I’ve experienced the same thing with my family in the Netherlands.  I went over Thanksgiving last year and everyone wanted to talk about Obama.  My great-aunt, it turns out, had stayed up through the whole night to watch the election and his speech in Grant Park.

It was a marked difference from my first visit, in March 2001, when my great-grandfather used what remaining English he could remember to ask us why the hell Bush hadn’t signed the Kyoto Protocol, and how our country could have possibly voted for such an imbecile.  He was a smart guy.  Lived through the Nazi occupation, the flood of ‘53, and was a teacher who spoke six languages.

“We all know about how unpopular Republicans are in Europe, even though Europeans have their own conservative parties that they elect all the time, but it’s still pretty amazing to me how often our new President comes up in just random conversation here.”

As near as I can tell, and I admit that this is casual observation rather than detailed study, most European conservative parties are approximately equivalent to Blue Dog Democrats.  I’m no fan of either, but it’s not quite the same message as our “I hate you and therefore Jesus hates you because Jesus does what I tell him to do” conservatives.

I have a bunch of Barack inauguration buttons to take to Japan this summer.  I was told by the guy from the Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science that people will have two questions: 1) Do you like Barack Obama? and 2) Did you go to the inauguration?  I can actually answer yes to the second question.  I guess part of the reason they like him is that there is a town called Obama in Japan.

I’ve spent a lot of time in the homes of French families through a diplomatic job, and as people found out I didn’t vote for Bush (this was all pre-2008), were thrilled to commiserate with me about how terrible he was. Preference for who was in power wasn’t relevant. They all hated Bush, whether they tended to be Mitterand or Chirac supporters. (I don’t know any Front national supporters, probably unsurprisingly.) Or more recently, Sarkozy or Royal. Then again, as Heo Cwaeth said, the more conservative politicians in France are more like our more conservative Democrats than any American Republicans.

Yeah, I can’t wait to get back over to Europe. The last time I was there, it was still in the time of “if anyone asks, say you’re Canadian.” (International Apology Shirts weren’t available yet.)

Then again, as Heo Cwaeth said, the more conservative politicians in France are more like our more conservative Democrats than any American Republicans.

Also, from reading history and paying attention to current events in my life I have the impression that in Britain and France at any rate, the tendency has been for their nominally leftist/Socialist parties to generally be more slavishly devoted to US allegiance, whereas the conservative regimes in those countries have often been more assertive of their national independence.

When Charles DeGaulle took over with the formation of the French Fifth Republic, for instance, that’s when American military forces were asked to leave their bases in France. He also pursued the policy of developing a separate French nuclear capability. The Fifth Republic replaced the Fourth largely because of French failures to maintain their colonial regimes in Vietnam and Algeria, which the Fourth Republic, whose governments generally included Socialist (and even, until American clandestine skulduggery put the kibosh on it, Communist) ministers, and their parties supported colonialism—which the USA also supported in those decades.

In Britain also, Labour governments tended to align their foreign policy with US policy, few questions asked, and committed their military branches more and more to imported US technology, while the Conservatives tended to favor rival British technology and pursued alternate foreign policy. The Suez crisis being a particular low point in Anglo-American relations—to be fair, the French were in on that too, and this was in the ‘50s, still the 4th Republic.

The pattern varied a bit when Margaret Thatcher became PM and eventually was Reagan’s closest ally.  But at the same time France had a Socialist President, Mitterand, and he too was a staunch supporter of the Thatcher/Reagan neoliberal axis.

Tony Blair’s slavish devotion to Bush Jr was more typical.

The Germans seem to have been more in synch; conservative German leaders tended to be closer to the US line, while German socialists were more conciliatory to the Soviets. All that refers to the Warsaw Pact period, of course; with reunification the USA has kept moving rightward while the Germans have remained balanced between moderate conservatives and actual socialists of various types (with some scary but fortunately still fringe rightists in the mix…)

Even in the period between WWII and 1980 of course the general political center of gravity was considerably farther to the Left, as illustrated by the Monty Python joke, “In America there are two parties; the Republicans, who resemble the British Conservative Party, and the Democrats, who correspond to the British…Conservative Party.”

Since then I gather Europe has tended somewhat more rightward, but we’ve left them way…well, ahead, in my view.

I don’t think any of the scary reactionaries in Europe ever liked Bush Jr much, either. The thing about being such a rightist, chauvinist, quasi- or actual fascist that Bush’s policies and actions would seem sensible is that such people tend to also be hypernationalist; deferring to any Yank would go against their grain. This is why the most devoted ally Bush had in Europe was a nominal socialist.

Bush was just terrible across the board, for everyone but very rich people in general and certain crony contractors and the oil industry in particular. Even rich Americans had reason for doubt and dissension. Overseas what allies he had, Blair excepted, were pretty much bought and paid for, or investors in the Bush/Republican regime.

It’s the same for me with my grandparents in England - they watched the acceptance speech, the inauguration speech, all the little TV specials about Obama, whenever we talk, we talk about politics…

The entire campaign and the eventual election of Obama was wonderful here in paris. The day I voted by absentee ballot, when I got to the front of the line at the post office and handed it to the girl to get postage, she and her coworker looked it and and looked at me and then back again to the envelope. I said, “Obama.” And they grinned from ear to ear. We all blew kisses at the ballot as it went into the slot. My local baker said to me one day when I first got here, “You are German?” and I said, “No, American.” And he did a thumbs down and a big frown and said “Boosh!” Then a thumbs up and a big grin and said, “Eelaree Cleetone!” hehe The Algerian guy at the coffee bar in my building told me he wanted Obama to win, but that America would a)never vote for a black guy or b) if they did, somebody would kill him. I said, “Put those words right back into your mouth!”

