Marat, we’re poor, and the poor stay poor.
Marat, don’t make us wait anymore.
We want our rights, and we don’t care how.
We want a revolution — now.
- from the musical Marat/Sade
Marat was an extremist among extremists, a polemicist. He whipped up the French to bloodthirsty mobs in 1789 with the diatribes he wrote and published. He signed the death warrants of Louis XVI ane Marie-Antoinette. He was instrumental in bringing on the bloodbath of the French Revolution.
Marat had a disfiguring skin disease that kept him in a medicinal bath almost around the clock. He did his writing there. And he was ultimately assassinated there.
The artist who painted him was a polemicist also — in art. He also signed those death warrants. He painted Marat unblemished, almost unbloodied, gracefully slumped, a hero, a martyr, almost a dead Christ figure.
You can see this Marat by googling MARAT DAVID PAINTING. You will see how we are supposed to believe he was, how we are supposed to believe all the instigators of the years-long massacre were, when we sing The Marseillaise today, Bastille Day.
|
Categories: Holidays & Special Occasions
|
July 14th, 2007 at 1:46:32 pm
And while Leanna tries to act all sophisticated and intellectual about the meaning and history of Bastille Day, allow me to turn you to a more accurate vision:
That Jonah Goldberg article is from 2000, and very little as changed about the French — or Bastille Day — since then.
July 14th, 2007 at 1:52:29 pm
Andrew, must you always be an ass?
July 14th, 2007 at 2:10:11 pm
Brendan, you can always count on two things happening on July 14: Your mom posting some nonsense glorifying the French and their terrifying revolution; and me posting a retort, primarily drawn from Jonah Goldberg’s witty genius. What can I say? Bastille Day irks me, and for good reason — there is very little about it worth celebrating. Bastille Day is an ode to tyranny, and celebrating July 14 is like celebrating May Day or whatever day the Soviets used to celebrate for when the Commies finally took over Russia.
July 14th, 2007 at 2:13:16 pm
“And while Leanna tries to act all sophisticated and intellectual…”
Andrew, you should stop Projecting like that. It’s not worth your Effort when your Act flops anyway.
Brendan, you’re wrong. It’s not Always. Just Usually.
July 14th, 2007 at 2:15:07 pm
Andrew, I just saw your 2nd comment and must Revise my assessment as follows: You Moron. Will you go back and READ what Leanna wrote f’Chrissakes?
July 14th, 2007 at 2:27:41 pm
Andrew is an ass. He may have read what Leanna wrote, but apparently he is incapable of actually comprehending it. In no way does she defend the French Revolution or its instigators.
Andrew, on the other hand, is so full of shit that he immediately jumps to the wrong conclusion about everything. I know plenty of people who are keen intellectuals who lack the common sense to exercise that intellect well. As a result, they end up alienating those around them…even those who put up with the bullshit because they respect the mind. I don’t know Andrew, but he appears to be one of those people.
July 14th, 2007 at 2:29:39 pm
More importantly, it’s my birthday. :P
July 14th, 2007 at 2:30:17 pm
Andrew, my mom isn’t “glorifying” anything in this post. Or did you read “bloodthirsty mobs,” “the bloodbath of the French Revolution,” and “years-long massacre” to be compliments?
In any event, whatever your interpretation of the post, there’s no justification for being so unnecessarily assholish in saying my mother “tries to act all sophisticated and intellectual.” Nor is the spectre of you deliberately poking her in the eye with Jonah Goldberg’s bigotry particularly amusing at this point. Don’t get me wrong, I find many of Goldberg’s prejudiced anti-French comments funny, in the same way that I sometimes find racist jokes funny — but as with racist jokes, it’s all about context: they’re only funny if everybody in the room knows you’re not being serious, and isn’t going to be offended. Past run-ins on the blog have made fairly clear that my mother doesn’t find these sorts of jokes funny, and moreover, when you describe them as “witty genius,” and introduce his diatribe as “more accurate” than my mom’s commentary, one begins to question whether you’re really “not being serious,” or whether instead you actually believe it’s appropriate (rather than merely inappropriate-but-funny) to condemn the entirety of the French people on the basis of stereotypes.
July 14th, 2007 at 2:30:44 pm
Happy birthday, Jessica!
