Posted on 03/31/2002 9:58:53 AM PST by knighthawk
There were no other passengers in my car on the Eurostar except for an American couple and their precocious little girl. Bored by the drab London suburbs, she announced that she was going to tell her parents all the facts she had amassed about France. Though they were many and varied in number, as the train emerged from the Channel Tunnel and onto the soil of the Fifth Republic itself, she began to falter. ''I don't know a whole lot about World War II. I know we were the good people. So the French would be, like, the bad people?''
''No, sweetie,'' said Daddy, patiently. ''The French were the good people, too.''
Hmm. I'd have given a more nuanced answer myself, but let it go. The moppet wanted to keep things straightforward. ''So who were the bad people?'' she asked.
''Well, there aren't really bad people, sweetie. Not whole countries of them.''
I gave an involuntary snort behind my copy of Le Monde. Daddy and Mommy glanced over in my direction, but I hastily exuded a passing imitation of Gallic charm. Though Daddy's characterization of the Second World War--no bad people were involved in the making of this global conflict--is not yet received opinion, the same disinclination to take sides colors our view of almost all contemporary disputes. Countries A and B may be at war, but there is no good side and no bad side, just two parties ''trapped'' in a ''mindless'' ''cycle of violence'' that ''threatens the peace process.''
The ''peace process'' tends to be no peace and lotsa process, in which Western panjandrums have invested considerable amounts of their prestige. That's why in Paris this week most of my dining companions were outraged not by the deaths of Palestinians or Israelis but by the shelling of Palestinian Authority buildings. ''These buildings,'' one indignant Frenchman told me, ''were built with money direct from the Union!''--i.e., the European Union. ''We have given billions, and now it is rubble.''
''Oh, your money's perfectly safe,'' I said. ''It's sitting in the Hamas bigshots' numbered bank accounts in Zurich.''
Fortunately, the World Trade Center was not an EU aid project, so the French are far less mad at Osama. ''Your Mister Bush,'' a chic lady lawyer said to me, ''he sees always the B-movie Western: America is the good guy so her enemies must be the bad guys.''
''Well, in the case of al-Qaida, he's not actually wrong, is he?''
Pitying looks from around the table. ''Bush is crippled,'' said someone else, ''by his Rambo view of the world.''
''I very much doubt Bush reads Rimbaud,'' I said.
And on and on, round the clock. The following point was made to me twice within the space of 24 hours, so I assume it's the current sophistry doing the rounds. ''Ah, Mark,'' said the first, with a wry self-congratulatory twinkle, ''the British and Americans, they go on all the time about democracy. But you do realize there are 6 billion people in this world and that, if you gave them the opportunity to vote for Mr. Bush or Mr. bin Laden, why, 1 billion would vote for Bush and 5 billion for bin Laden.'' Pause for stunned reaction from boneheaded North American, and then, with a sardonic courtly nod: ''I myself would, of course, vote for Bush.''
The second time I heard this observation the speaker gave a slightly different tag: ''I myself would, of course, probably vote for Bush.'' Take Two sounds about right.
Leaving aside the precision of the math, this droll jest neatly encapsulates the French world view: Naive Washington thinks all will be well if you liberate the will of the people; the European elite knows that civilization depends on restraining it. At heart, they believe the opposite of the American tourist on the train: There are no good peoples, just different groups of bad peoples whose baser urges have to be adroitly managed--as Western Europe failed to do between the wars but which it has done with some success since. That's why the EU likes the emirs and the ayatollahs, old Arafat and Boy Assad. They feel those fellows are engaged in the same project as theirs: holding the excesses of the people in check.
This worldly cynicism would have more to commend it if it weren't for the overwhelming evidence that the opposite is, in fact, the case--that these regimes preserve themselves by actively encouraging their people's worst instincts. The other day, the Saudi government daily Al-Riyadh ran a column headlined ''The Jewish Holiday Of Purim'': ''For this holiday the Jewish people must obtain human blood so that their clerics can prepare the holiday pastries,'' wrote Dr. Umayma Ahmad Al-Jalahma of King Faysal University. ''The victim must be a mature adolescent who is, of course, a non-Jew.'' Wow. That's some recipe, I thought. But, of course, the average Arab reader just yawns and sighs, ''Big deal. So the Jews use gentile blood in their cookies. What else is new?''
John Derbyshire, in National Review, argues that we shouldn't be sending peace negotiators to the Middle East, but teams of psychiatrists. The majority of its 300 million inhabitants are, he says, ''nuts.'' And he has a point. It's possible to believe in ''the plight of the Palestinians.'' It's even possible to believe that Mossad are so ingenious that they pulled off the Sept. 11 attacks and framed a bunch of innocent Arabs. But no rational person can seriously believe that your average Jew cookery show begins ''First, take your gentile victim and drain his blood.''
Yet such an assertion passes without comment in the Saudi press. Do the majority of Saudis go along with this stuff? We don't know. But we do know that their government's mouthpiece thinks it useful to propagate the old blood libels.
Whether or not you can make rational human beings of the Middle Eastern peoples is unclear, but there's no question that you're never going to do it as long as the present gang's in charge.
Forget the ''cycle of violence'' and the ''peace process.'' History teaches us that the most lasting peace is achieved when one side-- preferably the worst side--is decisively defeated and the regime's diseased organs are comprehensively cleansed. That's why National Socialism, Fascism and Japanese militarism have not troubled us of late. One can imagine how World War II would have played out had, say, Mary Robinson, the UN Human Rights poseur, been sitting in Downing Street instead of Winston Churchill. Her crowd should not be running World War IV.
