaders to delve into their actions : the result is that many
international events can be explained by the personal interest of
theses leaders. If you really want to be honest, you have to
deconstruct the mythology (but keep some nuggets of intelligence,
invention, culture...). Strategic interests, internal policies and
strifes, greed... are the prime movers of all things.
Take for exemple the sup****t to Malaysia. The prime minister of
Malaysia said, I quote from memory, that the worst thing ever to happen
for his country was the fall of communism. Since his goodwill was
anticommunism, it got a lot of help from the us, lest it change
loyalty. Now it is over.
"but on balance our record is much better than France" is a dangerous
affirmation to make. It depends according which standards you measure
success.
> Pier Danone wrote:
> >
> > You know very little about France then. If they don't like something
th=
e bring
> > the country to a standstill and stand up to it and make their
governmen=
t listen.
> > That takes balls. The government listens to and responds to it's
people.
> >
> >
> > My arse. The USA never does anything for the benefit of anyone else.
Sh=
ould
> > there be a benefit to another nation, it's a bi-product.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Yep, all of the screwed-up third world post colonial "nations" say
> > hi. Europe really did a bang-up job there."
> >
> > And would you like to highlight some US success at all?
> > Vietnam? Cuba? Iraq? Afghanistan?
> > Always getting your arses kicked - then leave a mess for the rest of
th=
e world
> > to sort out.
> >=20
> >=20
> >
|
