Purported early French anti-Americanism

At the height of the anti-French frenzy led by the American MSM from 2003 up to 2007 the name of Comte Georges Buffon was often mentioned as evidence of historical French anti-Americanism. 

The reason why Buffon was associated with this canard of naturally born French anti-Americanism was to be found in his major work l'Histoire naturelle, published between 1749 and 1789 (8 years after he died). In this very popular encyclopaedia, Buffon wrote some passages where he described the natural world in America as much inferior in size and abilities to the European one.

Needless to say, this book was very favourably received when it was published in the US in 2005. At long last, a Frenchman validated the American certitude of yesteryears about the natural anti-Americanism of the French.

Now, to use Buffon's work as evidence of early French anti-Americanism as Philippe Roger did in his book The American enemy is beyond common sense. At least he found a niche...

- Everybody knows how unscientific Buffon was.

- He wrote his book before the US was even born as an independent state.

- He merely exposed the Eurocentrism of nearly each and every "scientist" in this field of research  in the XVIIIth century.

- When he wrote his Histoire naturelle, a third of the land known as America belonged to the French as we can see here and here. Why would have Buffon written something deliberately disparaging about Americans (e.g. white immigrants) whereas he was writing about the natives, save for his European bias and unscientific approach of the issues at stake?

The reproach holds true, IMHO for Sophie Meunier and Denis Lacorne who both fall in the same trap, that is mentioning Buffon as evidence of early French anti-Americanism.

Modern Americans taking at face value the use of Buffon's work as evidence of very early French anti-Americanism are being misled to say the least.

The same "accusation" of early anti-Americanism can be made against Stendhal for example. I remember reading something about the omnipotence of the dollar in his preface to the Italian chronicles. It may be understood as early anti-Americanism. It also may be a good opportunity to remember that in those times the American population Stendhal was referring to was mostly composed of European immigrants. And not exactly the upper crust of the society. Mainly peasants and traders, poor people from Scandinavia, Ireland or Poland, gold rushers etc… 

The US was seen by many Europeans as an exit strategy after the crimes they may have committed in their respective lands. The country was a limitless space open to all sorts of adventure to people who certainly didn’t belong to the European circles were hand-kissing was practiced. 

Ever heard of the Loterie du lingot d'or? The thousands of French who were sent to California weren’t used to hand-kissing according to all probabilities since the settlers in XIXth century weren’t exactly adept at this social behaviour when they were still living in Europe. Just like the first British sent to populate Australia were'nt scions of the English aristocracy.

So, to make a long story short, maybe Stendhal (among others) was critical of these Europeans who were emigrating rather of Americans per se, that is those with 3 or 4 generations behind them on American soil. In that case they were mostly English descendants from a nation of shopkeepers as you know (cf. Napoleon). 

Having fun

Although they've been dominating the world of entertainment since the earty 20s, not all American comedians or artists did it out of America. Dany Kaye, Deanna Durbin, Abbott and Costello come to mind and many other thousands I don't know of by definition. 

Among them is the trio known as the Three Stooges which I thought were British the first time I heard of them. I guess Laurel and Hardy were too much of an act to let The three Stooges have their chance on the world scene.

Here is a short I chose at random but someone may propose another one deemed funnier, I have no idea.
 


 
And here is a French episode of the Un gars/Une fille tv serial which I am a fan of. This one must be my favorite...

Out of touch

There was an editorial the other day in the New York Times about the proposed banning of the Islamic veil in France.

The one who wrote this piece seems to have absolutely no clues about what's at stake here and what the real issues are.

Here we have another display of total ignorance of the local context and another opportunity to teach others how they should behave and legislate in accordance with American values.

"Freedom, Freedom" is once again the spearhead slogan we hear coming from the US when the same country (like any other) knows perfectly how to toy with its own values (including freedom) when it sees it fit. Need I say more?

I can't wait to read the editorial in the N.Y T when the streets of New York will be criss-crossed by hundreds of women wearing the Islamic veil.

Or when the media will report that some guy in an airplane will have had a fit of panic because he was seating next to someone wearing the burka... Now, I even wonder if the American security services would allow a ghost-woman to board into a plane flying from Detroit to Minneapolis.

There's quite a number of articles on the same topic.