July 14th, 2007 at 2:40:52 pm
Thanks man!
July 14th, 2007 at 3:08:24 pm
A spat via blog comments involving a foreign holiday, taking shots at Monsieur Loy’s mother…how boorish…how American!
Viva La Resistance!
July 14th, 2007 at 3:10:06 pm
Andrew-
Labor Day is coming up in less than two months. Now that I brought that up, do you want to go on an anti-Labor, mafia, communist conspiracy rant now?
July 14th, 2007 at 3:11:28 pm
Now Peppy le Pew’s comment is funny.
July 14th, 2007 at 3:28:06 pm
Just to add my voice for the record: Andrew, you’re an ass. One of my friends in high school used to bring up a lot of bigoted nonsense all the time, thinking it was witty genius. No one really talks to him anymore.
Why don’t you at least apologize? You’re entitled (and I hesitated in saying that)to your opinions, but not to mean-spirited insult. And how about using your own words and instead of those from that “witty genius” Jonah Goldberg?
July 14th, 2007 at 3:30:05 pm
First off, let me apologize for my ill-advised phraseology. In retrospect, I can see how my words would have been just fine if you’d have heard me speak them because the tone would have gave the butt of the joke away… but in written form, the true direction of the disparagement was too obscure. When I said “tries to act all sophisticated and intellectual”, I did a poor job of playing off my callow appreciation for and near-complete lack of knowledge of fine art. You’re talking about someone who has no desire to ever visit the Louvre and who took about three hours to get through the Vatican art museum (this included the lengthy wait to enter the Sistine Chapel). By saying Leanna was trying to “act all sophisticated an intellectual”, I was attempting to emphasize my own total lack of sophistication and intellectualism when it comes to art — in other words, my disparagement of Leanna’s art-related post was lighthearted and meant more to roll the eyes of those who know that I am a complete boob when it comes to art.
That, in turn, was supposed to roll neatly into Goldberg’s humor-laden column about the French and Bastille Day. And here is where we are bound to have some more serious disagreements. The intent of Leanna’s post was obviously not to glorify the bloodbathy aspect of the French Revolution, but Leanna is a known Francophile, and you, she, and I have gone round and round about this very subject of whether on the whole the French Revolution was a good or bad thing (I’d link directly to some of the discussions in the past but I’m having trouble locating and linking to some of the archives; I did find this gem from you, though: “However you feel about France these days, Bastille Day is worth celebrating because the French Revolution was, as a whole, a good event in the development of Western civilization — even if Bastille Day itself was rather a bloodbath, and various other stages of the Revolution were a bit, um, unsavory.”). While the poking at the French is just for fun, my take on the long-lasting impact of the French Revolution is dead serious: It was a huge step backward for mankind — and I make no apologies for drawing attention to that fact on this and every July 14. Bastille Day is absolutely nothing worth celebrating.
July 14th, 2007 at 3:33:30 pm
Mad Max, I don’t have time to attack the evils of labor unions and explain why they are a scourge on the capitalist drive to ever-increasing wealth today. Please remind me again in September. Thanks!
July 14th, 2007 at 3:50:10 pm
Andrew, your understanding of the French Revolution needs to be much more thoughtful and nuanced to come across as anything beyond utterly irrational. The fact that you connect what you pretend is a serious discussion of its flaws and failures to this ridiculous article filled with antediluvian prejudices against the French is not a testament to your higher understanding, to put it mildly. Meaningful discussions of complex events like the French Revolution tend not to categorize it in such shallow, absolute terms as “good” or “bad.”
July 14th, 2007 at 4:01:52 pm
“antediluvian”!?!?
Andrew might be a boob when it comes to art appreciation. Jen, on the other hand, is a boob for using the word “antediluvian.”
July 14th, 2007 at 4:03:44 pm
Or in other words: The fact that Jen uses the word antediluvian in a serious discussion is not a testament to Jen’s higher understanding, to put it mildly
July 14th, 2007 at 4:18:48 pm
Ah yes, those terribly banal words, “good” and “bad” — such simplisme. Jen, the same people who cannot bring themselves to label the French Revolution as a “bad” event for human progress are the same folks who find the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Cultural Revolution, and the American withdrawal from Southeast Asia too “complex” to label with “such shallow, absolute terms as ‘good’ or ‘bad’” — even though the millions of deaths assocated with those events should make such moral judgments rather obvious.