I wrote a post recently about a wee-hours-in-the-morning cab ride I took and the driver was Russian. As I settled into my seat in the back, Obama was on the radio. The cab driver said, “Il est un optimist.” And I said that’s exactly what we need now. He and I talked deep, deep politics all the way to my apartment. It was a conversation I would never have in America. That’s why I’m here.

Amanda, if you guys need anything while in Paris, just email me. I can show you around or give you restaurant ideas or whatever. I’d be happy to.

When I was in Scotland two years ago, I just explained that I was American, but had not voted for Bush either time. Then I apologized to everyone, store clerks, receptionists, bus drivers, everyone.

And they all accepted my apology.

Also, from reading history and paying attention to current events in my life I have the impression that in Britain and France at any rate, the tendency has been for their nominally leftist/Socialist parties to generally be more slavishly devoted to US allegiance, whereas the conservative regimes in those countries have often been more assertive of their national independence.

I think this has to do with the fact that conservative European parties are slightly isolationist (vs. the internationalist socialist parties) and are wary of ALL foreign/international ties, not just American ones. Whereas in America since WWII the mainstream of both parties favor involvement in the world.

the tendency has been for their nominally leftist/Socialist parties to generally be more slavishly devoted to US allegiance

I can think of more exceptions than examples, though: e.g. Wilson wouldn’t back LBJ on Vietnam.

Oh goodness, Japanese people LOVE Obama.  I don’t even think they know what it means, but everyone here can say “yes we can” (I’ve seen it used in places where it was just awkward, but ... whatever) and there are books to help you learn English through Obama speeches.  And it’s so nice to not have to apologize for my country’s policies anymore.  Bonus!  In my job I’ve talked to a lot of people who wish that Obama was the prime minister of Japan and they like his talk of hope and change and wish there was someone like that here. 

I agree that Japan needs someone like that (Japanese politics are fukt—can you imagine if Obama became president and resigned after a few months because it was too hard?).  Maybe they can make a Robobama.

“American swine: ....

.....

Swine flu-free Americans:

I gotta admit, tho I like Bush myself, that was actually pretty damn funny!

I used to travel extensively overseas (until I lost the ability to do so as a result of the recent economic collapse.  My hobby is nature and wildlife photography and I’d go to some fairly exotic locations to take pictures of rare birds and animals—I know how fortunate I am to have had that opportunity.)  I’d have two strategies for how I’d cope, depending on how much time I had and how easily I could communicate:  If I didn’t have time, it was just “I am Canadian.”  (I learned that expression in French, German, Czech, Russian, Italian, Swahili, Malagasy, Thai, Khmer, Mandarin, Brazilian Portuguese, and Arabic…  And used it at least once in each language at some point in time.)  But if I had time, I’d confess that I was Californian, but that California overwhelmingly voted against Bush in both elections, and that I was personally strongly opposed to his policies. 

I can also fall back on being a former resident of Scotland, if I need to.

I recall some mildly good feelings towards the US in the mid-90’s, but it wasn’t quite that warm…  Reagan may have been popular with a larger part of the population than Bush II, but he wasn’t that popular with the younger generation.  I was in Australia just after we bombed Libya in 1986, and heard a few comments that the US overreacted.

About the only time being a US citizen was “OK” was for the first week or so of my trip to China in 2001.  I left San Francisco airport on September 10, 2001 and landed in Hong Kong just past midnight on September 12.  For a while, it felt like there was a “general amnesty” towards Americans, but by September 20, in Beijing one could by bootleg DVD’s celebrating the planes crashing into the World Trade Center.

(Of course, prior to 9/11, if you recall, American foreign policy seemed like it wanted to restart the Cold War, but with China as the Evil Empire.)

Probably the most embarrassing incident in all my travels occurred in Prague in June, 2003.  I was at a restaurant (U Supa, for those of you who know Prague) and a couple from Texas was seated near me.  They got into an argument with another couple from Britain; the Texans were claiming that it was the role of the United States to set things right in the Middle East, that the invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do and will be justified by history, etc…  Some of the claims were absurd, and the comments about communism might have been offensive to the residents of Prague who overheard.

The Ugly American is very real.  (But, as my British friends point out, we also have a tendancy to notice the worst miscreants of our own nationalities more readily than we notice the excesses of others.)

I wish I could be traveling now and enjoying some of those good feelings towards the US.

I’m a Canadian teaching English in Korea to elementary students.  For several months now, one of their cheers (yes “yes!” or “all right!”) has been “Obama!”

Yeah, I figured that would be the case.  I’ll be moving to Germany later this year.  I’ve been many times.  Let’s just say that my interpretation of the Germans is that they mostly don’t like anybody who’s not German (but they’re extremely pleasant and graciously European about it).  Their culture is so tight it’s hard for most Americans to imagine.  With all the other adjustments (language anyone??) I’m going to have to deal with I’m glad they won’t be hating on me for having a dipshit (BUSH) as President.

Enjoy.

