December 10, 2002
THE ORIGINAL HOME OF TERROR:
French kiss-off: America galled France right from the start (ROBERT KUNZIG, 12/16/02, US News)What better symbol of enduring friendship between France and the United States than the Statue of Liberty? Yet the stately French gift was the work of a small group of pro-Americans, who enjoyed tepid support in 1880s France. "And when the statue was offered to the Americans, they were completely dumbfounded–they were annoyed," says Philippe Roger, a French intellectual historian. Both Congress and New York State balked at paying for a pedestal. Later the Americans ditched the inscription that Victor Hugo had dashed off–"The sea, great and agitated, notes the union of these two great and pacified lands"–in favor of a very different one by Emma Lazarus. "Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" the statue now cries. No wonder the French thought us ungrateful.That is one of many sorry episodes of Franco-American friendship dissolving into acrimony that Roger recounts in his sardonically titled history L'Ennemi Americain ("The American Enemy"). It is one of several new books that have triggered a surprising public debate in France this fall. Even as France was battling at the United Nations to forestall an American war on Iraq, French talk shows and editorials began asking a question that has occurred more than once to Americans, during this and earlier episodes of friction: Do the French have an anti-Americanism problem?
It's not a problem. France, with its love of "Egalite", is a natural enemy of America, with its reverence for Liberty; that's why those "yearning to breath free" come here. Posted by Orrin Judd at December 10, 2002 10:43 AM
France, with its love of tyranny, is a natural enemy of America, with its reverence for liberty.
Since the 1500's France has been almost continuously governed by a powerful centralized and unaccountable state. They have no tradition of liberty. In the last election, half the electorate voted for stalinists, trotskyists, or socialists, and the other half of the electorate voted for fruitcakes like Le Pen or corrupt dirigistes.
As we've been discussing elsewhere: equality is tyranny.
Posted by: oj at December 10, 2002 11:15 AMEquality is tyranny, but not all tyranny leads to equality. France is a very iniqual society, where those who don't hold a degree of one of the elite institutions cannot hold a position of any real significance.
Posted by: Peter at December 10, 2002 11:59 AM"elite French institution": talk about damning with faint praise.
Posted by: oj at December 10, 2002 12:38 PMOdd that a nation supposedly devoted to egalite would have a pretender to a throne. And he has his fans.
Also, a good fraction of the country is Catholic, and they're not famous for admiring equality.
I hear the French can sometimes be inclined to spew pretentious tripe, but I see we're not entirely immune from that inclination.
Posted by: Terrance at December 10, 2002 1:44 PMWe may even be considered ungrateful, as France (albeit before la revolution), according to at least one historian I've read, helped the Americans beat the British at the battle of Yorktown by preventing British reinforcements by sea. Yes, I realize that was then and this was now. But if one is looking for a reason to find favor....
Posted by: Barry Meislin at December 10, 2002 2:57 PMHarry:
The only hope for France may be the restoration of the monarchy and the clerisy.
Barry, you're really stretching. France's support during the Revolution had everything to do with opposing Britain. (This was before the French Revolution, after all).
Posted by: scott h. at December 10, 2002 4:59 PMI'm not saying that France didn't have geo-political considerations. Still, the net result was that France helped the US win the battle of Yorktown, which led to the overall British surrender (that is, if you agree with the particular historian that makes this claim). When the US (and allies) liberated France, it was done in order to lick Germany (unconditional surrender or total defeat). When we kicked Iraq out of Kuwait, one motivation (some would say the major motivation) was to prevent Iraq from being in a position to control all that oil. I don't believe that the one motivation totally negates the other. Seems to me that what you do is what counts.
Posted by: Barry Meislin at December 11, 2002 8:31 AMIt was more than a little ironic that France, run by an
obtuse would-be autocrat, chose to give one in the eye to England by assisting the world's first antiautocratic
country to be born.
Irony piles on irony. It was the expense of rescuing the
Yanks that led to the fiscal crisis that led to Revolution.
Louis gave his head for America. How many others can say as much?