July 14th, 2007 at 4:29:59 pm
Arguing on the intarweb is like competing in the special olympics. Even if you win, you’re still a retard.
It had to be said.
July 14th, 2007 at 4:33:56 pm
I might also add, professor, that we are not in class and this is not a term paper, and I’m not going to take the time to write a 10,000-word treatise on the nuances of the French Revolution and the nascent age of nationalism it ushered into existence. I already did that in college, but I’ll send that essay to you if you’re really interested. I am also not a college professor or a PhD student, so I really feel very little need to demonstrate my elitist “higher understanding”, to put it mildly. Jonah Goldberg’s annual Bastille Day articles summarize the relevant points succinctly, so yes, that suffices. Now if you want to address the merits of Goldberg’s arguments rather than dismissing us because of our “antediluvian” humor and lack of nuance, I’m all ears, but something tells me you’d rather assert your intellectual sophistication than actually engage the argument, so I won’t sit around all day awaiting your reply.
July 14th, 2007 at 5:25:00 pm
but something tells me you’d rather assert your intellectual sophistication than actually engage the argument, so I won’t sit around all day awaiting your reply.
Did Jen really deserve that, Andrew? That’s a little beyond “addressing merits” or “engaging the argument” if you ask me. Or will you, in retrospect, recognize this as “ill-advised phraseology” again?
July 14th, 2007 at 5:34:26 pm
Andrew, Leanna has not read any of this comment thread yet but for my part (only), thank you for the apology for your Ill-advised phraseology. (I dunno who your Advisor is but you might want to look for a Weller one. :)
Now as to Professor Jen and le Boeuf de the beef :), let me point out that no less sophisticated an intellectual :> than Gore Vidal once called William F. Buckley Jr. “an antediluvian flibbertigibbet”. (I can remember this because avant le deluge, Moi. ;)
July 14th, 2007 at 5:45:16 pm
First, let me begin with the statement I intead yo offend nobody.
Second, my reading of the original post is an attack on the popularized image of the revolution. I read the title as a sarcastic comment.
Third, I wisg to associate myself with the substance, if not the style, of Andrew’s remarks.
The American revolution was about protecting and enshrining rights given to us from our creator. The French revolution was about instituting the laws of man.
The American revolution produced a stable Republic and peaceful transitions of power. The French revolution produced a reign of terror, and a series of tyrants, some attempting to use the guise of republicanism.
My distaste of the French revolution does not stem from my admitted prejudice against the French.
July 14th, 2007 at 5:46:49 pm
That first sentence should read “I intend to offend nobody”
July 14th, 2007 at 6:49:22 pm
I laughed out loud when I read Andrew’s pathetic attempt to back-peddle his obviously INTENTIONAL dickheaded remarks. Brendan hit the nail on the head when he called Andrew out on not even READING Leanna’s post.
Oh, and he looks like a rat-faced “before” picture on a Proactiv commercial. Ha
July 14th, 2007 at 8:24:44 pm
For a thread where everybody keeps claiming that they’re “putting things mildly,” you’d think there would be fewer insults flying around.
Can’t we all just get along?
On the other hand, this thread is sort of a digital bloodbath, so maybe it’s in the spirit of the day.
And yes, Andrew, that would make you, like, Robespierre or something. Muahaha.
July 14th, 2007 at 8:50:54 pm
Leanna says:
Let me put this discussion back on point, if you will let me, and take this a step further. There were several leaders of the French Revolution (if you can call the undisciplined spinoff that happened over several tumultuous years a single thing with just a few tightly-knit leaders). The name best remembered is Robespierre. Then there was Marat, and another was Danton. Danton was remarkable in a way you might appreciate. He was a great orator, a charismatic figure, highly intelligent, young, virile and handsome. He cut quite a figure. As happened with all of the Jacobins, he was eventually betrayed (by the other Jacobins) and was sent to the guillotine. He went to the scaffold bravely and proudly and proclaimed to the crowd to take a good look at his head when it went rolling down, because it would be a long time before they saw another like it.