(Seems that a fair majority of American readers favour this planned banning)

Jews on high seas

Whether R or D, every American administration since the end of WWII has had one intangible dogma in foreign policy : unconditional support to the State of Israel, through thick and thin and whatever the cost.

And yet, it hasn't always been the case.

Up to 1944, Jews were immigrants like  all others, coming mainly from Europe, more precisely from the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. They later arrived from Greece, Poland, Germany but very few from France. One may wonder why, since it's so evident according to the American MSM that France is a hotbed of anti-Semitism...

They were accepted as immigrants like everyone was, not because they were Jewish but because America had a vital need for an ever increased number of individuals in order to populate her such large territory.

In their vast majority, Americans are all in favour of the Jews. Nothing wrong with that but how much do they know about the dramatic fate of the Jews fleeing the Nazi persecutions aboard the MS St. Louis (1939)

The Jews aboard were denied entry on US soil and had to be returned to Europe, in the UK, Belgium, the Netherlands and... France, yes, this most horrific anti-Semite country. 224 of them were allowed to disembark in France when the US turned them down!!!

The official American stance about Jews began changing with F.D. Roosevelt in 1944 and, the year after, with the discovery of the concentration camps and the Holocaust.

Back home, the Jewish organisations, communities, committees, fund raisers etc. then undertook a program of sensibilisation to the peculiar situation of the Jews, both towards the political and economical elite and the American people.

By mean of guilt, entrism (by 1940 there were about 3 millions Jews in the US), subliminal identification process between Americans who, in the first place, were refugees from European religious intolerance and the Jews who also were persecuted in Europe for their faith, using another analogy between the chosen people and the manifest destiny, the Jewish community succeeded into pressing the US to put on the UN agenda the creation of a specifically Jewish State.

Then there was this movie, Exodus (1960) by O. Preminger based on a novel by Leon Uris (look for yourself what his origins were), were it was plain to see that we were witnessing a revival of the Mayflower odyssey, with persecuted people in search of the promised land.

Like the former American colonials, the Jews had to start to build a nation from scratch, in lands stolen to Arabs who then became their arch enemies. Can't anybody see this other analogy with how Americans proceeded during the American Old West period, chasing the Native Indians into Indians reservations?

After so many parallels were set up between the Americans and the Jewish people, how could one wonder why Americans, by and large, consider the Jews like their closest allies, the ones they have the duty to protect, both peoples being so religious and tied to each others by so many bonds?

How grateful the Israelis have been!!! How many Americans remember or even know about what happened to the USS Liberty?

From which other country Americans would have tolerated such an act of war? Iran?

Israelis said it was a mistake. Strangely enough, the American Navy didn't believe one word of the Israeli version.

Information abound on this matter like here with the subsequent links.

And to top it all, the Israelis regularly send spies in the US.

Yet, there are anti-Semite factions in the US, like the American Nazi Party.

60 years after the Jewish comunity took hold of the State Department and has imposed its doxa to the American MSM, no wonder America is now so tied to Israel's interest that she has lost all credibility in the M.E  as a potential peace-broker.

Guns don't kill people, people do

Well, you know the line, it’s the motto devised by the NRA, the famous peace and love club.




First time I heard it I admit I was taken aback and couldn’t help thinking, well, sounds true in the end. And yet, I knew there was a hitch but where was it hidden?

Let's see how it works in other situations.

- It’s not the saw that cuts the branch of the tree it’s the one who uses the saw. Huh? And if he has no saw? Well he’ll use an axe. But if he has no tool can he cut the branch? Humm… obviously not, he needs some kind of device but he alone can’t do anything. There’s interdependency between both a tool and someone to use it.

Not really convincing still.

- Let’s try with something else:

It’s not the plane which flies, it’s the pilot who makes it fly.

Hummm… I feel there’s some kind of trick here.

- Sugar doesn’t cause diabetes, it’s the one who eats sugar.
- Tobacco doesn’t cause cancer, it’s the one who smokes.

And on and on and on…

It’s very confusing really because at first glance you can’t dismiss the apparent logic of the line.

Now, let’s have a look at Aristotle and his notorious 4 causes.

Isn’t it clearer now that when someone came with the line we’re discussing he actually constructed a sentence with 2 final causes included?