I like it when I tell people that I live in Austin and proceed to talk about the state legislature and governor’s mansion and they say, “Wait, I thought the capital of Texas was Dallas.”

I also dated a Greek for a while. When she told her grandparents where I’m from, they cried.

There’s a whole plot point in In Bruges where the Colin Farrell character gets into a fistfight with a guy that he thinks is an American, but turns out to be Canadian, and it rebounds onto him in an unexpected way late in the film.

(Yes, the movie is very good.  No, it’s not a comedy, though it has funny parts.  We were more than a little startled by the bloodbath at the end since so many people had talked about how funny it is, but the deaths are definitely not played for laughs.)

Last year when I was in Italy, everybody wanted to know whether I thought Obama would win (this was during the primary—everyone knew that there was Obama, Hillary Clinton, and a third guy (McCain), but no one could remember who he was or how he fit in to the whole thing).  A monitor at a library where I was studying went from fussing at me because I hadn’t given her the right piece of paper at the right time to being very friendly once she figured out that I am American and could answer questions about the campaign and election.  That was a nice change—people warming up to you *because* you’re American.

I’m sooooo…..relieved to know that the French like us now.

Don’t worry, Franklin - they still think you’re a git, and will still happily bathe their testicles in your soup before bringing it out to you…

I’ve had people outside of the states use “Well, we’d never have guessed that you’re American” as a high compliment.

That being said I’ve had people outside of California say “We’d have never guessed you were from L.A.” with the same intent.

Perhaps the former will change, I think the latter will probably never go away!

Oh, and Franklin? What PiatoR said.

I’ll be moving to Germany later this year.  I’ve been many times.  Let’s just say that my interpretation of the Germans is that they mostly don’t like anybody who’s not German

Americans are cool; it’s not like you were a Turk or a Serb or something. If you move to Munich there are plenty of expats to hang out with. I hung out with an Irish woman married to an armenian guy from France. Note that an expat could be someone from a different part of Germany.

The vibe is very different up north. Berlin seemed to have more than their share of assholes.

I’m sooooo…..relieved to know that the French like us now.

As well you should be. The idea that the french dislike us is deeply, deeply disturbing.

It is not an understatement to say that France is the closest ally the US has. We’ve fought wars against Britain. Big wars. The American Revolution had substantial financial and military support from the French. Admittedly, at the time it was just to piss off the English, but then they have their revolution a few years later and join the whole Democracy thing. They remain our allies, through every single change of administration they have. Kings, Republics, Emperors, and More Republics come and go, without anyone questioning the idea that France and America are sister nations. They sold us the Louisiana Purchase for a song. They needed cash, they gave us land. So close was this relationship that the guy who conceptualized a tiny federal government bound to do no more than exactly as spelled out in the constitution violated the hell out of the constitution to buy that land. And he felt really bad about it, but this is our Sister we’re talking about.

More years come and go, France is our stalwart ally. Again, never on the other side of a war from them. We join them in TWO world wars, which they fought several years before we even show up as the Cavalry. And they’re grateful for it. They beat us into Vietnam by a good decade, and we didn’t go in until they quit and said it was unwinnable (we figured it was just them wanting support. nah, they really meant it.)

To successfully anger France to the point where they will have nothing to do with us and hold us in contempt is very, very bad. Fuck your “You forgot Poland.” Saying “France isn’t with us” is akin to saying “we do not have a friend in the world.” The permanent ire the Hannitys and Limbaughs of the world sought to raise would be analogous to doing something so vile that your twin disowns you. Your twin with whom you once did the whole secret-twin-language thing and have been inseparable.

You’d think someone would have taught these folk that burning bridges, especially one as well travelled and important as that one, is a really, really bad idea.

Karpad, while I agree with most of the sentiment in your reply, I do take issue with this one line:

“Kings, Republics, Emperors, and More Republics come and go, without anyone questioning the idea that France and America are sister nations. They sold us the Louisiana Purchase for a song. They needed cash, they gave us land.”

They could not have given us that land because it was never theirs to begin with. They knew that, and frankly we were the ones who were given the short end of the stick in the end. We gave them money in name for land, in actuality for free. All they gave us was the right to go and pillage the land, killing all the rightful owners and pushing them on reservations or south until our bolted need for “Manifest Destiny” was sated. Not only was that morally wrong, but tax payer money payed for the whole god be damned thing. The worst part is, that for the most part the American people were either so misinformed (see FOX news today), or uncaring, or brainwashed that it was their god given right to kill and steal. I can only look and see how little things have changed with America’s greed for more resources to the middle east and relate it to the same greed for ‘free land’ available in the prairie.

I’m sorry that my first post is so negative, but I had a nerve touched there. I like to believe that you did not intend to offend with your post, but it is the ignorance or else obliviousness of this issue that have hurt so many.

More years come and go, France is our stalwart ally. Again, never on the other side of a war from them….
karpad on 05/16 at 06:32 PM

Well, there was that thing during our Civil War where not only did Emperor Napoleon III consider, along with the British government, recognizing the Confederacy and did give them some aid and comfort, but also sent in his relative Maximillian to conquer Mexico as a puppet state.

But that was an aberration. You’re basically right, we share a lot with France.

And those Americans who have been more Francophobic have generally been reactionaries, in every generation and under whatever pretext. Progressive Americans have generally been Francophiles.