Robespierre, in contrast, went to the gallows crying and begging for his life. Almost all the others did.
Alexis de Tocqueville’s The Old Regime and the Revolution is the comprehensive work about the Revolution. I got to read it in his own words, but it is also available in translation. I recommend it highly to anyone interested in world history; It is one of the best books I ever read. It doesn’t support or defend anybody; it does give a very clear picture of all the things that were both right and wrong about both the Ancien Regime and the revolution.
More accessible is a TV program this coming Monday evening of Simon Schama’s The Power of Art series, on the artist Jacques-Louis David. I believe it is on at 10 PM EST, but check your local listings. Even for the art-impaired, it is great viewing — Schama always makes things interesting and very dramatic. With one caveat: Schama does tend to take one idea and run with it, and he has decided that the painter David was an awful person, based on his actions during the revolutionary years. I have read the twenty-some essays of a comprehensive symposium about David that was held in Paris about twenty years ago. The writers didn’t judge David in any way; he was a much too complicated man, which they demonstrated. I will say, based on de Tocqueville, Schama, the authors of that symposium, and myself (and I won’t bore you with why I include myself), that David was too complicated to write off as bad or good, Marat was too complicated to write off as bad or good, Robespierre was to complicated to write off as bad or good, and the French Revolution was too complicated to write off as bad or good. The French Revolution was the American Revolution. Then it went terribly wrong.
July 14th, 2007 at 10:11:59 pm
First, the written word is notoriously bad at communicating a sarcastic tone. So in the future I would suggest Andrew avoid trying to do it.
Second, David was a neo-classical painter (in other words talented but pretty traditional), so even Andrew should appreciate his work.
July 15th, 2007 at 1:36:54 am
Mad Max, what does neo-classical mean? j/k. In any case, I wrote my initial comment about two minutes after I rolled out of bed, so I wasn’t exactly considering tone and had no idea I was setting off a “digital bloodbath”. It certainly wasn’t my intent, anyway.
Leanna, I’ve always wondered, how do we judge historical figures as “virile”? Unless you mean he had quite a number of children, in which casse I might wonder if it really wasn’t the impregnated women who were really the virile ones….
Leanna, you also say, “The French Revolution was the American Revolution. Then it went terribly wrong.” Again, I couldn’t disagree more. The American Revolution was deeply thought out and accompanied by many a plea to Parliament to alter its treatment of the colonies. The American revolutionaries had no intent to totally upend the English civilization they inherited, they just wanted a say in their political determination. Had Parliament admitted a couple of colonial representatives, it’s quite likely America would have been no different than Canada or Australia and still be subject to the Crown. The French Revolutionaries are lauded because they sought to end a terrible oppression and economically unjust feudal-based system of government, but the pursuit of radical and tyrannical ends puts the FR in the same class as any other historical upheaval. The French did not invent that formula — almost every historical example of civil unrest had its roots in an unjust ruler that overplayed his power, and its end in the acceptance of a new but nearly equal example of an oppressive ruler (either from within that society or without). What the French invented was revolutionary radicalism, a style that quickly played out in territory after territory and eventually morphed into more ideologically distinct brands of tyranny such as communism, fascism, and national socialism. The American Revolution is not even a distant cousin to this kind of revolutionary behavior.
kcatnd, in the spirit of the current ongoing digital bloodbath, you’re a dumbass. Jen is smart enough to defend herself — if she really wishes to press the point (and in all likelihood, she probably has better things to do than engage in juvenile internet debates, such as enjoy her lovely young child; so that’s fine as well). Make me out the asshole if you want, but I at least address arguments on their merits. Jen made no such attempt and instead dismissed my comments by virtue of their lack of sophistication and complexity. I’m willing to suffer a lot of nonsense in this world, but nose-up intellectual elitism is not one of them. Or did you somehow miss that Jen made no effort whatsoever to address anything that Jonah Goldberg said and instead waived off the article a priori because of its “antediluvian” nature? That’s true intellectual arrogance if I’ve ever seen it.
I think Anonymouse at 21. said it best, I think it’s retarded this thread has lasted this long.
Brendan, I’m no Robespierre. A digital Oliver Cromwell (hi Joe ;-)? Perhaps….