Mark Steyn is senior contributing editor for Hollinger Inc.
Good point! Let's see if we can get that message through to Steyn?
Mark? This is a conservative forum, bud. Sure, you get a handful here, posting while wearing their Aryan Nation armbands, who get a big kick out of 'surrender monkey' pieces, and piling on the French. But they're in the minority. Most of us like something a bit more thoughtful and intelligent, especially from a big name writer like you. So, instead of spending ten minutes typing rubbish like this, playing on lowest common denominator prejudices for an easy weekend dollar, how about treating your readers like adults? Thanks in advance, By.
Byron, are you prepared to claim that, 7 years ago, you weren't supporting the invasion of French territory and demonstrating your hatred of all things Garlic by picketing French restaurants?
I am a Dutchman living in the Netherlands. The US liberated Europe at the cost of 405.000 casualties. But instead of being eternaly greatful, the Eurowhinies (yes, Eurobashing is allowed on my threads, if you let me join in!) hate the US.
Strangely I love the USA much more then I love Holland, and this since I was a kid. And I am an American Republican at heart (that is why I post here). I do not agree with the rest of Europe. Europeans are blind to what is killing them, they proved that in 1930's and kept it up until Hitler marched through Europe.
Now the same thing is happening again (Saddam, Arafat). But 9/11 made a lot of people to open their eyes, the leftists elites are no longer in complete control. The elections proved that in Denmark and Portugal, and on May 15 they will prove it here: a landslide to the right! A lot of people over here are sick and tired of the lies from the left too.
(Did anyone of you think I would approve/take part of Eurobashing when you did read the first sentence?)
What I want to know is what happened to the volcanic goat cheese. It's like the EU took it off the "eligible for export" list or something.
My money's still on President Bossier, Vice President Chenier, and Speaker Hastert.
'Nuff said!
You are right knighthawk, we in america see so much america bashing from the leftists in power in Europe that we tend to lump all Europeans into the same group. We forget that america is only fractionally further to the right than europe, and that we have only just come back into the light after 8 years of Clinton. I believe that european politics tends to lag american politics by several years, so that with a move to the right in america as is now obvious, we will soon see more politians on the right taking power in europe.
I appreciate the good will any European citizen has toward the U.S.A., and I hope to see an increase in Nationalism in Europe as well as the U.S.A. I do not believe that Frenchmen should be interchangeable with Danes, or Germans, or Dutchmen ect. All can be proud of the great accomplishments of their respective culture, citizens, and Nations. (Same for us Americans) Blenderizing everybody into follow the leader leftthink will endanger Europe additionally. I am grateful that the U.S. has begun to move away from this approval seeking silde. I wish you Europeans good fortune. NP
Bump.
My personal favorite is LBJ's retort to DeGaulle on the French demand in the 1960's to remove all American military from French soil: "Is it just the living or do you want us to dig up our dead, too?"
As to Steyn's piece, he saved his best for last: History teaches us that the most lasting peace is achieved when one side-- preferably the worst side--is decisively defeated and the regime's diseased organs are comprehensively cleansed. That's why National Socialism, Fascism and Japanese militarism have not troubled us of late.
If it is xenophobia you want to find, I suppose I can grant you that Steyn does appeal to nationalist sentiments. However, I think you would find it hard to argue the basic common sense of the italicized remarks above. If Steyn is off the "Mark", please expand your comments to refute the statement above.
Ping for the MSPL. It's a repeat of an ealier column this week, but it's a good one if you missed it earlier.
Damn right I'll claim that.
I remember that sorry period very clearly, when the French were testing their nuke triggers at Mururoa Atoll. What I was doing then was calling talk radio just about every day and labelling Greenpeace and the Left as Sov puppets. And going to the little French restaurant in Willoughby to show a bit of support in the face of one of Australlia's most shameful episodes of mass hysteria. You won't be surprised to hear we had no trouble getting a table. :)
True, we may be importing "productive" people from other lands, and they may even become American "citizens." A question must be posed: Is the motivation of the new immigrant purely mercenary in nature, OR because they desire to be "American" in spirit and heart in the tradition of Washington, Adams, and Patrick Henry?
Sure, the one little section where Steyn takes a breath from propagandizing, to state the obvious. You sound like an intelligent person; can't you see how this piece is designed to reinforce a certain type of reader's prejudices? And attention, Mark Steyn : PJ O'Rourke did the Rambo quote a lot better, in Holidays in Hell. We Freepers know PJ, and you're no PJ.
Whoa big guy -- I think Steyn is on our side. He battles every day. Put the Colt 45 back in the holster, ok?
I suppose we could send some shrinks to Australia too.
Agreed. But in some ways, that makes this piece even worse.
What is the benefit to the US in needlessly alienating the Europeans? They're in the middle of a swing to the Right, as we've seen in Scandinavia, Austria and Italy. So things are trending better there. And if it comes down to a face-off, some years hence, between the US and China, do we want the world divided into three blocs? Or do we want the West standing shoulder to shoulder? I just find all this French-bashing here incredibly infantile and ignorant. They live a lot closer to the action, and have been invaded twice last century- so of course they're not going to be as gung-ho about making war as some Duluth Freeper sitting comfortably in front of his computer.
How thoughtful.
Would your personal one be too busy to make the trip? :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.