Heck, Mark Twain, IIRC, had nothing but nice things to say about Napoleon III, in The Innocents Abroad. He may have been a bit tongue in cheek. But also IIRC, I’ve read that Louis Bonaparte, before he became Emperor, was at one time a piano player in a New Orleans brothel. You can see how Twain might have had some genuine affection for a guy like that…

Just so everyone knows, when a troll is banned, the easiest way is the nuclear option, which also deletes all that troll’s comments. So if anyone looks like they’re talking to themselves, it’s probably because some douchebag got stick-ruled.

I’m not from Texas, so I probably get the benefit of the doubt more than Texans do when they introduce themselves while traveling.

It wasn’t so much a difference in how people reacted to me as a person when I was traveling abroad before Obama was elected, but the difference is that people really want to hear about Obama and ask me about him. Obama’s a person that lots of people identify with all over the world. You didn’t get that with Bush. I mean, everyone wants to be a young, hip, charismatic, smart guy who gets rocketed from State Senator to Senator to President. With Bush you get sympathy along the lines of, “Look, everyone’s country goes through a right-wing-idiot-for-a-leader stage. It will pass.”

I’m sorry that my first post is so negative, but I had a nerve touched there. I like to believe that you did not intend to offend with your post, but it is the ignorance or else obliviousness of this issue that have hurt so many. <>

<i>Well, there was that thing during our Civil War where not only did Emperor Napoleon III consider, along with the British government, recognizing the Confederacy and did give them some aid and comfort, but also sent in his relative Maximillian to conquer Mexico as a puppet state.

Considered and rejected any recognition. the “comfort” was effectively simply not taking sides. and at the time, “which side are the people who have been our allies” was a legitimate question.

squeegeelicious-
reminds me of a joke from Maria Bamford’s new album.
Talking about her new neighbors, who are Hispanic, the father says -
“I hope you don’t mind living next to Mexicans because we pile a lot of stuff in the yard!”
Maria, who is a pasty, white Minnesotan, says -
“I hope you don’t mind living next to a white lady because I’m going to take that stuff… MANIFEST DESTINY!”

Many of you seem to be making the common (American) mistake of thinking “ally” is a synonym for friend.  The French still don’t like us, and they never really have.  They didn’t like us during the Revolutionary War, after which they spent twenty years trying to screw things up for us as a nation so as to keep us dependent on them.  They didn’t like us during either world war, when the American desire for a lawful peace conflicted with French desires for revenge.  They didn’t like us under DeGaulle, Mitterand, or Chriac, they don’t much like us now, and nothing Mr. Obama does is going to make them like us any time soon.  Nevertheless: they are strong allies, and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

Yes Hanitty has it wrong and Karpad has it right.  If they hate the French so bad, we should give them the statue back.  You know, the one in NY harbor.

Pehaps we should go and dig up all those thousands of graves around Normandy and repatriate all of the those soldiers who died for France and the World.  Perhaps we should ask that they tear down that lovely monument the erected to the Lafayette Escadrille.

This from a male perspective, but:  England is our mother and Canada is our sister but France, she is our lover and yes we have a spat or two from time to time but deep in the heart we are more alike than either of us cares to admit. 

God bless and keep you, Marianne, always.

They [France] beat us into Vietnam by a good decade, and we didn’t go in until they quit and said it was unwinnable

Is karpad expressing sympathy for European colonialism? Oh no he di’n't. France grabbed hold of Viet Nam in 1887. History does not record that the locals welcomed their new baguette-eating overlords.

The problem with being European colonialists in Asia, post WW II, was that all of Asia had noticed how their brother Asians in Japan had kicked the white man’s ass all over Asia, be the white man British (Malaya), Dutch (Indonesia), American (Phillippines) or French (Indochina). The magic had been dissipated, and any thoughts of Asian inferiority were gone.

Franklin Raines is gone, and his comments deleted?

Good call.

“They beat us into Vietnam by a good decade, and we didn’t go in until they quit and said it was unwinnable (we figured it was just them wanting support. nah, they really meant it.) “

While the French were trying to hold on to “their” country of Vietnam, the US supplied them with all kinds of equipment and arms.  They finally got their asses kicked for good at the battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954 (55-years ago this month).  Vietnam was divided into a communist North and a non-communist (dictatorship?) South.  The French were done with Indochina.

But we weren’t that smart.  Rather than accept that Vietnam would be reunited one way or another, and probably not on terms the West would prefer, we stuck our noses into Vietnamese politics immediately after the French pulled out, supporting various South Vietnamese strongmen (similar to our support of Saddam Hussein before we wanted the oil too much to hang on to him), with various degrees of god-complex. 

Fear of the spread of Communism (which was seen at that time as monolithic) drove our actions.  We got sucked further and further in, American domestic politics making it almost impossible to walk away, until we were sending massive numbers of Marines over there to kick Charlie’s ass.

The best time for a solution to the Vietnam “problem” came right after WWII when the Japanese had left (after throwing out the French) and Vietnam could have been a peaceful country led by a well educated man with knowledge of the world, who had traveled to France, the US, and England, maybe even as a democracy.

But we’ll never know, because the French got assistance from us to take Vietnam back after the end of WWII.  And the rest, as they say, is history…

“There’s a whole plot point in In Bruges where the Colin Farrell character gets into a fistfight with a guy that he thinks is an American, but turns out to be Canadian,”

Which is totally unfair, because that guy’s accent was so not Canadian.