July 15th, 2007 at 11:02:04 am
From Cromwell’s bio…
“Under his rule, the Protectorate advocated religious liberty of conscience but allowed blasphemers to be tortured”
…Sounds like Andrew.
July 15th, 2007 at 4:36:08 pm
“Leanna, I’ve always wondered, how do we judge historical figures as ‘virile’?”
Andrew, we Scrutinize the historical record to estimate whether they might have Measured up to our Husbands. ;>
Thanks for the link to the Lord Protector btw. Yes, yer man always makes for a pleasant Contemplation ;]. Ptui! Malacht Cromail ort. :)
July 15th, 2007 at 10:13:30 pm
On the off-chance that your reference to virility was not intended as humor, I looked up virile in the dictionary. Webster’s 7th New Collegiate Dictionary gives four meanings:
1.Having the nature, properties or qualities of a man ; capable of functioning as a male in copulation; 2. energetic, vigorous; 3. characteristic or associated with men; and 4. masterful, forceful.
All of these have been used to describe Danton, and he was legendary (from many historical sources) for his energy, his vigor, his masterful and forceful nature, and his ability to function as a man in the act of copulation.
You say the American and French Revolutions were not the same. As to the ultimate goals of each group of revolutionary leaders, I have to say that Samuel Adams didn’t want reform. Neither did Tom Paine. And they were not alone among Americans who took up the revolutionary cause. Robespierre was not initially striving for tyranny. That was the result. As for the tyranny of the French crown, Louis XVI wasn’t a tyrant, either by intention or in fact. Throughout the 1780s he was instituting agricultural reform.
And lastly, there is nothing negative per se about being a Francophile. Because I have traditionally sung or posted the lyrics of the Marseillaise as a stand-alone here, I felt I was uniquely positioned to post a criticism of it this Bastille Day. I thought you of all people might have appreciated that.
July 16th, 2007 at 12:16:15 am
Andrew, my problem is primarily with your tone, not what you’re arguing (even if I do disagree with some of it). I don’t know if it’s just your natural style or if you really do feel bitter(?) about all of this, but there’s a lot of venom in your writing - something that doesn’t sit well with me.
Yeah, boo-hoo, tough for me, but I think it matters. Why do you feel the need to hit people so hard? Sure, you are addressing arguments, but you show little respect for who you argue with. Jen, from my understanding was pointing out the difficulty in labeling the French Revolution, which was more of an era than one single event, as absolutely good or bad. I agree with you – some of that stuff was terrible and morally indefensible, but that doesn’t make every component of whatever the French Revolution means, a bad thing necessarily. If you’re going to generalize (and you kind of had to with the limited space), you can’t really be dick-headed about it.
There are important contextual differences between the American and French revolutions. For example, the American colonists needed only to drive their oppressors out to win and establish a fresh government; the French had to tear down a government and rebuild it on top of the rubble – as it so happened, chaos ensued. No one’s asking you for a term paper. How about simply nodding to these other factors when you make your claims instead of claiming you’ve covered it and are somehow exempt from even acknowledging them? Making a bold claim (“a more accurate version”), then having Jonah Goldberg do your work for you before actually spelling out why you believe these things strikes me as a form of intellectual elitism itself.
Like someone else mentioned, you come across as a very intelligent person, but, man, lighten up and cut back on all of the unnecessary condescension.
July 16th, 2007 at 10:09:33 am
To forgive is Divine.
To condescend is Andrew.
July 16th, 2007 at 7:01:15 pm
As a Francophone, and, in some ways, Francophile (the Auld Alliance, notwithstanding), I’m with Andrew in not seeing the French and American Revolutions as being in even vaguely the same ball-park … the later sought to remove the influene of Lord North and the like, the former sought to (and succeeded) remove the heads of the aristocracy involved …
The American Revolution happened because a lot of folk didn’t want to throw out the baby with the bathwater … the French Revolution happened and threw out the baby *and* the bathwater *and* bathing was almost thrown out, too !
Bastille Day is an important symbol for the French … unfortunately, like the history that is taught in French schools, it leaves out the inconvenient parts - the sheer savagery of wiping out the maudits aristos root and branch, men, women, *and* children … as I’ve said elsewhere, the former house-painter made the German trains run on time, but that’s not what he is remembered for …
July 16th, 2007 at 10:07:02 pm
Heh, my hats off to A&A @ 36. Touche. I sure miss having a clever foil, hopefully you can keep the momentum going.