The gun is the final cause because it has been designed and manufactured in order to kill and nothing else. It’s a tool like any other one.

Man is the efficient cause because without him there would be neither guns nor any other tools.

Each tool has been conceived with one specific goal, the ultimate goal of the gun being to kill whereas the man wasn’t born to kill (well, for some happy-triggers you may wonder indeed).

Here lies the trick then: To artificially put on the same level the man and the tool (here the gun) he fabricated, e.g. to hop over the efficient cause in order to have 2 final causes in the same sentence, which is logically impossible since it comes down to circular thinking. A = B then B = A. Well, great... and where do we go with that?

Plutôt que de recourir à la logique classique, essayons autre chose: la réfutation par l'absurde (ad absurdum)

The NRA mantra is basically a trivial tautology. Of course, without men tools are ineffective (be it a saw, a hammer or a submarine). Well, this is sheer common sense and pure tautology.

If guns didn't kill people, criminals could resort on the sole lethal power of their frightful look. But it's inefficient so they use the tool most effective to accomplish their wishes.

Some try by throwing balls made of paper but it doesn't really work. And yet they do try hard... It's not the will only that kills people, it's the tool, e.g. the guns which raison d'être is to kill.

If guns don't kill people then I'm happy to learn that Abe Lincoln didn't die because a bullet smashed his head off. And the same goes for Kennedy. Bullets didn't cause their death I'm told, just the will of the murderers.

Ca tient de la transmission de pensée là...

Since we're at it, how many Americans are shot before they can react and kill the would-be killers? I have a feeling there are more innocent victims than the other way round like we've seen again no later than three weeks ago in Connecticut.

- If guns don't kill people but people do, why didn't William Calley, convicted as a war criminal by the US judiciary, end his life behind the bars?

As I wrote above, will doesn't suffice to kill, a tool is necessary, be it a chainsaw, a gun or an iron bar.

If not, then P. Tibbets is personally responsible for the death of 80.000 Japanese, not the atom bomb.

The guys who turned the taps open are personally responsible for the death of 6 million Jews, not Zyklon B.

The American pilots who dropped million tons of napalm in Vietnam are personally responsible for the death of, say, one million Vietnamese, not the bombs. Unless it was R. McNamara who wasn't even in the planes over Vietnam.

There has been an earthquake last January in Haiti. If we admit the logics of the NRA line, whose will is behind the 250.000 dead in Haiti? The tectonic plates (as weapons) or... God himself who created all things on earth?

En fait ce slogan de la NRA n'a d'autre raison d'être que de donner bonne conscience et déresponsabiliser les clients des armureries du pays. Il faut faire marcher le commerce et une bonne accroche marketing logiquement trompeuse légitime moralement ce commerce.

On the other hand, if many Americans want to shoot at each others it's none of my bloody business, is it?

Molière in Bulgaria

After their ordeal lasted over 8 years, the Bulgarian nurses and the Palestinian GP have finally been freed three years ago. We all know what kind of person Kadhafi is, there's no need to dwell on the matter.

Yet, I've always had the feeling that the nurses -although totally innocent of the crimes they were accused of- had their share of responsibility in what they had to endure. In the sense that our acts and choices engage our responsibility.

When the nurses went to Lybia in 1998, it was ten years after the Lockerbie terrorist attack which was ultimately attributed to the Libyan secret services, e.g. to Kadhafi. Even if there are some doubts about the real responsibility of the carnage, it remains that the Libyan leader is a dictator whose record is undisputed. Particularly among the French who had to wage war against the libyan forces.

Hadn't the nurses ever heard of Kadhafi and who he was and what he was up to when they decided to go to Libya to make more money? Didn't they have no qualms? You'll tell me they did it for the Libyan children. But isn't there enough to do in Bulgaria or neighbouring Romania for children?

Do you remember Les Fourberies de Scapin by Molière? Particularly this tirade by Géronte, Act II, scene 7: "What the devil was he doing in that galley?.

The teaching of Les Fourberies de Scapin should be made compulsory in Bulgaria!

On a side note, Americans know how their country had to deal with Libya since its very first days. It's called the First barbary war. It is remembered in the two first lines of the Marines' hymn:

"From the halls of Montezuma

To the shore of Tripoli"...