Regarding France…

<blockquote>They remain our allies, through every single change of administration they have.<blockquote>

Well, no.  The Quasi-War from 1798 to 1800 was an undeclared naval war with France that resulted from the new US and Great Britain finally settling their differences in 1794, and the US declaring that its debt to France was rendered null by their revolution (since the debt was owed to the king and his corpse was about a foot shorter than it had been when the debt had been accumulated).  The French Navy and French privateers started grabbing American ships in 1796, and since the US had sold off all its naval vessels in 1785, there was no organized way to oppose them.  The reason the “official” start of the war was only in 1798 was because by then the United States Navy actually existed and Congress rescinded its treaties with France and authorized the USN to fight back.

In other words, the Constitution and its sister ships were built to fight the French, even though they became famous fighting the English in the War of 1812.

In reality, the greatest friend the US has had has been Great Britain/the UK.  After the Jay Treaty of 1794, and except for the unfortunate period of 1812-1814 (blame for which can be laid mostly on warmongering southern US politicians), the US and UK cooperated extensively, officially and unofficially.  During the Quasi-War, for instance, although they didn’t have enough contacts to mutually operate their warships against the French, they did quickly set up a a system allowing vessels of either nation to exchange signals and join each other’s convoys or call for help from the other’s warships.

Oh, and don’t let the “the UK and France were going to recognize the Confederacy!” idea gain a foothold.  During the Slavers’ Rebellion, the governments and people of the two nations were primarily sympathetic to the Union.  That whole slavery thing, after all.  Of course, they had their own national interests, so if they could make some money selling things to people willing to pay big bucks for it (Confederate blockade runners, for instance) they weren’t opposed to the idea.

The “recognition” bit comes from Palmerston having approached the French and proposed that they might want to consider the possibility of perhaps sitting down to discuss what they might or might not think about doing should it appear that the Union was going to lose and when they might hypothetically recognize the CSA.  In other words, a suggestion about doing some contingency planning, which, as it turned out, didn’t happen because the Union finally got its military act together and made it obvious to an objective observer that barring a miracle, victory was only a matter of time.

During the Slavers’ Rebellion, the governments and people of the two nations were primarily sympathetic to the Union.  That whole slavery thing, after all.

Which, incidentally, was the single stupidest part of Gettysburg, when Longstreet muses to the British observer that they should have abolished slaver, and then seceded.  Which makes just so much sense, eliminating the reason why you did something in the first place in order to do it…

The European people were pro-Union, but the UK and French government (especially the French) and upper classes there would have liked to see the collapse of the United States in the 1860s. Mostly because then they could dominate Latin America and sell their industrial goods to the new Confederacy (or whatever became of a fractured USA) without tariffs.

But after Lincoln made the war explicitly about slavery in 1862 they couldn’t openly intervene in favor of the South, or they would have serious domestic opposition on their hands.

One of the most abashedly pro-Union, pro-Lincoln Europeans was Karl Marx. Don’t point it out to the Republicans, or their heads might explode.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/us-civil-war/index.htm

Er, unabashedly, even.

But after Lincoln made the war explicitly about slavery in 1862 they couldn’t openly intervene in favor of the South, or they would have serious domestic opposition on their hands.

And to think - all they needed to do would have been to have kidnapped and tortured some Union people until they confessed to witchcraft or uttering base coin or something.  Then their populations would have been right behind invading America to liberate it from the tyrant Lincoln.

Franklin Raines is gone, and his comments deleted?

Twice now.

And to think - all they needed to do would have been to have kidnapped and tortured some Union people until they confessed to witchcraft or uttering base coin or something.  Then their populations would have been right behind invading America to liberate it from the tyrant Lincoln.

I think you underestimate the political savvy of an illiterate french peasant. No one could possibly be stupid enough to believe that sort of justification.

One of the most abashedly pro-Union, pro-Lincoln Europeans was Karl Marx. Don’t point it out to the Republicans, or their heads might explode.

Why? they’d love that. It proves that it wasn’t really about slavery, and that there isn’t any racism involved. They were fighting against the slow march of government control as instituted by Marxists, and that you can draw a straight line between the war of northern aggression and Stalin’s purges.

Touche, karpad, but I was talking about more the “Party of Lincoln” thing they still drag out on occasion. Using Goldbergian logic, this means Republicans are secret Marxists.

Can I haz book deal?

Which is totally unfair, because that guy’s accent was so not Canadian.

You’d think that Zeljko Ivanek could have at least thrown in an “aboot” or two.

Magis, such things can be made gender neutral too, so everyone can completely relate

England is our mother[parent, if necessary] and Canada is our sibling but France is our lover and yes we have a spat or two from time to time but deep in the heart we are more alike than either of us cares to admit.

The Southern mind was independence and lack of central authority.

Which came to bite them in the butt, during the latter half of the war:

Historian Frank Lawrence Owsley argued that the Confederacy “died of states’ rights.”[59] According to Owsley, strong-willed governors and state legislatures in the South refused to give the central government the soldiers and money it needed because they feared that Richmond was encroaching on the rights of the states. Georgia’s governor Joseph Brown warned that he saw the signs of a deep-laid conspiracy on the part of Jefferson Davis to destroy states’ rights and individual liberty. Brown declaimed: “Almost every act of usurpation of power, or of bad faith, has been conceived, brought forth and nurtured in secret session.” To grant the Confederate government the power to draft soldiers was the “essence of military despotism.”[60] In 1863 governor Pendleton Murrah of Texas insisted that his State needed Texas troops for self-defense (against Indians or against a threatened Union invasion), and refused to send them East.[61] Zebulon Vance, the governor of North Carolina was notoriously hostile to Davis and his demands. Opposition to conscription in North Carolina was intense and its results were disastrous for recruiting. Governor Vance’s faith in states’ rights drove him into a stubborn opposition.[62]

............................................................