Leanna, my reference to virility was solely in humor. In general, I find the label “virile” to be an amusing, sometimes ridiculous term that just begs for a joke.
And this should be a larger lesson for kcatnd and others who are late to the game: As venomous as I may seem, you have to imagine me typing out my comments with some form or version of one of Dubya’s infamous smirks. Winning arguments and debates gets kind of old — I have to make it interesting and add a cutting edge to it. I really wasn’t intentionally being an ass anywhere in this thread (again, my phrase “act all sophisticated and intellectual” was really making fun of my own lack of artistic judgment), until Jen decided to arrogantly dimsiss my criticisms of the French Revolution a priori because of their “antediluvian” nature. What it comes down to is, her comment was so stereotypically characteristic of an elitist left-liberal university professor who simply can’t be bothered to engage an argument from the other side of the aisle, her stance deserved special scorn.
Beyond that, I rarely use personal attacks like I used against kcatnd in 35.; I find blunt prose that focuses on the merits being put forth much more appropriate (since kcatnd decided to inject herself into a thread for the sole purpose of passing moral judgment, she brought my “dumbass” comment on herself). And here’s another helpful hint: The more thin-skinned you appear to be, the more likely I am going to single you out and “venomously” rip apart your argument for the sole purpose of driving you nuts (see: David). My advice, kcatnd: Stop acting like an overly sensitive whiny liberal who takes it upon herself to gasp in horror and pass moral judgment on just about everything I write on this blog, and you’ll probably save yourself from some ulcers. Hey, even David learned (eventually), so no doubt you can too.
Overall, I find this thread to be absolutely bizarre. Why are people so goddamn touchy about making fun of the freakin’ French, for chrissakes?!? Piling on the French is to Americans (and the British) what piling on fUTLA is to Trojans — there’s absolutely no reason to ever say a positive word about either location. Sure, Bastille Day was a bloody mess and a step in the wrong direction for humanity, but plenty of other nations have fared far worse than France since July 14, 1789. Yet picking on, say, Russia feels like picking on Florida State — There’s just no passion behind it. But the French? Ah, pass me the vin et fromage — this is fun! And not just because I’m right about the French Revolution….
There, now I’ve truly been an ass. On purpose. Go ahead, let me have it!
July 16th, 2007 at 10:20:13 pm
Robespierre, Reign of Terror, militarism a la Napolean . . . what’s not to honor?
July 17th, 2007 at 1:55:36 am
Gasp! You didn’t really come across as an ass in 38. I get it - this is just how you are. As a thick-skinned, centrist guy I also have no problem harassing you as I see fit for what you write, not to mention the frequent moral judgment you pass on people and things (you bring it upon yourself, you know). I get touchy about the French because I think a lot of conservatives wrongly throw them to the curb without any real thinking beyond “cheese-eating surrender monkeys” (you know, ignoring merits or something). I know you have reasons for what you believe about them (a lot of them quite valid, I might add), but I’ll readily jab back if I don’t see them. I’ll be sure to let you know if you deserve any special scorn, too. Maybe you can give me some pointers.
Knowing that you write with a smirk takes some of the venom out, but doesn’t mean you can just huff and puff and intimidate in place of actual reasoning - like you do in personally attacking people or deciding who is acting like a liberal or believing that you’re always “winning” and right :)I can and do respect your arguments most of the time, but it would also be nice to see them without gratuitous jabs at innocent bystanders (damn that moral judgment! It must be pesky to Ann Coulter, as well) My advice, Andrew: stop acting like an overly insensitive crass conservative who takes it upon himself to pass moral judgment on everything he doesn’t like. That was written with quite a smirk, by the way.
I can see now that I am a little late to the game, but I also have no intention of leaving early. (Or using ridiculous metaphors.)