The survival of the Confederacy depended on a strong base of civilians and soldiers devoted to victory. The soldiers performed well, though increasing numbers deserted in the last year of fighting, and the Confederacy never succeeded in replacing casualties as the Union could. The civilians, although enthusiastic in 1861-62 seem to have lost faith in the nation’s future by 1864, and instead looked to protect their homes and communities. As Rable explains, <u>“As the Confederacy shrank, citizens’ sense of the cause more than ever narrowed to their own states and communities. This contraction of civic vision was more than a crabbed libertarianism; it represented an increasingly widespread disillusionment with the Confederate experiment.”</u>

“The South envisioned themselves as sovereign nations. While yankees fought for the union, those in the South fought for Virgiania or for Kentucky, etc. The Southern mind was independence and lack of central authority.”

...and the right to own slaves…

Slavery was the evil behind the whole thing.  The growing abolitionist movement in the North, the idea that new states could choose whether to be slave-holding states (see Bloody Kansas for example), the attacks by John Brown to stop slavery (who would no doubt be called today a terrorist, at least by the South), etc., were all threats to the future of slavery.

For all the high-minded language about Freedom and Liberty, and the righteous indignation of the Southerners in having to be stuck in a nation with people who didn’t think exactly the same way (despite dominating Congress out of proportion to their numbers), no matter how you slice it slavery was at the heart of the problems. 

God damned slavery.  A black mark on the American soul.  Now joined by Torture, Illegal Arrest and Imprisonment Without Trial, Domestic Spying, Wars of Aggression, and a “social safety net” with more holes than net…

(Stealing my name…are you kidding?)

The funny thing is, if Franklin Raines (I’m guessing that’s how jacked Mike’s name) would read what I linked to, the argument about the war being against central authority or for southern independence is thoroughly demolished in the first entry.

Oh, and Kentucky was against secession moron. But that didn’t stop the Confederacy from trying to conquer it forcibly. So much for “State’s rights” in that instance, huh? “Northern aggression”, my ass.

Paris has other merits, too: no in-your-face fanatical religion, defining the terms of “morality;” no somber pundits on the news informing us that “centrists” think torture and murder of prisoners should just be forgotten and that Obama’s mustard choice is a scandal; no constant gay-baiting, pearl-clutching, abstinence worship and virgin fetishes; no (or few, anyway) loud and obnoxious Americans who are personally invested in and scandalized by everything you do in your bedroom; no constant grasping and striving for some vaguely defined better state of affairs at the expense of any and every momentary enjoyments… oh, the list of how wonderful this city (also London, Barcelona, Amsterdam etc.) just goes on and on.

You could say the same for New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston, etc, Luke.

Having lived in two of the above, I am afriaid I couldn’t.

Oh man, I am too addicted to Wolfram Alpha. Can I thank Obama for being able to look up the condition of the US in 1998? 1958? How many people die of what? What a bicycle is?

Ben D., how, even in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston, etc., does one avoid core American narratives about striving and work, gender and family, and exceptionalism?

Tuning out political and social fallout as entrenched and mainstream as the ruinous results of those narratives is a hard thing to do. And yes, maybe some people are happy in a society centered on rugged individualism, striving, and prescribed family roles. More power to them. It is not true, however, that everyone is or should be, as the American exceptionalists believe.

My point was Europe and the United States as a whole are more alike than either side would ever dare admit.

(I hate even using “Europe” as a blanket term since, say, Portugal and Lithuana have much less in common with each other than Florida and New York. For that matter, I’ve known some Belgians who would even contend that Flanders has less in common with Wallonia than Florida does with New York!).

For all the high-minded language about Freedom and Liberty, and the righteous indignation of the Southerners in having to be stuck in a nation with people who didn’t think exactly the same way (despite dominating Congress out of proportion to their numbers), no matter how you slice it slavery was at the heart of the problems.

What slays me is that this shouldn’t even be a matter from discussion because you don’t have to rely on interpretations: several of the states specifically published proclamations explaining why they wanted to secede.  Some of them listed assorted grievances, but there is only one reason they all shared, one reason that took up the majority of the rationale, and the only one South Carolina went on and on and on about.

Ursula:

You’re right of course and I wasn’t very clear but what I meant that that’s how I’ve always thought about it.  OTOH, Liberty is a lady and so is Marianne. 

“Liberty” is a word used rarely in liberal circles. I’m glad you found a creative way to utter the word and still not get ostracized.

“Liberty” is a word used rarely in liberal circles. I’m glad you found a creative way to utter the word and still not get ostracized.
I’m in Paris and they all love me because of Obama on 05/17 at 10:33 PM

That’s silly, if you mean to imply we don’t like liberty. We tend to use the word “freedom” more, true. But I for one think of Liberty as the grandest ideal the USA stands for. Grand enough that the magnificent statue the French gave us is a fitting monument.

And too grand to be dragged through the mud with hypocritical rhetoric aimed at imposing its opposite, which the reactionaries of this country are always doing with their fetishized “utterance” of the word, and “freedom.” They say it a lot, and scheme to deny the actual thing away at every turn…

Not to overplay this or anything, because no matter how much people I’ve met are anxious to see something new and different from Obama, they still act like it’s the politics from “over there”, roughly like the attitude I have about the current situation in India.  Which is that it’s interesting, and obviously it’s important to me and to the world, but it’s out of my hands.

The word “still” seems to imply that we from “over here” should change our attitude. Change it to what? That it’s no longer interesting, that it’s no longer important, or that it’s no longer out of our hands?

I’ve been traveling overseas with my family for awhile, and there was a noticeable difference after Bush Jr. screwed up our reputation.  I remember traveling to Egypt in 2004, and we made a point of not letting it be obvious that we’re Americans, for our own safety.  You have to be a little cautious traveling where everyone hates your leader.  It varies from place to place.  In some countries, like Egypt, we outright denied that we were American.  In others, like Australia, we could admit we were American, with the caveat “we didn’t actually vote for him (Bush)”.  It sure is great that I can travel now without fearing for my life!  I feel much safer now than I ever did under George “take away freedom in the name of fake safety” Bush.  You can try to bully and intimidate all you want, but when it comes down it, you’re never safe when everyone hates you.  Basic diplomacy can go a long way with countries that we never should have had a conflict with in the first place.

”“Liberty” is a word used rarely in liberal circles. I’m glad you found a creative way to utter the word and still not get ostracized.”

“Liberty” means a lot more than being allowed to buy guns and drive a huge pickup with a Confederate flag in the back window while blasting Lee Greenwood on the stereo.

Pardon me, but I don’t think I live in the kind of liberty the founders believed in when my phone calls are tapped, my email captured and examined, where I may be arrested as a terrorist on bogus charges and never allowed a legal trial with legal representation, where the police can invade my house and shoot my dog (or my family) on the flimsiest suspicions, where no woman is truly free of external control of her reproductive decisions and her healthcare, where I can get arbitrarily put on a “no fly” list and have no recourse, where I can be denied reentry to the US if my politics aren’t in sync with the leaders of the government, where my free speech rights depend entirely on whether I’m a supporter of some political leader or not, and on, and on…

“Liberty” is a word used rarely in liberal circles.

Actually it’s used a lot in liberal circles—especially in discussions about the US Constitution and Declaration. You’d think that the same essential word root (liber) might have provided a clue to you, but we do make some allowances for the halt and dull around here.

Liberals like liberty too (duh, root word) but we also recognize that threats to liberty can come from other places than the government (be it religion, corporations, racism, sexism, outdated traditions, etc). And that sometimes government can indeed *increase* liberty. National health care certainly would, as does Social Security.

I really hate how the right wint thinks it owns the concept of freedom. Cause you don’t. Small government != liberty.

  “Liberty” is a word used rarely in liberal circles.

Actually it’s used a lot in liberal circles

Foolish Gracchus: “Liberty” means freedom from taxes; it does not mean freedom for individuals to do as they please, unless of course you want to turn your backyard into a toxic waste dump. Liberty means a government small enough to drown in a bathtub. After all, a government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have, as Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, and Eisenhower did not say.

Get with the program! I recommend a daily dose of Sean Hannity until you’ve absorbed all the right-wing memes.

“I am ashamed of you and for you since you don’t have the good sense to be ashamed of yourself.”

Okay, so catgirl is an object of shame because she denied she was American in a country seething with anti-American sentiment because of Bush Jr.‘s actions.  So Bush doesn’t deserve a condemnation for being an international bully, but catgirl does because she denied being American, is that right?

I bet you’re one of the herds of morons who think Nancy Pelosi is more responsible for torture than the Cheney/Bush administration.

“Where’s the BEEF??” ...apparently between your ears…

MikeEss, well said. The people who get outraged about catgirl are the same people who couldn’t bother to get upset about Bush. So given their bad track record of judgment, where do they get off making judgments about catgirl?

If catgirl reasonably concluded that affirming she was American threatened her safety, then that says a lot about how Bush dangerous made the world for Americans. I suspect that was the idea or at least a celebrated consequence of the know-nothing foreign policy: While insisting on tighter monitoring and greater social control at home, let the rest of the world more hostile and dangerous for Americans. That further limits their freedom to get alternative perpsectives on world events and to escape the social control.

Heh, BEEF implying that a conservative is capable of shame.  Such comedy.

Heh, BEEF implying that a conservative is capable of shame.

I don’t see that implication at all. In Beef’s world, shame is only for liberals.

let the rest of the world more hostile and dangerous for Americans.

I didn’t travel to Egypt (which is its own can of worms I’m sure) as catgirl did, but I did travel through the Balkans and Turkey, and I did not encounter the same feelings of threats to my safety that catgirl reports having felt. I suspect that if any Americans ever did suffer any physical injury or threats while travelling abroad simply for being American and having Bush as a president, we would have well-promoted news stories about it, if only to scare Americans into traveling less.

The only difference between England and France with regards to this interaction is how well the person in question speaks English

Indeed.

Why can’t the English speak English?