July 17th, 2007 at 3:16:31 pm
Thinking back through history, it does become remarkably clear that one generally doesn’t want someone French to be in a position of authority anywhere except in the kitchen … (grin) …
July 18th, 2007 at 5:13:17 pm
/Frenchtrash off/
Let me tell you about my French landlady. She was a Resistance fighter during WWII. She was naturalized French, originally Polish, married to a prominent French editorial cartoonist, and they had three children. In World War II, her two sons enlisted and saw active service. She began doing resistance work. On two occasions, the Nazis almost captured her. Once they came to her doorstep a day after she and her husband and daughter had left leaving no forwarding address. On the other occasion she was in the Marseille train station as a courier. The Nazis found out (but didn’t know which resistance fighter was there). They closed off the station and began searching the travelers one by one. She stepped into a cafe to gather her wits. The maitre d’ surmised her situation and arranged for her to leave through his kitchen into an alleyway, an exit the Nazis didn’t know about. Both of these times, she would have been shot on the spot. The maitre d’ would also have been executed on the spot. One of my landlady’s two sons was captured, then was killed (while imprisoned) by an American bombing run intended for Axis targets. (The family never blamed the Americans.) Her other son remained in the service, ultimately reaching the level of general. She received several medals for her resistance work after the war, and one for her son who was killed. Both her grandsons also fulfilled their military responsibilities, in the 1960s, one in doing his service in the French Navy and the other doing CO work in Paris.
These people were French. The maitre d’ had been French.
I’ve known many other French people. I’ve never personally known a French coward.
/Frenchtrash on/
July 18th, 2007 at 6:45:07 pm
There are always exceptions.
Tell you what. For every WWII Maquis, I’ll cite you a Vichy collaborator. For bonus points I’ll make them ones who helped ship the French Jews to Eastern Europe.
Or maybe I’ll make it more modern and cite a French peacekeeper in Africa who rapes children while allowing genocide to take place in order to promote France’s interests against the Anglo-Saxons.
Or maybe I’ll cite a corrupt French politician who when he isn’t lining his pockets with money from some dictator is busy bad mouthing the U.S.
Say what you will, you have to admit there are at least as many French talking crap about the US as their are Americans talking crap about the French.
July 18th, 2007 at 8:34:48 pm
One of my landlady’s two sons was captured, then was killed (while imprisoned) by an American bombing run intended for Axis targets. (The family never blamed the Americans.)
Heh, I bet the grandkids do!
In any case, Leanna, this tactic isn’t going to work with me. I actually have French blood, via my grandmother, who was born in Quebec and whose family was originally from Normandy. Beyond that, I’ve actually spent time in France and even had a French pen pal for a while (email pal, really), and we still keep in touch. But if two rotten apples don’t spoil the whole damn bunch, neither does it mean that two beautiful apples means the bunch is not rotten.
Leanna, do you know what European country’s citizens are the most despised by the rest of the Europeans? The French. By and large, the French are the most obnoxious people as a whole, and their strident anti-Americanism and willingness to serve as a center of an alternative pole to “counterbalance” American-Anglo global influence reeks of arrogance and lack of appreciation for the massive security umbrella we provide them. And the French also spy on us. As the saying goes, with friends like these….
July 18th, 2007 at 9:49:36 pm
This is not a tactic, Andrew. I have written about these people in other settings having nothing to do with stereotyping and cheap shots. I said my last goodbye to my landlady on the platform of the Marseille train station. She was one of the finest people I have ever known and she was French.
I e-mailed my comment to two of her great-grandsons. I didn’t send the rest of the comments. I hope you all don’t mind.
July 19th, 2007 at 3:54:41 pm
Leanna - without intending to, you made your opposition’s point …
“Let me tell you about my French landlady. She was a Resistance fighter during WWII. She was naturalized French, originally Polish, “ … {my emphasis} …
Yes, there were exceptionally brave Maquisards - and yet it remains a sad yet historical fact that it was safer to be Jewish in Germany than in France during most of World War II … and you, yourself, just pointed out that the landlady you respect wasn’t French …
With that said, I have liked most french people I have met … but I still don’t want to see the French in positions of power …
July 19th, 2007 at 5:12:22 pm
Alaisdair,
This woman lived her entire adult life (of over 60 years) in FRANCE, risked her life (multiple times) with the FRENCH Maquis, was multiply-medalled by the FRENCH government, and lost a son in military duty for FRANCE, where she herself died and is buried. I ask you to please consider her FRENCH. Thanks for your remarks. And now I’m done.