In re the word liberty:

Remember folks that the Biblical verse inscribed on the liberty bell is about the Jubilee year.  I wonder how today’s Bible-thumping conservatives would feel if we actually enacted in this country the laws of the Sabbatical and Jubilee years?

“I am ashamed of you and for you since you don’t have the good sense to be ashamed of yourself.”

Oh yes, I should be so ashamed that I didn’t get myself killed.  I should be so ashamed that I didn’t unquestioningly support a ridiculous leader that the majority of Americans didn’t even vote for.  If I hadn’t lied, I might not be here right now to tell you about it.  Obviously Franklin (BEEF) has not traveled much, and simply does not realize the actual danger that Bush made for Americans abroad.  No matter how much you love Bush, don’t ever delude yourself into thinking that he made Americans safer in any way.

This is a surprisingly relevant analogy for this thread.  Franklin is just like that terrible food poisoning I picked up when I went to Egypt.  Every time I thought it was gone, I would wake up in the middle night and have to run to the bathroom to vomit.  Franklin makes me feel the exact same way.  My illness went away after a few months; hopefully it won’t take that long to permanently get rid of Franklin.

Liberty is a lady and so is Marianne.

That stops nothing. Flagshipping is just as valid as K/S.

Not as valid as Garak/Bashir, though.

Am I supposed to be offended by being called a pussy?  That’s less offensive than being called a psychiatrist.

Are… Are you name spoofing someone and then criticising someone for cowardice for lying about their identity?

Is this performance art?

Is this performance art?

This is your brain on conservatism.

Any other questions?

“Is this performance art?”

...only in the same sense a bowel movement could be considered performance art…

So, I’m a pussy and a psychiatrist.  I wish all insults were actually compliments; the world would be a much nicer place.  (Here’s a tip: “pussy” won’t be considered an insult on a feminist blog where most readers actual value women as people.  Try it on a misogynist blog where people think it’s actually a bad thing to have a pussy.)

Sad….sad, sad, sad…....just sad

You know what’s even more sad?  A troll who has been banned making a dozen different accounts just because he’s so incredibly desperate for attention.  That’s sad and ridiculously pathetic.

“Sad….sad, sad, sad…....just sad”

Look into a mirror when you say that…

<i>does anyone actually *know* anyone that has been assaulted or killed because they were Americans? <i>

I know one of the Americans held hostage in Kuwait during the GHW Bush administration. He was held hostage because he was an American—does that count?

Yep, the resident psychiatrist is, indeed, a pussy.

Highly desirable , yet still a hypothetical concept to you?

Bush didn’t make it dangerous for Americans to travel abroad. Biased media coverage and humanity’s innate apathy and laziness toward finding your own answers shaped the world’s opinion, which made it “dangerous” (and by dangerous, i mean the fearsome “dirty look of misplaced superiority”).

The Gray Train, whether it is/was dangerous or not probably depends to a great extent where you are. 

In Europe?  Not so much.  Having a rude waiter isn’t going to ruin your vacation/business trip.

In the Arab Middle East where they have every reason to believe Bush’s actions had way more than a whiff of the Crusader and the Imperialist, besides being practically anti-Islam (while denying it)?  I wouldn’t be so quick to judge the actions of somebody who was in what they felt was a bad situation…

Highly desirable , yet still a hypothetical concept to you?

BURN

MikeEss:
Crusader?-No, Bush didn’t invoke God in his decision to pursue actions in the Middle East, nor did he declare a desire to exterminate them or convert them, which if you actually learn a little history is what the Crusades were about.

Imperialist?-Again, no. No one wanted to take over any middle-eastern country and make it part of the Union. Occupation does not equal conquest.

Anti-Islam?-No for a third time. Sure, he spoke of the Islamic extremists who think blowing themselves up and killing non-muslims/islamics/whatever is the will of Allah, and how they are dangerous to the civilized world (read: not just America). He did not, however, proclaim that Islam was an evil religion and must be removed from the face of the earth.

Think about this also, in terms of government profiling and public sentiment: every single damned hijacker was a muslim extremist.

GT is clearly a historical revisionist.

Bush used the exact word “Crusade” in reference to the war on terror. It was a widely publicized faux pas, since it is a very poor choice of words when you’re trying to not alienate muslims.

Is your criteria for Imperialism “we have to want to make it a new state?” Occupation by definition IS conquest you ass.

Anti-Islam? I would almost be willing to give it to. The administration would, most of the time, take care to couch things in seemingly PC terminology. But then when the likes of Ann Coulter says we have an obligation to literally kill or convert all muslims to christianity? suspiciously silent, and their conversation was full of dog whistles. Just because you’re deliberately tone deaf does not mean there was no melody.

But then, you’re obviously a troll (same troll?) so that’s kind of obvious.

Occupation does not equal conquest

I guess he’s saying rape does not equal marriage.

Anti-Islam?-No for a third time. Sure, he spoke of the Islamic extremists who think blowing themselves up and killing non-muslims/islamics/whatever is the will of Allah, and how they are dangerous to the civilized world (read: not just America). He did not, however, proclaim that Islam was an evil religion and must be removed from the face of the earth.

You forget that most people are smarter than you and can read between the lines.

I guess he’s saying rape does not equal marriage.

I wasn’t aware there was some kind of statuory requirement for a duration of an occupation before it becomes a conquest.

So Rome collapsed eventually and everywhere went back to local fiefdom rule. Was that just an occupation, not a conquest?